Oops, you've found our old website!
To check out GJIL's new website, click on the heading of this post and click on the full link:
To check out GJIL's new website, click on the heading of this post and click on the full link:
By: James Brown
North Korea’s Nuclear
Milestones
2017 was a milestone year for North Korea’s nuclear weapons
and ballistic missile program. These
tests launched North Korea and its infamous brand of brinkmanship back onto the
world stage, and reignited long simmering tensions between North Korea and the
United States and its regional allies. The
following represents a sample of the most noteworthy advancements in North
Korea’s weapons program this year:
- In July, the successful launch of two ballistic missiles showed with relative certainty that North Korea was capable of striking parts of the United States.
- In September, North Korea completed an underground test of a nuclear bomb, with yield estimates ranging from 108 to 160 kilotons, or roughly the equivalent of seven to ten times the blast size of the bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima during World War II. This is estimated to be the most powerful nuclear bomb North Korea has tested to date.
- In November, another successful missile launch, this time of a more advanced model, indicated that all of the U.S. mainland fell within range of North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Kim Jong Un’s Reinvigorated
Quest for Nuclear Weapons
Experts in
2017 seemed to agree that Kim Jong Un’s dogged pursuit of nuclear-capable ICBMs
is intended not only to secure a seat at the negotiating table, but to ensure his own continued existence.
The logic behind this rationale is illustrated by the fate of Muammar
Gaddafi, the late leader of Libya who, after agreeing to nuclear disarmament in
2003, was ousted from power and summarily executed by rebel troops after a NATO
military intervention in 2011. That turn
of events, experts say, has both driven Kim’s quest for nuclear expansion and
made him drastically less likely to disarm in the face of threats of military
action.
Donald Trump and the U.S. Response
2017 was a
notable year in U.S. – North Korea relations for another reason: Donald
Trump. Unlike past U.S. presidents,
Donald Trump has enthusiastically engaged in North-Korean-style rhetoric,
including threatening in front of the U.N. to “totally destroy” North Korea if need be, and promising
“fire and fury like the world has
never seen.” Trump
has also taken to the unprecedented strategy of publicly undermining his own
diplomats to bolster
his expressed view that diplomacy has been, and will continue to be,
ineffective. However, despite President
Trump’s more bellicose tendencies, key players within the Trump administration
appeared to favor a more even-keeled response to
denuclearization. It remains to be seen whether the seemingly
chaotic clash of approaches displayed by the Trump administration is more
indicative of an impulsive, disorganized leader, or a 3d chess-master playing
“good cop, bad cop” and bluffing his way to a denuclearized Korean
peninsula.
By Jesse Van Genugten
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
Constructed
as efficient and impartial adjudicative bodies for the resolution of
international disputes, arbitral tribunals issue globally enforceable awards as
a positive alternative to litigation in domestic courts. At least in theory. Faced
with public criticism that as a practical matter the tribunals are neither
impartial nor efficient, the system has come to a crossroads. This past year,
in response, various international bodies have endeavored to address concerns
with the current structure of international arbitration.
Investor-State
Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
In July
2017, at the annual United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL) in Vienna, the 60 member states resolved to open up a new forum to
first determine if the current ISDS system needs overhaul and if so, what that
improvement process entail. UNCITRAL’s newly inaugurated Working Group III will
discuss, compile, and reflect on interested parties’ experiences with the
current system—particularly focusing on a publically perceived lack of
legitimacy associated with the proceedings. (See UNCITRAL WGIII). UNCITRAL Rules on Arbitration
have been used in more than 30% of all ISDS cases, (see UNCTAD),
and therefore the new framework for state-led reform will likely shape the
landscape of the field for years to come.
Furthermore,
the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID) has sought out, in the last year, member-state and expert opinion to
reform its arbitration rules. (See ICSID Amendment Process). In the next few months, the
Centre promises to publish background papers on several topics to improve its
arbitral proceedings, including expanding the arbitrators’ code of conduct and
providing a means for efficient consolidation of similar arbitral proceedings.
These academically oriented pieces will serve as a springboard for a modernizing
debate, and specifies a lens through which one can forecast future amendments
to the ICSID rules.
