American Power in Syria: Ideology, Sovereignty, and Human Rights in the Perspective of International Law

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

: Human rights are acknowledgment that every human being has basic freedom and dignity. With this recognition, everyone has the right to defend and fight for their rights for their existence as a human being. Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) are everyone who works to defend and fight for people's human rights. In international law the rights of Human Rights Defenders are specifically manifested in the 1998 UN Declaration of Human Rights Defenders. Human rights and the extent to which Indonesia provides regulations for these human rights defenders. This study aims to analyze the protection of human rights defenders in the perspective of international law and the application of international law in national legal regulations related to the protection of human rights defenders. This research will use a qualitative normative juridical approach, with analytical descriptive research specifications and data collection techniques through literature study.

This article examines the political transition in Iraq from the perspective of international law, which regards forcible democratic regime change as unlawful. The concern is to establish the extent to which the relevant Security Council Resolutions, 1483 (2003), 1511 (2003) and 1546 (2004), necessary to give legal effect to the fact of regime change, may be regarded as a legitimate exercise of the political authority provided to the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations, and consequently a lawful exercise of that authority. The article will argue that Security Council resolutions enjoy ‘democratic’ political legitimacy to the extent that they are consistent with the constitutional framework provided by the UN Charter and wider international law, and that they accord with the practice of the Security Council in ‘like’ cases, or the Council is able to demonstrate sufficient justification for the exercise of political authority in the particular case. The article first reviews the process of political transition in Iraq, examining the role of Security Council resolutions. It concludes that the process involved a violation of the right of the Iraqi people to political self-determination, creating a conflict between the Security Council resolutions adopted under chapter VII and an international norm of jus cogens standing. Rejecting arguments that the resolutions should be regarded as void, or that they should command absolute deference, the work outlines a model of constitutional adjudication in cases of conflict between these ‘higher’ forms of obligations in accordance with a deliberative understanding of the nature of the system of international law.

10 years of the Syrian conflict: a time to act and not merely to remember

This study aims to analyze Barack Obama’s speech on Syria delivered on September 10, 2013 in response to the chemical attacks launched against Damascus on August 23, 2013. The study employs Fairclough’s (2001) framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to bring out the ideological polarization latent in the language of Obama by investigating the linguistic devices used to stir emotions in listeners to adopt certain stands or take certain action. The study posits three questions to investigate how Obama’s language has been used to display the nature of the U.S. political discourse during the Syrian crisis, explore the ideological component enshrined in Obama’s language, and cast light on the typical discourse strategies used by Obama to appeal to the international community to lead a coalition against Syrian regime. The analysis of Obama’s speech reveals the ideological opposition to implicating Americans and their allies solely in toppling Al-Assad’s regime under the pretext of being preoccupied with quelling violence and establishing peace in the world. The analysis also demonstrates that Obama has availed himself of many linguistic devices such as lexical manipulation, metaphorical expressions, personal pronouns, parallelism, and rhetorical questions to rally support for the US military action in Syria.

Human Rights Violation is the act of individuals or groups, including state authorities, who intentionally or unintentionally disregard, restrict, or revoke human rights. Human rights violations committed by the Chinese government against ethnic Uighurs are also occurring in Xinjiang. The presence of human rights violations in Xinjiang is an attempt by the Chinese government to eradicate the Uighur ethnic group's indigenous culture. Also deemed to be rebels, Uighurs have joined international terrorist networks. Consequently, the Chinese government has implemented several actions and policies that are classified as violations of human rights. This study discusses two main issues, namely how cases of violations and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang in the perspective of international law and how the mechanism of settlement of human rights violations that have occurred through the perspective of international law. This research is normative legal research, the sources used are primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection technique is carried out using a literature study technique, and data analysis will be carried out using a normative juridical approach or seeing the law as the norm in society. The results of this study are that among these policies have led to several violations of human rights, ranging from violations of civil and political rights, crimes against humanity, economic discrimination, social, and cultural, to human rights violations against women and children. For this reason, it is very necessary to resolve human rights violations in Xinjiang through international legal instruments, namely the United Nations Charter and the 1998 Rome Statute. Steps that can be taken to resolve human rights violations in Xinjiang are through peaceful resolution of the conflict or through international courts.

