Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law

81. Schrödinger’s Citizenship: Framing Perspectives for the Resolution of Statelessness

Author:
Bronwen Manby
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Statelessness & Citizenship Review
Institution:
Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School
Abstract:
International law and scholarship lack an agreed vocabulary to refer to the status of people who do not have a recognised citizenship (‘citizenship’ is used here as a synonym for nationality, the term usually used in international law) and yet are also not recognised as stateless. There have been important efforts by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) to clarify and extend the interpretation of the definition of ‘stateless person’. There is, however, a continued lack of settled vocabulary for those who are in ‘stateless-adjacent’ situations, whose status as a national of any particular country or as a stateless person is not (yet) clear. This article considers the use of terminology in two contexts: litigation on behalf of affected people and the collection of statistics about the size of stateless populations. The article emphasises the importance of framing and choice of terminology and proposes a preferred lexicon for use in relation to statelessness, undetermined nationality and risks of statelessness. It puts forward the term ‘presumptive nationality’ to refer to the status of people whose closest connections are to their state of residence but who have no recognised nationality.
Topic:
International Law, Citizenship, Nationality, Litigation, and Statelessness
Political Geography:
Global Focus

82. Double standards on Palestine or pressure on Israel: ICJ ruling forces EU to rethink its passive two-state policy

Author:
Timo R. Stewart
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. It declared the occupation unlawful and called for its immediate end. The ICJ emphasized that all states are under an obligation not to assist in maintaining Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Building on this Advisory Opinion, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution in September 2024 demanding that Israel end its unlawful presence in the OPT within 12 months. Israel is opposed to ending its illegal occupation. It also opposes the two-state solution. There is not even a pretence of a peace process. This new lack of ambiguity will unavoidably put Israel’s non-compliance in the spotlight. EU member states again split into three groups: those sympathetic to Palestinian rights, those supporting Israel, and those regularly abstaining on votes on the matter. During the Gaza war, the number of states sympathetic to Palestinian rights has increased. The basic choice for the EU is between rallying to apply meaningful pressure on Israel in the face of member state divisions, or playing for time. The latter risks jeopardizing the two-state solution as well as the credibility of the EU’s commitment to international law.
Topic:
International Law, European Union, Crisis Management, International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Two-State Solution
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

83. Mind the Gap: U.S. Preferences and Israel’s War Conduct

Author:
Jeremy Pressman
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
This brief provides an examination of Biden administration policies toward Israel during the war that has followed Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack. The Biden administration has provided Israel with comprehensive military and diplomatic support in conducting its war in Gaza. This support has continued unabated despite the Israeli government’s clear violations of U.S. and international law, thwarting of diplomatic talks, and continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank. As a result, the Biden administration has undercut two of its stated objectives for the Middle East: a two-state solution and a reduction in the regional U.S. military footprint. The Biden government has also pursued a third goal, the mitigation of Iranian threats to U.S. interests, allies, and partners in the region. Israeli forces have systematically destroyed Gaza over the past year. At least 42,000 Palestinians have died, and millions now live in dire humanitarian conditions. All major systems essential to survival and daily life — communications, electricity, food distribution, medical care, and sewage treatment — have been destroyed. This devastation is, in large part, the result of unconditional U.S. assistance and diplomatic cover. The United States has armed Israel, failed to use its leverage to influence Israeli policy as Israel repeatedly rebuffed U.S. requests, shielded Israel from U.S. laws that Israel had likely violated, protected Israel at the U.N. Security Council, disregarded Israel’s efforts to expand its territory in ways that undermine any possible two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question, and failed to ensure that Palestinians in Gaza received adequate humanitarian aid. More generally, the United States has continued to primarily rely on military instruments to prevent a larger regional conflict, rather than using diplomacy as the tool of first resort to lower tensions in the region. This brief has one recommendation for the Biden administration during its remaining time in office: any further arms deliveries to Israel should be contingent on Israel accepting a full ceasefire on all fronts and agreeing not to establish Israeli settlements in Gaza. Admittedly, such a change in tack seems unlikely at this late hour. Moving forward, those concerned with establishing a stable Israeli-Palestinian peace should question whether the kind of deference to Israeli priorities practiced by the Biden administration can accomplish this goal.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Law, Armed Conflict, Joe Biden, Military Aid, and 2023 Gaza War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