International
Commercial Arbitration
Diverse
in both the industries involved and nature of the underlying disputes, international
conflicts driving the use of commercial arbitration around the world show no
sign of decreasing in number. (See Global Arbitration News). Given the latest statistics
published, the Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
administered the most commercial arbitrations in 2016, but that number incorporates
both domestic and foreign disputes. On the other hand, the International Centre
for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), based in New York, served as the organization
responsible for administering the most foreign commercial arbitrations. Support
by ICDR, as a division of the American Arbitration Association, for reform therefore
proves significant in gauging developments in the field. Spearheading an
initiative to bolster the cyber-security measures necessary to protect
commercial arbitration disputes, as well as seeking to streamline the creation
of arbitral panels, ICDR has set its sights for reform high. (See 2018 Agenda) If these changes prove effective,
it could serve as a model for other international arbitration
institutions—particularly the largest few that share the bulk of the
proceedings—but that remains to be seen in 2018.
By Alexandra Moffit
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
United Nations
Under
a new Secretary-General, the United Nations took several new steps based on
studies in 2017.
·
Antonio Guterres begins
role as Secretary-General of the United Nations in January.
·
The United Nations Security Council unanimously
voted to issue new sanctions to North Korea. These sanctions were in
response to its burgeoning nuclear program and its ballistic missile program.
·
The United Nations’ agency that deals with aviation proposed
a global drone registry that would aid local law enforcement agencies. This
registry would be a step towards global regulations dealing with the small
crafts.
·
Russia and China vetoed
resolutions that would have sanctioned Syria for its use of chemical
weapons.
·
United Nations agencies reported during 2017 that 2016 was the
first time in the 21st century that hunger
increased. Possible reasons offered by the United Nations for this increase
were climate change and conflict. These would cause an increase in food
insecurity around the world. There are currently around 815 million chronically
malnourished people around the world.
·
The United Nations and other organizations began investing
in blockchain technology. Organizations like the World Food Programme
launched pilots that use blockchain in delivering food.
The United
States and International Organizations
With
the United States changing leadership as President Trump began his tenure in
office, the United States changed its relationships with various international
organizations significantly during 2017.
·
The United States, in one of Donald Trump’s first acts as
President, declared
its intention to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The previous
administration had negotiated the large free trade deal with various nations
but had not come into effect yet.
·
The United States withdrew
from the Paris Climate Accords in June, becoming one of the only countries not
party to the climate agreement.
·
The United States, Canada, and Mexico began
to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement following President
Trump’s dissatisfaction with the agreement. A relocation or dissolution of the
agreement would cause major changes in the economies of each nation, as well as
trade laws.
·
The United States withdrew
from UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization, in October. “At the
time when conflicts continue to tear apart societies across the world, it is
deeply regrettable for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations
agency promoting education for peace and protecting culture under attack,”
Director-General of UNESCO Irina
Bokova said. The United States indicated its reason for leaving as the
organization’s inclusion of Palestine as a member in 2011.
Refugees and
International Organizations
As
refugee numbers increased in 2017, various international organizations took
steps to combat problems.
·
Security in Burma has been conducting ethnic cleansing of
Rohingya Muslims. Some have sought asylum in Bangladesh. The crisis has had
a global impact and is ongoing. A new
UN pilot program could provide refugees in Bangladesh with work permits.
·
International Organizations like the World Bank used their leverage
to try to push Burma to stop its persecution of Rohingya Muslims. The World
Bank announced it would be withholding
a $200 million loan it had promised to the country.
·
The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees announced that there
are over 3 million stateless people around the world. The agency urges
countries to grant citizenship to these stateless people, which would
provide them with basic health and personal rights.
By Maura Sokol
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
2017
marked the end of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), which closed out its existence with high profile convictions. Although
international justice may have been achieved in these cases, a number of
international crimes were committed across the globe in 2017, many of which
will remain a threat in 2018.
International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In
November, the ICTY
Tribunal in the Hague brought its prosecutions to a close. The ICTY was
first created in May 1993, under Resolution 827 by the United Nations Security
Council to prosecute international crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars.
