Connect with us

International Law

The Artemis Accords: Repeating the Mistakes of the Age of Exploration

Published

on

“Space is a warfighting domain. . . . It is not enough to have an American presence in space; we must have American dominance in space.”- U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence, 20181

In the spring of 1493, the King and Queen of Spain sent an envoy to the Pope in Rome. Along with Portugal, Spain had just used its advanced sailing and navigation technology to reach “new worlds”, areas of the Earth that had not been previously discovered by Europeans. But they had a problem: they wanted to establish sovereign property rights in the lands they had discovered, but they weren’t sure they could do so under their own authority. So they turned to the only international authority in Europe at that time, the Catholic Church, which held sway over governments from Portugal to Poland, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. If the Church would establish a legal framework that granted them sovereignty, then those nations would be bound to recognize it.2

This is the first lesson that the current governments of the world can learn from the Age of Exploration & Empire that began five centuries ago. Even then, the most powerful nation in Europe, with the largest army and most advanced technology, realized that it could not unilaterally establish property rights or any other kind of sovereignty without the approval of an international authority. After the Church granted that authority, Spain was able to create one of the greatest empires in history. Spain and Portugal formalized the arrangement with a binding international agreement, the Treaty of Tordesillas, whose purpose was to ensure peaceful cooperation between their nations, primarily by establishing a line of demarcation that separated their areas of activity.3

Unfortunately, the legal framework so established was based on national dominance, not multilateral international cooperation. The grant of sovereignty was exclusive, made only to Spain and Portugal, and it required them to subjugate the “savages” in the lands they discovered by taking along Church missionaries.This exclusivity did not sit well with other nations as they also developed the technologies of exploration; it was one of the reasons many northern European nations joined the Protestant Reformation and rejected the authority of the Pope in Rome. Without a fair and equitable international agreement that honored the interests of emerging states, the Church lost its ability to act as an arbiter between nations.

Even worse, the dominance model set up centuries of conflict among the major powers in Europe. Militant nationalism and economic colonialism became the principles guiding national policy. The result was centuries of war, suffering, and neglect among the major powers and the nations they subjugated. This pattern did not end until the 20th century, when the major powers fought two world wars and finally dismantled their colonial empires, sometimes peacefully, sometimes by force.

By the mid-1960’s, most countries on Earth were independent or on their way to becoming so. But a new conflict had started, one that threatened to repeat the mistakes of five centuries earlier. The great powers were once again using their advanced technology to explore new worlds, and the race was on to plant their flag on the Moon first. Under the ancient traditions, the country that did so would have a claim against all others for possession and use of the territory. The Cold War was about to expand into outer space.

But then something wonderful happened. In 1967, the United Nations proposed, and the world’s space powers accepted, an international agreement known as the Outer Space Treaty.4The Treaty was an intentional effort to avoid the mistakes of the Age of Exploration & Empire. Article I states that “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” Article II is even more specific: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” Because of this Treaty, the United States carried a plaque to the Moon that said, “We came in peace for all mankind”.5 When the Apollo 11 astronauts planted the U.S. flag, they did so out of pride, but did not establish any claim or national priority.

This legal framework worked well initially, but people soon started wondering about what to do when countries and/or private entities wanted to start commercial activity on the Moon, or build settlements. The solution was the Moon Treaty, proposed by the United Nations and adopted by enough nations to come into force in 1984.6 But it has not yet been adopted by any space-faring nation. The United States, by a recent executive order, has specifically renounced the Treaty and stated its intentions to extract materials from the Moon without any international agreement.7

The newly announced Artemis Accords go even further. Although the actual Accords have not been released pending consultation with possible partners, the summary provided by NASA8indicates that the United States will unilaterally interpret the Outer Space Treaty to allow “space resource extraction”, despite the prohibition against appropriation in Article II of the Treaty. There will also be “safety zones” to avoid “harmful interference” with such operations. The effect is to establish exclusive economic zones, especially if “harmful interference” is defined to include economic harm, not just safety. Will the new Space Force be used to protect such economic interests? Will other nations be excluded if they support the Moon Treaty?9Will private actors be required to follow the same rules as states, as recommended in the recently-drafted Moon Village Principles?10This is the slippery slope of using unilateral action to establish economic rights rather than an international agreement.

The Artemis Accords acknowledge many beneficial agreements and policies: The Outer Space Treaty, Rescue Agreement, and Registration Convention (though not the Liability Convention); peace, transparency, interoperability, protecting heritage sites and sharing scientific information. But its unilateral authorization of space mining is a continuation of the Trump Administration’s underlying foreign policy strategy: unilateral dominance over international cooperation. The United States has withdrawn from the Paris Accords, the Iranian nuclear deal, and, in the middle of a pandemic, the World Health Organization. Dominance has even become the theme of the Administration’s domestic policy, with President Trump recently telling governors, “If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time. . . . You have to dominate.”11That core philosophy is now being applied to outer space, as Vice-President Mike Pence proudly announced (above). Despite the lessons of history, the United States is going full speed ahead with the “dominance” model of space development rather than working with the nations of the world to develop a “cooperation” model. Outer space, which so far has been preserved for peace and cooperation, is about to be spoiled, perhaps forever.