84. Dogmatik and International Criminal Law: Approximations in the Realm of ‘Language’ and ‘Grammar’

Author:
Morten Boe
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Starting from the assertion of George Fletcher that there could never be an effective International Criminal Law (ICL) without a corresponding ICL Dogmatik – understood as a supporting culture of ideas and general principles – the article attempts to retrace and critically assess the connection made between the domestic concept and the international realm; to give a first approximation of what ‘ICL Dogmatik’ is supposed to mean. While not being definable in a conclusive way, Dogmatik – as understood in the German legal system – represents a specific habitus and mindset when approaching law, providing for an autonomous legal discourse fueled by the aspiration of a coherent normative system based on argumentative rationality and close cooperation of legal scholarship and legal practice. The article argues that, while the term Dogmatik is a specific cultural expression, the substance of the concept more generally refers to and echoes universal challenges of law and legal scholarship. The urge for an ICL Dogmatik should therefore not be (mis-)understood to argue for an authoritative rule of scholars or the adoption of German legal theories on the international level. Instead, the statement enunciates the necessity to establish ICL as an autonomous normative framework of concepts and terms. Dogmatik merely stands for an abstract vision, which may help to organize legal thinking in ICL, to structure and systemize the field, and most importantly to raise awareness for the necessity to develop a shared and coherent (legal) language, which enables productive discourse between all legal families.
Topic:
International Law and International Criminal Law (ICL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

85. The Settlement of EEZ Fisheries Access Disputes under UNCLOS: Limitations to Jurisdiction and Compulsory Conciliation

Author:
Valentin J. Schatz
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
This article revisits the scope of the limitation to jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 297(3) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the context of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) fisheries access disputes in the light of recent jurisprudence of UNCLOS tribunals. It first provides an overview over general aspects of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS in the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism of Section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS. Next, it briefly considers the relationship between Article 297(3) and Article 297(1) of UNCLOS in order to clarify the former limitation’s role in the complex internal logic of Article 297 of UNCLOS. Thereafter, this article addresses the sometimes-overlooked function of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS as a confirmation of jurisdiction with respect to fisheries disputes that are not related to the EEZ. It then analyzes the scope of the limitation to jurisdiction ratione materiae of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS in the context of fisheries access disputes. Next, this article examines the potential and limits of the compulsory conciliation procedure under Article 297(3)(b) and Annex V of UNCLOS with a focus on the scope of the procedural mandate and subject-matter competence of such conciliation commissions.
Topic:
Economics, International Law, and Fishing
Political Geography:
Global Focus

86. Compulsory Settlement of EEZ Fisheries Enforcement Disputes under UNCLOS: “Swallowing the Rule” or “Balancing the Equation”?

Author:
Camille Goodman
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
While there is a widely held view that disputes concerning fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are largely exempt from the compulsory jurisdiction of courts and tribunals as a result of far-reaching exceptions in Part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), this is not the case for all EEZ fisheries disputes. This article examines the specific question of disputes concerning the enforcement of fisheries laws and regulations in the EEZ, and considers how the Part XV framework has been – or could be – used and interpreted for the compulsory settlement of EEZ fisheries enforcement disputes. It examines the obligation of prompt release established in Article 292, the option to exclude compulsory jurisdiction with respect to law enforcement activities concerning EEZ fisheries by written declaration under Article 298(1)(b), and the opportunity to bring disputes concerning EEZ fisheries enforcement within the scope of compulsory jurisdiction under Article 297(1) by characterising them as relating to the freedom of navigation or the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Framing its enquiry by reference to the question posed in this special issue, the article argues that, rather than “swallowing the rule” of compulsory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional scheme established for EEZ fisheries enforcement disputes helps to “balance the equation” and support the effectiveness of Part XV in protecting the compromises that are embodied in the LOSC.
Topic:
International Law, Territorial Disputes, Fishing, and Jurisdiction
Political Geography:
Global Focus