The issue of property in Cyprus, which has been the subject of protracted discussions and negotiations from the Cyprus Peace Operation in 1974 up until now, has taken on a new dimension since the government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared that the fenced area of Varosha would be re-opened to settlement. Re-opening the fenced area of Varosha to settlement would rekindle some international law debates as has been observed in the other regions of the island of Cyprus. In this regard, the objective status and erga omnes character of the Founding Treaties inclusive to the Treaty of Establishment and Treaty of Guarantee debates on the legitimacy of intervention on the island and the conformity of this intervention with international law, Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the property rights of Greek Cypriots will pave the way for new discussions on the future of Fenced Varosha. What is more, the critical claim by the Administration of Foundations in Cyprus (EVKAF), with respect to the whole area of the fenced area Varosha belonging to the Foundation Land, will lead the debate on the fenced area of Varosha in gaining another dimension. This study will first discuss, from an international law perspective, the debates on the intervention in TRNC covering the fenced area of Varosha, then the status of Varosha in the UNSC Resolutions, and finally the issues of the ownership of property and foundation land in Varosha in the light of Judgments of the ECtHR.

The architects of the Court had to agree upon the appropriate method to establish a court that would be universally accepted, effective and independent. The draft Statute of the Court, prepared and adopted by the International Law Commission in 1994, indicates that three proposals were contemplated initially: (a) through a UN Security Council or General Assembly resolution; (b) by amending the UN Charter, which would have made the international criminal court an integral part of the UN and hence create binding obligations for all its members; and (c) through a multilateral treaty.

This paper analyzes recent developments in the intervention in Libya from the perspective of international relations and international law. The evidence suggests that states decided to intervene in Libya prior to sanction from the United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1973. The implication from the Libyan example is that politics was the impetus for the formulation and implementation of law, and not the other way around. Law happens in a context, and this context is shaped and bounded by international politics. This article is intended to invigorate further research into how international politics influences the creation, interpretation, and application of international law. This article is available in Journal of Strategic Security: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol5/iss2/11 Journal of Strategic Security Volume 5 Issue 2 2012, pp. 105-112 DOI: 10.5038/1944-0472.5.2.6 Journal of Strategic Security (c) 2012 ISSN: 1944-0464 eISSN: 1944-0472 105 Libya and Resolution 1973: The Law of Politics Monica Naime Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva)

The application of international law in national legal systems is a well-established question in legal literature. Both the globalisation and internationalisation of legal systems have given rise to questions that need to be answered legally, by laws and jurisprudence, and in legal literature. The question of the enforcement of inter- or supranational obligations is directly linked to this application. The goal of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to become a member of the EU has raised the question of the application of supranational law (EU law) in BiH, both in terms of preparing for membership and the country’s status after entering the EU. The Europeanisation of the national constitutions is already taking place. For BiH, this is evident in the signing of the SAA and confirmed by the jurisprudence and literature oriented towards EU law. Formally, the EU is not a state and the treaties are not a constitution. Nevertheless, the European treaties deal with constitutional questions and provide answers in a legally binding way. At the same time, international law has taken on the characteristics of constitutional law. Hence, we have to clarify the relationships between international, supranational and constitutional competences, particularly the competences of the courts, the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights), the ECJ (European Court of Justice) and national constitutional courts. The need for such clarification is also based on the principle of the effectiveness of legal protection as an integral part of the principle of the rule of law. The complexity of jurisdiction at the multi-system level can be described as ‘conflicts among courts of different levels in networking legal systems’. Other Member States of the EU and their constitutional courts likewise struggle with the hierarchy of norms and clarification of competences, both in terms of EU law and international law. It is remarkable that the Solange decision of the German Constitutional Court of 1974–1986 is used as a model both in jurisprudence and legislation. The key idea here is the ‘model of co-operation’ (Kooperationsverhaltnis) instead of extremely divided competences creating a strict hierarchy among different legal systems. Articles 52 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantee a minimum standard of protection and acknowledge the guarantees provided by the ECHR. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU aims to achieve coherence in the protection of human rights at the different national, supra- and international levels. To this end, the ECJ and ECtHR respect each other’s decisions to ensure the greatest possible coherence of human rights standards by respecting other courts that are responsible for the protection of human rights.