This creation of an international, ad hoc tribunal has left an enduring legacy
on international criminal law. During its 25 years of existence, 161
individuals have been charged with crimes and 151 have faced trial, with 90
convictions that included major generals and political leaders. All unresolved
cases will now be handed over to another ad hoc criminal court, the Mechanism
for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT).
General Radko Mladic, the former
Bosnian Serb army chief known as the “Butcher of Bosnia” was one of the last
war criminals convicted in the ICTY. In November, the tribunal sentenced him to
life in prison for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Mladic
was responsible for thousands of deaths, engaged in ethnic cleansing, and was
responsible for the 1995 genocide of Srebrenica and the three-year siege and
bombardment of Sarajevo.
During
the last hearing of the ICTY, the convicted Bosnian Croat war criminal Slobodan Praljak drew much of the
media’s attention by committing
suicide in the courtroom after ingesting potassium cyanide. The hearing had
been part of an appeal by six Bosnian Croat political and military leaders who
were convicted in 2013 of persecuting, expelling and murdering Bosnian Muslims.
Praljak ingested the cyanide after the tribunal announced he had lost his
appeal. Praljak had been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Genocide in
Myanmar
The
government in Myanmar, once known as Burma, committed horrific violence against
the Rohingya, Myanmar’s minority Muslim population, in what the United Nations
high commissioner for human rights called
a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.” Beginning on August 25th,
more than 626,000
Rohingya have fled Myanmar and an estimated 9,000 were killed by late
September. Hundreds of villages have been destroyed or burned to the ground,
and the Associated
Press has reported a campaign of mass rape, robbery and torture. Despite
widespread condemnation, there has been little action from the international
community.
Syrian War
Crimes
Efforts
to investigate and bring to justice the many war crimes committed by Syrian
President Bashar al Assad’s regimes continued throughout 2017. In November,
Amnesty International published an extensive new report that
detailed the regime’s massive campaign of sieges, unlawful killings, and forced
displacement through use of “surrender or starve” tactics. The Islamic State
has unlawfully killed civilians and used them as human shields, and the US-led
coalition has also carried out attacks that led to the death of civilians, in
violation of international
humanitarian law. By the end of 2017, more than 400,000 people have died
and more than 11 million people have been displaced.
Courts
in Spain, Germany and Sweden have all attempted to bring individuals to justice
for war crimes committed, and in October the first individual was convicted in
the conflict and sentenced to eight months in prison in Sweden.
2017 also saw the beginning of the International,
Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Those
Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes in Syria, which was established by UN
General Assembly at the end of 2016.
By Anna Jarman
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
Last year, the “refugee crisis” experienced a political
reckoning, as governments around the world sought to tighten boarders and curtail
refugee-friendly policies where they had previously existed. At the same time, the number of displaced
people continued to climb in 2017, after it reached its highest number ever at
65 million people at the end of 2016.
The below events chronicle 2017’s most significant developments in the
refugee crisis and the policy responses to it.
Travel Ban – Shortly
after taking office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled
“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,”
which greatly reduced the number of refugees the U.S. would admit -- including
blocking admission of all Syrian refugees -- and suspended entry of nationals
from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. The order was met with immediate protests, international
criticism, and legal challenges by those who saw the order as a “Muslim
ban.” A nationwide temporary restraining
order was issued in the case Washington
v. Trump, and upheld
by the Ninth Circuit. The first
order was replaced by a second and then a third
order which revised the original list of countries, clarified the effect on
green-card holders, and made the 90-day ban permanent. The Ninth Circuit
upheld a lower court decision finding the order unlawful in Hawaii v. Trump; the Supreme
Court granted cert in January, and allowed the administration to implement
the travel ban while legal challenges were pending.
Refugees Cross U.S.
Border into Canada – the number of asylum seekers illegally crossing from
the U.S. into Canada spiked to more than 15,000 people last year. The refugees, many of whom fear
Trump’s immigration policies, were met by both opposition by anti-migrant
groups and a supportive response by Canada, which granted asylum at increasing
rates.
South Sudan – Displacement
from South Sudan’s war became the largest refugee crisis in Africa. More than 2 million people had fled to
neighboring countries by the end of the year, with another 2 million displaced
inside the country.
