Search

The International Criminal Court symbolizes the realization of a long-held human aspiration which was aimed at preventing the recurrence of the atrocities of the world wars through the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of severe international crimes. One of the fundamental and enduring principles of international law—the requirement of the expressed will of the state in its commitment to an international obligation—has limited the global applicability of the Rome Statute. To partially address this issue, the question of prosecuting crimes committed by nationals of non-member states on the territory of member states has been raised. From the outset, the opposition of some states to the prosecution of nationals of non-member states has posed challenges to the effectiveness and functioning of the ICC. With Palestine's membership in the court and its complaint against Israeli officials, this challenge has intensified. This paper examines the legal status of Palestine's membership in the court and the possibility of prosecuting Israeli officials. It also evaluates the latest status of the case brought before the ICC and examines the potential counteractions of Israel and the intervention of the Security Council. Ultimately, the findings of the paper indicate that the court's jurisdiction over Israeli nationals is more consistent with the principles and objectives of the court's establishment, which are the enforcement of justice and the fight against impunity, and that the court has no prohibition against commencing proceedings in the said case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to Kerry Buck and Michael W. Manulak's recommendations for the future of the UN, this essay highlights two problems that Canada faces in its current UN engagement. First, diplomacy and Global Affairs Canada are underfunded. Second, Canadian leadership has failed to adequately meet the political challenges of twenty-first century multilateralism. Focusing on the second, I argue that Canada must address key political difficulties to make a meaningful difference in the future of the UN. Without a politically sound vision and policy, increased Canadian investment in the UN is insufficient. I propose three areas where Canada can shift its engagement and recommend further actions. These include: (1) Canada-US relations; (2) the UN Charter and international law; and (3) Canada's relationship with the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the policy on Afghanistan conducted by Germany during its temporary membership in the UN Security Council in 1995–1996. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the Russian Federation was responsible for global peace and security, Sergei V. Lavrov being the Russian ambassador to the UN during the period under consideration. Based on archival and previously unpublished documents, the authors identified the key parameters, characteristics, and trends of the Afghan vector in Germany’s policy in the UN system. They relied on the principles of historicism and objectivity, as well as on Clive Archer’s role concept of international organizations. Germany’s activities in the Security Council revealed the duality of its foreign policy regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. After several decades of post-war diplomatic efforts to regain political influence, Germany opposed the crucial role of the Security Council on the Afghan issue. It focused on the General Assembly in an attempt to support Norbert Hall, who was the German Special Envoy in Afghanistan and the Head of the UNSMA mission, which was initiated by the UN General Assembly. As a result, Germany tried to minimize the role of the Security Council in Afghanistan in favor of the General Assembly.

The Security Council has interpreted the concept of international peace and security extensively and extended it to a wide range of issues, including the protection of human rights and the protection of human rights abuses. So that some of its decisions and actions have been beyond the limits of legal authority and competence and incompatible with the objectives of the Charter and human rights obligations and contrary to the standards of international law. The purpose article is to examine the Security Council as an extra-legal body and the shortcomings of its commitment to its obligations and responsibilities in the face of serious human rights violations resulting from Chapter VII and humanitarian interventions. Despite the council's claim of human rights protection, there has been a clear contradiction in its management behavior and performance, which not only has not reduced human rights violations in practice, but has in some cases exacerbated the council's inefficiency. The findings show that non-compliance with the limits and powers and veto power of the permanent members of the Council is one of the most important factors in the failure of the Security Council in resolving human rights issues and managing international crises. Therefore, by adopting a mechanism independent of the political interests of the permanent members and using the veto to strengthen and positive cooperation, we can pave the way for fundamental changes in the behavioral patterns and procedures of the council and proper internal monitoring of its actions and commitment to provided human rights obligations.