87. The Many Facets of EEZ Fisheries Disputes and their Resolution under UNCLOS

Author:
Natalie Klein
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The core question being posed for this symposium was whether the ‘exception swallows the rule’ in relation to disputes concerning fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This question emerges because of the starting point that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1 may be subject to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions – arbitration or adjudication – at the request of a party to the Convention. However, while this ‘rule’ is the start, it is immediately important to point our that there are exceptions and limitations to this proposition; the grant of compulsory jurisdiction in UNCLOS is limited in significant ways.2 The ‘exception’ of concern to this symposium is set out in Article 297(3) of UNCLOS, which excludes fisheries disputes from adjudication or arbitration in the following situation: “the coastal State shall not be obliged to accept the submission to such settlement of any dispute relating to its sovereign rights with respect to the living resources in the exclusive economic zone or their exercise, including its discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management laws and regulations.“3 Pursuant to Article 298(1)(b), States also have the option to exclude ‘disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal’ under Article 297(3).4 The symposium papers that follow seek to improve our understanding of these exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction; do they swallow the ‘rule’ of compulsory jurisdiction? This introduction aims to explain the relevance of the exception (Part B), situate the papers that are part of the symposium (Part C) and indicate what has been jurisprudentially achieved despite the exception (Part D).
Topic:
International Law, Sovereignty, Fishing, and Disputes
Political Geography:
Global Focus

88. Pursuing justice for international crimes in Ukraine: A patchwork of multi-level and long-running efforts

Author:
Katja Creutz
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The Russian aggression against Ukraine has triggered debates and initiatives on how to address crimes under international law committed in and against Ukraine, including war crimes and the crime of aggression. A single institution capable of dealing with all international crimes is nonetheless lacking. Tens of thousands of alleged war crimes have been reported and documented, part of which the Ukrainian courts themselves are handling. The massive caseload requires international assistance, in addition to which the ICC is also investigating alleged war crimes. The international community is divided in regard to the investigation and prosecution of the crime of aggression. As the ICC lacks jurisdiction with respect to this crime in this particular situation, European states are advancing a special ad hoc tribunal. Nonetheless, the majority of countries globally, particularly in the Global South, find it hard to support the initiative. The discussion on the best way to proceed with regard to addressing the crime of aggression committed by Russia is ongoing. Many problematic issues are being debated, ranging from political desirability to the issue of head of state immunities.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, United Nations, War Crimes, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

89. Cities as global actors: Bringing governance closer to the people

Author:
Katja Creutz
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Globalization and extensive urbanization worldwide have brought cities to the forefront of global governance in a multilateral system designed and created for states. Cities have come to exercise power due in part to the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of inter-state action, but also because their democratic nature and immediate connection to the population make them legitimate actors. Cities are also home to many problems of a global nature, such as greenhouse gas emissions, pandemics, and sustainability. This makes them uniquely situated to address these challenges. City diplomacy has become a prevalent feature in many global policy issues, ranging from climate change to development cooperation. The primary tool through which cities act is networking, with hundreds of global city networks pursuing the interests and values of their constituencies. By demanding a seat at the table where global affairs are decided upon, cities challenge and complement the state-based international order, in addition to which they stretch the basic concepts and constructs of both international relations and international law.
Topic:
Globalization, International Law, Governance, Democracy, and Cities
Political Geography:
Global Focus

90. The EU’s Magnitsky Act Obsolete in the Face of Russia’s Crimes in Ukraine?

Author:
Steven Blockmans
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
Despite the mounting evidence of the most serious of human rights violations being conducted by Russian forces on Ukrainian soil, the EU has chosen not to use its new Magnitsky Act to blacklist the perpetrators and their commanders. Instead, the EU has preferred to respond to Russia’s ‘dumb’ bombs with increasingly ‘dumb’ sanctions. This Brief explains why, after decades of work to smarten up its restrictive measures, the politicisation of human rights sanctions and the high threshold of evidentiary standards make it very hard for the Council to rely on evidence gathered from transition countries where the justice sector is still vulnerable to widespread corruption and political cronyism.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, European Union, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

