The International Court is the judicial body that brings to justice individuals accused of violation of the international law. The idea to create the court arose after the end of the World War II and it is based on the principle: all persons, including high-ranking state officials, accused of committing serious international crimes must be punished.
International criminal tribunals should not be considered in the same way as domestic or national courts. When people hear the words “court” and “law” – they immediately think it refers to national law, but they are wrong. There is distinction even between personnel that works in international and national courts, and much less in other characteristics.
The paper will put a special emphasis to the work of the ICTY, describing a number of positive as well as the negative sides of the Court.
The ICTY has been established at the proposal of the UN Secretary General on the basis of Resolution No. 827 of the UN Security Council of 25 May 1993. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court covers the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (hereinafter: the former Yugoslavia), including its land surface, airspace and territorial waters, while the temporal jurisdiction includes the period from 1 January 1991, without indicating when the temporal jurisdiction ends. However, the UN Security Council ordered to the Court to end its work by 2010, by Resolution No. 1503 of 2003 and the Resolution No. 1534 of 2004. Due to the abovementioned reasons, the Court was supposed to put an end to all investigations and filing all indictments by 2004; to end all trials by 2008 and to end all appeal proceeding by 2010. However, the year is 2015 and the ICTY has not ended its work. According to some estimations given in December 2014, three out of four appeal proceedings are expected to be completed during 2015, while the judgment in the case of Ratko Mladic is expected to be rendered in March 2017 or event after this date. However, addressing the UN Security Council on 10 December 2014, President of the ICTY Theodor Meron assured that these forecasts do not mean closure of the ICTY in 2017.
The ICTY is an ad hoc court based in The Hague. The Court can prosecute only individuals and not organizations or governments. The court can impose life imprisonment as maximum penalty. As a result, the Court signed an agreement with a number of countries, in order to enable enforcement of the penalties on their territories.
Huge role of the ICTY’s Trial Chamber significantly determines work of the ICTY and it implies wide powers of arbitrators and initiative relating to probative evidence. The basic principles that the Court follows in its work are: justice, rapidity and equality of arms.
The aim of establishment of the ICTY is to bring to justice persons responsible for serious violations of the international humanitarian law during conflict in the area of the former Yugoslavia. However, “although it was obvious that many actions of the conflicting sides, people who fought within their ranks or who joined them, represent serious crimes under domestic law or the international humanitarian law (the former Yugoslavia ratified all the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Protocols of 1977), almost none of the suspects for these crimes was charged and brought to the Court until 1993”.
All violations that are put under the jurisdiction of the ICTY and which represent violation of the international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia, are divided into:
- Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949;
- Violations of the laws or customs of war;
- Crimes against humanity.
The criminal defense of crime against humanity exists under the following conditions:
- In case of an attack;
- If the accused committed the crime as part of the attack;
- If the attack was directed against any civilian population;
- If the attack was widespread or systematic;
- If the accused knows that his acts are part of a pattern of widespread or systematic crimes directed against a civilian population and if he knows that his act fit in the pattern.
Regardless of the rules that regulate work of the ICTY, its employees are faced with several challenges.
The first challenge certainly refers to a rule that an individual may be punished for grave breach of the Geneva Conventions under the Article 2 of the Statute, only if the crime for which he is charged, was committed against persons and property that are considered protected.
Another challenge is the Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Statute, i.e. the Article 4 Paragraph 3 of the Statute. Namely, when the Court finds that the accused person had no genocidal intent, but he or she helped others to commit genocide, the question is which of these two provisions of the Statute of the Court should be applied. The first Article envisages responsibility for assisting in committing any criminal offense put under the jurisdiction of the Court, while the second Article envisages, inter alia, complicity in genocide. Furthermore, the Court has the jurisdiction to act in case of committing any of the criminal offenses listed in Article 5 of the Statute, but only if the crimes were committed in an armed conflict. Therefore, an armed conflict is a precondition for prosecution before the ICTY. At the same time, the only Article of the Statute that relates to penalties is the Article 24 that envisages the obligation of the Chamber when sentencing, to take into account gravity of the defense and individual circumstances of the perpetrator. However, the Article 2 of the Statute represents the biggest challenge and it envisages that every crime regulated by this Article, shall be committed in the context of the international armed conflict.
The first trial before the ICTY started on 7 May 1996 and the first verdict was rendered on 29 November 1996. So far, a total of 161 persons have been indicted. Proceedings against 147 persons ended, while proceedings against 14 persons are still ongoing.