Copyright of Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing is the property of Research & Development of Human Recourses Center (REMAH) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Is the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General (SG) an independent actor in conflict diplomacy, or are his political interventions influenced by the parochial interests of the UN Security Council (UNSC) permanent member states – the P5? Previous studies have suggested that the political independence of the UN is constrained whenever a conflict evokes the strong parochial interests of individual P5 states. Using a newly compiled dataset, this article presents the first large-N historical study on the SG's conflict interventions. The study quantifies the interventions while distinguishing between interventions mandated by the UNSC, which have always been high-profile in nature, and nonmandated interventions, with key emphasis on high-profile nonmandated interventions. The study ascertains whether both types of intervention were inhibited by the parochial interests of individual P5 states or whether the nonmandated interventions were uninfluenced by P5 interests. The results reveal that while parochial P5 interests have a significant bearing on UNSC-mandated interventions, they do not influence nonmandated interventions. Crucially, UN Charter dictates generally exert a greater influence on nonmandated interventions than on UNSC-mandated interventions. These findings present a strong case for the formal autonomy of the UN Secretariat and contribute to the growing literature on the role of executive heads in international organization secretariats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs have been a concern of the international community for many years. In response to North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006, the Security Council adopted one of the most controversial sanctions regimes in the history of the UN. After further nuclear tests in 2009, twice in 2016, and in 2017, the Security Council unanimously adopted even more new resolutions according to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, condemning North Korea’s behavior and demanding, inter alia, that it refrains from future nuclear and ballistic missile tests. The Security Council has tightened these sanctions over the years with a total of 10 resolutions. The UN sanctions imposed on North Korea raise many political, ethical, and legal questions. This article tries to answer them from the perspective of international law by examining the legal limits of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ankara Barosu Dergileri is the property of Ankara Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article narrows in on the most recent development concerning the intersection of sanctions/counter-terrorism measures and humanitarian exemptions. Over the years, the humanitarian community pointed out that overly broad and improperly applied counter-terrorism measures have severely affected the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide life-saving services to conflict-affected communities already caught up in humanitarian crises. In order to address these issues, the article argues that a permanent humanitarian carve-out is to be incorporated in the sanctions regimes. After dwelling on the legal and operational issues connected to sanctions and counter-terrorism measures, the article undertakes a systematic analysis of the Security Council's practice in relation to humanitarian issues. The analysis includes the newly established sanction regime (Haiti), which signals a development of the Security Council's practice in that it permanently exempts from the assets freeze restrictions the funds devoted to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid. Finally, the paper carries out an in-depth analysis of the cross-cutting Resolution 2664, which provides a standing humanitarian carve-out across all UN sanctions regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The closure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in December 2023 marked the end of Germany's largest personnel contribution to a UN peace mission in a decade. Given Germany's post-war history, its role as a middle power, and its status as the world's third-largest economy, multilateral action plays a crucial role in its foreign policy. The UN, as a global organization, is an indispensable pillar of Germany's multilateral orientation. Germany's generally cautious participation in UN peacekeeping occurs against the backdrop of a mixed record of UN missions and recurring reform discussions within the UN system. The German experiences from MINUSMA—including its abrupt end at the behest of the Malian government without improving civilian security—will influence future national mandate debates on German involvement in UN operations. This article analyzes the reasons for Germany's withdrawal from UN peacekeeping using the MINUSMA mission as a case study, within the context of the concept of multilateralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Security Council often compensates for failing to agree on political solutions to conflicts by engaging on their humanitarian consequences, as this essay shows with reference to Gaza, Syria, Myanmar and Ethiopia. The elected members of the Council in particular frequently focus on humanitarian topics in attempts to forge compromises with and among the permanent members. This humanitarian turn in Council diplomacy allows diplomats to paper over their differences, and insist the institution is still relevant but involves moral hazards. The Council risks becoming overly involved in the technicalities of aid operations, and members can use thematic and country-specific debates to relitigate aspects of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The short-term benefits of agreement on humanitarian resolutions and Council statements must be weighed against these long-term risks, and Council members should pursue a policy of "do no harm" in their humanitarian diplomacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Human Sciences Journal / Revue des Sciences Humaines is the property of Universite des Freres Mentouri Constantine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains a contentious and complex issue, especially considering the Council's perceived inaction during recent global security crises. This debate involves institutional, operational, and political challenges, notably the entrenched structure of the UN Charter which requires unanimous consent from permanent members for amendments, and the strategic interests of the victorious powers of World War II that continue to shape the Council's actions. Greece, a candidate for a non-permanent UNSC seat for 2025-2026, has historically supported democratic principles and international law, advocating for greater participation in decision-making processes. However, its current campaign emphasizes maintaining the status quo rather than proposing concrete reforms, reflecting a passive approach to