Connect with us

International Law

Perils of ever-closer union

Published

on

The preamble to the treaty of Rome signed by the EU’s six founding countries famously says that they “were determined to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

These words have hung around the necks of Europeans ever since. That grandiose language harked back to the preamble to the League of Nations when it was set up in 1920 ‘to secure international peace and security.’ For all its faults, the treaty of Rome has weathered better than the League of Nations; its magnetism is such that countries still queue to join. Croatia has just done so, and others like Serbia, Moldova or Kosovo hope very much to get in.

 

The common market created by the treaty of Rome in 1957 was not much more than a customs union, and tariffs within it were not finally abolished until 1968. In France, General de Gaulle ignored many aspects of the treaty, and also treated Brussels with contempt. And the real questions surrounding an ever-closer union were only to become sensitive in the 1980s. The Single European Act, which was strongly promoted by Margaret Thatcher, marked the single biggest transfer, or at least sharing, of sovereignty ever seen in Europe. It was followed by the Maastricht treaty and then a decade ago by the Constitutional treaty, which paradoxically removed the reference to ever-closer union because by the early years of this century politicians were getting more and more nervous about the growth of euroscepticism in their countries’ politics.

 

The term was reintroduced in the Lisbon treaty because it simply took over previous language from older treaties, even though opt-outs were developed as part of the sequence of European treaties to accommodate the need for the Danes to stay outside the currency union or in 1992 to allow the British to steer clear of social policy. Despite free movement of people, though, the closer integration of standards and an opening up to greater competition across Europe, the power of national governments to resist or delay a fully open market has remained strong. It was not until 1988, that the Germans had to admit that their Reinheitsgebot (purity ordinance) on beer dating from 1516, which laid down that beer could only be made from water, barley and hops, was a protectionist barrier against competition from brewers in other countries which add more ingredients.

01qu

EU governments must accept that individual countries’ budgets will no longer be decided by national governments alone, and that national banking systems will be supervised and monitored centrally

01qd

But what exactly does ever-closer union mean today? Many markets across Europe are still far from being integrated, as a casual look at the service sector will testify. Taxes are unharmonised and there remains intense tax competition between countries. Moves towards political union have so far, to put it politely, been limited. In Britain, the House of Commons library examines each year the total number of laws adopted in the UK, and can never find more than 8% of primary legislation that originates from the EU. Despite the moves to greater integration since the euro crisis first struck, the fact is that if one looks at the legislation making headlines across Europe – gay marriage, education policy, health care provision, whether to have contributory or free systems of pension and student fees, welfare reform, voting systems, pay control, or even speed limits on motorways – it is Europe’s national governments that are still firmly in the driving seat.

What Europe has instead witnessed in recent years is the rebirth of the nation state in contrast to the years between the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It is doubtful that the founding fathers of the European project ever dreamed that Lithuania would one day preside over their Europe, or that Slovakia and Croatia would have the same veto rights in European affairs as Germany and France. Catalonia has its own “embassy” in Brussels, as do Scotland and most of the major regions and provinces. The languages of Europe are respected and guaranteed as are national cultures. Far from an ever-closer union, it may be argued that it would be more accurate to talk of ‘ever more nation-states’ as the chief product of the EU in recent times. And the euro crisis has if anything encouraged even greater nationalism in many countries in Europe as a reaction to austerity policies.

At the same time, the European Parliament sees fewer and fewer citizens voting in its elections. Only 20% of Croatian voters could be bothered to turn out to elect their six MEPs in April of this year. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel often talks of ‘more Europe’, but on condition that no more German money should be involved. In fact, the more Europe has sought to appropriate the symbols of a union or a single entity the less its citizens have wanted to pay, and the more they have supported the anti-Brussels political formations that have grown in strength in nearly all the EU’s member states.

On foreign policy, there certainly is no ever-closer union. Europe is divided over whether or not to intervene in Syria and its member governments habitually take different positions on such key international questions as recognition of the Palestinian authority as a UN state. Europe’s military strength is diluted by remaining parcelled out between different armies with different defence procurement policies.
On energy policy, there is equally little sense of an ever-closer union – Germany opts out of nuclear, Poland sticks to brown coal, Britain keeps dashing for gas, and prices paid by industry vary widely.