Legacy of the ICTY
The region of the former Yugoslavia welcomed the establishment of the ICTY with great suspicion, complaining that incompetent body has established the Tribunal (the Security Council), and that the Court cannot be an impartial judicial body, since it has been established as a subsidiary body to the executive authority (the Security Council). However, author of this paper shares the standpoint of Dr. Vojin Dimitrijevic, who says that „in a sea of such attacks (…) legitimate and legal reviews of critics about the way The Tribunal has been established, the advisability of some of the provisions of its Statute, the quality of the rules of procedure and so on, are lost (…)“. The author also shares Dimitrijevic’ stance that work and existence of the ICTY should be seen as a “unique judicial experience in the actual application of the international humanitarian law, its written and unwritten rules and the very Statute of the first international criminal Tribunal that, despite of the fact that it has been formed on temporary basis as an ad hoc court, has acted so long and prosecuted so many persons on various posts for so many crimes that are considered international crimes”.
There is no doubt that there are positive and negative aspects of the international criminal proceedings led before all courts. Positive sides of the proceedings before the ICTY are certainly higher level of impartiality, easier ways to collect evidence, uniformity in the application of the international law and greater preventive effect of international trials. Namely, it is logical that people who are not involved in a concrete dispute, i.e. judges who are not related to armed conflicts will be more objective to decide about the dispute. National courts are almost always insufficiently objective, and these courts are not interested enough to lead proceedings against its own nationals who have committed crimes against foreign nationals. At the same time, the fact that this is a proceeding led before an international court, proceedings related to these and all other conflicts in the international community are set to be uniform, with the continuity in application of law and decision-making process.
Although a proceeding before the ICTY does not fully meet all demands which the right to fair trial puts before the Court, its practice gives hope that the proceedings will get closer to the standards of the fair trial. The procedure led before the ICTY is complex, but it was inevitable because it has been established quickly as a reaction to the situation on the ground (for example, the states harmonized their stances about formation of the International Criminal Court for years). Principles like the ones from the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (ratified by most of the states in the world) would certainly remain only a dead letter, if it was no courts like the ICTY. Namely, such courts defined an armed conflict, defined when an armed conflict begins etc.
One of the important specifics that refer to international crimes is the existence of a large number of victims. The procedural status of victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings for these crimes is a particular problem in international judiciary, because of direct or indirect risk of intimidation, reprisal or retaliation against the victims. For these reasons, rules of the ICTY include adequate provisions on protection of victims and witnesses in the proceedings. Per example, such provisions are stipulated in the rule that the main hearing will be held without the presence of the public; the rule about the protection of identity of the victims, and the rule on formation of Department for Victims and Witnesses, as the body in charge to provide support and advices to victims and witnesses and propose measure for their protection.
The ICTY has contributed to clarification of some basic concepts that are of huge importance for the international criminal law and the international humanitarian law. For example, the rule on the obligation to distinguish civilians from combatants was clarified in the judgment in the cases of Tadic, Martic, and Kupreskic, while the rule to distinguish civilian from military facilities was clarified in the judgment in cases of Kupresic, Kordic and Cerkez, judgment in cases of Kunarac and Furundzija defined torture, etc. For the first time in the history, an international court found that rape (although prohibited by humanitarian law) may constitute torture. This is also the first international court which included sexual violence as a crime against humanity in its Statute. Besides, the Court also gave huge contribution to the interpretation of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions.
According to the current President of the ICTY Theodor Meron, the ICTY has demonstrated to the world that, after half a century of impunity, it is possible to lead complex trials at the international level, in accordance with the highest international standards. The ICTY has developed an influential body of jurisprudence concerning a large number of procedural issues and issues related to evidence and thus, created conditions for establishment of new international and mixed criminal courts. The support to strengthening of national judicial systems relating to war crimes trials is certainly one of the most positive things in the heritage of the ICTY.
Many criticize the ICTY for the reason that all the accused have not been convicted especially the ones who are accused of the crime of genocide. However, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 stipulates very strict conditions for proving genocide. The Genocide is a crime that does not have to be committed during armed conflicts: the crime can be committed in peacetime, during a war, against civilians and against combatants, with or without committing widespread or systematic attack. Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, “(… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
As the aforementioned definition reads, it is a state of mind of the perpetrator of the crime of genocide that matters (that he committed the crime with intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group). Therefore, certain group and not individuals in the group should be the main objective and likewise, the destruction should be physical or biological nature, not cultural. Proving responsibility for the crime of genocide is harder than proving responsibility for any other international crime. Murders and other prohibited acts must be committed with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (dolus specialis). If a prosecutor fails to prove that intention, it is considered a crime against humanity or a war crime – and the ICTY is not authorized to prosecute these crimes.
