scholarly journals Developing International Law in Challenging Times

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Thomas Prehi Botchway ◽  
Abdul Hamid Kwarteng
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
Economic Diplomacy ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
International Laws ◽  
Massive Outflow ◽  
Corporate Social

The challenges confronted by the world in the 21st century are enormous; from the massive outflow of refugees, the threat of terrorism, the need for a general consensus to protect the environment, etc. There is thus the need for scholars, practitioners, and stakeholders of international law to think of effective and efficient ways of developing robust and strong international laws to deal effectively with these challenges.Using the qualitative approach to research, this paper examines some of the key challenges that confronts the development of and compliance with international law. The paper offers some new insights which have the propensity to aid in the development of and compliance with international law in these challenging times.The paper concludes that though international law has over the years expedited addressing most of the world’s challenges, the recent challenges requires modifications of some aspects of existing international laws to effectively deal with such challenges. For instance, there is the need to review the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; there must be better interpretation of the law that prohibits the use of force, as well as the need for appropriate measures to convince states that abiding by international law is a win-win game. In addition, deploying economic diplomacy and applying the Corporate Social Responsibility Approach to Building International Law (CRASBIL) are deemed meaningful for developing international law and also achieving effective compliance.

Common Interests of Humankind and the International Regulation of the Use of Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mere Existence ◽  
Further Development

The chapter discusses the philosophical foundations of the current regulation of the use of force. The chapter argues that, in correspondence with the emergence of a sphere of substantive rules protecting common interests of humankind, international law is also gradually developing a system of protection against egregious breaches of these interests. This conclusion is reached through an analysis of the law and practice governing the action of the UN Security Council as well as the law of state responsibility concerning individual and collective reactions to serious breaches of common interests. This system is based on positive obligations imposed upon individual states as well as UN organs, and it appears to be still rudimentary and inefficient. However, the chapter suggests that the mere existence of this system, these shortcomings notwithstanding, has the effect of promoting the further development of the law in search for more appropriate mechanisms of protection.

scholarly journals PROTECTING THE SEAS AND OCEANS OF THE WORLD BY MEANS OF SANCTIONS AND OTHER MEASURES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel-Ştefan Paraschiv
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
The World ◽  
International Laws ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Illicit Traffic ◽  
High Seas

AbstractThe maritime zones recognized under international laws – are formed from the highseas, with the riches at the bottom of the oceans and seas from this perimeter – which isregulated by international conventions, whose infringement may lead to the application ofsanctions in conformity with the dispositions stipulated, or, in the lack of such dispositions, totaking other measures, such as repression or retaliation, which are considered, in the publicinternational law, as being general sanctions included in the category of countermeasures.At high seas serious acts of a criminal character are also committed, such as: piracy,illicit traffic of narcotics and psychotropic substances, etc., thus all states must cooperate inview of repressing these acts and sanctioning the culprits.

Regulating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for Economic and Social Development Through Trade Rules

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-352
Author(s):  
Michèle Rioux ◽  
Christine Vaillancourt
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
International Law ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Private Governance ◽  
International Trade Agreements ◽  
Hybrid Governance ◽  
Social Compact ◽  
International Laws ◽  
Corporate Social

Multinationals affirm corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a way to go further than national and international law to build a social compact. While CSR can contribute to an effective global labor governance scheme, we argue that national and international laws must be engaged to regulate CSR private governance schemes. We will support this argument and, furthermore, we will argue that international trade agreements can provide, if effectively enforced, grounds for the articulation. It can be argued that hybrid governance schemes could ensure that result-oriented and pragmatic developmental processes are at the core of the CSR–development nexus. In this article, we argue for the need to socialize CSR to make it more efficient, and that trade agreements can be part of this process. CSR is not an autonomous regulatory trajectory, and it will probably become increasingly regulated through institutional means.

Peace Settlements and the Prohibition of the Use of Force

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Wählisch
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Peace Treaties ◽  
Peace Settlements

This chapter explores the relationship between peace settlements (which encompass truces, armistices, ceasefires, and peace agreements) and the prohibition of the use of force. It begins by discussing the role of peace treaties in prohibiting the use of force, the consequences of non-compliance with peace settlements, and previous experiences in enforcing ceasefires and peace agreements. It then considers the elements of the applicable normative framework in international law, including the legal basis of peace treaties and the legal consequences of their breach. The chapter concludes by analysing the implementation mechanisms for peace settlements, with particular reference to the practice of monitoring and peace enforcement missions authorized by the UN Security Council.

Mandated to Protect

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haidi Willmot ◽  
Ralph Mamiya
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions

This chapter focuses on the conception and evolution of the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilians during peacekeeping operations from 1960 to the present. The chapter examines the normative and legal framework of the use of force to protect civilians in UN peacekeeping operations, with reference to Security Council resolutions and other bodies of international law such as humanitarian and human rights law. It considers Security Council practice between 1960 and 1999 and its emphasis on the concept of self-defence; Security Council practice from 1999 to 2007 regarding the inception and development of the explicit ‘protection of civilians’ mandate by the Council; Security Council practice from 2007 to 2011; and prioritization of the mandate in certain peacekeeping missions, specifically UNAMID (Sudan (Darfur)), MONUC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), UNOCI (Côte d’Ivoire), and UNMISS (South Sudan). Finally, the chapter describes Security Council practice from 2011 onwards and draws conclusions on impact that the protection of civilians mandate in peacekeeping operations has had on the evolution of the legitimate use of force under the UN Charter.

