The relationship between international humanitarian law and asset freeze obligations under United Nations sanctions

While challenges may persist with respect to the relationship between counterterrorism (CT) and humanitarian action, it is at least understood that CT measures must comply with international humanitarian law (IHL). Clarifying the relationship between this body of law and CT measures is one of the modest but important innovations of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2462. At a minimum, references to IHL in this resolution leave a pathway for States to take measures to preserve impartial humanitarian action from the effects of CT, and at most, they prescribe that States should take such measures. Progress in clarifying the relationship between UN sanctions obligations and IHL obligations appears to be lacking with respect to non-CT-related UN sanctions. As will be discussed in this paper, this leads to questions regarding the application of the so-called “supremacy clause” contained in Article 103 of the UN Charter vis-à-vis IHL obligations.

Frictional interactions on Women, Peace and Security in Mali

More than 20 years after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, the international community is concerned with taking stock of its implementation in countries undergoing transitions from war to peace. This article contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics involved in implementing the Women, Peace and Security agenda through a focus on the frictional interactions that take place between different actors promoting women's participation in the peace process in Mali. Based on extensive fieldwork in Bamako between 2017 and 2019, it analyses interactions between different international and local actors in the Malian peace process through a discussion of vertical (between international and local actors) and horizontal (between local actors) friction. It finds that the way different actors respond to friction shapes relationships and impacts norm trajectories by triggering feedback loops, which in turn trigger new responses and outcomes.

El Tribunal Especial para el Líbano y la sentencia Hariri. ¿Justicia selectiva?

The article analyses the complex relation between politics and justice in the international arena that is reflected in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The subject matters developed are its problematic establishment by means of Security Council resolution 1757 (2007) and its selective nature, as well as the legal-doctrinal dispute laid out in the Ayyash et al. case, also known as the Hariri case. It is stressed the importance of circumstantial factors, especially those triggered since 2004, with the aim to explain the internal division —with international protagonists— of the country into two blocks whose confrontation would serve as a pretext for starting-up a unique tribunal that would meet the interests of an international community captivated by the possibility of achieving a judicial terrorism sentence against Hizballah —and/or Syria— who was gathering momentum. The 2011 interlocutory decision of the Appeals Chamber seemed to reveal itself as a good omen in said direction when it stated the necessity to interpret the crime of terrorism established in article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code in accordance with an international crime of terrorism of customary nature. The revolutionary decision —together with the process that led to its publication— disclosed nevertheless, a certain hasty and opportunistic character, which the 2020 judgment finally rejected for being unnecessary and untrue. The article upholds that all the above has contributed to undermine the credibility of the Tribunal, which is a model of selective justice, and has demonstrated little deference towards the sovereignty of the Lebanese State.

Peranan Wanita dalam Penyelesaian Konflik di Selatan Filipina

The roles played by the women in the conflict resolution involving the Muslim community in the Southern Philippines was not given the spotlight it deserved in the series of peace talks between the republic and the separatist groups. The roles of women were as if they were insignificant and of a passive manner while women were undeniably the important “stakeholder” beside the fact that the conflict that erupted affected this group the most amongst the population there. They are also capable to contribute to a new paradigm in conflict resolution. Realizing this, the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) passed Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security as a democratizing mechanism towards the encouragement of women in conflict resolution, protection amidst conflict, and peacemaking.

Implikasi Hukum Ketidakpatuhan Korea Utara terhadap Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB dalam Uji Coba Nuklir

Since 2006 to 2017 the Security Council has passed a resolution on North Korea's nuclear test act. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that Members of the United Nations agree to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with this Charter. North Korea as a UN member state that obtained the UN Security Council Resolution is obliged to implement the sanctions resolution. However, the sanctions contained in the resolution did not make North Korea stop its nuclear program and it shows North Korea's noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Implications accompanying any denial by North Korea against the UN Security Council resolution which in general affects four fields, namely the fields of economy, politics, defense and international cooperation. In addition to non-military sanctions, the Security Council under chapter VII Article 42 of the UN Charter can impose military sanctions where possible, the Security Council can also impose sanctions through the UN General Assembly on its recommendation to suspend the rights of UN membership) and expulsion of a country from UN membership).

The UN and women's marginalization in peace negotiations

Although UN Security Council Resolution 1325 calls for increased participation of women in all stages of a peace process, the number of women who participate in formal peace negotiations is still very limited. In order to augment their number, UN Women and other international organizations have published a series of policy reports in which they argue that women's participation increases the success of peace negotiations and leads to more inclusive peace agreements. However, based on an analysis of relevant policy reports and interviews with women and men involved in peace negotiations, I argue that the policy reports do not lead to women's empowerment. Instead, they contribute to women's marginalization in peace negotiations, because they entrap women between conflicting expectations. The type of behaviour that international advocates of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda expect of women when they participate in peace negotiations limits the women's room for manoeuvre—at best. At worst, this type of behaviour prevents women from participating in the negotiations, because it is dismissed by domestic (male) negotiators. But if women who participate in peace negotiations violate the behavioural script proposed by the policy reports, they are considered as not acting in line with the WPS agenda. Hence, no matter how women behave when they sit at the negotiation table, they either lose the support of international or national gatekeepers.

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

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