Tunisia’s leader will disrupt diplomatic establishment

Subject The Tunisian president's foreign policy agenda. Significance On February 7, President Kais Saied dramatically sacked Moncef Baati, Tunisia’s permanent representative at the UN. Baati had been sitting on the UN Security Council, where the country took up a seat last month, and was chairing its counter-terrorism committee. His dismissal, and the harsh criticism issued against him by the presidency, have alienated many civil servants. This carries risks for Saied, a retired law professor and political outsider, who as president is now solely responsible for determining foreign policy, on which he has some unconventional views, as well as ambitious goals. Impacts Civil servants are likely to obstruct or even actively sabotage initiatives by the presidency. Saied may seek to replace career diplomats with political appointees to bypass institutional resistance. Tunisia’s next UN ambassador will have little scope for autonomous action. Morocco will block Saied’s plans to initiate a regional dialogue over Western Sahara’s status.

Subject South African foreign policy. Significance President Cyril Ramaphosa has focused largely on domestic issues in his first six months in office. However, a push for new foreign direct investment of 100 billion dollars over five years, coupled with the securing of a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council from 2019-20, have raised hopes of a fresh foreign policy approach across several fronts. Impacts Despite Ramaphosa's reassurances, radical land reform proposals could undermine attempts to improve the wider investment climate. New US tariffs on steel, aluminium and possibly automobiles could offset advantages from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Confidence-building economic measures will be necessary to stem the large sale of government bonds by foreigners.


Significance Canada 's ties with China are strained and are one foreign policy challenge that the recently re-elected Trudeau government faces this year. However, his government is now a minority administration. Impacts Canada will pass the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, but that could be slowed in the fractious parliament. Canada will push for a UN Security Council seat in June, but is unlikely to be elected. Canada will extradite Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou per US needs, likely meaning further Chinese diplomatic and trade retaliation. Ottawa will eventually decide not to allow Huawei to participate in Canada’s 5G network. A swift UK-Canada free trade deal is unlikely, as the UK must first settle its EU relationship.


Subject Iran framework nuclear deal. Significance After 18 months of marathon negotiations, Iran and six world powers (the permanent five UN Security Council members plus Germany) have agreed on the parameters of a deal that limits Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) announced on April 2 establishes a surprisingly comprehensive political framework for the final deal. In the coming weeks, Tehran and Washington will work to sell the deal at home before returning to the negotiating table to iron out the technical details of a final agreement, due to be completed by June 30. Impacts Iran is unlikely to see tangible economic and investment benefits from sanctions relief until 2016. Limited economic improvements could damage prospects for Rouhani, and for moderates and reformists in the 2016 parliamentary elections. The agreement will not alter Iran's regional alliances or foreign policy interests. Tehran has no intention of pursuing a full-scale rapprochement with Washington.


Author(s):  
David McKeever

Abstract The devastating events of 9/11 triggered the adoption of Resolution 1373 (2001) by the UN Security Council, a contentious development which was much debated and was widely seen as presaging a new type of activity by the Security Council – legislating for all UN member states. And yet, in the counter-terrorism sphere at least, the Council’s legislative activity in the years following 9/11 was relatively modest. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, that activity has been far exceeded by the Council’s response to the emergence of ISIL in 2014. This more recent activity is of interest beyond the confines of counter-terrorism, but has received far less scrutiny to date. This article will remedy this gap, revisiting, in light of the recent activity, the relative merits and disadvantages of making counter-terrorism law through Security Council resolutions. It makes two main contentions. The first is that – due to some factors which were anticipated in the early 2000s and many which were not – Security Council resolutions on terrorism constitute a distinctive category of international law-making and pose serious challenges for the application of organizing principles and processes of general international law. The second is that, for these reasons as well as doubts as to the necessity and efficacy of recent action, making counter-terrorism law through Security Council resolutions should be the exception rather than the norm.


Significance The assassination follows months of political turmoil and rising gang violence and comes just weeks before elections, scheduled for September 26. Interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph, who has taken charge of the country, said yesterday that measures were being taken “to guarantee the continuity of the state and to protect the nation". Impacts Further political assassinations would exacerbate unrest. The Dominican Republic has closed its border, fearing a migrant surge; the situation will bolster public support there for a border wall. The UN Security Council meets today and may authorise emergency action in Haiti; any substantial redeployment, however, would take time.