Rohingya Refugee
Crisis – After a group of militant Rohingya Muslims attacked police bases
in northern Myanmar on August 25, the army responded with a brutal show of
force, burning villages, killing civilians, and raping women. Within weeks, over 420,000 Rohingya refugees
had fled, leading to a mass
exodus “unprecedented in terms of volume and speed,” according to the
International Organization for Migration.
Over 700,000
Rohingya have now fled to squalid refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh. The U.N.’s human rights commission described
the retaliation as ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide.
German and Austrian Elections
– Radical right-wing populist parties performed well in both the Austrian
and German elections. The newly elected
Chancellor of Austria, Sebastian Kurz, earned
his reputation as foreign minister for tightening Austria’s borders during
the refugee crisis, when Austria was taking in more asylum-seekers than any EU
country except Sweden. Germany’s
chancellor, Angela Merkel has tightened
her asylum policy under pressure from the far right and in response to
backlash against her initial welcoming stance.
Germany
resumed deporting Afghans whose asylum claims were rejected after stopping
deportations in May when a bombing near the German embassy in Kabul killed
around 150 people.
Manus Island Removal –
Hundreds of asylum seekers held for years in an Australian-run detention center
on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island were forcibly removed in November, three
weeks after Australia
officially closed the camp. Afraid
to leave the camp, the refugees had remained, despite Australia cutting off
electricity, food, and water. Security
forces eventually stormed the camp destroying the refugees’ shelters and
belongings.
Climate Change Spurs Migration -- Research
published last year suggests that changing weather is spurring people to
seek asylum in Europe, and predicts that trend to continue as temperatures are
projected to rise. The research has
sparked discussions on the appropriateness of the current definition of
“refugee,” which includes people fleeing persecution but not those forced to
leave by climate change.
East Congo – Eleven
Congolese refugees were killed by Rwandan police responding to a protest
over reduced food rations in a Kiziba camp.
Over 17,000 Congolese refugees inhabit the Western Rwanda refugee camp. Violence in Eastern Congo has worsened
recently due to clashes between government soldiers, local militias, and
foreign rebels.
Looking ahead, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear
arguments on the travel ban this year, and the new Austrian and German
governments are likely to further articulate their more restrictive immigration
policies. At the same time, the
international community will grapple with how to respond to the world’s
ever-increasing number of displaced persons fleeing conflict, ethnic cleansing,
and changing climate.
By Erika Suhr
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
A Rocky Start
At the start of 2017, the International Criminal Court (ICC)
seemed to be experiencing an existential moment. Russia
had withdrawn itself from the process of ratifying the Rome Statute internally
in protest of the ICC’s ruling that Russia’s 2014 takeover of the Crimea
peninsula had been an armed conflict between it and Ukraine, making the
annexation fall under the court’s jurisdiction. In January, a non-binding
African Union resolution
called for its members to withdraw en masse from the ICC, with some countries
arguing that the ICC, beyond subverting their sovereignty, disproportionately
targets African countries. The African Union supports instead, a
regionalization of international law, where there would be a war crimes court,
specifically devoted to Africa. Opponents worry about the independence of such
a court, and that the risk of violations of war crimes in African states would
rise as a result. The Foreign Minister of Nigeria noted the vital role that the
ICC plays in holding leaders accountable, and stated that Senegal, Cape Verde,
and other countries would speak out against the resolution to withdraw.
Burundi Withdrawal
Burundi,
The Gambia, and South Africa all decided to withdraw from the ICC, but
ultimately, only Burundi carried out its threat. The Gambia, under new
leadership, announced its reversal of the decision to withdraw on state
television, citing its “commitment to the principles enshrined in the Rome
Statue of the International Criminal Court”. South Africa also revoked its
decision to withdraw from the ICC, citing a recent court ruling that declared
the withdrawal “unconstitutional and invalid.”
On October 27, 2017 Burundi, a year after declaring its
intentions, became the first country to withdraw from the International
Criminal Court. The timing of Burundi’s
withdrawal coincides with a report released by the United Nations Commission of
Inquiry. The report recommended that a criminal investigation on crimes
committed in Burundi be initiated in response to evidence of torture, sexual
violence, extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and illegitimate arrests and
detentions sponsored by the regime of Burundi’s president, Pierre Nkurunziza.