The latest criticisms directed against work of the ICTY are addressed to the President Theodor Meron, an experienced US (Israeli) lawyer and a judge. Many believe that he made terrible mistakes in individual trials which he chaired, especially in the cases of Gotovina and Markac, Stanisic and Simatovic and in a particularly interesting case from the legal point of few – case of Momcilo Perisic. The judgment in the case of Momcilo Perisic has established a new legal standard of command responsibility, providing amnesty to political leaders and military commanders in case of committing war crimes in the future period. Namely, the appeal judgment to Perisic has adopted the new specific direction criterion which has not existed in the international customary law. The question is whether court judgments discourage future threats against human civilization or the opposite? The UN Security Council has established the ICTY after some people endangered peace and security of the civilization and nowadays, some experts believe that the ICTY turned into its contradiction after Perisic’s acquittal, and its decisions jeopardize international peace, security and order.
When it comes to criticisms related to the impact of the Hague judgments to victims of the conflict, we must take into account that, when it comes to individual criminal responsibility, the ICTY is authorized to prosecute the crimes, but it has no option to adjudicate adequate compensation for victims of the crimes. Namely, primary role of the ICTY is retributive: the Court renders a judgment and defines whether someone is guilty for a certain crime or not, and orders an appropriate penalty for the crime. Of course, the ICTY also has a restorative function and it aims to ensure accountability, establish facts, bring justice for the victims and give them the right to speak, enhance the rule of law and pawing a way for reconciliation in the region. However, the ICTY is not established to be a mean for bringing complete justice to the victims and a mean to deal with the past.
Regardless of the aforementioned facts, the ICTY has taken away from us the ability to forget the past. The legacy of the ICTY is greater and more significant than occasional mistakes and judgments rendered without a legal explanation, while the Court will provide insight to future generations into judgments and facts about the atrocities.
The abovementioned text has led us to conclusion that, when it has established the ICTY, the international community has directly contributed to sanctioning of state policies and individuals responsible for initiation and conduct of armed conflicts at the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The paper also led us to conclusion that judgments rendered by the ICTY have clarified some theoretical parts of the international humanitarian law, international criminal law and the international human rights law.
Despite of many criticisms directed against the ICTY, the author of the paper believes that the ICTY has registered more positive than negative results. Unreasonably high expectations from work of the Court have been huge. At the end, when a conflict starts and when crimes happen, people say nowadays: “Send him to The Hague”, which was not the case a few years ago, when there was no court authorized to prosecute the perpetrators.
There is no doubt that existence of such a court is necessary and we could see it clearly in the case of Leipzig in 1921, when Germans were allowed to trial to themselves on their own. As a result, audience, judges, prosecutors greeted some people who were accused of crimes when they entered a courtroom, not to mention that all sanctions were minimal; two months, six months and four years of imprisonment. Therefore, author of the paper believes that foreign judges did not bring expertise in proceedings related to this territory, but impartiality.
Author of the paper considers the following facts as the greatest contributions of the ICTY:
- The ICTY is a legal body that represents a basis for establishment of new judicial bodies;
- The ICTY revealed limitations of trials;
- The ICTY has left us legacy.
On the other hand, the fact that the ICTY has primarily focused on jurisprudence and its impact, without realizing how much it is important to reach out to the victims, is the main deficiency of this body.
US Migrant Crisis and the Global Human Rights Protection Standards
Migrants and asylum seekers from Central America have been marching towards the US for protection and shelter. But US government has deployed around 6000 soldiers to prevent them from entering into the US. These migrant and asylum seekers convoys have been dubbed as “a foreign invasion” by the incumbent US President that needs to be confronted by the US army. President Trump hard-headedly argued that “immigration is a very, very big and very dangerous, a really dangerous topic” that prompted the US army officials of firing tear gas shells at migrants’ convoys. It is nothing but the portrayal of an invasion by the Central American migrants and asylum seekers into the US. Such a US posturing on international migration is a manifestation of the US tradition of hypocrisy and its deep-seated aversion towards the migrants that violates global human Rights protection standards (GHRPS). Thus, the across-the-board new migration strategy of the US is based on the idea of ultra-restrictionism that deprives the immigrants from public benefits, and recently President Trump has entirely abolished the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme along with the abrogation of the temporary status protection programmes. These measures have adversely impacted the GHRPS required for the 2 million regular migrants in the US which spawned the emergence of a well-founded fear of persecution, far-right nationalism, and socio-cultural schism.