Despite this, co-operation and the search for agreement on common policy is worthwhile and necessary. Political agreement, if not political union, is needed to transfer authority to the European Commission in areas like trade and competition – and financial supervision and control. Political union in the sense of supranational agreement to transfer sovereignty to the European Court of Justice in key areas has been a good thing from an economic point of view. The single market, although still not complete, is the product of ever-closer political union.

The big question remains the single currency. British eurosceptics point to the eurozone crisis as proving the failure of the attempt to move to a closer ‘union’ through the adoption of a common currency across much of the continent. And even the most devoted supporter of the euro must surely admit that too many countries with too many different levels of development rushed into EMU at the same time. That was ignored by the ‘mission accomplished’ complacency that followed its introduction more than a decade ago, and left no mechanisms to spot the housing bubbles, unsustainable cheap money credit growth and the failure of some national economies to align their spending and revenues. Arguably the single currency still requires ever-closer political union with more power to be held and used at the centre. And it is precisely because that didn’t exist that the eurozone has experienced the terrible difficulties of recent years.

 

Today, the elements of complacency are again visible. Yet the euro is still in trouble and the basic flaws in its construction have still not been corrected. There can be no doubt that to make the single currency work there will have to be exactly what the British have long feared, more political union that can make the EU capable of overruling Berlin and telling Italy and Portugal how better to govern themselves. It’s hard to see this happening in a hurry, and to get there there are a number of preconditions that must be met. It would in the first place require collective responsibility to ensure that the eurozone gets out of its current problems sustainably. That in turn means an understanding by surplus countries like Germany, whose growth has been export driven and which has greatly benefited from membership of the wider euro area of the concessions they too must make. They need to rebalance their own economies in favour of more consumer spending, open their own markets to competition, which in many areas is still lacking, and support growth on the periphery through the direct and indirect transfer of funds to weaker countries. They also need to accept that the debt burden of many of the ‘stressed’ countries will remain unsustainable, and that further restructuring is inevitable. But this should be on condition that the periphery countries fully buy into the proposition that they must themselves focus on investment and growth through the substantial reorganisation of their economies.

 

The European Central Bank should also be allowed to do what it is supposed to do if it is to act as a proper central bank of an integrated Europe and should be able to engage in Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) to buy the bonds of stressed countries whenever necessary to prevent periodic sovereign debt and credit crunches. The ECB should in effect embark on Europe’s own version of the quantitative easing that has worked elsewhere, most notably in the U.S. And most controversial of all, EU governments must accept that individual countries’ budgets will no longer be decided by national governments alone, and that national banking systems will be supervised and monitored centrally.

 

Bits of all this may happen as European countries move forward kicking and screaming. But is anyone in the EU up for the whole package? If the answer is no, then it would be better to start rethinking what ever-closer union really means, and whether Europe will ever get there.

 

First published by the Europe’s World, article re-posted per author’s permission

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

“The Rights of the Nations, National and Ethnic Minorities for Self- Determination”

Published

on

The new article of the Charter of the UN “The rights of the nations, national and ethnic minorities for self-determination”, will allow, by vote of the population of regions of the countries under control of the UN, to gain independence for not gained independence nations at the level of the sovereign state, and for the gained independence nations at the level of autonomous regions – states, at the international organization UN.

As show events on time in the world, two options for achievement of level of the national self-determination are noted, in my opinion:

the first option – democratic and peace, by vote of the population with their compact accommodation in the concrete region of the country with participation of the UN, and

the second option – authoritative and aggressive that allows emergence in the states to separatism of nationalistically oriented citizens of the population with their compact accommodation in regions at the level of the open or hidden connivance of external interested countries to these regions.

So, in my opinion, the new article “The Rights of the nations, national and ethnic minorities on self-determination ” of the Charter of the UN has to consist of three parts for national self-determination of the population of the countries of the world:

the first part of article is for the nations, national and ethnic minorities which historically live compactly in certain regions of foreign sovereign states, without having at the same time national self-determination at the level of the sovereign state in the world and as a part of the UN;

the second part of article is for national and ethnic minorities which historically live compactly in regions of foreign sovereign states, but having at the same time in the world, outside not adjacent borders of the country of the accommodation, the nation sovereign state as a part of the UN and

the third part of article is for the nations which for centuries live compactly in historical lawful territories in adjacent borders of two-three sovereign states, but at the same time historically were the divided adjacent borders of the countries on two-three parts.

