Weaponized migration as a tool of clandestine aggression in contemporary international law

Narratives as tools of sociological imagination: a reply to ‘From discourse to legitimacy: narratives as instruments of influence in international relations’ by Armağan Gözkaman

Current events happening around the world, especially the 'humanitarian interventions' by NATO and the West within the context of the so-called Arab Spring, make the understanding of the role of spheres of influence in international politics absolutely critical. Hast explores the practical implications and applications of this theory, challenging the concept by using historical examples such as suzerainty and colonialism, as well as the emergence of a hierarchical international order. This study further connects the English School tradition, post-war international order, the Cold War and images of Russia with the concept of the sphere of influence to initiate debate and provide a fresh outlook on a concept which has little recent attention.

This editorial article examines the centrality of narratives and values in shaping human understanding, social realities, and political life. Humans naturally think and communicate through stories, which structure events into coherent sequences, assign meaning, and influence collective memory, identity, and power relations. Narratives function as both cognitive and discursive tools, enabling shared understanding while redistributing interpretive authority between storytellers and audiences. They do more than represent reality: they actively shape opinions, social organization, and political dynamics. Values are inseparable from narratives, as stories translate abstract ideals into tangible political action. Both narratives and values are inherently unstable, socially constructed, and politically contested, with their meaning continually negotiated and mobilized by competing actors. By foregrounding the constitutive and transformative power of narratives and the contested nature of values, this article underscores their significance for interpreting political phenomena and analyzing the dynamics of international relations.

This article examines the emergence and transformation of Norway’s peace engagement in the context of changing international relations. Focusing on foreign policy discourses and practices, the article portrays peace engagement as a value-based effort to support resolution of distant intrastate conflicts, and a strategy to promote Norway’s interests and influence in international relations. The article also argues that changing international politics after the turn of the century has challenged and reoriented Norway’s peace engagement in a more realist direction. Foreign policy discourses and practices are increasingly based on a broad notion of interests that also include ideals of peace, democracy and development. This means that peace engagement can support a domestic political consensus on foreign policy, and simultaneously promote Norway’s standing, relevance and influence in international relations. Peace engagement has thus been institutionalized as a foreign policy that promotes peace while also addressing the challenges associated with smallness in international relations.

While the specifics of Europe's internal dimensions — its ultimate geographic boundaries and its future institutional design — have attracted much attention and caused considerable debate, the future role of the European Union in international relations by comparison has been neglected in terms of both public debate and scientific scrutiny. This is perhaps not surprising, given the massive enlargement of EU membership since the mid-1990s, which has absorbed much of Europe's political energies over the last years, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the near future. At the same time, the European Union since 1990 has also seen its standing and its influence in international relations on balance increase rather substantially, even if this trend has been buffeted repeatedly by setbacks and crises. Indeed, it could be argued that European influence in international relations has grown not despite, but because of major crises which have forced the member states to focus on their shared interests and act accordingly. Whichever it may be, this trend has perhaps been most clearly observed from a distance: several prominent American observers even predicted that the twenty-first century would belong to the new superpower Europe (Kupchan, 2002; Rifkin, 2004).

The article notes that modern processes taking place in the world are causing the reformation of the system of international relations, forcing scientists to think about the conceptualization of the concept of "political influence". Any influence is a process whose goal is to change behavior, preferences, positions, feelings and emotions, beliefs, as well as group norms, mass attitudes, and social consciousness. Political influence is one of the varieties of social influence. Political influence is traditionally seen as a manifestation of power. In international relations, the concept of "political influence" is associated with the concepts of "state power", "state power". It is noted that influence in the international arena can be exercised using various means and mechanisms, in particular, using "hard" or "soft" power. At the same time, the same resources can act as "soft" or "hard" power, for example, economic, human, communication, etc. In the system of international relations, dialogic and authoritarian communication is used, which affects the results of influence. The article analyzes the means of influence, in particular, attention is paid to the classification of resources of political influence. It is noted that political influence in international relations depends on many factors: economic, social, informational. It is pointed out that there are various methods of political influence, the subjects of which are both individuals and large transnational corporations, international organizations and states. The effectiveness of political influence will depend on the specific characteristics of the subject and the object of influence, on their status in the international arena, prestige, will, etc., and the nature of the relationship between the participants. It is concluded that political influence in international relations is an integral part of them.

