Suchergebnisse

The People's Republic of China's (PRC) potential response to US deployment of a national missile defense system is contemplated. Several factors that will influence the PRC's reaction are identified: the Chinese state's modernization of its strategic systems; the prevailing perception of the US as a hegemonic superpower; the Chinese government's desire for a more multipolar world; previous US military interventions in international crises; the failures of contemporary Chinese domestic & foreign policy; & US intervention in the PRC-Taiwan conflict. In addition, the PRC's potential responses to US attempts to initiate minor, moderate, or extreme revisions to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are considered; eg, it is asserted that US withdrawal from the agreement would encourage the PRC to stockpile ballistic missiles, seek cooperation from Russia, & reduce its collaboration with Western nations. The need for US policymakers to stipulate this country's nuclear relationship with the PRC is stressed. Also, the impact of the PRC's creation of additional ballistic missiles on its neighbor's nuclear policies is pondered. It is concluded that the US & the PRC should consider cooperative approaches to the production of ballistic missiles & national missile defense in order to avoid international political instability. J. W. Parker

This article explores specific reservations that are being declared to international treaties intended to protect human rights, and also whether the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is sufficient to ensure such rights. The author considers if reservations declared by a state(s) are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, and what consequences might follow if such a declaration(s) is made. To this end, the article investigates the practice of states that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nations Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. These treaties were selected because they lay down significant principles for the protection of specific human rights, and also because they are frequently challenged through reservations which seek to alter fundamental provisions. On a theoretical level the regulation of reservations does not appear to be problematic, however on closer examination various reservations point to the inadequacy of current regulation in the 1969 Vienna Convention in terms of the protection of human rights. Accordingly, this article considers a major group of states that seek to become parties to treaties pertaining to human rights, but then make reservations with the intention of diluting fundamental provisions. Specifically, this applies to Islamic countries whose reservations claim incompatibility with Islamic law and by reference to their own cultural diversity. By objecting to the reservations, state parties must decide whether or not their reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. According to provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may prohibit reservations for some or all of the treaty's provisions, which complicates the position of state parties. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations can be considered more problematic after analysis of practical cases of various states than it is shown in theory. The author's analysis is intended to ascertain whether or not the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties régime is suitable for the process of making reservations to the human rights treaties, and how the applicable regulation could be improved and thereby offer possible solutions to the problems outlined above.

Proposed Meeting of the Council: Meeting in Prague on October 20 and 21, 1950, the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, eastern Germany and the Soviet Union issued a statement in reply to the communiqué on Germany released on September 19 by the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Charging that the position of the three western governments was merely a screen to conceal the aggressive objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty and that the creation of mobile police formations was nothing less than the reconstitution of a German army, the eight foreign ministers stated that they considered as urgent 1) the publication by the three western powers and the Soviet Union of a statement of their intent to refuse to permit German rearmament and of their unswerving determination to create a united peace-loving German state; 2) the removal of all restrictions hindering the development of the peaceful German economy and the prevention of a resurgence of German war potential; 3) the conclusion of a German treaty and the withdrawal of all occupation forces within one year of its conclusion; and 4) the creation of an all-German constituent council to prepare for a provisional German government. The text of the communiqué was communicated to the United Kingdom, the United States and France under cover of a Soviet note on November 3. Stating that the Prague declaration possessed "the greatest significance for the cause of assuring international peace and security" and touched the "fundamental national interests of the peoples of Europe," the Soviet government proposed the convening of the Council of Foreign Ministers "for consideration of the question of fulfillment of the Potsdam agreement regarding demilitarization of Germany."