Development the new article of the Charter of the UN from legal side belongs to foreign affairs specialists-lawyers of the UN, which have to define fundamental sensible decisions about mention the rights on the basis of rules of international law. At the same time, lawyers of the UN, on the one hand, should not rely on the interests of conflicting parties in the region. On the other hand, lawyers also have to exclude in the new article of the Carter of the UN the geopolitical and geostrategic interests of major powers and countries in these regions and beyond their limits. Whether the UN as historically vital step of the international organization will go to it, it is already other party of a medal. As axiom, it is explained that new article in the Charter of the UN will remake territorially borders of all countries of the world without exception. And it, in turn, will exclude imperial manners of powers and countries of the world with emergence of world wars. And therefore, participation of all member countries of the UN in vote of the new article, but not members of the UNSC with their veto, as a rule, for this discussion is necessary.

In the first part of article – the UN develops all principles of creation of the new, but not repeating, national states with their democratic structures for the nations, nationals and ethnic minorities which are compactly living for centuries in the region on the historically lawful lands, but not having at the same time national self-determination at the level of the state in the world. At the same time peace process of emergence of the new national state has to take place step by step in the following ways on a basis:

1. universal ballot under control of the UN of all population living in this region of the country, but not separately taken its nation, for national self-determination at the level of the only state for this nation in borders of the historical territory of their accommodation;

2. build in the region of democratic structures and institutes with human rights and rule of the uniform Law, and

3. for the purpose of achievement of painless process of their exit of management of this sovereign state and not a rupture of the connection established them in market economy about the country to provide to regions time in 5-10 years for a smooth exit to the level of self-government of the sovereign state.

Kurds in Iraq, Tibetans in the Tibetan autonomous region of China, Basra in Spain, Chechens, Bashkirs, Tatars in Russia and others can be examples of the nations for this case. And what earlier, in the spirit of the times, there will be this democratically peace process, thereby, on the one hand, will win more those states in the territory of which there is this process at their close market interlacing.

On the other hand, will win all mankind with emergence on the world scene of the new, not repeating nation states with the rich national traditions, stories, culture, customs and religions. But the most important the fact that process of peaceful formation of the new states in regions of the countries will eliminate regional wars and the criminally centers on an international basis in territories of their accommodation. And it will exclude bloodshed of the people of these regions at emergence of the new state.

Striking examples told are emergence of 15 new states from former imperial the USSR and also the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the republics of the former Yugoslavia. However, they arose spontaneously, as led to a rupture of their market on the basis of their vertical structure. As result – full collapse of their economy with emergent of the new states.

Today some regions of the countries of the world also wish to gain independence at the level of the new national state in which basis either their rich economic budget, or religious motive lies.

Rich regions of such countries as Great Britain, the USA, Spain, Italy, Russia and other advanced countries can be examples. Regions of the countries of the Middle East and Africa can be examples of religious motive.

The second part of the article “The Rights of the Nations for Self-determination” of the Charter of the UN develops rules of uniform approach for national and ethnic minorities which at will of fate of historical events in the past live compactly in regions of others countries, however at the same time have no adjacent borders with their family in the world gained independence national states at the level of the UN.

For example, Jews, Chinese, Armenians, Mexicans and others in the USA; Armenians in France, in Russia, Azerbaijan and so on. In this case, for the purpose of maintaining territorial integrity of borders of the sovereign states fixed UN on which certain part of the territory these minorities compactly live the UN develops the principles of creation of self-government for them at the level of autonomies, as in Denmark, or the state, like in the USA, within territories of their compact accommodation. Besides, process happens according to universal ballot of the population of the region for further accommodation in the territory of this sovereign state which sheltered them and without revision of its borders. At the same time their equal constitutional rights with citizens of this state are created. But for cases of unwillingness of further accommodation in this territory on the basis of results of their vote, the UN is provided rules and conditions of their painless moving from these territories of foreign national states in the territory of the existing their nation states or other countries. It can occur due to monetary compensation to the leaving persons by sides of their states interested in destiny, according to the market of sale and a purchase of the earth and real estate. A striking example is eviction of Jews from the occupied Palestinian earth of Gaza on their home ground of the nation State of Israel with granting housing to them or at will departure to any country of the world.