But if the Moon Treaty is the key to peaceful cooperation in outer space, why haven’t more nations adopted it? The reason appears to be that the Treaty is incomplete, and thus flawed. Article 11 requires an implementation agreement to create the legal framework for private activity. Without that agreement in place, some states fear the worst, that they will lose their sovereignty if they adopt the Treaty, especially since it refers to outer space as the “common heritage of mankind”. Private mining interests are afraid that their profits will be taxed for redistribution to less-developed countries. As one space law scholar put it:

“Some would say the biggest challenge for the implementation of the Moon Agreement are four little words found in Article 11 . . . the “common heritage of [hu]mankind”. . . . At first glance, it appears that to implement the concept of common heritage of humankind, an international body must be created to redistribute wealth and technology among nations.”12

Some even wonder if they will be able to market the materials they extract. As recently explained by an attorney for the mining industry:

Here’s the issue on the security of tenure [the right to extract materials] and the fiscal regime: there’s an Outer Space Treaty that was signed by a lot of countries when the moon exploration was going on, and the treaty includes a provision that says you can’t appropriate celestial bodies, that would include the moon.

The question is — what happens if I go to the moon? I set up shop, and I extract ice and rocks and start making things, do I own the rocks that I’ve extracted? I’m not saying that I own the moon, but if I put in the effort, do I own the resources? Same thing with asteroids,if I send a robot to the asteroid, it sets up shop and starts extracting things and using them, do you own the extracted mineral? And that’s the legal issue, that’s the unsettled question.13

Until the rule of law is extended to the Moon by such an international agreement, there will be great uncertainty as to the viability of commercial activities. It is an axiom of economics that businesses and investors hate uncertainty, as it makes it impossible to analyze risk and estimate the return on investment.

The solution is to create an implementation agreement that addresses these concerns and can be adopted along with the Moon Treaty. To that end, a Model Implementation Agreement has been drafted by The Space Treaty Project. It was first distributed for comment in 2018 and made its public debut at the 2019 Shanghai Advanced Space Technology conference. It has recently undergone peer review and was published in the Journal of Advances in Astronautics Science and Technology.14

The Model Implementation Agreement has only 10 paragraphs and is based on four organizational principles:

1) The Agreement must be comprehensive and support all private activity;

2) The Grand Bargain: Trade private property rights for public policy obligations;

3) Defer issues currently at impasse (e.g., monetary sharing of benefits) by creating a governance process for making future decisions;

4) Integrate and build upon current institutions and processes.

The Model Agreement supports all private activity by defining the “use of resources” to include the use of any location on the Moon for any purpose, much the same way that real estate and property rights are considered resources on Earth. Any use would be supported if the private activity is authorized/supervised by a country that has adopted the Moon Treaty and the implementation agreement, because any country that has done so has agreed to the public policy obligations therein and to require that their nationals abide by them.

What are the obligations of the Moon Treaty that the countries and their nationals must accept? They are summarized in paragraph 4 of the Model Agreement:

4. Public Policy Obligations

The States Parties agree that the public policy obligations of the Treaty and this Agreement include the following:

1. Use outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes (Article 3.1);

2. Provide co-operation and mutual assistance (4.2); 

3. Honor the Registration Convention and inform the public of:

– Activities (5.1)

– Scientific discoveries (5.1)

– Any phenomena which could endanger human life or health (5.3)

– Any indication of organic life (5.3)

– The discovery of resources (11.6)

– Any change of status, harmful impacts of activities, use of nuclear power, and links to websites for specific objects/activities [COPUOS recommendations]

4. Protect the environment and preserve areas of “special scientific interest” such as historic landing sites (7.1-7.3);

5. Allow free access to all areas by other parties (9.2);

6. Honor the Rescue Treaty (10.1)

7. Share technology as part of sharing the benefits of outer space with less technologically advanced countries (4.1-4.2)

The full Agreement [follows this article] or [is available at http://spacetreaty.org/modelimplementationagreement.pdf]:

Most of these obligations are already established in other widely adopted treaties, i.e., the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue Agreement, the Registration Convention, and the Liability Convention. Even the Artemis Accords acknowledge many of them (see above).But there are some that are not acknowledged, such as sharing the discovery of resources, protecting the natural environment, and sharing technology. The Accords are also silent as to whether its obligations will apply to private parties.

Sharing technology is not specified in the Moon Treaty, but some view it as included in Article 4:“The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.”The “Building Blocks” of The Hague Spaces Resources International Working Group call for sharing technology on a “mutually-accepted basis”.15The Working Group members were “stakeholders of space resource activities and represent consortium partners, industry, States, international organizations, academia and NGOs.”16It is significant that stakeholders from the private sector are willing to consider the sharing of technology. If a “mutually-accepted basis” for sharing cannot be found, the Model Agreement would require the licensing of technology at fair market value.

Accepting the obligations of the Moon Treaty is the trade-off for private property rights, the “Grand Bargain” in the organizational principles. They are no more onerous or burdensome than the obligations that property owners must accept on Earth. Here, property owners must always consider what effect activity on their own property will have on others. Property on Earth is subject to regulation (e.g., zoning, permits, safety) and can be taken (with compensation) for public policy reasons. It is unreasonable to expect that the use of property on the Moon will not be subject to similar regulation.

The Model Agreement contains other provisions, such as controlling law, dispute resolution, and future governance for substantive decisions. It also protects the rights of individuals and those wanting to establish private settlements: “Nothing in this Agreement or in the Treaty shall be interpreted as denying or limiting the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the right of settlements to seek autonomy and/or recognition as sovereign nations.” (Paragraph 10). By providing legal support for all private activity, protecting individual rights, and maintaining essential public policies, the Model Implementation Agreement satisfies all concerns about the Moon Treaty and creates a practical, cooperative alternative to the unilateral and exclusive dominance model being proposed by the United States.

The current Model Agreement is the product of consultation with many individuals and organizations over the past three years. It now being presented for consideration as a reasonable alternative to the Artemis Accords. If adopted, the Agreement will have a significant advantage over the Accords in that, like all treaties, it will be an enforceable international agreement that is binding on the States Parties, not just a unilateral action by one country with a few activity partners. It will also be comprehensive, supporting all private activity, not just materials extraction like the Accords. And it will include an overall framework for international cooperation, including controlling law and dispute resolution, none of which are included in the Accords.

We have become familiar with the Overview Effect, that fundamental change in attitude that comes from viewing the Earth from space, as with the picture of Earthrise taken from the Moon in 1968. We must now take an overview through time. Humanity is on the verge of leaving the home planet. It is the greatest adventure and opportunity in our history, but it will be an opportunity lost if we repeat the mistakes of the last Age of Exploration. We can continue to preserve outer space for peaceful cooperation, or we can extend the pattern of domination and conflict that for too long has controlled our destiny on Earth.

At this most pivotal moment in history, the choice is ours.

Many thanks to Vidvuds Beldavs and the International Lunar Decade (https://ildwg.wordpress.com/) for assistance in researching this article.

References

1. Washington Post, videos of U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence: “Space is a warfighting domain”, October 23, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LtLNp4nde0“We must have American dominance in space”, August 9, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xEkyT7XrxQ

2. Bulls of Donation (1493), Wikipedia (Three papal “Bulls of Donation”- Inter Caetera,Eximiae Devotionis,and Inter Caetera (2)- were issued May 3-4, 1493, and a fourth – Dudum Siquidem– on September 26, defining the terms of the “donation” of lands to each country). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulls_of_Donation#cite_note-verzijl-1

3. The Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

4. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (The Outer Space Treaty, 1967), United Nations Office of Outer Space Activities (UNOOSA).http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

5. Lunar Plaque, Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_plaque#cite_note-Moon_Flag-1

6. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (The Moon Treaty, 1984), UNOOSA.http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html

7. Executive Order on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources, The White House, April 6, 2020.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-encouraging-international-support-recovery-use-space-resources/

8.NASA, The Artemis Accords (2020).https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html

9. “Australia would be obliged to withdraw from the Moon Treaty if it accepts an offer to join the Accords.” Mark Whittington, How the United States plans to make space exploration pay, The Hill, April 26, 2020.https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/494730-how-the-united-states-plans-to-make-space-exploration-pay?fbclid=IwAR3lwrIV43fPX6T7lMDFC9tilnzZiBdidgUEAVLzNsTl6FLBnGtInT1xWMI

10. “States shall authorize and continually supervise all lunar activities of their nationals in order to ensure compliance with international law.” Moon Village Association,Moon Village Principles Issue 2 (draft), March 5, 2020. https://moonvillageassociation.org/moon-village-principles-mvp-issue-2-draft-public-consultation-opens/

11. David Choi, ‘Exactly what President Trump wants’: Democratic governors are shunning Trump’s calls to ‘dominate’ protests using military forces, Business Insider, June 1, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/state-leaders-shun-trumps-calls-to-dominate-protests-using-military-2020-6

12. Michelle Hanlon, What is the Moon Treaty and is it still useful?,Filling Space, May 14, 2020.https://filling-space.com/2020/01/17/what-is-the-moon-treaty-and-is-it-still-useful/?fbclid=IwAR2HHd5x6hPQQf7AsuLuVoy5JpY98LxsWEbYofRCjiRwTIqKn8gkMP5tDGc

13. Stutt, Amanda, How Earth-bound Mining Lawyers Think About Space Mining (interview with Scot Anderson, attorney and Global Head of Energy & Natural Resources with the law firm Hogan Lovells in Denver, Colorado),Mining.Com, Jan. 3, 2020.https://www.mining.com/how-earth-bound-mining-lawyers-think-about-space-mining/?fbclid=IwAR0pbCwO20c9W_uEd1Rve0ME_6Aw5Z4XMcqr_MdTSrYr-L-VkB_TkKD5JrI

14. O’Brien, D. Legal Support for the Private Sector: An Implementation Agreement for the Moon Treaty. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42423-020-00059-w

15. The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group, Building Blocks For The Development Of An International Framework On Space Resource Activities (13. Sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of space resources),November 2019.https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht–en-ruimterecht/space-resources/bb-thissrwg–cover.pdf

16.The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group, International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University (2019)https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/law/institute-of-public-law/institute-of-air-space-law/the-hague-space-resources-governance-working-group

Model Implementation Agreementfor the Moon Treaty (May 2020)

Preface

The provisions of this Agreement and the underlying Treaty shall be interpreted and applied together as a single instrument. In the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and the Treaty, the provisions of the Agreement shall prevail. After the adoption of the Agreement, any instrument of ratification or formal confirmation of or accession to the Treaty shall also represent consent to be bound by theAgreement. No State or entity may establish its consent to be bound by the Agreement unless it has previously established or establishes at the same time its consent to be bound by the Treaty.

1. Administration; Creation of Agency

The States Parties agree to create as soon as is practicable an agency (“Agency”) to administer the provisions of the Agreement Governing The Activities Of States On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies (“Treaty”) and this Implementation Agreement (“Agreement”).

2. Licenses for Private Activity; Exploitation of Resources

The States Parties agree to authorize the Agency to issue licenses to non-governmental entities (“NGE”) for the priority exploitation of resources. Exploitation of resources shall include but is not limited to: (a) the extraction of materials, (b) the use of a location for any other commercial activity [e.g., tourism], and (c) the use of a location for non commercial private activity [e.g., science, settlements]. Licenses shall describe the extent, duration, and nature of the activity and shall maximize free access for all in accordance with Article I of the Treaty On Principles Governing The Activities Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies [the Outer Space Treaty]. Activity by governments is authorized under Treaty Articles 8 and 9.

