In the context of the war in Ukraine, these pages aims to offer an initial reflection on some weaknesses - or systemic certainties - of the international legal order. A first systemic certainty is the limited or conditional commitment of some states to international law and its essential principles. A second systemic certainty lies in the perspective of state perceptions of international security and, especially, of each state’s own security. A third systemic certainty is the structural weaknesses of the United Nations when it comes to offering a collective and institutional response to an aggression such as the one that occurred in Ukraine, particularly if the aggressor is a state with a permanent seat on the Security Council. A fourth systemic certainty is that barbarism and horror in the context of armed conflict is still present and that war is always a humanitarian disaster. Finally, a fifth systemic certainty is the capacity for overprotection that a state in possession of atomic weapons or other weapons of mass destruction achieves.

Recensión de Rosa Giles Carnero. CASADO RAIGÓN, R. y MARTÍNEZ PÉREZ, E.J. (Dirs.) y JIMÉNEZ PINEDA, E. (Coord.), La contribución de la Unión Europea a la protección de los recursos biológicos en espacios marinos de interés internacional, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2021, 610 pp.

Recensión de Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli. FRASER, J. y MCGONIGLE LEYH, B. (Eds.), Intersections of Law and Culture at the International Criminal Court, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA, 2020, 429 pp.

After the cold war, the international order has been determined by two elements: US hegemony and a strong liberalism ideological conception. This order has contributed to the expansion of liberalism and to strengthen the power of the United States in the international system. For a few years ago, a change has been taking place in the international power structure that is questioning the values of the order. In addition, the liberal order has shown a series of inconsistencies and drawbacks that affect its acceptance. The result is a lack of legitimacy of the liberal order as a global order.

This article questions the causal role literature has given to matter and ideas to explain China’s relations with Latin America. By drawing on post-Marxist discourse theory, I propose applying the ontology of discourse and the instability of objects. First, the empirical-positivist creed on the causality of objects is deconstructed to question that the mainstream does not account for the agency power of Latin American states. Instead, I propose the international practice category to understand how China and Latin American states articulate their bilateral relations politically. Taking Chile-China relations as a case study, declassified diplomatic sources are analysed in three relevant historical moments. It is argued that, rather than being determined by the cause of material factors or shared ideas, these countries engaged politically to set the symbolic terrain of the bilateral relationship at each historical juncture. The empirical analysis shows how Chile and China articulated their practices through political convergences and divergences on issues crucial to their respective foreign policies.

The criminal liability of child soldiers has been extensively addressed in recent years, given the growing interest in child soldiers as a research topic. However, one aspect was relatively unexplored: the relevance of being a former child soldier in the attribution of criminal liability for international crimes committed by members of an armed group. This changed when in December 2016, Dominic Ongwen’s case started before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes. For the Counsel for the Defence, the fact of his recruitment at age 9 by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda was essential. In this regard, the issue consisted in determining whether being a former child soldier is relevant for excluding criminal responsibility, as a mitigating factor for the determination of the penalty, or if it is not relevant. The purpose of this article is to elucidate this issue through a critical legal analysis of the t Trial Judgment and the Sentence in this case, with the aim to contribute elements to the developing discussions in appeals before the International Criminal Court and before national tribunals as the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia.

Recensión de Ángel J. Rodrigo Hernández. CAMPINS ERITJA, M., y FAJARDO DEL CASTILLO, T. (Eds.), Biological Diversity and International Law. Challenges for the Post 2020 Scenario, Springer, Cham, Nueva York, 2021, 224 pp.

The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances devotes Article 17 to combating illicit traffic by sea. It establishes a mechanism for the suppression of such activities when they are carried out outside the territorial sea of States in accordance with the International Law of the Sea. Among the tools envisaged is the possibility for the Parties to establish bilateral and multilateral agreements to make the provisions of the Convention more effective. Due to its location and geographical characteristics, Spain has become the gateway for drugs into Europe. For this reason, taking the aforementioned provision as a reference, it has concluded bilateral treaties with Italy and Portugal to try to speed up the intervention of vessels flying the flags of the States Parties that are carrying out this type of activity. Similarly, Colombia, as a major exporter of illicit substances from the South American continent, has signed an agreement with the United States for the same purpose. This study analyses the different Agreements, contrasting the cooperation mechanisms established, as well as those issues that are addressed from different perspectives, such as the use of force and firearms.

As a manifestation of the turbulences of the international order, during the last two decades a significant and varied practice has been developed in the field of recognition. It confirms both the relevance that States assign to the institution and its extraordinary complexity. This complexity is the result of the deep political connotations associated with an institution which suffers from a double regulatory weakness, and that affects both the recognition itself and the situations that constitute its object. Through the analysis of the practice, this contribution seeks two objectives. It aims, on the one hand, to identify the doubts and ambiguities surrounding the institution, grouping them into three problem areas: the qualification of the acts through which it is expressed, the legal consequences derived from it, and the limits to which it is subjected. It aspires, on the other, to identify response trends in contemporary practice, as well as to advance proposals to deal with the uncertainties that practice refuses to dissipate.