Otherwise, a paradox of granting the states to these minorities of the rights, at existing in the world of their nation states, can the fact that only in one USA dozens of the states for Japanese, Latin Americans, Chinese, Jews and so on will arise will be. And Armenian ethnic minorities which are compactly living almost worldwide from hundred thousand to one million, for example in California in the USA, in France, in Russia, in Lebanon, in Turkey and in other countries, including also in Nagorno-Karabakh of Azerbaijan, and not having at the same time adjacent borders with their Armenia, will create as a result the largest state in the 21st century on ours to the Planet – the USA*, that is the United States Armenia is improbable. And it is a paradox on time for the three-million population of Armenia, given rise thanks to the October revolution of 1917 by Bolsheviks of Russia. Whereas the Palestinian nation cannot recreate blood of the people self-government at the level of the state since 1948 and is a source of a criminally problem not only in the Middle East, Africa, but already and around the world.

In the third part of the new article of the Charter of the UN, the rule for unity of the divided nation, two-three sovereign states living in adjacent borders on their historical home grounds is developed. In this case, the UN is necessary, on the basis of their universal ballot for association in the uniform nation, to develop ways and conditions of their peaceful painless association and merge of their territories of accommodation. 5-10 years for creation of the uniform nation state with democratic management with preservation of former economic are for this purpose allotted structures.

Examples of this association are already Vietnam, Yemen and there can be in the future reunification of Korea, Ireland, Azerbaijan, also Kosovo with Albania, as the uniform Albanian nation with adjacent borders, but taking into account interests and the rights of the Serbians who are compactly living there with Serbia. Other fresh example it is possible to bring association in the future of the Ossetia people Southern and Northern Ossetia into the uniform state Ossetia. In this case will win, on the one hand, the people uniting in the uniform nation, divided by adjacent borders because of historical events, and, on the other hand, and the states with accommodation of territorially divided nations.

In the absence of the new article the level of the international law from the UN, in my opinion, will be published in the Charter of the UN and the above-stated uniform approaches to these international problems as a paradox, the nations repeating for one and too dozens of the independent states.

And bloody long wars of people of the world, up to world, and existence of the criminally centers will be their investigation as shows time.

The author of article advises the authorities of the countries accepting numerous immigrants not to occupy them compactly on one nation, on the example of Chinese in the Siberian region of Russia that will bring in the future to their rights for repeated national self-government. As an example, Kosovo for Albanians in the presence of their Albania, and Nagorno-Karabakh of Azerbaijan for Armenians at Armenia.

Besides, compact accommodation of immigrants does not allow them on time to be integrated into life of society and into the culture of the hospitable country.

So, the mankind and the UN are faced by a dilemma: to be to the new article “About the Rights of the Nations for Self-determination” in the Charter of the UN for emergence peaceful manners of the new sovereign states, it is concrete for the nations which did not gain independence for today, at the level of disintegration of empires and countries, or to be to wars any level, up to nuclear world, for revival of ancient and modern empires with their colonial manners in the 21st century?

Continue Reading

International Law

Trump’s Golan Heights Declaration: The Message to Azerbaijan

Published

on

On March 21, 2019, United States President Trump tweeted, “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!”

Regardless of one’s position within the spectrum of persuasions about whose sovereignty should be respected in the Golan Heights or the arguments used to justify its annexation to Israel, Trump’s declaration is unprecedented, post-WWII. Trump’s statement does not appear to be the official United States government policy yet. However, the die is cast. Trump has undermined the manifest inadmissibility of states acquiring territory by force. Lest we forget, the first Gulf war over the Iraqi attempt at annexing Kuwait by force.

Trump also dismisses United Nations Security Council Resolution 497, which states, “…the Israeli Golan Heights Law, which effectively annexed the Golan Heights, is “null and void and without international legal effect.” The same United Nations, with Resolution 181, mandating the partition of Palestine, recognized the State of Israeli. Rather than to expose yet another hypocritical move in international relations, what message is Israeli support for Trump’s unilateral declaration sending to conflicting sides in territorial conflicts? What about Indian-administered Kashmir? What about Azerbaijan’s territorial claim over the Armenian-administered region of Nagorno-Karabakh? Not a very good message for the interests of Azerbaijan.

A relative comparison of arguments used and issues raised concerning the Armenian-administered region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is seen here. Of more importance to Azerbaijan is how Trump has just trampled on the concept of internationally recognized borders. Syria had recognized borders until violated by Trump; the same Trump who wants a border wall of his own from Texas to San Diego. Azerbaijan’s articulated basis upon which they demand that the Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh relinquish it’s sovereignty to them is their claim of territorial integrity. The Azerbaijan press is full of article quoting states that reiterate the concept of territorial integrity.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group was established to help negotiate a peaceful settlement, between Armenia and Azerbaijan, of the still-simmering Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Its members include the United States, Russia, and France. Russia annexed Crimea, although with nearly no force, it acquired Georgian territory, and the United States president declared support for the inclusion of the Syrian Golan Heights into the State of Israel. From Baku’s viewpoint, the OSCE Minsk Group does not appear to represent neutral facilitators when two of its three members represent states that ignore both territorial integrity and selective United Nations resolutions. The OSCE’s Minsk Group is making itself less relevant to both Armenia or Azerbaijan.