In recent years, both state and non-state religious actors have become important for understanding international outcomes in many parts of world. Fundamental norms of international relations were enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - particularly the notion of state restraint in religious matters. This encouraged belief that international relations discourse is predominantly secular. Religion now influences international outcomes involving international society. All religious actors’ influence in international relations is linked to their ability to exercise ‘soft power’. The chapter examines the theory and practice of religion’s involvement in international relations.

The concept of international relations is very broad. In its modern usage, it encompasses not only the relations between states but also includes the relations between states and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and other actors. As a result of the scientific and technological advancements witnessed by humanity, along with the accompanying economic, social, and cultural developments, the state is no longer the sole actor in international relations. There are other international actors who have emerged successively, in harmony and accordance with these advancements. The international stage is no longer exclusive to the state alone. Alongside the state, international individuals have emerged who possess the ability to act, perform, and influence in international relations. The latest addition to these international actors is the individual international actor.

The European Union has become an important shaping factor in international relations, but how and under what conditions it can exercise influence and contribute constructively to global order are still not well analysed. In fact, the EU's contribution may resemble more that of a force in physics than of a great power in the traditional sense of international relations (which the EU is not, and will not become in the near future), and its influence depends probably more on what the EU represents and how well it manages its own realm, rather than on what it can do externally. In this sense, European influence in international relations presently benefits from past achievements, and may therefore have peaked if the twin challenges of enlargement and national structural deficiencies are not addressed effectively. But even if the European Union does master those challenges successfully, and thus manages to sustain and perhaps even enhance its influence as a force in international relations, it will still have to proceed cautiously and clearly focus its attempts on shaping its external environment and contributing to a ‘concrete’ or ‘civilized’ global order. In a global setting that, despite appearances to the contrary, seems characterized by a diffusion rather than a concentration of power and by strong tendencies towards entropy rather than order, the EU can and will probably not remain America's principal ally in sustaining Pax Americana. Nor does it seem likely to become an equal partner in a constructive, balanced transatlantic relationship, let alone a great power capable of challenging, perhaps together with others, America's apparent pre-eminence. The most plausible assumption for the EU's future role in the new balance of global order is that of a ‘civilian force’ with a regional focus. It may best be able to contribute to global order by managing its own realm well, promoting the normative and institutional infrastructure for civilized international relations, not least in the sense of functioning statehood, and working towards effective multilateralism.

In 1946, the judges at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared 'crimes against peace' - the planning, initiation or waging of aggressive wars - to be 'the supreme international crime'. At the time, the prosecuting powers heralded the charge as being a legal milestone, but it later proved to be an anomaly arising from the unique circumstances of the post-war period. This study traces the idea of criminalising aggression, from its origins after the First World War, through its high-water mark at the post-war tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to its abandonment during the Cold War. Today, a similar charge - the 'crime of aggression' - is being mooted at the International Criminal Court, so the ideas and debates that shaped the original charge of 'crimes against peace' assume new significance and offer valuable insights to lawyers, policy-makers and scholars engaged in international law and international relations.