international politics. To promote meaningful UNSC reform and enhance its global standing, Greece should adopt a more active diplomatic role, forming strategic alliances, advocating incremental changes, and engaging in multilateral negotiations. Aligning with the Group of Four (G4) nations could bolster Greece's influence and support for expanding both permanent and non-permanent membership, ensuring a balanced and pragmatic reform process. By pursuing these strategies, Greece can significantly contribute to evolving the UNSC and strengthening its position in global decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UN Security Council, as the pillar responsible for international peace and security, after more than a decade and until the beginning of 2023, has not yet managed to end the Syrian crisis or find a lasting solution to it, which has been on its agenda since 2011. In this regard, the performance of the Security Council has been clearly affected by internal and external factors; During this period, the Council, contrary to the existing organizational obstacles, including the conflict of interests of the permanent members, specifically on the one hand Russia and China and on the other hand the United States, England, France and other non-permanent members of the Council, has tried to use the means at its disposal, inter alia, issuing a resolution, to find a solution for this crisis. Nevertheless, the Council has not achieved comprehensive success in this regard. In this article, the main question is answered, why and how the Security Council failed to end this crisis due to the actions of its members? In order to answer this question, while examining the interests of the members of the Security Council in this crisis, the overlap and differences between these interests are evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The fragility and instability of peace issues in the world, requires investigating the factors of this instability from the perspective of international law, especially, Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. This paper seeks to examine the reason for the instability of peace from a legal point of view and also to provide legal and objective solutions in order to help the peace process to end the armed conflicts, adapting the negotiations, agreements to the rules of international law. In this context, the premise of this paper is the chapter 6 of the charter, the agreements made, the role of the security council, the general assembly and international judicial institutions, but in order to synchronize these processes, we need a legal evaluation so that peace is realized and the end of this process really contributes to the establishment of peace, not a peace to start the war again. What we are witnessing, the opinionated approaches to the fight against violence and its symbols. Inspite of inequalities and injustices, it is naturally not possible to talk about lasting peace without considering strong legal structures. Therefore, investigating legal solutions for creating a constructive and sustainable peace are necessary to protect the peacemaking process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On February 24, 2022, the armed large-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army began a new stage of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has been going on since 2014 (the armed invasion of Crimea in February-March 2014, followed by the military occupation of the peninsula, and the outbreak of war in Donbas since April 2014). The open-armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine since 2014 has been accompanied by gross violations of the principles and norms of international law, including international humanitarian law. Ukraine, as a state directly affected by armed aggression, has the right to return all annexed and occupied Ukrainian territories, to compensate for all damage caused to it, and to bring those responsible for the armed aggression and war crimes and crimes against humanity to individual criminal liability. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, as of December 27, 2023, 119,789 crimes of the aggressor have already been registered, including war crimes (violation of the laws and customs of war (Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; planning, preparation or unleashing and waging of aggressive war (Article 437 of the CC of Ukraine); propaganda of war (Article 436 of the CC of Ukraine), and others. Despite the fact that the crime of aggression is one of the most serious international crimes, it should be noted that its international legal regulation lags far behind other international crimes (genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). The problems caused by the external aggression against Ukraine, as well as the impossibility of referring the situation regarding the investigation and condemnation of the crime of aggression to the ICC, leave the issue of establishing a special tribunal to investigate and condemn the crime of aggression against Ukraine, which began in the first days of Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine, relevant. The purpose of this article is to find the best option for the establishment of a special tribunal capable of legally ensuring the investigation and prosecution of the top military and political leadership of the Russian Federation for planning and conducting an aggressive war against Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El objeto de este ensayo/editorial –que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024– es el de formular de la manera más completa posible –aunque resulte necesariamente provisional– una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino–israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe–israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico–internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico–internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional –crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio–, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino–israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico–político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución biestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. THE WAR IN GAZA AND THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: A TURNING POINT IN THE MIDST OF AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE The purpose of this essay/editorial – closed on 8 January 2024 – is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Palestinian– Israeli conflict that has lasted at least seventy–five years, with the creation of the State of Israel, the first Arab–Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self–defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide –, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context. This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary–General. In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six–Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two–State solution, are also briefly discussed. The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial – qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 – est de formuler aussi complètement que possible – bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire – une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino–israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante–quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo–arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico–internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies. À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale – crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide –, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico–politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