[extract] The relationship between the European Union and the citizens of Europe has been a constant matter of debate since the failure of the European Constitutional Treaty after the referendums in France and the Netherlands. The national referendum on the suggestions of the European Union concerning the Greek crisis, launched by the former Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and the discussion of Great Britain's possible withdrawal from the EU ("Brexit") have shown that this relationship remains a crucial issue for the European Union, even or maybe especially in times of crisis. Since the failure of the Constitutional Treaty the EU has become more aware of the central role of the citizens of Europe for the success of the European Union. The sometimes sceptically termed "elite driven project" EU therefore has put a lot of effort in the so called "Europe of the citizens", trying to enhance civic participation at EU level. These efforts are part of a wider discussion concerning the so called "democratic deficit" of the EU. With the last comprehensive Reform Treaty of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), which could only come into force after the second and then positive referendum of the Irish people, the member states have tried again to redress the "democratic deficit" of the EU. One of the major improvements for the democratic legitimacy of the EU has again been – as in every EU Reform Treaty – the increase of power for the European Parliament. Besides new rules concerning the election of the European Parliament and rules to strenghten the role of national parliaments in the EU, the member states have also created a new participatory opportunity for European citizens, the European Citizens' Initiative in article 11 para. 4 TEU. With the European Citizens' Initiative the European Union gives the European citizens (consisting of a minimum number from at least 7 of the 28 member states) a tool to suggest a legislative act to the Commission.The Citizens' Initiative constitutes the first attempt to introduce an element of direct democracy in the European Union and it also represents the first attempt worldwide to introduce direct democracy into an international organization. The paper wants to adress the relationship between Europe and the European citizens from different perspectives. The first chapter shall deal with the structure of the European Union as an international organization and shall pose the question how democracy as a principle fits into that structure (I.). The chapter shall also describe the various forms of democratic elements in the European Union. The second chapter is supposed to sketch the "European citizen" as an idea of the European Union taking up the citizenship of the European Union (II.). The third chapter is dedicated to scrutinizing the participatory possibilities for European citizens (III.). In that context I also want to display some data how the new European Citizens' Initiative has been working practically so far. The summary will be able to shed some light on the relationship between Europe and the European citizen (IV.).

While NATO is already taking into account the putative Iranian nuclear threat through its missile-defence programme, few if any comprehensive assessments have been made of what it would mean to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. In many NATO meetings the looms large, but political sensitivities and differing perceptions among member states generally preclude any serious and explicit discussions of what it would mean for the Alliance. A nuclear-armed Iran would in fact have profound, lasting and far-reaching consequences for key NATO roles and missions. NATO's Article V may be invoked to deter and defend against an Iranian threat or blackmail attempts. Security partnerships in the Near and Middle East would have to be adapted, if not transformed. NATO's relationship with Russia would be also be affected. Operations in Iran's neighbourhood would have to take into account Iran's new ability to project influence. But a nuclear-armed Iran might also make it more problematic for European countries to embark on new NATO operations in the Middle East or Central Asia. NATO should refrain for the present from any drastic and possibly irreversible decisions regarding its nuclear posture, such as a complete withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from European territory. On the contrary, it should keep all options open, including the future modernisation of the US nuclear presence, if and when technically necessary, as long as the Iranian nuclear crisis is not solved. (Survival / SWP)

Space is governed by bilateral treaties that belong to the Cold War era. The withdrawal by the Trump Administration from two major treaties such as the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies , blaming Russia for the decision, jeopardizes the space neutrality. U.S. President Biden took the decision to seek a five-year extension of New START, until Feb. 5, 2026, and Russia agreed. Nevertheless, the unilateral withdrawal from the Outer Space Treaty by one of the major space powers is likely. Space control is essential, given the heavy reliance on space systems and the rapidly increasing proliferation of missile technology and counterspace systems. Emerging disruptive technologies are game-changing and will determine the conflicts and the geopolitical scenario of next decades. Hypersonic weapons are changing the character of war, will play a huge role in the global power balance by undermining core pillars of geopolitics such as geography and technological power. Like a time machine, global defense and security concerns take us back to the time of the Strategic Defense Initiative - known as "Star Wars Program" - the satellites and space-based missile system established by the U.S. on the eve of the end of the Cold War, intended to protect the country from attack by Soviet ballistic strategic nuclear weapons. This missile shield programme was designed to render nuclear weapons obsolete, but it appears to have failed. Space has been elevated by the U.S. and NATO to warfighting domain and has already been militarized by Russia and raising China. So far, the international community failed to reach a solution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Space war is no more a science-fiction scenario; it's an emerging reality. This presentation aims to shed light on the hazard of an outer space which is not governed by any rules and tackles the challenges coming from the militarization of this operational domain. The question is how to avoid a star war in Outer Space and to prevent a conflict on Earth from the ...