Significance Russia on June 28 rejected as “lies” similar allegations by the United States, United Kingdom and France at the UN Security Council. The exchanges come against the backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between Russia and France in CAR. Impacts Touadera’s ongoing offensive against rebel forces threatens to deliver a fatal blow to the peace deal he struck with them in 2019. Expanding Russian control over key mining sites could be a persistent source of frictions absent sophisticated local arrangements. Human rights concerns will deter some African leaders from engaging with Russia, but not all.


Author(s):  
Ben Saul

International law has struggled to regulate terrorism for over a century, beginning with efforts to cooperate in the extradition and prosecution of suspects, including through unsuccessful League of Nations efforts to define and criminalize terrorism as such. Until 2001 most international attention focused on transnational criminal cooperation against terrorism, through the development of method-specific “prosecute or extradite” treaties (concerning, for instance, violence against aircraft or ships, hostage taking, or attacks on diplomats) but without defining terrorism as a general concept or crime. It may, however, be possible to qualify some terrorist acts as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Since the 1970s, there were ambivalent efforts through the UN General Assembly to develop normative frameworks to confront terrorism per se, which often came unstuck on the controversial issues of “state terrorism” and liberation movement violence. Greater consensus was achieved by 1994 with the General Assembly’s adoption of a declaration against terrorism. There appears to exist an international consensus that terrorism per se is wrongful, even if disagreement remains about identifying precisely what constitutes terrorism. The effort to deal with terrorism as such suggests that the international community views terrorism as more than its underlying physical parts, which are already crimes in most national legal systems and under certain transnational treaties. The special wrongfulness of terrorism is perhaps signified by its intimidation of civilian populations, its coercion of governments or international organizations, and its political, religious, or ideological aspect. Terrorist violence has also sometimes raised certain problems under the law of armed conflict and the law on the use of force, as well as occasionally attracted sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Terrorism was generally dealt with, however, through the application of general legal norms rather than through the emergence of terrorism-specific rules. After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, sharper international focus was brought to bear on the legal challenges presented by terrorism and counter-terrorism in numerous specialized branches of international law (particularly in the law of state responsibility, the law on the use of force, and international humanitarian law), as well as in the institutional practices of the UN Security Council and the impacts of counter-terrorism measures on international human rights law. By 2011 the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon even declared the existence of an international customary law crime of transnational terrorism, although that decision has proven highly controversial as not supported by state practice. Efforts to negotiate a comprehensive international convention against terrorism have continued since 2000, with disagreement remaining over the scope of exceptions. There is also now increasing debate about whether a field of international anti-terrorism law is emerging.


Author(s):  
Wood Sir Michael

The UN Security Council impacts on the law of treaties in many different ways — ways that are both foreseen and unforeseen in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This has led to harsh criticism by writers, less so by states. There is an important distinction to be made between obligations that are binding on the parties to a treaty by virtue of their participation therein, and obligations that are binding on states for some reason outside the treaty, for example because they are made so by mandatory Council action. Article 103 of the UN Charter has assumed increasing importance and should not be interpreted narrowly. The Council has shown self-restraint in its approach to treaties, interfering only to the extent necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.


Subject Syria and international norms of war. Significance The Syrian conflict has prompted intervention by a number of states, both directly and by proxy. The participation of all but one of the five UN Security Council permanent members (except China) in military operations in Syria raises questions over whether the norms of legal and ethical grounds for intervention have changed as a result of the conflict. Impacts Justifications will include broad interpretation of 'humanitarian intervention' to conceal real intentions. The UN will have less ability to assert itself when the leading powers choose to ignore, or interpret selectively, international standards. Collective international action against Islamic State group in Syria may build.


Significance The deal aims to create a 'Government of National Accord' to resolve the rivalry between the two competing parliaments, the Tripoli-based General National Congress (GNC) and the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HoR). Although the HoR signed the deal, the GNC refused to accept it. Yet several other important GNC allies signed the agreement. This skirted outright failure of the UN peace process, but gives the mooted unity government a very shaky basis on which to proceed. Impacts Fissures within the Muslim Brotherhood and the GNC will likely dilute their influence in Libya. The UN Security Council will increase pressure on rejectionists to come into the fold or face sanctions and isolation. The deal may well result in peaceful, functioning areas, such as Misrata, keen to attract investment. However, other areas, such as Benghazi, will likely continue to see violence, which would cloud prospects for investment in stable areas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document