The purpose of this essay/editorial - closed on 8 January 2024 - is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted at least seventy-five years, with the creation of the state of Israel, the first Arab-Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self-defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context.This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary-General.In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there are also briefly discussed the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six-Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two-State solution.The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRA EN GAZA Y EL CONFLICTO PALESTINO-ISRAELÍ: UN PUNTO DE INFLEXIÓN EN MEDIO DE UN CICLO SIN FIN DE VIOLENCIA El objeto de este ensayo/editorial -que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024- es el de formular de la manera más completa posible -aunque resulte necesariamente provisional- una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino-israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe-israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico-internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico-internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional -crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio-, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino-israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico-político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución bieestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial - qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 - est de formuler aussi complètement que possible - bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire - une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino-israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante-quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo-arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico-internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies.À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale - crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide -, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico-politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

The practice of the functioning of the United Nations and the actual mechanisms of peacekeeping differ significantly from the theoretical ideas about them. Anna Mikhailovna Evstigneeva, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (UN), who has been dealing with peacekeeping issues for many years, answers a number of important questions about contemporary peacekeeping and peacebuilding in her interview. She argues that while the West is building a “rules-based order,” for Russia the rules are the UN Charter. The key to ensuring the effectiveness of an international organization, according to A.M. Evstigneeva, is the ability of the parties to reach mutually beneficial solutions and to take each other’s interests into account. The rest is a “superstructure,” which, however, is partially enshrined in the doctrine. Dozens of factors (dialogue with civil society, gender, climate, etc.) play a special role, which over time become universal. Often, the beautiful Western theories of liberal peacebuilding do not stand up to the harsh reality; and in a number of cases there is silence on the part of decision-makers about the real situation on the ground. This interview highlights the challenges of the existing system of international peacekeeping in the context of the formation of a multipolar world.

The idea of establishing an International Criminal Court can be considered as a transformational and developmental idea in the field of international law. Following the Nuremberg trials, the drafting and adoption of the Rome Statute is considered an important document in the realm of international criminal law. This document, unlike the founding documents of the Ad Hoc tribunals, is an international treaty. Therefore, it is subject to the provisions of customary international law governing international treaties. This statute is a development and codifying treaty. In addition, not all state are parties to this treaty and therefore some states are considered third parties to it. In the present article, the concept of a third state in the framework of the Rome Statute has been studied descriptively-analytically. The question then arises as to whether the principle of relativity of treaties applicable to the Rome Statute also is subject to exceptions. According to the findings of this study, the Rome Statute is subject to some exceptions, such as: the existence of a customary rule, the existence of a jus cogense rule, the decision of the Security Council and the consent of the concerned state to the application of the treaty. It is important to note, however, that the extension of the Court's jurisdiction to a state not party to the Statute, outside of what is provided for in the Statute, cannot be consistent with the spirit of criminal law as set forth in the Statute.

The article examines sanctions imposed by the United Nations (U.N.), the most critical sender of multilateral sanctions, by categorising them as embargoes against states and their main sectors, as well as targeted sanctions against individuals and micro entities. The U.N. Charter serves as the foundation for determining the boundaries of U.N. embargoes. Accordingly, the Security Council is bound by the U.N. Charter’s Preamble and Articles as the only international treaty that can control its actions. Furthermore, based on the Charter’s proportionality principle, the Security Council must balance subjective wrongdoings and the consequences of sanctions. The article then evaluates flaws in the designation, implementation, judicial reviews, and targets substantive and procedural human rights in order to determine how U.N. targeted sanctions should be formed to become rights-based. The central issue of due process is addressed by examining certain recorded rights-based challenges in the process of domestic implementation of sanctions that are reviewed by international courts in order to demonstrate that the Security Council’s targeted sanctions require reconsideration as well as their own independent judicial review.