3. Requirements for License; Adoption of Obligations

The States Parties agree that the Agency shall issue a license for any NGE activity that is authorized and supervised by a State Party to this agreement. The States Parties further agree to require that their nationals (a) accept the public policy obligations of the Treaty as mandated by Treaty Article 14, and (b) share technology as described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. The license shall be revoked if, at any time, a licensed NGE fails to comply with its obligations.

4. Public Policy Obligations

The States Parties agree that the public policy obligations of the Treaty and this Agreement include the following:

1. Use outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes (Treaty Article 3.1);

2. Provide co-operation and mutual assistance (4.2); 

3. Honor the Convention On Registration Of Objects Launched Into Outer Space (“Registration Convention”) and inform the public of:

– Activities (5.1)

– Scientific discoveries (5.1)

– Any phenomena which could endanger human life or health (5.3)

– Any indication of organic life (5.3)

– The discovery of resources (11.6)

– Any change of status, harmful impacts of activities, use of nuclear power, and links to websites for specific objects/activities [COPUOS recommendations]

4. Protect the environment and preserve areas of “special scientific interest” such as historic landing sites (7.1-7.3);

5. Allow free access to all areas by other parties (9.2);

6. Honor the Agreement On The Rescue Of Astronauts, The Return Of Astronauts And The Return Of Objects Launched Into Outer Space(“Rescue Treaty”) (10.1)

7. Share technology as part of sharing the benefits of outer space with less technologically advanced countries (4.1-4.2)

5. Sharing Technology; Exclusions

In accordance with Treaty Article 4, the States Parties agree to develop a process for sharing technology on a mutually acceptable basis. Until or in the absence of such a process, the States Parties agree to require their nationals to license technology at no more than fair market value. Technology that is subject to export controls shall be excluded from these requirements.

6. Standards and Recommended Practices; Registry

The States Parties, in consultation with non-governmental entities, agree to develop technology standards and recommended practices for the safe use and development of space resources. Such standards or practices shall not require technology that is subject to export controls. The Agency and/or other designated entities shall maintain the registry of such information and any information relevant to activities on the Moon that is not included in the registry for the Registration Convention that is maintained by the United Nations.

7. Protected Sites; Designation

The States Parties agree to prohibit the use or disturbance of any location on the Moon or other celestial body that is the site of a historical mission that occurred more than 20 years prior to the authorization of new activity pending a final determination of the site’s status as a Cultural Heritage Site. This prohibition applies to the location of any equipment and any evidence of presence (e.g., footprints, tracks). The States Parties agree to develop standards and recommended practices for determining what historical, cultural, or scientific sites should be protected or to designate another entity/process for making such determinations that will be binding on the States Parties.

8. Governance; Fees

The States Parties agree to create a process of governance for making substantive decisions as authorized under Articles 11 and 18 of the Treaty. The States Parties are financially responsible for the Agency, which shall be operated in a cost-effective manner. The collection and use of fees for administration or any other purpose is a substantive decision to be made by the governance process.

9. Dispute Resolution

The States Parties agree that any dispute concerning this Agreement or the Treaty shall be addressed using the consultation process detailed in Treaty Article 15. As an alternative, the States Parties hereby authorize the voluntary use of binding arbitration in accordance with the 2011 Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities. The results of such arbitration shall be enforceable underThe Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(“New York Convention”).  The Agency shall facilitate and inform the arbitration.

10. Controlling Law; Rights of Individuals, Settlements

In accordance with Treaty Article 12, the States Parties agree that the controlling law at any location shall be the law of the country that authorized/supervises the activity at that location, subject to this Agreement and Treaty. Relations between locations of different nationalities will be governed by current international law, including theConvention On International Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects(“Liability Convention”), until such time as new substantive rules are created under the governance process in Agreement Paragraph 8, as authorized by Treaty Article 18. Nothing in this Agreement or in the Treaty shall be interpreted as denying or limiting the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the right of settlements to seek autonomy and/or recognition as sovereign nations.

Dennis O’Brien is a member of the International Institute of Space Law and founder of The Space Treaty Project (www.spacetreaty.org). The Project is a member of the Moon Village Association; Mr. O’Brien sits on their Coordination & Cooperation workgroup

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Basic knowledge about Peace Education and how it is beneficial in resolving conflicts

Published

on

“Peace education is a pedagogical to create a world at peace by pace we mean more than the absence of violence”-Johan Galtung

Peace education emerged during post World War II, with a variety of definitions and explanations. Generally it is defined as “The education that comprises of planning, pedagogy, skills and teachings that lead towards peace.”

The multifaceted approaches of peace embrace human right education, developmental education, environmental education, conflict resolution education and disarmament education. Peace education is a task of gaining the values, knowledge. The greatest source of building peace are people itself. Peace education brings transformation by erecting cognizance and perception. Peace education should first bid youth and adults to be cognizant of aftermath of a peculiar conflict. Then, they should be asked to use their observing abilities, perceptions and visualize themselves in place of others to recognize their suffering and foster empathy for the ones going through violence.

Peace education encourages young minds to transform conflict in a peaceful manner and conflict resolution through tranquil paths. Peace education involves movement against system. To do so we must keep in mind the phases or levels of peace.

PHASES OF PEACE

There are three (3) phases of peace education:

Cognitive phase,Effective phase and Active phase.