Human rights are a universal issue that is of concern to the international community. The countries of Indonesia and Myanmar certainly have a historical record of quite large human rights violations, so it is very important to know and learn about the recognition of human rights between the two countries and the implementation of public policies related to human rights in these two countries, namely Indonesia and Myanmar. This study aims to analyze, discuss, and provide an overview or view of the differences in the recognition of human rights between Indonesia and Myanmar from the perspective of international law, while also analyzing the implementation of public policies related to rules and laws regarding human rights. human rights in both countries through legislative mechanisms and public policy practices, especially in Indonesia and Myanmar. The method used in this study is a normativelegal method with data analysis techniques through literature studies, collecting information from various sources, including reports from international and national human rights organizations, academic publications, journals, and other information sources related to human rights. The main findings show that there are several differences in the recognition of human rights between Indonesia and Myanmar based on international conventions on human rights.In addition, the implementation of rules or laws on human rights in both countries also has its own challenges, such as the weak protection system for victims of human rights violations and local cultural factors. The conclusion of this research is that, despite progress in implementing international standards on human rights in Indonesia and Myanmar, there are still some challenges that need to be overcome. Therefore, there is a need for further efforts from the government and civil society to increase the recognition and protection of human rights in the two countries. This research provides a deeper understanding of comparative human rights in Indonesia and Myanmar, as well as valuable insights for efforts to improve and protect human rights in both countries.

The British House of Lords recently considered whether Augusto Pinochet was entitled to immunity from arrest and possible extradition to Spain for human rights abuses allegedly committed during his reign as Chile?s head of state. In its second decision in the case (after the first one was vacated due to a conflict of interest), the House of Lords concluded that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity for acts of torture and related conduct committed after Britain?s 1988 ratification of an international convention against torture. In addressing this immunity issue, the parties and judges in the Pinochet case looked closely at the large and growing body of U.S. case law involving civil suits against foreign officials for alleged human rights abuses committed in foreign countries. In this article, we in effect do the opposite: we assess how the Pinochet decision might be relevant to international human rights litigation in U.S. courts. The article focuses on three issues in particular. It first considers whether developments in international human rights law limit the scope of the domestic immunity available to foreign governments and officials. The House of Lords held that these developments did limit the scope of Pinochet?s immunity from criminal process in Great Britain. In the United States, however, the political branches and the federal courts have, with narrow and specific exceptions, declined to permit developments in international human rights law to limit the scope of foreign sovereign immunity from civil process. As we explain, the adverse political consequences that might flow from otherwise-unfettered private lawsuits against foreign officials for human rights abuses justify the broader immunities available in U.S. domestic courts. The second issue is the legitimacy of a U.S. counterpart to the British rule, invoked by some of the Law Lords in Pinochet, that customary international law ("CIL") is part of the British common law. In the United States, plaintiffs and scholars have argued for a similar rule of incorporation to justify the domestic application of substantive international human rights law. As we explain, however, the constitutional implications of an automatically-incorporated CIL are substantially different for the United States than they are for Great Britain. And, when faced with claims of international immunity, such as the claim of head-of-state immunity that was at issue in Pinochet, U.S. courts do not apply the CIL governing this immunity directly. Instead, they seek and follow political branch authorization. The failure by courts to apply CIL as automatically-incorporated common law in this context, involving traditional rules of CIL that are a central component of international relations, casts substantial doubt on the conventional wisdom that international human rights law should be applied as self-executing federal common law. Finally, the article defends the United States? general resistance to the domestic application of international human rights law. This resistance has two dimensions. First, the United States does not apply international human rights law to domestic officials. This approach is justified by the profound uncertainty regarding the source and content of international law, and the general adequacy of U.S. domestic human rights protections. Second, the United States permits the domestic application of international human rights law against foreign governmental officials, but only in very narrow contexts. This limited embrace of international human rights law reflects a legitimate concern with giving private citizens, and unelected judges, too much influence over U.S. foreign relations. As we explain, both of these justifications for resistance to the domestic application of international human rights law ? the vagueness of international norms and the danger that private lawsuits will interfere with foreign relations ? find support in the House of Lords? decision in Pinochet.

Debates have grown in recent years concerning the realistic utility and application of international human rights law to a local context. Since 2000, the United Nations Security Council has issued eight Women, Peace, and Security resolutions geared toward promoting gender equality measures in conflict prevention during conflict and post-conflict settings. The first of these resolutions, United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, has been adopted by a number of UN Member States through National Action Plans (NAPs), which provide a framework and roadmap for integrating gender equality measures at the domestic level. Although NAPs were once considered promising, they have largely been unsuccessful.By examining the implementation challenges facing other gender equality measures and localization programs that seek more effective implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security Resolutions, the following argues that a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach must be considered more seriously by international actors supporting implementation and integration of international human rights law, not only for the obvious reason that it emboldens local agency in the adoption process, but also because it is likely to produce outcomes that are meaningful and sustainable for the communities most affected by these provisions.As such, continued emphasis on change that emanates from the top down in a given country often ignores the reality that gender equality measures in international human rights law are often perceived by governments and civil society actors as a serious disruption to domestic gender norms. Sole reliance on state institutions to deliver these commitments is flawed because it fails to recognize the necessary dialog and contestation among various stakeholders concerning the role of external norms in a local context.

India’s bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to achieve the organisational power play remains unfulfilled. It is more to gain supremacy to refute the UNSC resolutions and gloss the continuing atrocities in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) completely. The Resolution 48 is the oldest of the UNSC resolutions waiting for its implementation since1948. It called for a plebiscite in the IOK to determine its sovereign status according to the will of its people. The reassertion of the Indian External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, in her address to the UN in November 2016, declaring the IOK as an “integral part of India” is a barefaced non-compliance to the global institutional framework meant to harmonise, supplement and enforce the peace efforts in the world according to the UN Charter. Swaraj’s reference to the insurgency in Balochistan, in her address to the UN, is yet another blatant antithesis of the principles enshrined in the Charter to respect the mutual sovereignty and coexistence. In 2017, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has also urged India to implement the resolutions of the UNSC.1 A country, in violation of the human rights, UNSC resolutions and international norms, does not qualify to be a member of the crisis-management body. India has certainly failed to set an example.

The agreement by the Security Council to adopt thematic resolutions on children is a powerful expression of our collective commitment to children and their rights: specifically to ensuring children’s right to protection from serious violations of international law. Still history is replete with examples of protectionism by powerful decision-makers; not all follow a rights-based approach as entrenched within international human rights law. The objective of this paper is to investigate the decision-making processes and related outcomes of the Security Council from the perspective of international law. At the core of this investigation is an analysis of two interconnected dynamics: first the extent to which the Council is bound – under the Charter of the United Nations – by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and second the extent to which the Council is in compliance with these obligations. This includes de-constructing the resolutions from the perspective of the procedural right of the best interests of the child and also assessing the outcomes with reference to the Council’s primary responsibility – the maintenance of peace and security. Attentive to the normative power of the Security Council’s decisions and recommendations, the paper cuts deeper to investigate: (i) the legal effects of the resolutions for the development international law relating to children and (ii) the consequences for children’s right to protection from serious violations of international law – present and future.