On Monday, 25 March, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and the immediate release of hostages, as well as emphasizing the need to increase the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid. The Resolution was adopted 14-0, with the United States the only member to abstain. As the Security Council website announces, this Resolution ended a “months-long deadlock”. The recent Resolution is not perceived by Israeli actors as binding. And yet, I argue that the fact that the US and Russia are now essentially voting together on the need to end this war could lead to significant further ramifications that may shape the region and beyond.

The United Nations Security Council has established a wide range of subsidiary organs to assist it in discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Typically, these subsidiary organs possess wide latitude in formulating their own procedural methodologies responsive to their respective mandates. Much of the concern around this perceived impenetrability is focused on sanctions committees – subsidiary organs of the Security Council that are charged with interpreting, overseeing, administering, and providing implementation-related guidance with respect to the fourteen sanctions regimes currently maintained by the Council. Sanctions committees are notoriously opaque (a 'transparency deficit') and have sometimes been characterized as susceptible to influence from the five permanent members of the Security Council even as the elected members jostle for access (an 'equity deficit'). This article examines the procedural methodologies of the Council's sanctions committees, with a focus on identifying areas for potential reform. The article identifies three critical domains for reform, all of which revolve around those two interrelated concerns regarding equity and transparency: electing and empowering chairs of sanctions committees, refining sanctions committees' decision-making procedures and practices, and improving access to information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This text presents the work of the United Nations, as well as the Security Council towards it in a situation of war on the territory of Ukraine, the problem with the way the Security Council functions in the event of a veto by a permanent member state, as well as the need for reform with purpose of effective functioning of the organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conflicts between minority groups and the central government are considered to be one of the current threats to international peace and security. Employing the descriptive-analytical method and studying three cases of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo, this paper seeks to analyze the performance of UN in settling the identity-based territorial conflicts. The authors believe that the reason behind the failure of UN in settlement of Cyprus and Karabakh crises is that the Security Council has always supported the rights of Cyprus and Azerbaijan to maintain their territorial integrity without mentioning the possibility of the realization of right to remedial secession. In fact, the Council has always given an unconditional guarantee to central governments and thereby has lost its pressure tool on these states to grant appropriate privileges to secessionist groups in order to persuade them to abandon their secessionist demands. On the contrary, through implicit recognition of remedial secession as the last resort and after the deadlock of negotiations, this organization has had a relatively successful performance in Kosovo problem and impeded the continuation of an endless crisis. It appears that the report-card of this Organization in this regard is neither black nor white; it is grey and this leaves us in a world of fears and hopes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Organization is a global organization emerging from the aftermath of the Second World War, which, according to the Organization's Charter, its main purpose is the preservation of peace and security in the world; the development of friendly relations between nations; achieving international cooperation for solving economic, social, cultural humanitarian problems, etc. and the intention that the UN itself becomes a center for harmonizing actions to achieve common goals. The Security Council is the body that within the Organization has the main and direct responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. In the framework of the Security Council, the permanent members are the countries with the most political and diplomatic influence in the world, but at the same time they have the greatest responsibility for the implementation of the provisions of the UN Charter. The behavior of these states is of essential importance for world peace. Often the member states of the Security Council, due to their interests, not only do not adhere to the main principles when it comes to preventing any member state from jeopardizing stability and peace by protecting the interests of certain aggressor states, but it also happens that with provocation and direct participation in wars and armed conflicts endanger world peace. From the founding of the UN to today, the most blatant case of starting a very dangerous war conflict is Russia. Precisely because of this fact, in this paper the object of research will be Russia, which uses the position of a permanent member of the Security Council, not only for the protection of its political interests, but also by participating in armed conflicts and by declaring war on sovereign states. Since the end of the Second World War, and especially during the Cold War, but also after 2008, Russia has either participated in many armed conflicts or caused them. Objectively, within the framework of this research, it is impossible to include all cases, therefore we will focus only on the Russian influence and endangering peace in the Western Balkans. The paper deals with the indirect and direct Russian influence in some of the