New Migration Strategy
The US restrictive measures have attracted international media attention and the US is hell-bent to send a message to the international community that it would not be privy to the non-binding standard for a safe, orderly and regular migration known as the UN Global Compact on Migration (GCM) arrangement scheduled to be agreed in December 2018 and US is alone capable to take its decisions on immigration issues under America First Policy (AFP).Therefore, the GHRPS for migrants and asylum seekers are apparently immaterial in the US immigration policy objectives. Trump administration under AFP discourse envisions restrictionism, deterrence, and pre-emption against GHRPS while denying public benefits to immigrants at par US citizens. Unfortunately, strong and inclusive migration control strategy has been devised and is being implemented to restrict the rights of those migrants and immigrants who are already there in the US. For example; Trump administration has been attempting to temper the 2020 US census that is bound to influence the political scene for the advantage of Republicans in the years ahead.
However, ex-President Barack Obama also resorted to the deployment of US armed forces on the US-Mexico international border to curb migration that resulted in some cases of family-separations but at a low rate if it is measured against the present Trump administration. The point of distinction between the Obama and Trump administrations is that the former recognized the contribution of migrants to the US’s growth; however, this understanding has steadily acquired a negative narrative under the later administration. President Trump has been demanding $5 billion to construct a wall along the US-Mexico international border otherwise intimidating shutting down the US government. However, Trump administration apparently does not leave any stone unturned in case of violently pushing back migrants and asylum seekers. Trump administration has inaugurated its immigration policy with a Travel Ban from seven Muslim countries and now it has been stretched to Latin American countries against all norms of GHRPS and international law.
Global Human Rights Protection Standards
The incumbent US administration is more interested in denying migrants and asylum seekers the access to benefits under the US national laws and global human rights protection standards. The latest Trump’s proclamation is to contain the new arrivals from Mexico and its Southern nation-states which restrict the right to seek asylum in the US beyond the port of entry. Further, impugned presidential proclamation defers well-established US asylum legislation that contravenes due process of law, the rule of law and international treaty law recognized and sanctified under the Constitution of United States of America. However, this presidential proclamation or asylum ban has, for the time being, been stopped by the San Francisco Federal Court under a restraining order.
In spite of this, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 states that any “alien or foreigner who is physically or personally present in the US or who comes in the US (whether or not at an officially designated port of entry, irrespective of such alien or foreigner’s status, may apply for asylum.” However, under Section 212 (f) the US President is empowered to enforce immigration restrictions by issuing a proclamation. Further, the US President may if feels that “the entry of any alien or foreigner or any class of foreigners or aliens into the US would be detrimental to the American interests suspend the entry of all foreigners or aliens or any class of aliens or foreigners as non immigrants or immigrants, or impose on the entry of foreigners or aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” Precisely, President Trump invoked this provision of law to clamp these insensitive and punitive restrictions. This presidential decree has aggravated the Trump’s AFP to new levels of castigation. Groups and individuals seeking asylum and entering the US while avoiding official ports of entry were slapped with criminal cases that got them separated from their families. Such irregular entries were criminalized by the US border authorities in violation of “the right not to be penalized for irregularly entering into the territory of High Contracting State” under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) with its 1967 Additional Protocol that has been acceded to by the US.
Having hit with such transgressions, the criminal charges leveled against asylum seekers did not affect their asylum claims, and they were duly entitled to have their asylum claims heard. However, this scenario is no more there as new reports indicate that a single-digit number of asylum applications are disposed of daily at the designated entry ports. Therefore, such a situation has led to inordinate delays in processing the applications of asylum seekers at the border that is a violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of United States of America that codifies the core values of the people of the USA. But many persons have been denied access and abducted, raped and thrashed to the hilt. However, Article 33 (1) of the UNCSR contains the principle of non-refoulement stemming from the customary international law that works as “a safety valve” which obligates the nation-states to protect a refugee, migrants, stateless and asylum seekers who is fleeing from persecution, risk or danger to life in his or her country of origin or homeland. Few scholars contest the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement extra-territorially; however, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has already recognized the extra-territorial application of the non-refoulement principle, and the denial of entry into the US is a violation of the UNCSR.
Moreover, there is another principle of international law where under collective or mass expulsion of the refugees, migrants or asylum seekers is prohibited and obligates the nation-states to examine objectively and cumulatively every expulsion action of each individual and group of persons. The “hot return” policy of the US clearly violates this obligation under GHRPS. Thus, this practice primarily rescinds the right of the huge majority of migrants and asylum seekers to seek for asylum. Therefore, it also circumvents the objects and purposes of the UNCSR.