Armenian negotiators could use Trump’s declaration to pull out of OSCE-sponsored negotiations and Armenia could directly annex the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, considering Nagorno-Karabakh “… is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of” [Armenia] “and Regional Stability!”. Azerbaijan would be outraged by such an Armenian move, but curiously official Baku appears rather silent about Trump’s Golan Heights declaration. Why?

Israel supports Azerbaijan’s public relations campaign against the Armenian lobbies and Armenian-administered Nagorno-Karabakh. This support is demonstrated in some of today’s Israeli and Jewish publications, and publicly stated during a September 2015 Israeli Knesset visit to Baku. Why would Israel even care about Azerbaijan? Israel buys half its crude oil from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan has purchased on the order of $5B of advanced Israeli weapons over the past decade. This is a relationship of convenience and Azerbaijan has a border with Iran.

Will Turkey now annex northern Cyprus, which was also acquired by force? Turkish jets frequently buzz Greek islands also claimed by Ankara. If southwestern Syria is up for the taking, why not other parts. Since 1920 Turkey has eyed the northern Syrian landmass stretching from the Western Thrace to Mosul in Iraq. Conveniently, Turkey currently claims its soldiers are in northern Syria for security reasons.

There are consequences to what United States Presidents declare.

Continue Reading

International Law

Chagos Islands: Has the Sun Finally Set on the British Empire?

Punsara Amarasinghe

Published

on

Authors: Punsara Amarasinghe and Anastasia Glazova*

The fame of British Empire was once embellished around the corners of the world as the empire where sun never sets and its imperial majesty ruled the millions of lives regardless how they were brought under the colonial yoke. The end of two great wars saw eventually paved the path to dismantle British Empire yet the problems created by the colonial rule were unsolved and continued to undermine the decolonized states. The recent  advisory opinion given by International Court of Justice over the status of Chagos islands in Indian Ocean generates number of questions in the realm of international law regarding the drawbacks created in decolonization process and the duplicity of the concept if self-determination in international law. In the historic context Chagos islands always have been an integral part of Mauritius but however three years prior to granting independence to Mauritius Britain detached Chagos islands from Mauritius and created it a part of the territory known as British Indian Ocean Territory.

Between 1967 and 1973 the inhabitants lived in Chagos islands were forcibly removed and thus far they have been impeded by British law to enter the territory. The issue on the sovereignty of Chagos islands has lasted for decades as an unsolved riddle of colonialism whereas Mauritius always insisted the Chagos islands a part of their sovereignty despite British were reluctant to relinquish it, even the initial efforts made by Mauritius to bring the case before ICJ was not successful in the 80 decade. Nevertheless after envisaging a serious of attempts along with the assistance of African Union, 2017 United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution referring the issue to the advisory opinion of ICJ. The two fundamental questions General Assembly  put forward before were that whether the decolonization process of Mauritius was completed when it was granted independence in 1968 and secondly what are the consequences emerging from modern international law before the continues presence of Britain in Chagos islands.

The issue of decolonization seems to be the most interesting legal issue arising from the advisory opinion of ICJ due to the fact that court has viewed the decolonization of Mauritius was not complete as it was not in accordance of the right to self-determination of the Mauritius people.  Bringing the idea of self-determination into further evaluation becomes a pertinent issues as the very idea of self-determination always been a double edged sword. Especially in the post-colonial context dialog between West and newly independent states in Global South regarding understanding self-determination always have been different and the notion of self-determination appreciated by Third World was based on preserving their external integrity without getting subjected to any foreign force. As a matter of fact it was a quite understandable position as many of Third World countries had emerged from years of colonial domination and it paved the way for them to concern about external self-determination as their prime concern. However in examining court’s approach to assess the scope of right to self-determination in its advisory opinion was akin to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by the UNGA Resolution 1514(XV) in 1960 (Resolution 1514). The Resolution 1514 declares that the ‘subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights…’, and all such peoples ‘have the right to self-determination’ whereby ‘they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.