91. Recovering the History of Interwar International Environmental Law: An Interview with Omer Aloni

Author:
Daniel R. Quiroga-Villamarín and Omer Aloni
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Toynbee Prize Foundation
Abstract:
For a long time, international legal scholars and practitioners tended to see the League of Nations solely as a historical failure. In leading textbooks and inside the classroom, it was not uncommon to read and hear depictions of the interwar international institutions as a mere prelude to the post-1945 international order. The League, in comparison to the United Nations, was dismissed as a moment of not yet. In the last decade or so, however, more nuanced waves of scholarship across disciplines have unearthed the inner lives of international ordering, exploring the immense efforts and disappointments that surrounded the work of the League and other interwar institutions. In his recent monograph, Omer Aloni joins this renaissance of historical scholarship, adding a distinctively socio-legal perspective grounded in rich archival research to a conversation in which lawyers have been relative latecomers. In this sense, The League of Nations and the Protection of the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2021) provides an exploration the ways in which the relations between “nature, environment, and humankind” were legally regulated at the international plane in the interwar period—and beyond. Aloni’s monograph offers a textured account not only of the origins of modern international environmental law, but also of the deep roots of our contemporary ecological crises. In it, we find that many of the issues that contemporary commentators decry as novel have, in fact, long histories. For instance, Aloni details that the quest for environmental protection and conservation has long been tangled with difficult questions related to scientific expertise, civil society participation, colonial and imperial hegemony, industrial lobbies and economic interests, and the relationship between public and private interests. By exploring several cases studies (which, as Aloni notes, “cover almost every part of the Earth—from the depth of the oceans to wooden landscapes”), the monograph provides us with a thick account of the interaction between the League, legal vocabularies, and environmental agendas. In our conversation, we explore what Dr. Aloni’s book can reveal about the challenges that international organizations face in their quest to enact environmental regulation as the planetary situation becomes increasingly dire.
Topic:
Environment, International Law, History, Interview, and League of Nations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

92. The EU and Gaza 2023: Terrorism is fought with Counter-terrorism, not Wars against Civilians

Author:
Zafiris Tzannatos
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Despite several attempts for decades to reach at a political solution between Israel and Palestine, Netanyahu and his supporters offer nothing but permanent oppression while Hamas has resorted to terror. Each party refers to their rights: The right to defend versus the right to self-determination. This attitude has resulted in an escalation of tensions over time that led to a massive loss of life since October 7, 2023, when Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and Israeli forces have so far killed 11,000 mostly civilians in Gaza. If there is a solution, it can be none other than a political one agreed between the two parties and be supported by an evenhanded approach by the international community within the confines of international law.
Topic:
International Law, European Union, Counter-terrorism, Civilians, Hamas, and October 7
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Gaza

93. How to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable in European courts

Author:
Gissou Nia, Celeste Kmiotek, Lisandra Novo, and Alyssa T. Yamamoto
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The past year has witnessed increased and sustained calls to secure accountability for the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)’s atrocity crimes and gross human rights violations, particularly in response to the protests triggered by Mahsa Jina Amini’s death at the hands of the IRI’s morality police in September 2022. Accountability efforts have primarily focused on securing justice for victims and survivors of extrajudicial killings, mass arbitrary detention, torture, and other grave abuses committed by the IRI in response to peaceful protests. However, these efforts have also sought to hold IRI authorities to account for unpunished crimes during prior decades, including the IRI’s brutal crackdowns on protestors in November 2019 and the 1988 summary executions of thousands of Iranian political prisoners. Because the judicial system in Iran is neither independent nor impartial—and is, in fact, responsible for unjust imprisonments and complicit in serious abuses in Iranian prisons—there are no viable domestic routes for accountability. However, there are paths available through national judicial systems in other states. This report from the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project explores accountability options that European states in particular can pursue, with the help of civil society. Throughout Europe, states have adopted universal jurisdiction provisions, which allow them to prosecute acts that constitute core international crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—even if the crime was committed in a different state by and against foreign nationals. Sweden used these provisions to convict former IRI official Hamid Noury for murder and war crimes committed during the 1988 prison massacres, but so far no other IRI official has been tried under universal jurisdiction provisions for crimes committed in Iran, despite newfound opportunities to pursue these cases. For decades, IRI officials have traveled throughout Europe, often owning assets and even reportedly receiving healthcare in different countries. At the same time, many victims and survivors of the IRI’s brutality have sought refuge in Europe—making the presence of IRI officials with no accountability all the more egregious, yet providing an opportunity for these victims and survivors to support investigations with eyewitness accounts and further information. The countries included in this report—Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—are just seven jurisdictions out of 148 United Nations member states worldwide that have laws allowing for the investigation and prosecution of some or all core international crimes, even when those crimes are committed beyond their own borders. These seven jurisdictions were selected as a focus of this report due to several factors including: the strength of their universal jurisdiction frameworks and frequency of use; their robust caselaw and policies for prosecuting atrocity crimes committed extraterritorially; the size of Iranian expatriate communities in these countries, especially those fleeing persecution and violence; and the possibility of travel by IRI officials to these jurisdictions. This report details what each country’s universal jurisdiction provisions entail, how proceedings are initiated, and what victims’ rights are protected. It also gives an overview of each state’s relevant jurisprudence to date, analyzing the legal, practical, and political viability of future cases involving IRI violations, including in light of the country’s diplomatic relationship with Iran. Finally, it provides regional and country-specific recommendations to facilitate more cases against IRI perpetrators and to strengthen universal jurisdiction frameworks more broadly.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Accountability, and Norms
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, and Middle East