countries of the Western Balkans, emphasizing the concrete circumstances and characteristics of each country in particular. For this research, the professional literature, the most relevant international juridical act, the media that inform about actual events in Russia is a direct destabilizing factor, etc. The research relies mainly on the method of analysis of juridical acts, defense doctrines highlighted above, facts of real political events, diplomatic disputes and military conflicts. Based on the analyzed information, we come to the conclusion of research results, conclusions and suggestions for the future political, military, economic, development measures that should be taken by the international community, including NATO, EU, OSCE and other international organizations in which democratic and peacekeeping states adhere, with the aim of maintaining peace, stability and preventing Russia from extending its influence to a dominant size, since as an authoritarian state that it is, as a result, there would be various long-term wars and conflicts in the Western Balkans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of this paper is to identify how small powers can make a difference by taking up a role at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as non-permanent members. This research takes a closer look at the Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, and give a perspective for Latvia too. This paper examines whether these states use strategies that have made other small powers successful at the Security Council. Most of the materials used were documents from foreign services and the UNSC, and the methods employed were qualitative document analysis and interview. Lithuania was successful at making resolutions and highlighted topics, such as small arms and protection of journalists, whereas Estonia was successful at agenda setting and highlighted cyber security and environment security. Small powers can successfully work at the UNSC by setting the agenda and working on resolutions. However, their time as part of the UNSC is limited and their abilities to solve military conflicts depend on the support of the great powers. The Baltic states used some strategies that other small powers have successfully used, although they lacked influence for mediation and coalition building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Carta Internacional is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Relacoes Internacionais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Al-Muntaqa: New Perspectives on Arab Studies is the property of Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Contemporary ecological and climate crises have thrown into sharp relief debates around what roles and responsibilities, if any, international security bodies ought to have in addressing environment-related matters. Building on a wider catalogue of the United Nations Security Council's practice concerning the environment, in this article, we provide a snapshot of the Council's practice pertaining in particular to the environment and armed conflict. In addition to setting out key aspects relating to the personal, geographical and temporal scope of that practice, we identify four armed-conflict-related substantive themes arising in the Security Council's actions in this area: (1) relations between conflict and natural resources; (2) relations between conflict and adverse environment-related phenomena; (3) relations between conflict and chemical and biological weapons; and (4) adverse impacts of conflict on the environment. Through this examination, we aim in part to provide stakeholders with a more extensive and detailed basis on which to evaluate what actions the Council has taken – and, by inference, which actions it has not taken – with respect to the environment and armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The establishment of the United Nations was accompanied by differences in views between the major founding countries, even though they were victorious countries in World War II, especially between the United States of America, Britain, the Soviet Union, and less powerful allies such as France and China. A dispute centered around the authorities of the organizational bodies, and how to ensure world peace. It therefore suffers from two major problems: the first has an objective dimension related to new threats on the international scene, which requires reconsidering the traditional concept of international peace and security, and the second has a structural dimension related to the five permanent members of the Security Council and the inability of the organization and its charter to manage conflicts of which one of those members is a participant in. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strategic Public Management Journal (SPMJ) is the property of Strategic Public Management Journal (SPMJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper offers a delicate understanding of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle and analyses the status of this significant principle within the international law. The place of the use of force is evaluated within R2P doctrine. The R2P norm and the pillars contained therein will be analysed to set out the legal responsibilities it contains towards member states and the international community, assessing the legality of the responsibilities held by states towards its population in addition to responsibilities owed by states to populations in other states and the obligation from the international community to intervene. Identifying the issues surrounding the principle of R2P in international law and the message it delivers with what it involves and what responsibilities it carries. It also illustrates the importance of the evolution of the concept, and the advances evolving around the principle including the use of military force for humanitarian ends.

Copyright of Ankara Barosu Dergileri is the property of Ankara Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)