Contents: Foreword, Marie-Luisa Frick and Andreas Oberprantacher Introduction: a man and his quest for global justice, Chandra Muzzafar Part 1 Power Unleashed? The Use of Force in International Relations and the Future of International Law: From a unipolar to a multipolar world: a post-Bush US presidency for a post-Western world, Anthony Carty Did Captain America kill international law?, Chin Leng Lim Opting for truth: the Roman Catholic Church in international affairs, Jodok Troy Difference arguments in international law and relations, Sienho Yee. Part 2 Conceptual Disputes in Contemporary International Law: Peace through law revisited: Kelsen's vision of international law at the beginning of the 21st century, Andreas Th. MA ller Post-bellum war crimes tribunals and contemporary international law: adjudging state responsibility and 'war guilt' issues, Edward McWhinney The concept of human security: does it add anything of value to international legal theory or practice?, Lyal S. Sunga. Part 3 Knowledge Production and Epistemic Violence in International Relations: The epistemic violence of the international security system in Africa, Belachew Gebrewold Human rights and the challenges of intercultural dialogue in the 21st century: a perspective from sub-Saharan Africa, Michael O. Maduagwu Overcoming cover-science in Latin American social sciences and humanities a an intervention, Johannes Maerk The tyranny of the status quo: economic modeling, economic policy paradigms, and the financial crisis, JesA * s Crespo Cuaresma. Part 4 Global Social Justice and the Question of Power: International economics and the question of power: a manifold but obscured relationship, Andreas Exenberger Was Marx right after all? A critical analysis of the global financial crisis, Elmar Altvater Capitalism vs. ecology: nature, too, expects justice!, TA rkkaya AtaA v Cooperation and global public goods: aspects of fairness in international relations, Ulrich Metschl Index.

Анотація. Процеси глобалізації у світовій економіці посилюють тенденції залежності бюджетних політики країн, у тому числі у сфері формування публічних видатків, від міжнародних відносин. У науковій літературі доволі ґрунтовно розкрито різноманітні механізми залежності публічних видатків від міжнародних відносин. Однак обґрунтовані наукові позиції щодо тих чи інших наслідків для видатків бюджетів різних країн не впорядковано в цілісну систему зовнішніх чинників. Метою статті є систематизація вчення про вплив міжнародних відносин, у яких бере участь країна, на видатки державного бюджету і розвиток теоретичних положень фінансової науки про зміни публічних видатків під впливом міжнародних відносин. Запропоновано згрупувати чинники, які впливають на публічні видатки, у чотири напрями: 1) геополітичні; 2) юридичні, 3) фінансово-кредитні; 4) інфраструктурні. Серед геополітичних чинників, які найбільше впливають на видатки держави, виокремлено військову агресію, ізоляцію, санкції, втручання у внутрішні справи країни тощо. Важливе значення для публічних видатків мають міжнародно-правові (юридичні) чинники, а саме: правові акти міжнародних інституцій, правомочність яких поширюється на державу; ухвали міжнародних судів; рішення міжнародних фінансових організацій. З-поміж чинників міжнародної фінансово-кредитної системи, від яких залежать видатки національних бюджетів, зазначено стан, динаміку, тенденції на міжнародних фінансових, валютних, кредитних ринках. Наслідки інфраструктурних чинників для публічних видатків проявляються через створення об’єктів глобальної інфраструктури, їхня модифікація і ліквідація. Одержані результати дають змогу чіткіше ідентифікувати міжнародні чинники, що впливають на публічні видатки, і більш ґрунтовно розуміти природу такого впливу. Ключові слова: публічні видатки, бюджет, бюджет держави, економічні санкції. Формул: 0; рис.: 1; табл.: 0; бібл.: 31.

The concept of international relations is very broad. In modern use it includes not only relations between States but also relations between States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations and other enterprises. As a result of the scientific and technological development of mankind and the accompanying economic, social and cultural developments, Is the only actor in international relations there are other international people have emerged to exist one by one in harmony with and consistent with these developments in humanity is no longer the international theater exclusive to the State alone, Lyon are better with the ability to work, performance and influence in international relations, the last of whom is an actor visible international individual.