The Hot Return Policy
The hot return policy stems from the US Department of Justice regulation of 1953 that entails the “100 Air Mile Zone” rule; however, that negates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution under which the right and protection against arbitrary and random searches have been provided within this zone. But Border Patrol officials have been empowered to operate the immigration checkpoints in this vast zone with extra-constitutional powers. Under the “zero tolerance policy” Department of Homeland Security wields enormous powers and conducts speedy ejections of undocumented migrants within this area. The fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to counsel or the right to a hearing before a judicial immigration authority and the right against expulsions are not available in the situation of “hot returns.” The new regulation has precisely been founded upon this mechanism and whosoever arrives at the designated checkpoints will be pushed back devoid of any due process of law. Anti-migration-driven steps like the family separation, ankle-monitors for asylum seekers and detention of asylum seekers during the process of determination of their asylum claims. Therefore, it has become a double-edged weapon as when asylum seekers try to apply at authoritative ports of entry they are prevented from doing so and when some migrants and asylum seekers do not follow the law and try to manage surreptitiously asylum benefits they are also prevented from claiming asylum within the US. In fact, the impugned policy violates the UNCSR, customary international law and the provisions of general international law. Therefore, civil society institutions like the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American Civil Liberties Union filed cases in the US courts against such illegal actions of the Trump administration.
The Rights of Migrants and Asylum Seekers
There is a plan to have secret measures to restrict the rights of migrants and asylum seekers in the US against all protection standards of the so-called civilized world. The rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers are in active violation in the US who espouses the cause of human rights, the rule of law, democracy and diversity worldwide. For example; in the Matter of A-R-C-G- et al. decided on August 26, 2014 at the US Department of Justice by the Executive Office for Immigration Review where the Board of Immigration observed that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave or run away from their relationship” which can constitute a cognizable “membership of particular social group” that establishes the basis of the right to seek asylum or withholding of removal under Sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 and which is also a prerequisite for meeting the criterion of refugee definition under Article 1 of the UNCSR. However, law officers under the Trump administration adamant to subvert the well-established legal standards that provide respite and reprieve in the cases of domestic violence.
There is a perennial cycle of legal measures that are bound to belittle existing human rights protection standards like latest Trump administration’s endeavour to reverse the Flores v. Reno popularly known as Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) in September 2018. The reversal of FSA will be the most inhuman act of the present US administration as separating and snatching children from their parents cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever. FSA determines the limits on the duration and conditions under which children could be incarcerated in immigration detention, and it also regulatesthe detention, treatment, and release of detained minors by the immigration authorities. However, Trump Administration seeks to terminate the FSA’s legal defences for children, including the provision that children must be shifted to a non-secure, licensed facility within three to five days of detention, which has been construed to allow for an extension of up to 20 days in times of “emergency” or “influx.” The proposed regulations include some policies which, if implemented, would allow the government to incarcerate more families for even longer periods. Primarily, FSA’s goal was to release families and minor children from immigration custody quickly. Therefore, if FSA is reversed now, it would violate GHRPS and due process of law.
The US is the first country in the world that has been recognized as a country of migrants, enriched by the migrants and celebrates multiculturalism as an inalienable part of its existence since time immemorial. However, US policies based on the doctrine of American interests worldwide has done a massive disservice to the lives of the people worldwide. The US supports and protects many national governments who serve its interests, US exploits and expropriates the natural resources of many countries and its prescriptive approach in formulating economic policies, forced regime change, subjugation of international organizations and selective discharge of international obligations have also contributed in displacing people from their roots. Therefore, it has to share the responsibility of hosting migrants and asylum seekers, particularly from its vicinity. In fact, many anti-migrants measures violate US municipal law, the US’s international treaty obligations as well as general international law. The US has to abdicate its restrictionism based on hate, threats, and xenophobia in consonance with its historical traditions of liberal democracy, diversity, and multiculturalism.
In this context, all anti-migrants restrictions and sanctions must be withdrawn while respecting GHRPS and international law obligations.As pictures circulate worldwide of US firing of tear gas enveloping migrants, asylum seekers and their children on US-Mexican border and terrified faces of children who are being snatched from their parents by the US Border Patrol agents, a UN Global Compact on Orderly and Safe Migration is likely to win near-universal approval at the inter-governmental conference scheduled to be held in Marrakesh, Moroccoon December 10-11, 2018 expected to be the final step before the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is formally adopted by the UN General Assembly. It has been a long-drawn journey to achieve such an ambitious plan for regulating and governing international migration by the international community. However, it would not be a legally binding treaty even then, unfortunately, US has already shunned this global initiative against the mandate of its own constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a sacred covenant achieved by an immeasurable amount of human investment that has established an equal society in America. But, unfortunately, these restrictions on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers have weakened the US constitutional guarantees and liberties under the current administration. The emergence of the far-right political discourse that is being well-sponsored and patronized under the Trump administration must be countered by strengthening the liberal democratic political discourse, and same must also be reflected in the institutional governance frameworks of the United States of America.
