scholarly journals Conflict in Darfur in the perspective of genocide prevention

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-99
Author(s):  
Jakub Kościółek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Community ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Effective Prevention ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World

The article presents the records collected by the Darfur Atrocities Documentation Team (ADT), which have proved the occurrence of genocide in Darfur. It describes the discussion of the academic community and often conflicting political positions on the issue. The author attempted to analyse the results of the work of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (ICID), appointed at the request of the United States by the UN Security Council, which examined the numerous violations of the international law in the province, but did not express an opinion whether or not genocide had taken place in Darfur. He has confronted the collected evidence of crimes committed in Darfur with the “Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide”, which obliges the international community to intervene when genocide is proved to be happening. The conflict in Darfur has been presented as an example of the ineffectiveness of the response of the international community to genocide. Therefore, an analysis was carried out on the means of effective prevention of genocide, which can be used in future prevention of crimes in other regions of the world.

Security Council

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
States Government

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

The Crime of Aggression as Custom and the Mechanisms for Determining Acts of Aggression

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing Bing Jia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Community ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Independent Assessment

The fallout from the 2010 Kampala Review Conference for the United States has been explained by Harold Koh and Todd Buchwald, who were officially involved in the negotiations at the conference. The concerns they enumerate serve to implicate, inter alia, two issues of broad importance for the international community: the definition of the crime of aggression, and the clear divide between the positions of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the rest of the Kampala participants with respect to the Councils role in implementing the Rome Statute’s new provisions on the crime of aggression. This Note, which focuses on those two issues, is partly a response to some of their criticisms and partly an independent assessment of the consequences of the Review Conference. It also evaluates the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute’in particular, Articles 8 bis, 15 bis, and 15 ter—from the perspective of customary law and considers their impact on the role assigned to the Council under the UN Charter.

3. Facing wars, confronting threats: the UN Security Council in action

2015 ◽  
pp. 50-70
Author(s):  
Jussi M. Hanhimäki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Conflict ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
World War Iii

There has not been a World War III, so has the United Nations been successful? Alternatively, no day has gone by since 1945 without a military conflict somewhere around the world, so has the UN been unsuccessful? ‘Facing wars, confronting threats: the UN Security Council in action’ considers whether the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons has acted as a deterrent against a direct military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Security Council is not irrelevant, but it can only be effective when the five permanent members (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) are in agreement. Despite this, the UN has been remarkably successful and active.

scholarly journals United States Recognizes Morocco's Sovereignty Over Western Sahara

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-323
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

On December 10, 2020, President Donald J. Trump reversed decades of U.S. policy by announcing that the United States would recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as part of a deal in which Morocco would normalize relations with Israel. Despite a 1991 UN truce and continued calls by the UN Security Council for Morocco and the Polisario Front to reach a mutually agreeable solution, neither side has relinquished its claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara. Trump's announcement ended nearly thirty years of U.S. support for UN-led negotiations and places the United States at odds with the majority of the international community, which swiftly criticized the U.S. action as a violation of the right to self-determination.

scholarly journals THE UNITED STATES UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN JCPOA 2015 UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-264
Author(s):  
Christopher Valerio Jovan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Un Security Council

