scholarly journals The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), International Power Relations and International Law- making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dikjiratmi Dikjiratmi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
International Power ◽  
Technology Control ◽  
Control Regime ◽  
Law Making

Politik dan Kebijakan Luar Negeri Negara Non-MTCR (Iran, Pakistan, Korea Utara, Tiongkok) dalam Pengembangan Teknologi Roket

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ika Riswanti Putranti ◽  
Ajie Mahar Muhammad
Keyword(s):  
Technology Control ◽  
Control Regime

Indonesia, sebagai negara yang sedang memulai pengembangan teknologi keantariksaan salah satunya roket, menghadapi beberapa kendala. Didasarkan pada beberapa kajian strategis terkait isu ini, kesulitan Indonesia adalah terkait dengan alih teknologi. Sebagai negara non-anggota Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), hambatan tersebut dapat diatasi melalui upaya kerja sama dengan negara-negara yang mempunyai posisi sama dengan Indonesia, yaitu non-anggota MTCR yang sudah mempunyai pengembangan teknologi keantariksaan khususnya roket. Dalam upaya menjalin kerja sama tersebut, Indonesia juga harus mempertimbangkan beberapa hal terkait calon negara mitra kerja sama. Hal tersebut penting karena kerja sama teknologi keantariksaan, terutama dalam teknologi roket yang mempunyai fungsi ganda, merupakan hal yang sangat sensitif bagi keamanan suatu negara. Beberapa hal yang dimaksud adalah orientasi kebijakan dan politik luar negeri calon negara mitra terkait dengan teknologi antariksa, rezim alih teknolgi yang dianut oleh calon negara mitra, pengembangan industri keantariksaan, posisi calon negara mitra terhadap rezim MTCR, hubungan calon negara mitra dengan negara-negara yang menguasai teknologi antariksa, dan bagaimana posisi calon negara mitra terhadap beberapa perjanjian yang terkait dengan penggunaan roket. Menimbang orientasi kebijakan dan politik luar negeri calon negara mitra merupakan hal yang penting guna menentukan arah kerja sama yang berkelanjutan dan berkesinambungan sehingga dapat menghasilkan kerja sama yang saling menguntungkan.

Due diligence as a secondary rule of general international law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Secondary Rule ◽  
Law Making ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Do So

Abstract The conventional understanding of due diligence in international law appears to be that it is a concept that forms part of primary rules. During the preparatory stages in creating the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), the International Law Commission (ILC) focused on due diligence as though it could have formed part of secondary rules. Despite this process, no due diligence provision forms part of the ARSIWA. Yet a number of the final provisions are based on primary rules. This is because the ILC relied on the method of extrapolation in attempts to create secondary rules. Extrapolation is a method of international law-making by which the output of an analytical process is reproduced in a different form following an examination of its content that exists in other forms. In using this method, the ILC attempted to create secondary rules by extrapolating from primary rules. Yet it did not do so with respect to due diligence. However, due diligence can be formulated and applied differently by using this same method. This article analyses the steps of this process to construct a vision of where international legal practice should venture in the future. In learning from and amalgamating the dominant trends in different areas of international and domestic law, this article proposes that due diligence could exist as a secondary rule of general international law. By formulating and applying due diligence as a secondary rule, there is potential to develop the general international law applicable to determining state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors.

Revisiting Security Council action on terrorism: New threats; (a lot of) new law; same old problems?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
David McKeever
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
New Type ◽  
Recent Activity ◽  
Legislative Activity ◽  
Recent Action ◽  
Organizing Principles ◽  
Law Making

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.

The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAOGANG HE
Keyword(s):  
Regional Integration ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Full Member ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
International Power ◽  
Asian Context ◽  
High Level ◽  
Pacific Community

AbstractAustralia has experienced difficulties engaging with Asia-Pacific regional integration. Despite Australian attempts to punch above its weight in regional forums and to be a regional leader, it is still not regarded as a full member or as quite fitting into the region. It is an ‘awkward partner’ in the Asian context, and has experienced the ‘liminality’ of being neither here nor there. The former Rudd government's proposal for an ‘Asia Pacific Community’ (APC) by the year 2020 was a substantive initiative in Australia's ongoing engagement with Asia. It has, however, attracted a high level of criticism both at home and abroad. The main critical analysis of the proposal has focused on institutional building or architecture, or its relationship with existing regional institutions, but overlooks a host of often fraught questions about culture, norms, identities, and international power relations. The APC concept needs to be scrutinized in terms of these questions with a critical eye. This paper examines the cultural, cognitive, and normative dimensions of Rudd's proposal. It analyses four dilemmas or awkward problems that the APC faces.

scholarly journals Sovereignty, Accountability, and the Wealth Fund Governance Conundrum

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna GELPERN
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Portfolio Investment ◽  
Sovereign Wealth Funds ◽  
Fund Governance ◽  
A Site ◽  
Law Making

Sovereign wealth funds—state-controlled transnational portfolio investment vehicles—began as an externally imposed category in search of a definition. SWFs from different countries had little in common and no desire to collaborate. This article elaborates the implications of diverse public, private, domestic, and external demands on SWFs, and describes how their apparently artificial grouping became a site for innovation in international law-making.

Grotian Moments and Peremptory Norms of General International Law: Friendly Facilitators or Fatal Foes?

Grotiana ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-353
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
High Threshold ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The One ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Right ◽  
Peremptory Norms ◽  
Law Making

Abstract The concept of a Grotian moment remains rather obscure in international law. On the one hand, it can refer simply to an empirical fact which galvanises the ordinary law-making processes, whether treaty-making or State practice, resulting in major shifts in international law. On the other hand, a Grotian moment might be seen as an event so significant that it results in an extraordinary shift in international law without full adherence to the processes for law-making. The former understanding has little legal significance, while the latter, which would be legally significant, would be controversial and without legal basis. Against this background the article discusses the intersections between peremptory norms and Grotian Moments. It does this by looking at the intersection between the two concepts as well as the intersection between Grotian Moments, on the one hand and, on the other hand, particular jus cogens norms. With respect to the former, for example, the article will consider whether the high threshold of peremptory status facilitates and hinders Grotian moments. With respect to the latter, the article will consider particular norms that have been said to have shifted on account of the Grotian moments, namely the right to use of force in self-defence as well humanitarian intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document