Science Policy Holds Promise in the South China Sea
Scientific cooperation may succeed in de-escalating the current tensions in the tumultuous area of the South China Sea. This in spite of White House efforts to deny well-established climate change reports, and the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which has some observers questioning the wisdom of laying down a science-led peace-building plan in the contested South China Sea disputes.
Chinese oceanographers and their marine scientists are now raising a science flag to neighboring claimant nations in the region. At an increasing number of multilateral science conferences, Chinese scientists quietly admit that there are shared regional environmental security issues including acidification, biodiversity loss, coral reef destruction and fishery collapse. While in Washington, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy expresses skepticism about China’s rapid expansion of their oceanographic research expansions, it raises more opportunities rather than hegemonic problems.
Science may prove to be the crucible for bringing about a new level of cooperation rather than competition, not only among the claimant nations in the region, but also between Washington and Beijing.
Last year President Trump’s offer to Vietnam’s President Tran Dai Quang to mediate the complex and challenging disputes over access to fish stocks, conservation of biodiversity and sovereignty claims caught many observers by surprise, it should not have.
The stakes are getting higher in the turbulent South China Sea, not only because of Beijing’s militarization of reclaimed islands but also the prospects of a fisheries collapse. This should weigh heavily on all claimant nations and especially the United States. Challenges around food security and renewable fish resources are fast becoming a hardscrabble reality for more than fishermen. In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity warned that it could be a scary future, indeed, with as many as 30-50 percent of all species possibly headed toward extinction by mid-century.
What’s clear is that the ocean’s resources are continued to be exploited at a record pace and a few of China’s fleet of almost 50 research vessels have now set their sights on American waters by navigating through the Federated States of Micronesia, near the U.S. territory of Guam.
In a recently published National Interest article, “Chinese Scientists Want to Conduct Research in U.S. Waters- Should Washington Let Them,” authors Peter Dutton and Ryan Martinson, argue that China is a strategic competitor in its ocean agenda. They claim, that “Beijing primarily invests in out-of-area oceanographic research in order to position China to better compete with other countries for security, resources, markets and political influence.”
While it’s true that these research vessels are a part of China’s National Fleet, the scientific oversight is to insure State Oceanic Administration’s management of oceanographic activities. Of course, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Seventh Fleet recognize that any Chinese research vessels must be monitored but there’s no issue with the PRC conducting freedom of navigation around Guam as long as it’s outside the limits of Guam, recognized by the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
It’s not too late for the U.S. to take the scientific high ground and renew the legacy of science diplomacy. After all, science initiatives are more widely accepted as efforts to solve global issues requiring contributions from all parties even if they have been dealt a bad hand elsewhere. On November 3, the White House signed off on a report attributing climate change and global warming to humanity. The report is in direct contradiction to the president’s action pulling the U.S. out of the Paris accord on climate change earlier this year.
Enter science diplomacy, defined as the role of science being used to inform foreign policy decisions, promoting international scientific collaborations, and establishing scientific cooperation to ease tensions between nations. It’s true that many policymakers and scientists do not speak the same language; however, there’s increasing evidence that points the compass towards the link between international science cooperation and international relations.
During the Cold War, scientific cooperation was used to build bridges of cooperation and trust, and it’s now time that the South China Sea becomes a sea that binds rather than divides. The defense skeptics in Washington certainly are correct in their observations that China’s distant fleets directly serves state interests. However, maritime research can be cooperatively shared and perhaps, the first step in China inviting fellow marine scientists and maybe even an embedded journalist or two aboard one of their marine research vessels.
There are strong ties among scientists across Southeast Asia and China, due in part to a series of international scientific projects, conferences and training workshops associated with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordination program.
Marine scientists in the Philippines and Vietnam are reviving conversations about the Joint Oceanographic Marine Scientific Research Expeditions (JOMSRE) last conducted in 2005 and organized between the Philippine Maritime and Ocean Affairs Center and the Vietnamese Institute of Oceanography.
These measures are essential in the face of rampant overfishing and a looming coral reef apocalypse occurring across the South China Sea, in part because of the conflicting territorial claims have made ecological analyses and management actions difficult.
Michael Crosby, president and CEO of Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, believes the U.S. could dramatically improve international relations through marine science partnerships, and he understands the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains specific articles that apply to marine science and technology.
“A renewal of JOMSRE would be quite positive, although the changing political dynamics related to the Spratlys and other islands and reefs in the region over the last several years will likely create a bit more challenging environment for an international research survey,” Mr. Crosby said in an email.
Modern history offers excellent examples of how science supported diplomacy. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy invited Japan’s Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda to support the US-Japan Committee on Science Cooperation. In Science Diplomacy New Day or False Dawn, the editors Lloyd S. Davis and Robert Patman, offer compelling arguments for the adoption of science in diplomacy. This includes their study of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) with a lens on the success achieved among 60 countries, who were engaged in Antarctic cooperative research on the area’s ice sheets, atmospheric conditions and oceanographic properties.
Dr. Paul Arthur Berkman, a professor of practice in Science Diplomacy at Tufts University, reaffirms the lessons the Antarctica and extols science as a tool of diplomacy that builds bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. Antarctica is the one place that arguably is the archetype for what can be accomplished by science diplomacy.
Under the Antarctic Treaty, no country actually owns all or part of Antarctica, and no country can exploit the resources of the continent while the Treaty is in effect. It is a classic example of international cooperation.
Also, it’s worth noting the success of the Red Sea Marine Peace Cooperative Research, Monitoring and Resource Management Program (RSMPP) where Israel and Jordan signed off on an ecosystem monitoring agreement and shared science data collection in the Gulf of Aqaba in 2003. RSMPP offers another model for improving international relations and building capacity through marine science cooperation in the South China Sea. These two opposing countries chose to promote the long-term sustainable use and conservation of their shared marine resources.
Professor John McManus, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, has researched the contested Spratly Islands for more than a quarter of a century. He has called repeatedly for the development of an international peace park and remains hopeful that other regional marine scientists and ecologists will support a collaborative science-driven initiative.
He says, “Territorial disputes have led to the establishment of environmentally destructive, socially and economically costly military outposts on so many islands. Given the rapid proliferation of international peace parks, it is time to take the difficult steps towards the establishment of a Spratlys Peace Park.”
Although the U.S. is not a signatory to UNCLOS, Washington can recommend that sovereignty claims be set aside in treaties implementing freezes on claims and claim-supportive activities, as has been done in the Antarctic. These and other natural resource management tools could be used far more effectively to secure fisheries and biodiversity, and also promote sustainable tourism.
Now that the mid-term election results are in, the White House may find this collaborative brand of science diplomacy works well in Asia.
Ebbing Liberal World Order
The twentieth century witnessed unusual happenings across the globe. Its first half had to encounter with the two most deadly conflicts (2 World-Wars) which claimed millions of lives. The technological sophistication of weapons and the beginning of the Nuclear Age were responsible elements that made the both World-Wars bloody conflicts.
Fearing such happenings, the Allied powers in the aftermath of the World-War-II bent on establishing such order that could avert misfortunes, which the world had plagued. Thus, the liberal world order came into existence that endorsed mutual collaboration among the countries, the formation of multilateral institutes, and the upkeep of democracy. The liberal world order cherished; globalization, human rights protection, freedom of speech, and trade expanse among the countries. The organizations were formed to strengthen the liberal world order in the form of cooperation among the countries. In earnest to foster peace, the formation of the United Nations (UN) took place. For the purpose of economic advancement, the World Bank came into existence. To get the countries out of economic turmoil, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) formed. For the international trade objectives, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) formed, which years succeeding converted into the World Trade Organization. The democratic countries began to adopt the liberal world order aiming to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries. The liberal order further entrenched its roots after the fall of the Soviet Union, as it intended to deter the aggression and prevented the invasion of countries on the other. The ideology of globalization by the exchange of products, ideas and communication among the countries, is the testimony to the services of the liberal world order.
One must realize that the foundation of liberal world order rests upon two pillars: one is the freedom of individual and the second is the growth of social and economic norms. The liberals applied the blend of freedom and growth in the years following the World-War-II. Since then the allied powers endeavored to restore the war-ravaged world, and consequently, the liberal order garnered much progress.
However, in the existing era, its existence is jeopardized since most of the countries have set their journey on the ways, which are deviating from the liberal world order. The world in the past few years has experienced the rise in populism (an antidote to the liberal world order), which has begun to eclipse the liberal world order.
The recent victory of the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential elections, in October 2018, has heralded the perversion of liberal world order. His victory has followed the onslaughts on LGBT people, women and any individual who opposed right-wing candidates. Bolsonaro enjoys the backing of conservatives and most reactionary sect of Brazil like pro-weapon lobby, industrialists, army and police force. Recently, Cuba has withdrawn thousands of doctors from Brazil after his criticism on the communist-run island’s More program, which sends Cuban doctors in destitute areas of Brazil. He said his government would bring changes in this program. His belief in men’s superiority over women hate towards indigenous, black, and LGBT community is a definite threat to the liberal order.