The trivial question encountered in discussing the self-determination was whether it was a part of customary international law when the UK granted independence to Mauritius in 1968. However it is rather ironic that UK being the forefront colonizer in early 20thcentury had appeared for the right of self-determination of Sudanese people as their legal entitlement, in its effort to counter Egyptian claims on the Sudan in 1947. In its advisory opinion court seemed to have generally relied on the number of general assembly resolutions in deciding the scope of self-determination in international law. In fact the lethargic position adopted by Court without tracing the historical development of right to self-determination in opinojuris and state practice has diminished the magisterial jurisprudential value that many international law scholars expected to hear from this advisory opinion.  However court confined its opinion regarding right to self-determination of Mauritius people to UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, on Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the UN Charter and court confirmed its status in customary international law.

The court’s opinion on the incompletion of Mauritius decolonization should be taken into account as a monumental position shared by ICJ on the grim realities of colonialism which keeps haunting in 21st century. ICJ came to a conclusion that separation of Chagos Islands from Mauritius before the independence was an act done by British colonial rule without the genuine consent of Mauritius people. It seems to indicate that Court may have implicitly hinted that it would have been lawful if the separation was conducted after assessing the consent of people through something like a referendum. Court’s opinion was concluded by stating “the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State”. This was the culmination of ICJ advisory opinion which brought a great triumph for Mauritius and a great blow upon the United Kingdom.  In its concluding remarks Court invoked all UN member states have a responsibility to finalize the decolonization of Mauritius as right to self-determination stands as erga omnes obligation.

All in all the advisory opinion on Chagos islands brought some solace to the states eager to confront the colonial legacies and post-colonial burdens. As an example in its court proceedings Mauritius was heavily backed by African Union and India. One counsel appeared on behalf of African Union stated that “It is unthinkable that today, in the 21st century, there is a part of Africa that still remains subject to European colonial rule.” On the other hand the UK has been still adamant about their presence in Chagos island as they claimed that matter was resolved in 1982 in an agreement on compensation and also the UK has pointed out that right to self-determination was not applicable in international law till 1970’s , whereas the separation of Chagos island took place in 1968. The UK defense was rejected by majority of judges in ICJ and the only dissenting opinion was given by American judge Joan Donoghue and her contention was based on that this matter should not have been taken before ICJ as it stands as a bilateral dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. It is evident that this advisory opinion has brought a severe pressure on the UK in the backdrop of ongoing Brexit hullaballoo. Even though the advisory opinions are not binding that it is hardly to assume the UK would completely disdain the opinion as it has already acknowledged that the manner of removing the inhabitants of Chagos islands was shameful. In that case the entire advisory opinion should be regarded as a significant victory for Chagossians and hall mark legacy in the international jurisprudence relating to concept of self-determination.

*Anasatasia Glazova is a PhD candidate in at Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia. She worked as state legal officer in Vologda prior joining HSE and her research areas include International Human Rights Law, Law of the Sea and International Maritime Law. She can be reached at:  angla.1892[at]mail.ru

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsdesk5 hours ago

Partnering for Africa’s future: Exhibition on UNIDO-Japan cooperation

An exhibition highlighting cooperation between Japan and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for African industrial development has opened...

International Law7 hours ago

“The Rights of the Nations, National and Ethnic Minorities for Self- Determination”

The new article of the Charter of the UN “The rights of the nations, national and ethnic minorities for self-determination”,...

Style10 hours ago

Breguet Classique 5177 Grand Feu Blue Enamel

In its current collection, the new Breguet Classique 5177 presents the Breguet blue for the first time in a grand...

Newsdesk12 hours ago

Vietnam needs to embrace “Doi Moi 4.0” to sustain high quality growth

Vietnam should make a strategic shift towards a more productivity and innovation-based economy while making the most of the ongoing...

Human Rights14 hours ago

Gender equality, justice in law and practice: Essential for sustainable development

Fundamentally linked to human development, gender justice requires ending inequality and redressing existing disparities between women and men, according to...

Hotels & Resorts16 hours ago

A pearl on the Black Sea joins Radisson Collection

Radisson Hotel Group announced that one of its flagship hotels – the Radisson Blu Paradise Resort and Spa, Sochi in...

Environment17 hours ago

Hands-on e-waste management training

Over 30 representatives of 13 Latin American countries and international experts have gathered to learn and share experiences on e-waste...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy