[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] W [/yt_dropcap]ith the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States the possible approach of the new administration to international criminal justice and anti-impunity initiatives would be watched very keenly. Trump’s victory has brought back memories of George W. Bush’s presidency, which was characterized by a general contempt towards international criminal law and its only permanent institution, the International Criminal Court (ICC).
With the Trump campaign throwing no direct light on its international criminal justice agenda (with the exception of certain vague foreign policy statements) and the ICC prosecutor planning to launch a full scale investigation in Afghanistan (which would include a focus on Torture at the highest levels of the US administration), US-ICC relations are expected to get more complex in the times to come.
Clinton administration and the emergence of the ICC
The Rome Statute establishing the ICC was adopted on 17th July, 1998. United States, despite being a chief participant in the Rome deliberations during the Clinton Presidency was one of the seven countries which voted against the adoption of the Statute as opposed to 120 countries who supported the adoption. The chief objection was the possibility of ICC exercising jurisdiction over US servicemen engaged in legitimate and appropriate use of force and the resultant loss in sovereignty even in the absence of a formal ratification of the ICC statute. Even the indictment of civilian foreign policy makers by the ICC was not ruled out. Efforts to secure immunity for US nationals from the Courts jurisdiction proved futile. On December 31st 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute which, however, was not submitted for ratification to the Senate on the ground that a closer examination of the Court’s actual functioning was necessary for further action.
Bush Administration’s contempt towards the ICC
Prior to the coming into force of the Rome Statute on 1st July 2002, President Bush took the unprecedented step of “unsigning” US from the treaty and formally renounced all obligations that the US may have towards the Court. To further bolster its position against the Court, President Bush signed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) which prohibited all wings of the US government from cooperating with the ICC. This was followed by “Article 98” Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIA’s) with various countries including India which precluded bilateral partners from surrendering US nationals to the ICC. Under Article 98 of the Rome Statute, the ICC is prohibited from proceeding with the surrender of an individual to the Court unless the court has first obtained the cooperation of the sending state for surrender and cannot compel a state to violate an international agreement it is party to. The BIA’s in practice took away the power of the ICC to deal with US nationals and considerably whittled down the concept of universal jurisdiction. The referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC by the UNSC through Resolution 1593 in 2005 under Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute was strongly objected by the Bush Administration on the ground of its fundamental disagreements with the ICC. However, the collective weight of the UNSC persuaded the US (and China, the other major objector) not to exercise their veto power and abstentions followed which facilitated the subsequent issue of arrest warrants by the ICC against Omar Al Bashir and others. Thus the Bush administration was the forefront of international efforts to scuttle the power of the ICC and efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the Court were significant features of its foreign policy.
Obama Administration and International Criminal Justice initiatives
The extreme hostility of the Bush administration to the ICC puts the Obama administration’s approach to the ICC in a comparatively positive light. While the Obama administration was careful not to water down the fundamental objections of the US towards the ICC, it took steps to extend an olive branch to the ICC. Among the favourable steps include the willingness of the administration to send forces to track down Joseph Kony, an ICC indictee and leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, through the passage of the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act with the unanimous support of the Senate among other initiatives.
Expansion of the Rewards for Justice Programme (RFJ)
The RFJ, started in 1984 is a State Department programme to award information that leads to the arrest of individuals engaged in acts of aiding, abetting and conspiring terror against US interests. The expansion of the RFJ to cover ICC indictees and others wanted by mixed or hybrid tribunals was a major initiative of the Obama Presidency. However, keeping in view the existence of the Bush era’s ASPA, information pertaining to US nationals was excluded from the ambit of the programme.
Referral of Libya to the ICC
In sharp contrast to the Bush administration’s position of abstaining from Resolution 1593, the Obama administration voted positively to refer Libya’s situation to the ICC (UNSC Resolution 1970) in February 2011. However, the inability of the administration to take a leadership role on two controversial issues hanging fire since the Darfur referral in 2005 further exposed the commitment of the US to the ICC; firstly, the funding of UNSC referred ICC proceedings by the UNSC itself and secondly, the indictment of citizens of non-state parties in the referred scenarios. The position of the Obama administration was to leave the funding of these proceedings to the ICC and its state parties without involving the UNSC and non-prosecution of citizens of non-state parties to the ICC. Furthermore, the subsequent unwillingness of the administration to goad the ICC in enforcing its Libya mandate after a failed intervention in the country (accepted by Obama to be his biggest foreign policy failure) did not serve the cause of international justice.