Cognitive phase

NECESSITY OF PEACE EDUCATION

During past two decades the World has suffered many conflicts and highest ratio of violence which affected many countries and regions of world mainly third-world countries. Conflict like war leads to discriminatory disperse of assets.

Peace education is necessary for transformation of conflict in a tranquil method. Peace educations at developing universal values, it prepares to cope up with uncertain circumstances. It is dispensable to develop personal autonomy and influence, nourishes harmony. It has an important social intention. It seems to metamorphose the contemporary social state. It focuses on termination of war.

Social injustice, war and violence imposes long term consequences and affects the routine of common man. With peace education, it is thought that it will wipe out all the sufferings of mankind and makes path towards the transformation of world that is marked by violence. There are many campaigns going on for resolution of conflict, but none can succeed without peace education. It is tier to stave off military conflicts.  It is pivotal for the minds that have knowledge of peace education to use it in nifty fashion to perorate and command conflicts.

VALUES FUNDAMENTAL TO PEACE EDUCATION:

Self respect means having sense of one’s own worth. A person’s background’ defines him. And one leans toward positive change.

Others respect stands for having perception of allure of other people despite of their religion, caste and creed.

Gender equality vouches for bestowing equal rights to all human beings. Not only women but transgender as well, for they are the part of our society.

Justice stands for perception of equal rights. It upholds for the principle of equality and rejection of all kind of exploitation.

Social responsibility visualize enthusiasm to reshape the society in the best possible way

Positive vision has connotation tovisualize the future world full of peace’ a hope of tranquil tomorrow.

SKILLS FUNDAMENTAL TO PEACE EDUCATION:

These skills need to be developed.

Reflection is the use of perceptive thinking, through which people enhance their knowledge and understandings.

Critical thinking and Analysis, having an idea to do a research critical analysis meansability to approach issues with an open mind.

Decision making is the ability to analyze problems and search for their alternative solutions.

Imagination means creating new prototypes and alternative ways of living.

Group building means working in co-operation as a team to achieve goals. The postulate is that everyone has something to contribute, everyone is part of the solution.

Empathy is the ability to see the perception of an individual or a whole group, to see that what they are going through and developing same feeling as them.

SPHERE OF PEACE EDUCATION:

If we talk about the scope and sphere of peace education. Peace education constitutes of many conformation. Peace education accords in building a peaceful society. Main educations among peace education are:

Disarmament Education:

Disarmament protests rose after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed by cold war. From here the beginning of peace education evolved as a rejoinder to menaces of nuclear weapons. In recent times, excessive use of arms have become a major concern of peace education. UN Office of Disarmament Affairs) reported that 70 % of the expenditures in the annual global trade on conventional arms, estimated at $ 30 billion, are made by poor countries in the developing world (UNDDA, 2002).

Human Rights Education:

Following the universal declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the movement towards educating people started. This movement was called Human Rights Education. It adds to the enjoyment of pivotal Human Rights. It rose as an important concern to HRE, to teach all the people. Because every individual cannot be taught in a single classroom. HRE comprises of notion of chumminess of rights and responsibilities.

Global Education

It is defined as the programs and education that can help an individual learn more about human rights and care more about world and worldly affairs. It creates a sense to care more about the planet Earth.

Conflict Resolution Education

From the past two decades conflict resolution education have gained thrust. It has been added to the curriculum of many educational institutions. CRE has many important goals one of them is to create a constructive and peaceful society. Teaching students to make them peacemakers and to create n environment that to reach acceptable solutions.CRE principles are now increasingly used in many schools, workplaces, offices in Philippines as well as many parts of the world.

Multi-cultural Education

Multicultural education has developed first in the countries which consist of diversity of multi cultural population. Mainly in the countries having history of receiving immigrants. It helps students to appreciate cultural differences and similarities to create bonds with them. Young children can easily absorb negative stereotypes of the society so multi-cultural education from the beginning level creates a sense of brotherhood among them. Multi-cultural education looks forward to eliminate all these negative stereotypes.

Interfaith Education

The interfaith movement began in 1893 at the World’s Parliament of Religions gathering in Chicago, which gave rise to Interfaith education. It gave rise to many interfaith organizations. It is considered as the most important form of education to promote peace. It creates a sense of co-operation among religions.  

Development Education

Development education emerged in 1960’s. It condemns biased economic order which leaned towards the consequences of hunger, homelessness and marginalization. NGO’s and institutions concerned with it are integrating many issue like inequality in society. It leads to the development of peaceful societies. It seeks to pursue consciousness summons undemocratic structures.

Non-Sexist Education

During the hike of feminism in1960’s there have been endeavour to oppose sexist education. Gender fair education seeks to promote principles that lead towards non-sexist society. A society where everyone practices equal rights despite of their gender. It advocates break down of gender based stereotypes.

CONCLUSION

Peace education is something that promotes tranquility in society. It aids in creating harmony among human beings and their environment. There are many happenings in the world that have no other solution than peace education. It leads towards a calm society. It emerged after WW II to promote quietude in the world. Since then many organizations and NGO’s are operational to promote peace education among individuals and groups of individuals. In a nutshell, one would mention that peace education is the only key to lead world towards positivity and calmness in most aspects. Peace education is a concrete pathway to deal with war and its aftermath. Teaching learners tranquil paths to resolve conflict plays constructive role in society.

Continue Reading

International Law

Is Antarctica the new Eldorado? The sixth continent between claims and international law

Published

on

December 1, 2019 marked the 60th anniversary of the signing in Washington of the Antarctic Treaty, the main legal instrument for managing practical activities and regulating interstate relations in the territory 60°parallel South.

On May 2, 1958, the U.S. State Department sent invitations to the governments of Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, Great Britain, New Zealand, Norway, the then South African Union and the USSR for the International Antarctic Conference. It was proposed to convene it in Washington in 1959. The group of participants at the Conference was limited to the countries that had carried out Antarctic projects as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) (July 1957-December 1958).

The Soviet Union supported the idea of convening a Conference. In a letter of reply, the Kremlin stressed that the outcome of the Conference should be the International Treaty on Antarctica with the following basic principles: peaceful use of Antarctica with a total ban on military activities in the region and freedom of scientific research and exchange of information between the Parties to the Treaty.

The Soviet government also proposed expanding the group of participants at the Conference to include all parties interested in the issue.

In those years, the international legal resolution of the Antarctic problem had become an urgent task. In the first half of the 20th century, territorial claims to Antarctica had been expressed by Australia, Argentina, Chile, France, Great Britain, New Zealand and Norway.

In response to the Soviet proposal, the United States kept all the territorial claims of various countries on the agenda, but it undertook to freeze them. Russia, however, believed that third parties’ territorial claims had to be denied. At the same time, the position of both States coincided almost entirely insofar as the right to make territorial claims for the ownership of the entire continent could be retained only as pioneers.

The USSR relied on the findings of the expedition by Russian Admiral F.G.Th. von Bellingshausen and his compatriot Captain M.P. Lazarev on the sloops-of-war Vostok and Mirnyj in 1819-1821, while the United States relied on the explorations of N.B. Palmer’s expedition on the sloop Hero in 1820.

The Conference opened on October 15, 1959 in Washington DC. It was attended by delegations from twelve countries that had carried out studies as part of IGY’s programmes in Antarctica.

The Conference ended on December 1, 1959 with the signing of the Antarctic Treaty. This is the main international law instrument governing the planet’s Southern polar region.

The basic principles of the Treaty are the following: peaceful use of the region, as well as broad support for international cooperation and freedom of scientific research. Antarctica has been declared a nuclear-free zone. Previously announced territorial claims in Antarctica have been maintained but frozen and no new territorial claims are to be accepted. The principle of freedom to exchange information and the possibility to inspect the activities of the Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have been proclaimed. The agreement is open to accession by any UN Member State and has no period of validity.

Over time, it has been proposed that the political and legal principles of the Treaty be further developed in the framework of regularly convened consultative meetings. Decisions at these meetings can only be taken by the Parties to the Treaty that have a permanent expedition station in Antarctica.

All decisions are taken exclusively by consensus, in the absence of reasoned objections. The first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting was held in the Australian capital, Canberra, from 10 to 24 July 1961.

Until 1994 (when the 18th Consultative Meeting was held in Kyoto), meetings were held every one or two years, but since the 19th Meeting held in Seoul in 1995 they have begun to be convened on a yearly basis. The most recent Meeting, the 42nd one, was held in Prague from 11 to 19 July 2019. The 43rdConsultative Meeting will be hosted in Paris on 14-24 June, 2021: the suspension of the Meeting that was to be held in Helsinki from 24 May to 5 June 2020 was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 17th Meeting was held in Venice, Italy, on November 11-20, 1992.

The main decisions of the Meetings until 1995 were called recommendations and since 1996 ATCM measures. They come into force following the ratification procedure by the Consultative Parties. A total of 198 recommendations and 194 measures have been adopted.

Over sixty years, the number of Parties to the Antarctic Treaty has increased from twelve founders in 1959 to 54 in 2019. These include 29 countries in Europe, nine in Asia, eight in South America, four in North and Central America, three in Oceania and one in Africa.

The number of Consultative Parties to the Treaty that have national expeditions in Antarctica keeps on growing: Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Chile, the People’s Republic of China, (South) Korea, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, India, Italy, Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Russia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, Uruguay and the United States of America.

The remaining 25 Antarctic Treaty countries with Non-Consultative Party status are invited to attend relevant meetings, but are not included in the decision-making process.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the desire to join the Treaty was reinforced by the desire of many countries to develop Antarctica’s biological and mineral resources. Growing practical interest in Antarctica and its resources led to the need to adopt additional environmental documents.

During that period, recommendations for the protection of Antarctica’s nature were adopted almost every year at the Consultative Meetings. They served as starting material for the creation of three Conventions, which protect the natural environment: 1) the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals; 2) the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; and 3) the Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources.

Later, based on the recommendations and Conventions adopted, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was drafted. It became an environmental part of the Treaty and was signed on October 4, 1991 for a period of 50 years at the Madrid Consultative Meeting – hence it is also called the Madrid Protocol.

According to the Protocol, Antarctica is declared a “natural reserve for peace and science” and should be preserved for future generations. After 1991, the new countries that adhered to the Treaty started to show interest in participating in large-scale international research projects on global climate change and environmental protection.

Considering the above, Antarctica can be described as a global scientific laboratory: there are about 77 stations on the continent, which have supplied their scientists from 29 countries. They explore the continent itself, the patterns of climate change on Earth and the space itself.

However, how did it happen that the territories of the sixth continent became the target of scientists from all over the world?

In 1908, Great Britain announced that Graham Land (the Antarctic peninsula south of Ushuaia) and several islands around Antarctica were under the authority of the Governor of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands (claimed by Argentina). The reason for this was that they were/are close to the archipelago.

Furthermore, Great Britain and the United States preferred not to acknowledge that Antarctica had been discovered by the Russian explorers Bellingshausen and Lazarev. According to their version, the discoverer of the continent was James Cook, who saw the impenetrable sea ice of Antarctica, but at the same time confidently insisted that there was no continent south of the Earth.

