Suchergebnisse

The question of the legitimacy of preventive war has been at the center of the debate about the proper response to terrorism and the legitimacy of the Iraq War. One side has argued that preventive war is a legitimate and necessary tool for nations to use in defense against terrorists; the other side has claimed that war is permissible only in self-defense, and that therefore the preventive use of military force is unjustified both legally and morally. In this essay I attempt to clarify the terms of this debate by demonstrating that neither side is precisely correct. Both under Just War Doctrine and common sense morality, preventive war is indeed justifiable, so long as it satisfies the basic requirements for going to war such as necessity and proportionality. However, under the current international law regime governed by the United Nations Charter, the use of preventive international force is restricted to the Security Council alone. Individual nation states are permitted to use international force only in self-defense. The rise of international terrorism does not by itself change this situation; preventive force against terrorist organization is permissible and appropriate, but it must be authorized by the Security Council in order to be legitimate. Only if the Council proved wholly ineffective in exercising its authority would the right to preventive war revert to individual nations. For all the shortcomings of the United Nations, however, I argue we have not reached a state of total breakdown of international authority sufficient to justify a return to the legitimacy of unilateral preventive war.

Trotz verfassungsmäßiger Garantien und der internationalen Verpflichtungen, die das Land bei der Unterzeichnung internationaler Menschenrechtskonventionen eingegangen ist, werden die Menschenrechte in Jugoslawien nur unzulänglich beachtet und geschützt. Das wurde zuletzt wieder bei den Unruhen in der Provinz Kosovo deutlich, als die Behörden in nicht rechtsstaatlicher Form und z.T. gewalttätig gegen protestierende Albaner vorgingen. Solche Übergriffe werden in Jugoslawien durch das politische Strafrecht getragen. Zur Verbesserung der Menschenrechtssituation haben sich seit 1988 offizielle und inoffizielle Menschenrechtsorganisationen gebildet, die auch spürbaren Druck ausüben. Die Ungenügende Respektierung der Menschenrechte belastet auch die Außenbeziehungen Jugoslawiens, insbesondere diejenigen zu den USA, wo Gesamtkongreß und Senat in Beschlüssen und Resolutionen gegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Jugoslawien protestiert haben. (BIOst-Rsg)

The global investment regime is a prime example of the so-called 'politicization beyond the state.' Investment agreements with an Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism have become contested in several corners of the globe, triggering a widespread reform process encompassing national, regional and multilateral levels. This article examines the consequences of this confluence of politicization processes, focusing on the European Union (EU) and two key venues of ISDS reform: the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Combining different strands of politicization literature in International Relations and Political Science, the article advances a nuanced conceptualisation of the institutional consequences of politicization that goes beyond a deepening/decline dichotomy. Instead, the article examines whether and how politicization generates 'authority shifts,' either through a vertical move between international and national levels; and/or through a horizontal recalibration between public and private forms of governance. The article argues that although the EU's initiative for global ISDS reform intended to rebalance public and private authority while strengthening its international character, the on-going reform processes at the UNCITRAL and the ECT may eventually lead to a (partial) dismantling of international authority.

A commentary on the polemic between Christian Tomuschat (2006) & Michael Wolffsohn concerning the international law implications of Israel's attack against Hisbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The issues of the legal right to wage war, proportionality in exercised violence, & humanitarian respect of civilians are at the center of the discussion here, as Tomuschat's & Wolffsohn's views are considered & compared. The arguments of both, as the former criticizes & the latter supports Israel's military actions in Lebanon, are assessed from the perspective of international law. The larger problem of asymmetric conflict between states & nonstates is addressed, drawing also on the lessons of the US response against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11. Three positions are characterized vis-a-vis the ethical aspect of violence in international context: (1) political realism, (2) pacifism, & (3) the theory of justified war. The ineffectiveness & counter-productiveness of the "Land for Peace" approach in Middle East peace negotiations are also examined from the perspective of balance of power in the region & asymmetric conflicts between states & nonstates, ie, Israel vs PLO/Hamas & Israel vs Hisbollah. Z. Dubiel

"Framed by a new and substantial introductory chapter, the book collects Stefano Guzzini's reference articles and some less well known publications on power, realism and constructivism. By analysing theories and their assumptions, but also theorists following their intellectual paths, his analysis explores the diversity of different schools and moves beyond simple definitions to explore their intrinsic tensions and fallacies. Guzzini's approach to the analysis of power - both within and outside International Relations - provides the common theme of the book through which the theoretical state of the art in IR is re-assessed"--

International audience ; Quels sont les enjeux symboliques et politiques de la mobilisation de la musique au sein des dispositifs diplomatiques ? De quels pouvoirs est investie la musique pour qu'elle soit inlassablement utilisée comme métaphore ou donnée comme modèle des relations internationales ? Lecture critique de Rebekah Ahrendt, Mark Ferraguto, Damien Mahiet (eds.), Music and Diplomacy from the Early Modern Era to the Present, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 291 p. ; et Todd H. Hall, Emotional Diplomacy. Official emotion on the international stage, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2015, 248 p.

ABSTRACT
A central challenge to the legitimacy of international investment law is its failure to take account of a state's commitments to its people under international human rights law—duties that stand on a special moral plane. The vortex of this challenge is the fair and equitable treatment standard, where tribunals protect the 'legitimate expectations' of investors but disregard these preeminent moral commitments. This article develops a new framework for integrating those commitments into fair and equitable treatment decision-making and treaty-drafting. Deploying an interdisciplinary approach that draws on political philosophy as well as extant law and doctrine, I argue that the current international political morality requires putting human rights on a higher plane than commitments to investors. As a result, tribunals should give great deference to state measures that negatively affect investors if the state justifies them based on its international human rights law obligations and lesser but still significant deference for measures based on encouragements or permissions in international human rights law. It operationalizes this approach for tribunals by recasting the doctrine of legitimate expectations and provides examples of how it would work in specific disputes. This article concludes with suggestions for integrating states' human rights mandates into future investment agreements.

AbstractAs the twentieth century was drawing to a close, intervention for humanitarian purposes involving the use of force became a political reality and so a popular subject of study in international law. This article is yet another contribution. It draws on, and uses by way of illustration, two recent contributions featured in this journal. On the basis of a critical analysis of the draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts as adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001, it is asked whether humanitarian intervention may be justified in international law as an act of necessity despite the prohibition of the use of force. The century-old doctrine of necessity has always provoked unease among international lawyers. A contemporary way to cloak this unease has been the idea expressed in the International Law Commission's draft articles that necessity cannot preclude the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory rule. And so the doctrine of necessity brings one to consider the use or threat of jus cogens outside the law of treaties. This is particularly apposite to the prohibition of the use of force because it is the least controversial example of a rule of jus cogens. It is concluded that under extraordinary circumstances necessity may justify a humanitarian intervention or other uses of force.