Handing over Bosco Ntaganda to the ICC
Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda, an ICC indictee was handed over to the ICC after his voluntary surrender at the US embassy in Kigali, Rwanda in March 2013. US not being a party to the Rome Statute and having no obligations in this regard, decided to hand over the indictee to the Hague. Given the historic animosity of the US to the ICC, its voluntary co-operation with the ICC was widely viewed as a reflection of the changing nature of US-ICC relations.
While eroding the credibility of the ICC was a chief objective of the Bush administration in the wake of a favourable climate created by the Clinton administration, significant improvements in US-ICC relations were witnessed during the Obama administration, despite no indication that the country would be joining the Rome Statute. A Trump presidency given its ideological moorings is likely to take the US back to the Bush era and progressive developments made during the last eight years are likely to be lost. The world should be ready for a possible showdown between the Trump Administration and the ICC which does not bode well for anti-impunity initiatives. The immediate litmus test to this complex relationship would be ICC’s decision to proceed with the Afghanistan scenario given the reality that it would be seeking to pursue justice against the US -a non-state party on the ground that alleged violations of international law took place in Afghanistan- a State Party to the Rome Statute.
Reassessing Sustainable Governance Models for the Post-COVID 19 World Order
Authors: Manini Syali and Aaditya Vikram Sharma*
The Coronavirus pandemic is not the first occasion when human civilizations are witnessing the outbreak of a deadly disease. This becomes even more crucial in the present day era, dominated by technological and scientific advancement, when cures for a number of life threatening ailments have successfully been discovered. Yet, a virus, because of its highly contagious nature has brought human life to a complete halt and even specialised international organisations like the World Health Organisation, devoted towards the sole objective of maintaining health care standards worldwide, more or less appear to be helpless in containing it. The pandemic can be called a watershed moment, after recovering from which, the way human beings have been living in industrialist societies will change drastically. Signs of this change can be felt in the form of increased awareness towards environmental issues, which in spite of having been a subject matter of policy consideration for more than fifty years now, largely remained being seen as ancillary in front of ‘crucial issues’ like peace, security, poverty etc., which demand swifter actions. The need of the hour, therefore, is to broaden the horizons of ecological analyses, as it is being done traditionally, and to realise that pathogens need to be made an integral part of eco-system management.
Further, it is a well-known fact that the consequences of environmental degradation have always been seen in anticipatory terms, reducing the gravity of the situation further. Moreover, the environmental doctrines like ‘sustainable development’, themselves are worded in such a manner that they portray sufferings of the generations yet to come instead of being seen as a present day problem. It will also not be wrong to say that there exists a resemblance between environmental principles like the polluter pays principle, precautionary principle, transboundary environmental pollution etc. and the classic common law doctrines having their basis in the tort of negligence. This has further strengthened the perception that non-abidance with the said doctrines will merely give rise to claims of compensation which can be easily settled in monetary terms. Alternative jurisprudential theories like green-criminology, which advocate criminal remedies in case of environmental destruction, or imbibing sustainability in all kinds of regulatory frameworks, therefore, majorly remain limited to academic discussions.
An attempt will, therefore, be made in the present article to trace the evolution of the already existing models of environmental governance and give a critique, highlighting their non-applicability in the post-Corona world order, which would demand alternative models of sustainability and would not only help in containing the spread of similar diseases in the future but will also supplement effective implementation of the already existing environmental law instruments.
Technocratic Progress and Altered Human Conditions
In the 18th century, the human kind encountered a life changing turn of events in the form of Industrial Revolution. The repercussions of the revolution were such that it did not remain limited to the economic front and left its impact on the social and cultural life of individuals as well. Moreover, the changes which the society underwent as a result of the revolution were rather quick and demanded implementation of regulatory frameworks, covering different aspect of human life. A few examples of the same are family laws for regulating altered family ties, alien to the pre-industrial society, establishment of a legal regime for intellectual property rights, banking and commercial laws for facilitating the contemporary financial activities etc. The way nation states interacted with each other also witnessed drastic changes due to increased dependence on technology.
The gravity of the situation, however, was only realised in the year 1962, in the aftermaths of the Cuban missile crises, when around two dozen experts met in Santa Barbara, California during a Conference to discuss the impacts of technology on human affairs. The conference ended on an optimistic note, but also received a highly sceptical submission from the side of French sociologist Jacques Ellul, who argued that human life had become dangerously dependent on Technology and no aspect of it had the capacity to escape ‘the technique’.
Early Years of Environmental Governance
The criticisms against the technocratic notions of ‘progress’, however, remained limited to sociological fronts for a long time despite emergence of early signs of Climate Change in the late 1950s itself.The United Nations (UN)-centric international legal regime also remained silent on these issues till the advent of the UN Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm Conference),held in the year 1972. The Conference was the first occasion when global environmental issues were discussed as a matter of concern at the global level. Before this also environmental treaties existed, but they largely remained limited to localised issues like wildlife preservation, migratory birds, conservation of wetlands etc. Multiple factors like extinction of the Blue Whale due to indiscriminate hunting, rampant nuclear bomb testings in the 1960s and use of chemical warfare during the Vietnam War which adversely impacted environment as well as human health, finally resulted in a proposal from the side of the Swedish government to organise the Conference.
It will not be wrong to state that the Stockholm Declaration, the legal instrument produced as a result of the Stockholm Conference appears more to be a Human Rights instrument rather than an environmentally oriented regulatory framework. Moreover, the anthropocentric nature of the declaration, which otherwise is popularly known as Magna Carta of environmental law, gets reflected in its preamble itself.
Evolution of Sustainable Governance Models
This spirit of the declaration, was further carried forward in the Brundtland Commission report, published in the year 1987, which gave the concept of ‘sustainable development’ a concrete shape. Through this concept it was realised that developmental activities cannot be given up in absolute terms and the need of the hour, therefore, was to adopt environmentally sustainable activities to create a balance. The next milestone in environmental regulation, achieved by the World Community, was the UN Conference on Environment and Development. The conference gave birth to three important environmental law instruments namely, the Rio Declaration, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Further, all three of the above mentioned instruments had ‘sustainability’ as their theme.
Despite receiving a good response from nation states in the form of substantial number of ratifications, the objectives of the above mentioned international instruments has remained a distant dream and the natural environment continues to witness deterioration, so much so, that it is about to reach the stage of irreversibility. Further, rampant developmental activities, which are being carried out at a global scale have also totally disregarded the principles of ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable use’, as enshrined in the preamble of CBD. The UNFCCC mandate of ‘stabilization of greenhouse gases’ has also not received a collective effort from the side of the World Community.
Sustainability in the Times of Coronavirus Pandemic
The significance of these issues increases multifold in the contemporary times when the World is witnessing a humanitarian crises in the form of the COVID19 pandemic. Establishing a connection between ‘development’, ‘environmental degradation’ and the Corona Virus pandemic is important because in the roots of this virus spread lies the illegal wildlife trade in which China has remained engaged for decades. In the past also the scientific community has attributed origination of several contagious diseases to Chinese wet markets where exotic and vulnerable species are sold at commercial levels. This deadly disease outbreak is, thus, being seen as an eye opening moment, having the capacity to halt wildlife trade as well as habitat destruction.
The other linking point between the Coronavirus pandemic and sustainability is the issue of sanitation and hygiene. Insanitary conditions can be called both a cause and an effect of the pandemic. The connection between unhygienic practices and disease outbreak does not require much explanation, however, the bio-medical waste management and related issues have emerged as a major regulatory hassle in the present day crisis, which are demanding a detailed policy framework for proper management. This also gets reflected in the ‘Goal 6’ of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), established in the year 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly, which talks about ‘Ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.’
It has further been reported that due to the lockdowns imposed in several nation states, economic and industrial activities came to a complete standstill, which resulted in drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions worldwide. Certain reports were also rejoicing by citing positive signs being shown by ozone layer recovery and giving the Corona pandemic a credit for the same. In those moments of temporary happiness, the years which national jurisdictions spent in implementing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion were discredited. Moreover, if latest reports are to be believed catastrophic rise in greenhouse gases has further worsened the condition of ozone levels in the environment. This raises a very pertinent question with respect to how the mankind plans to deal with climate change, because of the simple reason that such arguments are simply based on devaluing persistent application of sustainable governance models, which will not merely improve the degraded environmental conditions but will also result in improvement of living condition of millions of individuals living under perilous circumstances.
*Aaditya Vikram Sharma, Assistant professor, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
Kashmir conundrum and the international law
The scrapping of article 370 and subsequent annexation and illegal occupation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir by India has once again, brought the seven-decades-old Kashmir issue, a prime cause of friction between two nuclear states India and Pakistan into international limelight. Before this constitutional catastrophe, the state had special status, separate laws, constitution, and flag. This special status has been revoked in utter contravention of UNSC resolutions and international law.
This mala fide move by Modi government is indubitably aimed at eclipsing the importance of the issue of Kashmir by localizing it and thereby putting it on backburner. However, the irrefutable fact is that the Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, and recognized as such, without any reservation, by international community.
Amid Indo-Pak partition, Under Article 2 (4) of the independence act of India, the princely states were given choice to join “either of the new Dominions”. While it was an easy decision for some princely states due to their geographical proximity, territorial contiguity or political and religious affiliation of the rulers and subjects, the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir emerged as a chronic conundrum and a nuclear flash point between two nuclear countries India and Pakistan.
To add, in the beginning, the ruler of the state, Maharaja Hari Singh, toyed with the idea of remaining independent. However, Indian machinations spearheaded by Congress leaders including Nehru and Patel created such circumstances for maharaja that left him with no option but to capitulate to their demand of “ Accession of state of Jammu and Kashmir to India”. Hence, Hari Singh, due to unwarranted conditions, forged by the Indian Machiavellian masterminds, had to agree to sign the instrument of accession with India. Thus, On October 27, 1947, the governor general of India approved the accession with the condition that “as soon as law and order were restored in Kashmir…the question of [the] state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people [of Jammu and Kashmir].”
The purported Instrument of Accession (which India has failed to produce) denies the authority of any unilateral action by India. The terms of this Instrument would not be varied by any amendment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 without acceptance of the ruler of the state (clause 5). Further, nothing in the Instrument could have been deemed to be a commitment as to acceptance of any future constitution of India and nothing could affect the sovereignty of the Maharaja over the state (clause 7 and 8).
So far as the internationalization of the issue of Kashmir is concerned, it is India that took the issue to international forum by knocking at the door of UN security council back in January 1, 1948, resultantly the Council, via UNSCR 38, called upon the contending governments to refrain from aggravating the circumstances and report any material changes on the ground. Thereafter, the Security Council over a number of years issued a total of 17 resolutions on the disputes status of Kashmir. UNSCR 47 of 1948, the most important of roughly all resolutions on kashmir, calls for the resolution of the dispute of Kashmir’s accession to either India or Pakistan through effecting the democratic means of a free and impartial plebiscite.
Simla agreement is another worth quoting document ,deemed as the premier bilateral accord between the warring nations, it holds that “principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries”, hence shining light on the validity of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. The disputed nature of the issue is further reiterated as, “In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side.
Moreover, the same Simla Agreement also forbids unilateral action to change the status of the state. Clause 1(ii) of the agreement specifically states that neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation. Clause 6 further emphasizes that both the countries should discuss modalities for a final settlement of the state through diplomatic means. Thus, India’s claim that the revocation of Occupied Kashmir’s ‘special status’ is its internal issue negates its commitment under the agreement.
Additionally, the right of self-determination is the basic principle of the united Nation charter which has been reaffirmed in the universal declaration of human rights, and applied countless times to the settlement of international issues. The concept played significant role in post-world war I settlement, leading for example to plebiscite in a number of disputed areas.
However, in 1945 the establishment of UN gave a new dimension to the principal of self-determination. It was made one of the objectives which the UN would seek to achieve, along with equal rights of all nations.