A dozen years later, the appetites of the British Empire grew and in 1917 it decided to seize a large sector of Antarctica between 20° and 80°meridian West as far as the South Pole. Six years later, Great Britain added to its ‘possessions’ the territory between 150°meridian East and 160°meridian West, discovered in 1841 by the explorer Capt. J.C. Ross, and assigned it to the administration of its New Zealand’s colony.

The British Dominion of Australia received a “plot of land” between 44° and 160° meridian East in 1933. In turn, France claimed its rights to the area between 136° and 142° meridian East in 1924: that area was discovered in 1840 and named Adélie Land by Capt. J. Dumont d’Urville. Great Britain did not mind, and the Australian sector was not disputed by France.

In 1939, Norway decided to have a piece of the Antarctic pie, declaring that the territory between 20° meridian West and 44° meridian East, namely Queen Maud Land, was its own. In 1940 and 1942, Chile and Argentina entered the dispute and the lands they chose not only partially overlapped, but also invaded Britain’s “Antarctic territories”.

Chile submitted a request for an area between 53° and 90° meridian West; Argentina, for an area between 25° and 74°meridian West. The situation began to heat up.

Furthermore, in 1939, Germany announced the creation of the German Antarctic Sector, namely New Swabia, while Japan also formalised its claims to a substantial area of Antarctic ice.

Again in 1939, for the first time the USSR expressed – as a premise and postulate – that Antarctica belonged to all mankind. After the end of World War II, all legal acts of the Third Reich were abandoned and Japan renounced all its overseas territorial claims under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. According to unofficial Japanese statements, however, the country claims its own technical equipment: according to its own version, the deposits lie so deep that no one except Japan possesses the technology to recover and develop them.

By the middle of the 20th century, disputes over Antarctica became particularly acute: three out of seven countries claiming the lands were unable to divide up the areas by mutual agreement. The situation caused considerable discontent among other States, and hampered scientific research. Hence it came time to implement that idea, the results of which have been outlined above.

In 1998, the Protocol on Environmental Protection was added to the Antarctic Treaty. In 1988, the Convention on the Management of Antarctic Mineral Resources had also be opened for signature, but it did not enter into force due to the refusal of the democratic Australian and French governments to sign it. That Convention, however, enshrined great respect for the environment, which laid the foundations for the Protocol on Environmental Protection. Article 7 of that Protocol prohibits any activity relating to mineral resources in Antarctica other than scientific activity. The duration of the Protocol is set at 50 years, i.e. until 2048.

Most likely, its period of validity will be extended, but we have to be prepared for any development of events. Earth’s resources are inevitably running out and it is much cheaper to extract oil and coal in Antarctica than in space. So an oxymoronically near distant dystopian future awaits us.

Continue Reading

International Law

The Hathras Case, Caste Discrimination in India and International Law

Published

on

ILO/A. Khemka

Over six months ago in September 2020, a 19-year-old Dalit woman was brutally gang-raped by the “upper-caste” men in Hathras district of Uttar Pradesh, and a month later succumbed to her injuries in a hospital in Delhi. Despite insidious efforts of impunity by the state, the accused were arrested. However, the family including other Dalits in the village continue to experience the endemic of caste discrimination. The village remains divided along the caste lines with “lower-castes” living on the periphery struggling to fight against the pernicious system.

Caste discrimination and violence emanate from the orthodoxy of the Indian caste system that is held as sacrosanct. It refers to the classification of people into four groups or Varnas: the Brahmins on the top, which consists of priests and teachers, followed by the Kshtriyas or the warriors, the Vaishiyas or the merchants and the last group the Shudras considered as outcastes. Shudras traditionally referred to as ‘untouchables’, now collectively known as Dalitsare singularly positioned at the bottom of the caste hierarchy. They are marginalised on the pretext of maintaining status quo in the society and are forced to live under deplorable conditions with little or no access to health, education and sanitation. Their socio-economic vulnerability and lack of political voice increase their exposure to potentially violent situations while simultaneously reducing their ability to escape.

In the similar vein, the question that writ large is, how long would the scourge of the caste system traumatise the Dalit community that makeup16.2% of India’s total population. Being relegated to the bottom of the class, caste and gender hierarchies, they form a majority of the landless labours and manual scavengers and their vulnerability is appropriated by those in power. The reason why the Hathras Case allured a lot of controversies was that the state agencies played an essential role in shielding perpetrators and launching fake propaganda of victimisation. This reaffirmation of the upper-caste hegemony by the state violates the domestic law as well as India’s obligation under International law. Hence, it becomes imperative to understand the relationship between caste and racial discrimination against the backdrop of international law.

Hathras Case and Violation of International Law

Violence against Dalits especially women  is used as a tool to inflict political lessons and crush dissents and labour movements for transgressing the caste hierarchies. The Hathras Case of Uttar Pradesh is one of such adversities that reveal a perilous side of the Indian social apparatus and the subsequent pattern of impunity. Despite the constitutional guarantee against any form of discrimination specified under the domestic law and the ratification of international covenants on racial discrimination, gender equality and human rights. Such incidents underscore India’s louche stand against discrimination both nationally as well as internationally.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 1965 as substantiated by India, under its Article -1 states that discrimination based on descent falls under the ambit of ‘racial discrimination’. Hence, applies to matters of caste discrimination also. In the Case of Hathras, there was a serious breach of the convention on various grounds by the police and the government. For instance, the Police did not take cognisance of the rape for eight days after the incident despite the request of the family and was reluctant to help when the victim was taken to the police-station .The family was also exhorted by the district magistrate to change their statement. This misconduct goes against Article 5(a) and Article 5(b)of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) which reads that victim should receive equal treatment before the organs administrating justice and must receive protection against violence respectively. Also, the lack of effective remedies provided by the state breaches Article 6 of the convention.

