Suchergebnisse

Observers of the USA's attitude towards international law seem to be perpetually taken aback by its actions, whether those relate to the use of force, the International Criminal Court or human rights. This book sets out to articulate the considerable degree of continuity in the nature of US engagement with international law. International Law, US Power explains that the USA has throughout its history pursued a quest for defensive and offensive legal security and that this was a key ingredient in the rise of the USA. Although skilful strategic involvement with international law was an ingredient in the USA 'winning' the Cold War, the rise of China and the growing negotiating strength of leading developing countries mean that the USA is likely to find it increasingly difficult to use the same set of techniques in the future

AbstractIt is often noted that few States recognize the seven national claims to Antarctic territory. Australia, one of the claimants, asserts title over 42 per cent of the continent and yet only four States have recognized its claim. Some States have expressly rejected Australia's claim. This article examines the legal significance of such widespread non-recognition. It does so through interrogating the evolution of the legal regime of territorial acquisition, its historical function and application to Antarctica, and relevant decisions of international courts and tribunals. The article identifies, and distinguishes amongst, several categories of non-recognition and considers the relevance of each. The analysis finds that the seemingly meagre level of recognition of Australia's title to the Australian Antarctic Territory does not detract from the validity of that title. This article points to possible reasons as to why a number of polar scholars may have suggested otherwise.

Over the last decade there has been an evolving debate both within the United Nations and within the scholarly literature as to whether it would be feasible, appropriate and/or advantageous for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to consider climate change to be within its remit. Given that irreversible global warming is under way and that this will inevitably have multiple global security implications-and indeed, that the Council has to some degree already addressed the issue-such a debate has become anachronistic. What is needed at this stage is nuanced analysis of how this complex policy issue may have already impacted, and may in future impact, the function and functioning of the Council. This article first reviews key variables that need to be taken into account in moving beyond a binary discussion of whether or not the Security Council should consider climate change. It then maps four broad categories of possible UNSC response, spanning from rejection of any involvement through to the Council using its Chapter VII powers and functioning as the peak body in respect of global climate change governance. It then places developments to date within those categories and concludes by considering the prospects for an increased UNSC role in the future. (International Affairs (Oxford) / SWP)

On May 31, 2010, Australia instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice in the case of Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan). Although Australian politicians had for some time threatened such a course of action, the decision to proceed with international litigation took many observers by surprise, most basically because Japan appeared to be in a strong legal position and the risks associated with the case appeared greater than Australia's prospects for success. This article examines the background to the whaling dispute and suggests two ways in which litigation in the World Court may contribute to resolution of the dispute no matter the legal outcome of the case. Adapted from the source document.

On 17 April 2007 the United Nations Security Council held its first debate on climate change, energy and security. Since then, and despite a number of reports emphasizing the security implications of climate change, there has, at least in diplomatic circles, been a move away from the previous trend towards accepting climate change as a question of international security. This is primarily due to the possibility of the Security Council taking the lead in coordinating global efforts to mitigate, or adapt to, climate change. Developing countries interpret this possibility as a rejection of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as incorporated into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The increasing urgency of taking decisive action means that it is too early to rule out a role for the Council with its coercive powers. Ultimately, however, the success of any international regulations will depend on their political legitimacy. Adapted from the source document.