The principle of self-determination and the maintenance of international peace and security are inseparable. For example, the denial of this right to self-determination to the people of Kashmir has brought the two neighboring countries in South Asia — India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
Apart from the specific UN resolutions which guarantee Kashmiris’ the right to self-determination, the UN Charter in Article 1(2) declared one of its purposes as, “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. This serves as the biggest impetus to the said right under international law.
In 1952, the General Assembly further expounded this principle and stated in Resolution 637A(VII), that ‘the right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights’ and recommended that UN members ‘shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations’. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples enshrined in GA resolution 1514 of 1960 upheld the right to self-determination. The resolution explicitly says, “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
What’s more to say is that the principle of self-determination was given overwhelming protection in Article 1 of both International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In 1966, these two covenants enshrined the self-determination principle verbatim as was laid in GA resolution 1514. The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations (GA Resolution 2625 of 1970) went further in recognizing that peoples resisting forcible suppression of their claim to self-determination are entitled to seek and receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Since the adoption of the Declaration in 1970, the ICJ has, on a number of occasions, confirmed that the principle of self-determination constitutes a binding norm of customary international law and even a rule of jus cogens- peremptory rule of international law. Thus, international law and the specific UNSC resolutions on Kashmir uphold and provide the Kashmiris with the overriding principle of right to self-determination.
Inter alia, by the revoking the state’s ‘special status’, the situation has now become an ‘occupation’ with an ‘unlawful annexation’. India is an Occupying Power and it has unlawfully annexed the state. From international legal opinion on the issue of self-determination, as developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the process of decolonization, the fate of millions of people cannot be left to the whims of India. Given the UN General Assembly’s resolution of 1960 concerning Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have every right to self-determination.
India has no title on the state under international law. India’s illegal occupation since 1947; denial of the right to self-determination of the people; application of India’s constitution by removing the state’s special status, makes India an Occupying Power and its army a hostile force. The BJP’s recent attempt to include the territory of the state within the Union’s territory of India is an act of ‘occupation’ and ‘illegal annexation.
While commenting on Article 47 of the Geneva Convention IV, jurist Jean S Pictet explains that the Occupying Power is the administrator of the territory and is under various positive obligations towards the Occupied Population (ie the Occupying Power cannot annex the Occupied Territory or change its political status). Jean elaborates that the Occupying Power must respect and maintain the political and other institutions of the Occupied Territory. Therefore, India being an Occupying Power cannot annex the state’s territory and is bound to keep the state’s institutions and territorial boundaries intact till the conduct of plebiscite under the UNSC resolution 1948.
The International Commission of Jurists has categorically stated that “the Indian government’s revocation of the autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir violates the rights of representation and participation guaranteed to the people [of Jammu and Kashmir] under… international law”.
To cap it all, the world powers should take a leaf from the statement made on June 15, 1962 by American representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson” the best approach is to take for a point of departure the area of common ground which exists between the parties. I refer of course to the resolutions which were accepted by both parties and which in essence provide for demilitarization of the territory and a plebiscite whereby the population may freely decide the future status of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Shari’a Law and Dispute Resolution in the Post-COVID-19 Legal Order
Modern societies have for many years evolved efficient methods for resolving legal disputes in a peaceful manner. Litigation in courts, as well as out-of-court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods – such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration – are popular avenues through which a wide range of commercial and non-commercial disputes are resolved in Qatar and beyond.
However, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses complex and multifaceted challenges to justice delivery systems across the world. History teaches us that in times of global disasters and economic disruptions, such as those triggered by COVID-19, legal disputes significantly increase. These include employment disputes, breach of contract, bankruptcy, insurance claims, family disputes, supply chain disruptions, and more. In light of the impending tsunami of complex legal disputes that could arise post-COVID-19, lawyers and judicial institutions will require support so that they can effectively handle such disputes and not be overwhelmed. In addition to technological, digitalization, financial and infrastructure needs, innovative dispute management mechanisms will be required to avoid institutional gridlock.
The COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to explore how Shari’a law – the principal source of law in Muslim countries – can provide additional and innovative avenues for dispute resolution. For many years, the value of Islamic ADR has been explored in the literature but has not been exhaustively tested. Islamic ADR promotes the resolution of disputes outside of courts, in accordance with the tenets and procedures of Shari’a law. Shari’a-compliant modes of resolving disputes include Muhtasib (use of an ombudsman); Sulh (negotiation, mediation/conciliation); and Tahkim (arbitration). One distinguishing feature of Islamic ADR, as compared to traditional ADR methods, is that parties agree to abide by Qur’anic injunctions and prophetic practice in determining their claims. For example, the Qur’an and Hadith prohibit the levying of interest (riba). In selecting Islamic ADR, parties therefore choose to exclude riba.
In addition to its inestimable moral, cultural and spiritual value, Islamic ADR can provide an alternative legal framework for resolving non-commercial disputes such as family disputes, property and inheritance. The same is also true of small and medium scale entrepreneurial disputes where religious tenets and principles can play a key role in timely, less acrimonious, and cost-effective resolution. In a post-COVID-19 world, Islamic ADR Tribunals can reduce the impending pressure and demand on courts and ADR institutions and allow parties to achieve final and binding resolution in a timely, accessible and cost-efficient manner.
Islamic ADR can be implemented within the framework of existing judicial institutions across the Islamic world. Among the lessons that can be gleaned from countries such as the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Indonesia, where Islamic ADR is already being implemented with varying levels of success, is that the most important first step is to develop clear and comprehensive rules and procedures that provide legal backing and support for Islamic ADR.
For example, the Asian International Arbitration Centre in Malaysia has developed Islamic Arbitration Rules (i-Arbitration Rules), which provide a comprehensive framework of Shari’a-compliant rules and procedures for resolving disputes. An equally important step for fast-tracking the adoption of Islamic ADR is to leverage the existing expertise of arbitrators, practitioners and scholars who are already well versed in the intricacies of ADR, as well as the fundamental principles of law. Such experts can guide the speedy development of tailored Islamic ADR principles and procedures that reflect the rich and diverse legal cultures and traditions across and within Muslim countries.
Higher education institutions also have crucial roles to play in developing innovative programs to train and prepare societies for the emerging legal order post-COVID 19. The College of Law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU) is already spearheading innovation in this area. Through its Juris Doctor (J.D.) program, LL.M. in International Economic and Business Law, LL.M. in International Law and Foreign Affairs, as well as the Certificate Program “Law in Practice in Qatar”, students have exceptional opportunities to acquire comparative legal skills and knowledge on the rudiments of ADR and its practical application in their home countries.
This article is submitted on behalf of the author by the HBKU Communications Directorate. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the University’s official stance.
Russia’s geopolitics and strategy in the future
Russia’s military doctrine is clearly closely related to European security – which is obvious even after the Cold War– and...
Spurious Assertions May Cause Diplomatic Failure
America has once again disregarded the enduring efforts of Pakistan in war on terror. The latest US state department’s report...
“Together for Europe’s recovery”: Germany takes over Council presidency
While the corona pandemic continues, Germany took over the six-month presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 July....
Building Back Better: The new normal development path
Global stock markets such as Footsie, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nikkei has decreased the profit since the outbreak of...
Giorgio Armani and Gino Sorbillo Named New Special Ambassadors for Tourism
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has appointed two new Special Ambassadors as it leads the restart of the sector across...
Moneyball: Is intuition the one thing that makes sports beautiful?
Looking from afar, Moneyball looks like a male-centric sport movie that teaches us about how baseball works. But looking more...
“America first” and Canada’s approach towards immigration
The Trump Administration’s recent announcement to suspend work visas–H1B (visas for high skilled professionals), H4B (spouses of H1B visa holders)...
Europe3 days ago
Of Multilateralism And Future To Europe Recalibration
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Malaysia in the geopolitical picture of Southeast Asia
Economy2 days ago
Coronavirus Impact On The World Of Work Traverses National Borders
Energy3 days ago
Covid-19 Impact on Africa’s Energy Sectors: Challenges and Opportunities
Americas3 days ago
The Atom And The Virus: A Progressively Lethal Convergence For The United States
Urban Development2 days ago
Mapping the juxtaposition of sustainable-affordable housing in the post Covid world
Americas1 day ago
Revisiting Fukuyama’s ‘End of History Thesis”
Middle East2 days ago
Economic Crisis Does Little to Dampen Mohammed bin Salman’s Pricey Ambitions