Terrorism

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Saul
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Law

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.

The World Court and Jus Cogens

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.

scholarly journals Condoning the Use of Force: The UN Security Council as Interpreter of the Jus ad Bellum

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
Ian Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Interesting Phenomenon ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
A Site

Monica Hakimi's article probes the legal significance of an interesting phenomenon: the UN Security Council condoning the use of force, as opposed to authorizing it. She offers an innovative perspective on this little-studied dimension of how the Council contributes to the development of jus ad bellum. While I applaud much in the article, I question her characterization of what the Council is condoning in the cases she reviews. She claims these are “fact-specific decisions,” whereas I argue that the Council is endorsing controversial interpretations of the law on the use of force. This disagreement does not detract from Hakimi's observations about the policy implications of the practice, or about the Council's role as a site for deliberation and argumentation about the content of international law. But it does cast doubt on her conceptual claim that there are two distinct “regulatory forms,” which together provide the content of jus ad bellum, one particularistic and procedural, the other general and substantive. All legal claims and justifications entail the application of general standards to particular facts, either explicitly or implicitly. Most of her case studies can be explained in those terms. Thus, while the Council's practice of condoning the use of force is important to understand, the “conventional account” she derides provides a more persuasive and parsimonious explanation of that phenomenon.

scholarly journals The global governance problem in the modern Western academic literature: the main approaches and concepts

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Andrei Andreevich Kovalev ◽  
Ekaterina Yur'evna Knyazeva
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Legal Aspect ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Modern Age ◽  
The World

The global governance theories assessment is among the poorly studied problems in Russian political science, though its topicality in the modern age of civilizational confrontation is beyond dispute. Primarily, the necessity to study the key global governance concepts is determined by the need for establishing effective relations with the Western and the Eastern countries. The purpose of the article is to analyze and estimate the main foreig global governance concepts, and it is achieved by solving the following tasks: 1) to consider the main definitions of global governance; 2) to detect the problem of legitimacy in international relations; 3) to consider the legitimacy of global governance. The authors give special attention to the underestimated source of global governance legitimacy - the liberal legal principles. As a political program, global governance is understood as a political and legal aspect of globalization. In recent decades, global governance theories have been adopted as a research program in the field of social sciences. Within the (neo)liberal institutionalism tradition, particularly, the interdependence theories, global governance approaches consider the consolidation of international cooperation and the transformation of the global system in which the anarchical system of sovereign national states is considered as a multilayer system including nongovernmental subjects. The researchers try to model power as “governance” without subjects which  are formally justified and entitled with the use of force monopoly. The future of global governance is connected with effective international law able to timely settle the arising disputes and deter possible aggression which, in the age of civilizational confrontation, can lead to the last war in human history. The effectiveness of global governance depends on what globalization direction the leading civilizations will choose: the force-based American way, or the way taking into account the interests of most peoples of the world.   

scholarly journals UNITED STATES’ UNLAWFUL DRONE STRIKES AND DAMAGES CAUSED TO HUMANITY: A CASE STUDY OF PAKISTAN

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Imran ◽  
Rohaida Nordin ◽  
Mohd Munzil Muhamad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Innocent People ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
International Laws

This paper contributes significantly through suggestions to overcome the problem created by the disastrous US drone strikes in Pakistan. This paper evaluates incidences of the United States’ combat drone strikes in Pakistan and the damage caused to innocent people. It seeks to determine possible violations of international laws and the extent to which these strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan. After the incident of 9/11, the use of combat drones in armed conflicts among states, non-state actors, disruptive groups and organisations has increased and expanded. Combat drones are controlled by operators who depend for their primary sources of information on cameras and sensors to determine their targets. Drone strikes lack identification processes causing many innocent people to be killed or injured. Drone strikes launched in non-conflict areas also increase the concerns about illegitimate interference in a state’s territorial sovereignty and violations of international laws. It covers the following questions. What are the basic principles about the use of force? What kinds of damages are caused by US drone strikes in Pakistan that violate basic human rights principles? What are the concerns of international organisations about drone strikes in Pakistan? Summarily, it covers the United States unlawful drone strikes in Pakistan and damages caused to humanity. The paper uses doctrinal qualitative analysis to situate the research within the ethical, legal and social parameters of the related statutes of international law. The research methodology adopted is evaluative, interpretive and analytical. The paper consists of 8 segments: (1) drones and the United States armed forces, (2) some basic international law principles about the use of force, (3) possible human rights violations, (4) US drone strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan, (5) demands for transparency, (6) the damages caused to humanity by the drone strikes, (7) concerns of international organisations about illegitimate drone strikes causing extra judicial killings and (8) some recommendations to regulate the use of combat drones. It demonstrates that international law does not regulate the use of combat drones in armed conflict and no considerable effort has been made to bring the use of combat drones under the rule of law. Furthermore, US drone strikes in Pakistan’s territory have been done without consensus, resulting in the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and the killing of innocent people.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document