94. International Negotiations Handbook: Success Through Preparation, Strategy and Planning

Author:
Public International Law Policy Group and Baker & McKenzie
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
All of us at one time or another must negotiate with others – adversaries, interested third parties, friends – to achieve our objectives. Each party to a negotiation has its own desires, goals, and prejudices. The key is for a party to understand these matters for itself and for all other parties to a negotiation. It takes advanced preparation, strategic-thinking, and a written, detailed plan for any party to successfully achieve its objectives. The International Negotiations Handbook: Success Through Preparation, Strategy, and Planning is designed to provide some tools and ideas to assist every party to a negotiation to be a more effective advocate for its interests and, as a result, to achieve successful negotiations overall. This project comes as the result of a year-long joint effort between Baker & McKenzie LLP and the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG). Baker & McKenzie has provided sophisticated legal advice and services to many of the world’s most dynamic and global organizations for more than 50 years. The Firm’s more than 3500 lawyers are citizens of more than 60 countries and speak more than 65 languages, and one of its core values is to encourage all of its lawyers and staff to participate in service to others. Across its offices, Baker & McKenzie makes a significant commitment to helping others, through pro bono legal service, community service, fund-raising and charitable giving. The Firm’s pro bono and community service activities take many forms, ranging from multi-country projects on behalf of global organizations, such as Save the Children Alliance and Habitat for Humanity, to local efforts to represent children, foster entrepreneurship, raise funds for medical research, support the arts and more.
Topic:
International Law, Treaties and Agreements, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

95. R2P Monitor, Issue 67, 1 December 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 67 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso

96. R2P Monitor, Issue 66, 1 September 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 66 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso

97. A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing has emerged as an important global principle since the adoption of the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005. Since the conception of R2P, individual states and regional organizations, the UN, civil society, and experts around the world have worked to establish what implementation of R2P and the prevention of mass atrocity crimes means in practice. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect have developed a guide for states on steps to take to protect populations from atrocity crimes, at home and abroad. “A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States” consolidates and builds upon existing expertise from published works and best practice from states, regional organizations and the UN on how to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes. We encourage all states to utilize this framework to assess gaps and identify opportunities to address atrocity risks in their own countries, as well as to understand options available for responding to risks in their region and around the world.
Topic:
International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

98. R2P Monitor, Issue 65, 1 June 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 65 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso

99. R2P Monitor, Issue 64, 1 March 2023

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly bulletin applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 64 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Mozambique, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Niger, and Burkina Faso

100. Future-proofing EU security and defence cooperation in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Dylan Macchiarini Crosson, Stefania Benaglia, and Linus Vermeulen
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Russia’s war against Ukraine has led policymakers to re-prioritise the European security architecture and the EU’s neighbourhood, including a positive reassessment of NATO’s role as a reliable security provider. As the transatlantic relationship and the Indo-Pacific are inherently intertwined, this once again highlights the imperative of the EU making the Indo-Pacific a strategic priority. This presents the EU with an opportunity to project its values, interests and power, though hampered at present by political infighting and the mushrooming of conflicts in and around Europe. Still, the time has come for the EU to assess how it should adjust its approach to Indo-Pacific security. How can the EU effectively strike a balance in security and defence cooperation with partners to uphold key principles of international law and order without endorsing the idea that ‘might makes right’ in the Indo-Pacific?
Topic:
Security, NATO, International Cooperation, International Law, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Indo-Pacific