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court that was held in Rome to establish the International Criminal Court in 1998 finally adopted the Rome Statute with the participation of 160 countries. The Rome Statute of the ICC entered into force on 1 July 2002 and has been ratified by 100 States. What was considered not so long ago merely a dream of a few people has become a reality after the strenuous efforts of the UN over 50 years. However, one central issue still remains unresolved in the Rome Status. It is the crime of aggression. Countries that participated in the Rome Conference agreed to that compromise just in order to secure the conclusion of the Statute after they had reached a deadlock over the crime of aggression. Adoption of the Rome statute without containing an applicable provision on the crime of aggression, once expressed as the “Supreme International Crime,” was a main defect in the Statute. Without the punishment of the crime of aggression, the ICC would not really have the ultimate, long-awaited international criminal jurisdiction. The definition and jurisdiction of the crime of aggression has always been an extremely difficult issue to settle. The history of the search for an appropriate and effective definition and jurisdiction of the crime of aggression will be reviewed in this paper; it is not a purely legal issue, but it is intertwined with political elements. The research objective of this thesis is to clarify the terms of the ongoing debate over the crime of aggression, and to facilitate a better understanding about the crime of aggression, in an ad hoc working group open to all member states of the U.N. It is important to confirm the current controversial issues of the crime of aggression and present a desirable definition and jurisdiction of it. A credible, carefully discussed, precise definition and jurisdictions of the crime of aggression, one that reflects customary international law and respects the U.N. Charter’s integrity and the Security Council’s responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, would enhance the prospects to define the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute and the possibility of other U.N. member states’ ratifying it, including the U.S. Also, it would strengthen the prospects for the eventual successful prosecution of crimes of aggression. First, this paper will review and analyze the general characteristics of the crime of aggression and the historical background of the crime of aggression (from the Nuremberg Military Tribunal to the Rome Statute) in part II. Part III covers the definition of the crime of aggression in light of proposals in the Preparatory Commission (from 1st to 10th) and discussions in the ad hoc working group (from 1st to 4th) and elements of this crime. Part IV discusses the relationship between the ICC and the Security Council from the various points of view concerning the competence of ICC and Security Council, under the U.N. Charter. Finally, through these procedures, this paper will confirm and inquire the current moot issues and suggests desirable a definition and conditions of the crime of aggression in part V. Based on the research outlined above, this paper concludes that concerning the definition of the crime of aggression, first the definition of this crime should follow the “generic approach.” Second, the crime of aggression and the act of aggression should be separately stipulated in the definition. That is, the crime of aggression should contain the provisions included in the Nuremberg Charter and also reflect the general recognition on it developed up the point of current circumstances. The act of aggression should follow the provisions of precedents such as resolution 3314(XXIX) of 1974 and the ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1996. Third, the definition of the crime of aggression should comply with the principle of legality. Thus essential material and mental elements of crime should be included in it. Concerning the jurisdiction of the Crime of aggression, this paper concludes that first the Security Council’s primary responsibility for determining the existence of the state aggression should be confirmed. Second, the Security Council’s exclusive right to make such determinations should be denied and there should be a provision which make legally possible for the General Assembly of the UN or the ICJ to make such determinations in case of absence of the determination from the Security Council. Third, to decide whether to give such secondary right to the General Assembly of the UN or the ICJ should be settled by a political compromise through a structured and clear debate and the room for such debate should be opened not only to the state party to the Rome Statute, but also to all UN members.

The Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala adopted amendments to the Rome Statute, providing for a definition and conditions for the jurisdiction of the crime of aggression (‘Kampala Amendments’). At present, the jurisdiction over crime of aggression has not come into effect at the International Criminal Court (ICC). For the activation of the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, two cumulative conditions must be met: first, a minimum of 30 ratifications of the Kampala Amendments must take place; second, a majority of two thirds of States Parties have to make a decision to activate the Court’s jurisdiction after 1 January 2017. This paper analyses salient legal aspects of the activation of the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. First, the question whether the requirements of 30 ratifications will be met will be considered. Second, the relationship of the entry into force mechanism of the amendments and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction will be analysed. Third, the procedure of ascertainment of the jurisdictional regime of the ICC over the crime of aggression, with particular reference to State referrals and proprio motu investigations, will be dealt with. Fourth, the need for States Parties intending to ratify the Kampala Amendments to implement the crime of aggression into their domestic legislation will be explored. Finally, the paper will explore the question whether the aggressor State (party) must ratify the Kampala Amendments in order for the jurisdictional regime over the crime of aggression to apply, or whether it suffices that the aggressed State is a ratifying State Party. A qualified solution will be suggested: while the latter reading of the law is the better one, consent of the aggressor State (party) is nevertheless upheld pursuant to the sui generis jurisdictional regime of the ICC over the crime of aggression.