Further, the police allegedly cremated the victim without the involvement of her family members. It breached Article 2, para 2 of the CERD, which obligate state parties to take measures for prevention and enjoyment of human rights. The Government and police wrought an abhorrent pattern of impunity and State-sponsored Propaganda as they adamantly declined to accept if rape was actually committed simply based on the fact that the forensic report revealed the absence of semen in the body of the deceased. This was approbated despite the fact that forensic evidence can only be found up to 96 hours after the incident and that sample for the case was collected after eleven days. Thus, such impunity to the ‘upper caste’ men by the state organs seriously violates Article-2 and 4 of CERD that state shall not discriminate against the victim and condemn any sort of propaganda based on superiority of the caste respectively.

Such deleterious conduct by the state is not only in dissonance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination but also tramples upon various instruments of International Human Rights Law especially the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It also grossly violates the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Dalit Women stand at a point of intersectionality in the society, their subordination and violence unleashed upon them result from both sexual and caste discrimination. Hence, this ‘double jeopardy’ thesis exacerbates their plight.

These actions of the transgression of international law invite state responsibility as codified by the International Law Commission. The Commission elucidates that any such act is attributable to the state if it is committed by State organs, whether central or federal. The International Convention on All the Forms of Racial Discrimination also reflects on the application of domestic law. As Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Karmaa Dojree v. Union of India that the provisions of the Convention are of significance to protect fundamental human rights and must be read into constitutional guarantee against racial discrimination. Thus, what makes the Hathras Case, one of the most controversial cases is the grave violations of international responsibilities and demonstration of ‘upper-class hegemony’ by the state and its agencies.

Caste Discrimination as Racial Discrimination

A major point of contention while ruminating on caste discrimination as racial discrimination is, albeit in the language of international law caste discrimination is seen as the violation of the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, there is an absence of its legal recognition.

In 1996, India for the first time highlighted that the term ‘descent’ mentioned under Article 1(1) of the convention does not cover the domain of caste, thus, schedule castes and schedule tribes in India does not come under its purview. However, CERD in its Concluding Observations(2007) stated that the term ‘descent’ not only refers to ‘race’ but also include discrimination against members of community based on various forms of social stratification. The Human Rights Council in its report conducted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2009) considered caste discrimination as‘ discrimination based on work and descent’. Likewise, the report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues (2016) attempted to explicate caste discrimination and emphasised that ‘while many caste-affected groups may belong to the same larger ethnic, religious or linguistic community, they often share minority like characteristics, particularly their non-dominant and marginalised position and the historic use of the minority like framework to claim their rights.’ This informs us that international law categorically view caste discrimination as a segment of racial discrimination. However, India continues to deny the applicability of the term ‘descent’ as inclusive of caste. The lacuna in the recognition of ‘caste’ as a separate identity and India’s denial despite negation is often considered to have a detrimental impact on a significant population of the country.

Caste- based violence similar to the case of Hathras lead to gross breach of international law and yet less often attract state responsibility. This is due to the fragmented legal response and absence of explicit reference to caste discrimination in international law. It is asserted that a comprehensive legal response could help overcome these challenges, not to say that the application of international law would ensure complete protection against caste-based discrimination and violence. But, at least could provide for international solidarity and subsequently better solutions.

Conclusion

The Hathras case of Uttar Pradesh like other similar cases of violence against Dalit women unveils the perennial notion of caste discrimination and the abhorrent pattern of state impunity to the perpetrators. These acts of caste discrimination are strongly condemned under international law, to which India has often reflected on quite evasively. Notably, various international conventions enunciating international law refers to such discrimination as a violation of human rights, albeit have not specifically mentioned it and has continued to reaffirm that discrimination based on descent includes discrimination based on caste. Hence, Dalits face huge challenges at the international level to draw adequate attention to caste discrimination and consequently bear perpetual atrocities at the national level. Therefore, Dalits aspire for international solidarity to consider varying factors of discrimination and a comprehensive legal response to bring caste-based discrimination into international focus.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Tech News44 mins ago

Ensure digital technologies are ‘a force for good’

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated digital transformation across the planet, millions worldwide still lack Internet access, the UN Secretary-General...

Reports2 hours ago

Georgia Can Unlock Potential for Green Growth

The World Bank and the Government of Georgia held today a virtual event  focused on the findings and recommendations of...

Africa Today4 hours ago

World Bank Supports MSMEs to Foster Inclusive Growth in Mozambique

The World Bank approved today a $100 million grant from the International Development Association (IDA) in support of the Government...

Middle East6 hours ago

The Return of the ‘Arab Voice’ Through a Portal From the Underworld

The events of the “Arab Spring” that began 10 years ago were considered a tectonic shift, capable of overturning the...

Finance8 hours ago

New Data: 2020 PPI Saw Huge Drop, Stabilizing as Year Ended

New data from the World Bank shows that private participation in infrastructure (PPI) in developing countries, while taking an historic...

South Asia10 hours ago

Interplay of Power Politics in Afghanistan- A Tussle for Regional Solidarity and Security

Afghanistan has been a battle ground for the dissimilar ideologies corresponding to communists and capitalists for the past many years....

Reports12 hours ago

Widespread Informality Likely to Slow Recovery from COVID-19 in Developing Economies

A strikingly large percentage of workers and firms operate outside the line of sight of governments in emerging market and...

Trending