Space is governed by bilateral treaties that belong to the Cold War era. The withdrawal by the Trump Administration from two major treaties such as the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies , blaming Russia for the decision, jeopardizes the space neutrality. U.S. President Biden took the decision to seek a five-year extension of New START, until Feb. 5, 2026, and Russia agreed. Nevertheless, the unilateral withdrawal from the Outer Space Treaty by one of the major space powers is likely. Space control is essential, given the heavy reliance on space systems and the rapidly increasing proliferation of missile technology and counterspace systems. Emerging disruptive technologies are game-changing and will determine the conflicts and the geopolitical scenario of next decades. Hypersonic weapons are changing the character of war, will play a huge role in the global power balance by undermining core pillars of geopolitics such as geography and technological power. Like a time machine, global defense and security concerns take us back to the time of the Strategic Defense Initiative - known as "Star Wars Program" - the satellites and space-based missile system established by the U.S. on the eve of the end of the Cold War, intended to protect the country from attack by Soviet ballistic strategic nuclear weapons. This missile shield programme was designed to render nuclear weapons obsolete, but it appears to have failed. Space has been elevated by the U.S. and NATO to warfighting domain and has already been militarized by Russia and raising China. So far, the international community failed to reach a solution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Space war is no more a science-fiction scenario; it's an emerging reality. This presentation aims to shed light on the hazard of an outer space which is not governed by any rules and tackles the challenges coming from the militarization of this operational domain. The question is how to avoid a star war in Outer Space and to prevent a conflict on Earth from the above?

Yaphe, Judith S.: The legacy of Iraq's past and the promise of its future. - S. 11-34. Bakhash, Shaul: Iran: slouching toward the twenty-first century. - S. 35-61. Gause, F. Gregory (III): The Arabian Peninsula monarchies from Camp David I to Camp David II. - S. 62-79. Mufti, Malik: From swamp to backyard. The Middle East in Turkish foreign policy. - S. 80-110. Peleg, Ilan: Israel enters the twenty-first century: hegemonic crisis in the Holy Land. - S. 113-136. Rubin, Barry: The Palestinian national movement: from catastrophe to disaster. - S. 137-153. Lukacs, Yehuda: Jordan: walking a tightrope. - S. 154-176. Lesch, David W.: Flanks, balances, and withdrawals. Syrian policy in the Middle East since the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli treaty. - S. 177-206. Deeb, Marius: Lebanon since 1979. Syria, Hizballah, and the war against peace in the Middle East. - S. 207-225. Cantori, Louis: Egypt: moribund between past and future. - S. 229-246. Deeb, Mary-Jane: Militant Islam and the state in North Africa. - S. 247-263. Peretz, Don: U.S. policy toward the Middle East. - S. 267-287. Freedman, Robert O.: Russian policy in the Middle East under Yeltsin and Putin. - S. 288-330. Freedman, Robert O.: The impact of September 11: the Bush Administration, the European Union, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. - S. 331-370

Abstract. The recent UK referendum results and subsequent initiation of Article 50 in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty set in motion the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, acknowledge as Brexit. The result and subsequent action were unprecedented and for many unforeseeable. Apart from the political instability and division of the country, the complicated and long process of Brexit have both economic and financial consequences. With this in mind, we analyse the impact of Brexit on four main British financial markets: Equity, Foreign Exchange, Gold and Sovereign Debt; using daily data. We extendthe variance bound test proposed by Fakhry & Richter (2018) underpinned by an asymmetrical C-GARCH-m model of volatility. Unlike many in the past, we placed the emphasis on the stable markets; thus introducing the stable marketpre-condition hypothesis. We analyse the long and short run effects of Brexit on the stability of the UK's financial market. Our results hint at a certain impact on the UK's financial market in both the long and short runs on the market stability and hence efficiency. This seems to be dictated by the reaction of market participants to uncertainty surrounding the future of the UKKeywords. Volatility test, Asymmetrical C-GARCH-m, Financial markets, Brexit.JEL. C12, C58, D81, G01, G14, G15, G18, G40.