Abstract In 2015, Iran with the P5 + 1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States, as well as the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) agreed on a JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) which deals with Iran's nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) is a controversial agreement. First, the JCPOA's status in international law is debated and is not considered as an international treaty. In the midst of the uncertainty over the status of the JCPOA, on May 8 2018, the United States unilaterally declared that it was withdrawing from the JCPOA. Even though the JCPOA has been endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). Thus, other JCPOA participating countries view the withdrawal of the United States as an act that is against international law. This article aims to determine whether the JCPOA is an international treaty and whether the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA is justified under international law. Keywords: JCPOA, UN Security Council Resolution, Withdrawal   Abstrak Pada tahun 2015, Iran dengan negara-negara P5+1 (China, Prancis, Jerman, Rusia, Inggris dan Amerika Serikat, serta Perwakilan Tinggi Uni Eropa untuk Urusan Luar Negeri dan Kebijakan Keamanan) menyepakati JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) mengenai pembatasan program nuklir Iran. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) merupakan perjanjian yang mengundang kontroversi. Pertama, status JCPOA mendapat perdebatan karena dianggap bukan perjanjian internasional. Kemudian pada 8 Mei 2018, Amerika Serikat secara sepihak menyatakan menarik diri dari JCPOA. Padahal JCPOA telah dimasukkan ke dalam Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB 2231 (2015). Sehingga peserta JCPOA lainnya menganggap tindakan Amerika Serikat sebagai perbuatan yang bertentangan dengan hukum internasional. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah JCPOA merupakan suatu perjanjian internasional dan apakah penarikan diri Amerika Serikat dari JCPOA dapat dibenarkan berdasarkan hukum internasional. Kata kunci: JCPOA, Penarikan Diri, Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB

Russia may entrench its influence in CAR

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mining Sites ◽  
Un Security Council

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.

Historical Landmarks in the Hundred Years’ War on Palestine

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashid I. Khalidi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Historical Documents ◽  
Hundred Years War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
History Of ◽  
Modern Era

This essay argues that what has been going on in Palestine for a century has been mischaracterized. Advancing a different perspective, it illuminates the history of the last hundred years as the Palestinians have experienced it. In doing so, it explores key historical documents, including the Balfour Declaration, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and UN Security Council Resolution 242, none of which included the Palestinians in key decisions impacting their lives and very survival. What amounts to a hundred years of war against the Palestinians, the essay contends, should be seen in comparative perspective as one of the last major colonial conflicts of the modern era, with the United States and Europe serving as the metropole, and their extension, Israel, operating as a semi-independent settler colony. An important feature of this long war has been the Palestinians' continuing resistance, against heavy odds, to colonial subjugation. Stigmatizing such resistance as “terrorism” has successfully occluded the real history of the past hundred years in Palestine.

Remarks by Stephen Pomper

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 123-127
Author(s):  
Stephen Pomper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Humanitarian Emergency ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The U.S

We are having this conversation now because of the April 7 strikes on the Shayrat Airfield in Syria, but the question of how one justifies forcible measures in the context of a humanitarian emergency, and in the face of a deadlocked Security Council, is one that deserves urgent attention beyond the context of any single event. Progress toward answering this question has, however, been mired in a long-standing debate between those who believe that there is no credible international law justification for humanitarian intervention—and that the U.S. government should instead justify interventions like those taken at Kosovo and Shayrat as morally “legitimate”—and those who believe a legal justification can and should be put forward. I am very much in the latter camp and will use my time now to explain how I arrived at this position as a policy and as a legal matter by looking at three questions: the first question is whether legal justification is the direction that the United States should go in as a matter of policy. The second question is whether legal justification is credibly available as a matter of international law. The third question (which assumes the answer to the first and second is yes) is how to go about articulating and disseminating such a justification. Let me take these in order.

War in the Scheme of National and International Life

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-559
Author(s):  
William L. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Major Premise ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Minor Premise ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The World ◽  
Annual Dinner ◽  
American Society

At the recent annual dinner of the American Society of International Law I listened with much interest to the eloquent and impassioned address of Judge Florence E. Allen, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that the conservation of peace has not hitherto been, and should be made, the principal objective in the development of international law. I think that her views might be summarized not unfairly in the form of a syllogism. Undeniable is its major premise that war is cruel, costly in life and resources, full of horror—a terrible infliction on those who resort to it. The minor premise is that means exist and others may be discovered whereby disputes may always be settled and peace enforced without recourse to war. And so comes the conclusion that all these means should be sought for, discovered and used, after which war will be unnecessary and will disappear from the world, leaving us under the rule of perpetual physical peace, no matter what may be the mental and emotional differences between nations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document