Palestine and Saudi Arabia and the Limits of Democracy

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amaney A. Jamal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Entire Population ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Road ◽  
Road Map

This chapter extends the analysis to Palestine and Saudi Arabia. In 2002, the road map for peace adopted by the European Union, United States, Russian, and the United Nations called for the necessity of Palestinian reforms in moving the peace process forward. The United States was vocal about the need for the Palestinians to reform their system of government and pushed for Palestinian elections in the early years of the new millennium. However, the United States was hoping that a pro-Fatah alliance would emerge and neglected to state publicly that it would nullify any outcome that was not favorable to its own interests. The Palestinians learned the hard way that the United States would indeed punish the entire population for exercising democracy the wrong way. The case of Saudi Arabia mirrors in many ways the experiences of non-oil-rich states captured in this manuscript. Significant segments of the Saudi public recognize the importance of the Saudi regime in maintaining close alliances with the United States.

Cruelty as policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-108
Author(s):  
Stuart Rees
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Palestinian Children

This chapter assesses four ways cruelties have been formed and fomented in policies. It moves from cruelty as a deliberate motive to situations where it looks as though the architects of policies enabled cruelties to take place but did not direct them. Then come the denials and deception: who could possibly think that countries such as the United States, Russia, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, or Myanmar would indulge in human rights abuses such as collective punishments, ethnic cleansing, floggings, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, targeted killings, and executions? Finally, there is collusion. Alliances are made with countries which commit cruelties but their allies behave as though this is nothing to do with them. When the United States ignores Israeli cruelty to Palestinian children, that is collusion. The European Union and the United Nations may also collude by silence which encourages perpetrators.

scholarly journals States, firms, and security: How private actors implement sanctions, lessons learned from the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Francesco Giumelli ◽  
Michal Onderco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
For Profit ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Private Actors

Abstract While the current practice of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States leans towards imposing only targeted sanctions in most of the cases, private actors often complain about inability to process financial transactions, ship goods, or deliver services in countries where sanctions targets are located. The impact of sanctions often ends up being widespread and indiscriminate because sanctions are implemented by for-profit actors. This article investigates how for-profit actors relate to the imposition of sanctions, how they reflect them in their decisions, and how they interact with the public authorities. The findings of our research show that for-profit actors, with the possible exception of the largest multinationals, do not engage with public authorities before the imposition of sanctions. The behaviour of for-profit actors in the implementation phase is in line with the assumption of firms and business as profit-maximisers. Weighting the profits from business against the costs of (non-)compliance and make the decisions that in their view maximise their profit. Indeed, de-risking seems to be the most common approach by the companies due to the uncertainties produced by the multiple and overlapping sanctions regimes imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States.

scholarly journals State Responsibility for “Targeted Sanctions”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 135-139
Author(s):  
Antonios Tzanakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Legal Entities

The United States and other actors such as the European Union impose “targeted sanctions” against foreign officials for acts carried out in their official capacity, or against legal entities of targeted states. This mirrors the practice and experience of the United Nations. The Security Council's practice of imposing comprehensive sanctions in the early 1990s quickly evolved into a practice of “targeted” or “smart” sanctions, to both improve effectiveness and to alleviate the significant effects of sanctions on the population of targeted states. However, the legal regime for resorting to sanctions is different when it comes to states acting unilaterally than it is for collective action within the framework of the UN Charter. This essay first clarifies some terminological issues. It then delves into the legality of the practice of unilateral “targeted sanctions,” and concludes that the most legally difficult aspect of these measures is their purported extraterritoriality.

scholarly journals The Design and Impacts of Individual Sanctions: Evidence From Elites in Côte d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Portela ◽  
Thijs Van Laer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Cote D'ivoire ◽  
Côte D’Ivoire ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cote D’Ivoire ◽  
Côte D'ivoire ◽  
The Impact

Since the 1990s, sanctions senders like the European Union, the United States, and the United Nations have been imposing visa bans and asset freezes on individuals as a key element of their sanctions packages. Notwithstanding the growing centrality that individual sanctions have acquired in international sanctions practice, little is known about the impact of sanctions listings on designees. Some researchers have scrutinised targeting choices, while others have explored the effects of sanctions on designees. However, no study has yet examined the fit between targeting choices and impacts on designees. First, we interrogate the theory of targeted sanctions to identify the expectations that it generates. Second, we examine the effects on designees and contrast them with the targeting logic of the sender, in a bid to ascertain their fit. Our analysis of the cases of Côte d’Ivoire (2010–2011) and Zimbabwe (2002–2017) benefits from original interview material.

scholarly journals Strategies and Policies for New Technologies: The United Nations, The United States and the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-355
Author(s):  
Alina Alexandru
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Disruptive Technologies ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract New technologies have marked the beginning of the Forth Industrial Revolution era. While the advantages of new technologies for our day-to-day life are undeniable, we cannot fail to notice that emerging and disruptive technologies also imply challenges and risks for individuals, societies and countries. Moreover, in the absence of regulations and norms internationally accepted and assumed, risks associated to the misuse of new technologies tend to increase, transforming the domain into a competition arena. States and international organizations perceive the pressure to address emerging technologies. The United Nations, the United States and the European Union have defined their own strategies and policies on the new technologies with the aim at capitalizing the benefits and minimizing the risks. While different in their view, UN’s, US’ and EU’ strategies and policies offer landmarks to consider in addressing new technologies.

scholarly journals Post-Cold War sanctioning by the EU, the UN, and the US: Introducing the EUSANCT Dataset

2020 ◽  
pp. 073889422094872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M Weber ◽  
Gerald Schneider
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Eu

The European Union, the United Nations, and the United States frequently use economic sanctions. This article introduces the EUSANCT Dataset—which amends, merges, and updates some of the most widely used sanctions databases—to trace the evolution of sanctions after the Cold War. The dataset contains case-level and dyadic information on 326 threatened and imposed sanctions by the EU, the UN, and the US. We show that the usage and overall success of sanctions have not grown from 1989 to 2015 and that while the US is the most active sanctioner, the EU and the UN appear more successful.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the Limits of Self-Defense

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Wedgwood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Road ◽  
Road Map ◽  
The Impact

On December 8, 2003, the International Court of Justice was requested by the United Nations General Assembly to give an advisory opinion on the “legal consequences” of the security fence under construction by Israel in the West Bank, also variously called “security barrier” and “wall.” The General Assembly sought referral to the Court by a vote of 90 states—but another 74 states abstained, and 8 states voted in opposition. Careful consideration of the case was rendered especially difficult by the decision of the Court to set a truncated briefing schedule, permitting only six weeks for written submissions on jurisdiction and the merits. An even greater concern was the danger, perhaps realized, that the Court’s opinion might be read as prejudging issues central to negotiations in the “Roadmap” political process seeking peace in the Middle East. The hope for some coherence in the approach of the international community to the resolution of a difficult and violent conflict is not otiose, especially where a stable settlement will require ongoing diplomatic, economic, and security support. For that very reason, two of the road map’s sponsors—the United States and the Russian Federation—urged the Court to take account of the impact that any decision might have on the negotiating process. The European Union, as a third member of the “Quartet” sponsoring the road map, together with the ten acceding states to the European Union and fifteen other states, urged the Court to decline to render any advisor)’ opinion at all because of the “compelling” circumstances of the peacemaking process.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document