North Korea's disclosure in October 2002 of its nuclear program based on uranium enrichment and its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003, have led to an acute international crisis. The North Korean crisis is not new; the world has witnessed a similar crisis in 1992, when North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT and which eventually led to the 1994 Agreed Framework. The United States does not have a clear policy on North Korea to date. Due to a high degree of mistrust and to limited and confusing information coming from Pyongyang, two different views have been developed on North Korea. The first view is that North Korea does have real security concerns and Kim Jung Il is merely trying to assure his position as a leader and to safeguard against a U.S. attack. The second view which seems to be embraced by the majority of American politicians is that North Korea is using its nuclear weapon program to blackmail the U.S. and to receive such benefits as oil and food. In this paper I will try to explore the two opposing views and try to come to a conclusion on the whether North Korea's security concerns are grounded or not.

This article appeared in Strategic Insights (May 2003), v.2 no.5 ; North Korea's surprise admission last October to a secret nuclear weapons program based on uranium enrichment triggered a cascading breakdown of the 1994 Agreed Framework structure that had kept North Korea's more advanced plutonium-based nuclear program in check. By year's end North Korea had expelled United Nations inspectors and removed monitoring equipment at its Yongbyon nuclear complex, announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and begun preparations to restart its plutonium reprocessing facility. This twin proliferation danger surpasses even the apex of the 1993-4 North Korean crisis that nearly triggered a U.S. military attack. The Bush administration's de facto policy of hostile neglect toward North Korea has contributed to this crisis. Although North Korea's uranium-based program began well before the Bush team took office, the administration bears some responsibility for inciting acceleration of this program and for fostering the fragile conditions under which the program's revelation quickly precipitated a complete breakdown of U.S.-North Korea relations. Unfortunately, even as administration supporters have acknowledged the need for a new approach, there remains insufficient appreciation that the deficiency of the current administration's posture has been as much neglect as hostility.

In the late nineteen-fifties and earl y nineteen-sixties, France, under the leadership of President Charles de Gaulle, aligned its foreign and domestic policies to allow itself to become an independent world power. Many of these policies, although potentially beneficial to the French objectives had direct, specific effects upon other countries. Although it is most difficult to analyze and dissect each and every decision or the French government, there were some decisions which were particularly relevant in regard to the total international situation. In this category would be the French decision in the mid-sixties to establish a course or military self-determination and to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization military alliance. Initial reaction to this decision would affect policy decisions concerning the military capability of the NATO alliance with the geographical, tactical. and personnel void created by such a French decision. Further investigation is necessary; however, to comprehend how such a unilateral decision could affect regional and international politics. Such was the case with the French decision to withdraw from NATO. World events, most specifically the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban missile crisis, had made the world governments acutely aware of the possibilities of nuclear confrontation. With the imminent nuclear capability of France, Communist China, India, and other nations of the world it was becoming apparent to the major nations of the world that some type of agreement was necessary to halt the possible, if not probable, proliferation of nuclear weapons. Speculation and discussion regarding an agreement to ban the spread of nuclear information had been a real possibility from the time of the initial Moscow treaty banning nuclear testing. As world events made such an agreement seem more inevitable, the French took their action regarding military affiliation with the NATO alliance. This action raised several situations which could develop into specific problems. Who would take France's place on the European continent; would nuclear weapons be necessary to fill the void left by France? Would the Soviet Union use this action to test the military and political strength of the NATO alliance? To this point there is no known work which deals with the effects of the French withdrawal from the NATO alliance and any subsequent effect that had upon the successful negotiation of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In this regard, we shall see how the French action led t o deviations in the normal U.S. NAT0 policies and subsequently how t he French action threatened the Non-proliferation Treaty1 negotiations.

ABSTRACT. The outcome of the United Kingdom's 'Brexit' referendum on leaving the European Union necessarily entails both a reconsideration of the status of Gibraltar and changes in Spain's perspective on a solution to the dispute. Following Brexit, negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from the EU will not only pave the way for a new European and international legal framework, but will also create a historic opportunity for Spain to redefine its relationship with Gibraltar, offering the possibility of new approaches to resolve this historical dispute.After the crisis of 2013, negotiations reached a stalemate, but the unexpected outcome of the Brexit referendum could have tragic consequences for Gibraltar because the obligation to negotiate the UK's withdrawal from the EU will likewise oblige Gibraltar to redefine its legal status with the EU, which constitutes the legal framework of greatest practical daily application, together with two other international legal frameworks, namely the Treaty of Utrecht and the UN declaration on decolonisation. The European framework will continue to apply for at least the two years during which withdrawal negotiations are held, providing sufficient legal certainty concerning applicable law in the coming years. However, the effects of uncertainty could have a very negative impact on the economy of Gibraltar, whose population adopted a clear stance in favour of 'Bremain' in the referendum. Furthermore, a possible return to the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht has raised fears of the very probable legality of closing the border, at Spain's instigation, if EU law ceases to be applicable in the future.The unavoidable renegotiation of the status of Gibraltar within the EU will inevitably involve Spain, which in 1986 did not question the status endowed in 1972. In the present context, however, Spain could leverage the requirement for unanimity at several crucial moments during the process of negotiating British withdrawal as regulated by Art. 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); thus, various possible future scenarios for Gibraltar, such as the Norwegian or Swiss models or the antecedent of Greenland, will depend on Spain's consent. In addition, solutions that seek to maintain application of the European Single Market to Gibraltar would in practice be unworkable in the international arena, because Gibraltar is not part of the British State and its only status under international law is that of a territory awaiting decolonisation in a process supervised by the United Nations.At the same time, Brexit has opened a window of opportunity for resolving this historical dispute, which encompasses both peaceful coexistence between Spain and the small neighbouring community of Gibraltar just over the border, and the question of sovereignty that underlies the dispute with the United Kingdom. The acting Spanish Government took two important decisions in 2016: it announced the need to negotiate the status of Gibraltar outside the framework of TEU Art. 50, and it proposed joint sovereignty. This historic moment requires strategic decisions supported by broad domestic consensus in Spain, since it is a key issue strongly symbolic of Spanish foreign policy which may have important domestic and international consequences. Spain now has the opportunity to adopt a strategic approach that incorporates a new narrative and focus for Gibraltar, and which addresses the pending issue of regulating cross-border relations and coexistence with the people of Gibraltar. The unanimous support given in 2016 by all political parties for a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) with Gibraltar within the EU framework demonstrates that significant changes are possible for cross-border coexistence. Gibraltar and Campo could even adopt a common approach to Brexit and its consequences for Gibraltar and the region, enforcing this in their respective States and the EU as negotiations begin.The format and content of the joint sovereignty proposal announced by Spain is the same as that of others presented or negotiated previously. But the 2016 Spanish proposal of Joint Sovereignty has structural deficiencies, which make it unworkable in practice. Several objective questions can be raised: UK and Gibraltar have yet rejected this proposal; it was made unilaterally by the conservative Government of M. Rajoy, without looking for previous supporting consensus inside Spain; and the most practical problem which is that the proposal inextricably links cross-border cooperation with the resolution of the sovereignty dispute, this creates an impasse given that both the UK and Gibraltar have already rejected joint sovereignty.Instead of Joint Sovereignty negotiations as the answer for the Gibraltar question, the article advocate a twofold approach in the current historical negotiating situation for the UK's departure from the EU: a provisional Modus Vivendi for cross-border coexistence, and in parallel an agreement to seek a new international and European model for Gibraltar, trying to put an end to historical controversy.A provisional Modus Vivendi for the cross-border coexistence with Gibraltar could be an interim agreement to regulate the aspects that most urgently need the daily normalization. Especially the border crossing by the Border/Fence, but also others such as the issues of transparency and economic-financial collaboration, navigation and jurisdiction over Bay waters, or the use of the airport.This historic moment could be conducive to moving forwards in new and imaginative ways, with initiatives such as that of 'symbolic sovereignty' formula via the proposed Principality of Gibraltar or City of the British and Spanish Crowns linked to the EU, which offers sufficient constitutional and international margins for consideration. This proposal of the Two Crowns Principality, linked to the EU, would restore Gibraltar to the Spanish nation and sovereignty, in addition to incorporating it into the EU as part of the Kingdom of Spain, ensuring the maintenance of its current organisation and powers and entailing agreements on Gibraltar's economic and financial regime and British retention of its military bases.