A Reinvigorated Court
Perhaps as a response to the criticism of the African Union
and others, the ICC’s prosecutor has publicized a shift away from Africa
towards other regions. She announced that she is opening preliminary
investigations into crimes perpetuated in the Philippines,
Afghanistan, and Venezuela.
The Philippines probe will focus on allegations reaching back to July of 2016, relating
to the government’s war on drugs, which has since killed thousands of people,
many under dubious circumstances and justifications. The Venezuelan probe will
likewise focus on government and police forces, in that case, that the
government forces “frequently used excessive force to disperse and put down
demonstrations,” and tortured and abused members of the opposition who were
unlawfully detained by the government, indefinitely.
Most controversially, the prosecutor called upon the court
to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in
Afghanistan. The scope of that investigation could encompass U.S. troops. No
specific parties or events have been named, but a report released by the
prosecutor’s office says that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the
following crimes have been committed:
- "Crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Taliban and their affiliated Haqqani Network;
- "War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment by Afghan government forces, in particular the intelligence agency (National Directorate for Security), and the Afghan National Police;
- "War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment, by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, principally in the 2003-2004 period, although allegedly continuing in some cases until 2014."
By Navneet Binning
Picture: Globe License: Public Domain
In 2017, the Law of War saw many new developments. These include:
the closure of the ICTY, the increased threat of cyber warfare, attempts to
eliminate nuclear weapons, and a movement to fight the spread of chemical
weapons.
ICTY
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of
Yugoslavia (ICTY) formally closed
on December 21st 2017. The
ICTY was created to adjudicate claims of war
crimes that occurred in the Balkans in the 1990’s. The ICTY was open for
twenty-four years, delivered 161 indictments, and sentenced ninety individuals
for genocide, crimes against humanity, and other crimes.
The closure is particularly significant because it marks a shift
in international law away from specific criminal tribunals; previously,
individual criminal tribunals have been used to prosecute war crimes in the
Balkans and Rwanda. International law experts hope that the closure of ICTY
will be a catalyst
towards the goal of establishing universal jurisdiction for war crimes in the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
Cyber
Warfare
In recent years, there has been an increasing fear of the threat
of cyber warfare. In 2017, cyber warfare has threatened physical
destruction of civilian and military assets. For example, terrorist groups
could gain control of cyber switches and use them to derail trains.
However, most of cyber warfare has focused on undermining
institutional integrity. In 2017, allegations of Russian interference in the
2016 US presidential election created mass distrust in the American political
system. Cyber warfare used to undermine institutional integrity is particularly
concerning because it is difficult to defend oneself from and retaliate against
such attacks.
Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
In March and July 2017, the United Nations General Assembly met
for a conference aimed to prohibit and, eventually, completely eliminate
nuclear weapons. The Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was approved on July 7th.
The treaty requires signatories to abstain from developing,
possessing, and threatening the use of nuclear weapons. The treaty would also
prohibit nations from transferring nuclear weapons between one another.
122
nations signed the treaty, but the nine nations who are known or believed
to possess nuclear weapons did not. These nine nations are the United States,
Russia, United Kingdom, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and
Israel. A
joint statement from the United States, United Kingdom, and France states
that the nations do not intend to join the treaty.
Opponents of the treaty believe that it “disregards the realities
of the international security environment” and fails to address the growing threat
of North Korea’s nuclear programs. Opponents instead propose strengthening the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which was enacted in 1970 prohibits nations
other than the five original nuclear powers (United States, Russia, United
Kingdom, France, and China) from pursuing nuclear weapons and directs the five
original nuclear powers to work towards nuclear disarmament.
Syria Missile
Attack
On April 7, the United States, directed by President Trump,
carried out a missile
strike in Syria that killed more than eighty civilians. The attack was in response
to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against its civilians and to
signal the United States’ disapproval of Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
The attack prompted wide criticisms, particularly from Russia. A
spokesman for President Putin stated that the strike was a “significant blow”
for the relationship between the United States and Russia and had no impact on
combating international terrorism. Rather, the attack undermined efforts to
establish an international
coalition to fight the use of chemical weapons.