The world since Trump’s assuming the power of the US has seen the surge in the populism. He pushed the US into the trade-war against the other countries. He also repudiated the ideology of globalization while taking the podium of the UNGA in September 2018. Donald Trump prefers; transaction over the alliance, unpredictability over consistency, and bilateralism over multilateralism, which endangers the liberal world order. Trump adopted the idea of protectionism by uttering that “it will lead to greater prosperity and strength”.
The liberal world order’s countenance is defaced in other countries as well. The rise of AfD (far-right group) in Germany is yet another threat to the liberal world order. The AfD criticizes the immigration of trapped refugees to Germany. The group aspires changes in the constitution of Germany to get rid of the right of an individual hearing in asylum cases and opposes ruling “grand coalition” of Angela Merkel with social democrats. In September elections, the AfD became the first far-right group to conquer seats in the Bundestag in a half-century.
In the Netherlands, France, and Hungary, the far-right parties have tried to capitalize on the influx of Muslim refugees to woo Jews. The populist movements have won the plebiscites in Britain, Hungry and Poland. Britain’s decision to abandon the European Union in the form of Brexit is yet another instance of crippling liberal world order. The recent electoral triumph of left-wing populist parties such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece has given an impetus to the debate on the rise of populism in Europe. At times the populist possesses notion that rampant commercialization and globalization have rendered masses unemployed.
Now, the question emerges that why the liberal order has to face such ruin, and what are the driving factors behind it?
Patrick J. Deenen in his book ”Why liberalism failed” pointed out that humans are independent entities and distinct from nature and this principle keeps our hearts at war with nature. Modern science, as posited by René Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the locomotive that would make us masters and possessors of nature. But, this attitude almost certainly made for unprecedented success and prosperity to a liberal society, it is also responsible for today’s global ecological crisis which has no parallel in human history.
Another driving factor that fades the liberal order is the nationalism, which is a kind of loyalty of one towards its country; irrespective of what is right or wrong. Thus, the leaders in a bid to bolster their domain of influence and authority harness the tool of nationalism amidst the worst economic conditions. The same is the case with Donald Trump when he found a little debacle in the U.S’ economy, he bent on scrutinizing liberalism and adopted protectionism.
The man has always craved for the power, as his innate nature urges him to do so. Machiavelli in his famous work ”The Prince” has portrayed man’s nature as rogue, pirate and greedy. The arms race, aspiration of countries for assuming the world’s hegemonic saddle, confiscating feeble country’s resources and dominating political influence are the foremost goals that major powers are aspiring for. The pursuance of these goals has led the human far away from the policies and rules of the liberal world order. The Yemen crisis, the Palestine issue, turmoil in Syria, Kashmir issue, and Rohingya crisis are the epitomes of the interests of the global powers, which are exploiting these lands and their people for just the sake of interest in these regions; thus undermining the course of the liberal order. The global institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank seem tether to address the turmoil and issues among the countries.
In a nutshell, illiberal norms in the world are posing threats to its stability. These norms are going to cripple communication and trade among the countries. Along with it, these trends are likely to replete the world with skirmishes, and conflicts among the nations. Consequently, leaving the world into turmoil, adversity, poverty, and wars.
Freedom, Sovereign Debt, Generational Accounting and other Myths
“How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia’s success story? Well, it might...
American (And Global) Oligarchy Rapidly Moving Towards Monarchy
Many people do not realize that the proverbial “noose” of civil rights, civil liberties and property rights are rapidly coming...
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered the Second World War. A war of horrors,...
Russian Aluminium, Health Ministry Announce Ebola Vaccine
Russian Aluminium (RUSAL), one of the world’s largest aluminium producers, together with the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation,...
Asia’s Growth Outlook Steady Despite China–US Trade Conflict
Economies in developing Asia and the Pacific are weathering external challenges thanks to robust domestic demand, while inflationary pressures are...
New ADB Platform to Help Boost Financing for Climate Action
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has launched a new platform aimed at helping its developing member countries in Asia and...
Arrogance of force and hostages in US-China trade war
Even before the ink on the comments made by those who (just like the author of these lines) saw the...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Rethinking Armenian North-South Road Corridor: Internal and External Factors
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Dismantling Yalta system, or Ukraine as an instrument of destroying the world order
Defense2 days ago
European army: An apple of discord
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan’s Increasing Tilt towards China
East Asia2 days ago
Will China Save the Planet? Book Review
Newsdesk2 days ago
New Initiative to Mitigate Risk for Global Solar Scale-up
Reports2 days ago
Vietnam’s economy grows robustly, but risks intensify
Economy2 days ago
Key elements of the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement