This study seeks to make a modest effort to look back at the marathon peacemaking ushered into by the Treaty of Versailles, during 1919–1922 periods, after Armistice was signed on 11 November 1918, ...bringing to an end the First World War. It has sought to place under scanner the said arduous process of peacemaking, resulting in an imposing corpus of five treaties comprising 1914 articles with Germany and its four other allies (Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey). It presents an interesting role of the principal peacemakers therein along with the advent of the era of ‘organizing’ through the League of Nations and other entities such as International Labour Office and Permanent Court of International Justice. Now, at the distance of 101 years from the main event that heralded new milestones in international law and international relations, we have sought to make sense of it so as to deduce lessons to look ahead for our better world. Knowing well that alike human beings, any peacemaking cannot be flawless, it has been our endeavour to provide an objective understanding of the great peacemaking, its aftermath (1919–1939) and its relevance for the United Nations–led world order in the 21st century.
On April 9, 2019, the United States and Peru reached a resolution regarding concerns about Peru's forest sector obligations under the 2007 United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA). At ...issue was Peru's relocation of the Agency for the Supervision of Forest Resources and Wildlife (OSINFOR) to a “subordinate position” in its Ministry of Environment in December 2018. The United States requested consultations under the PTPA on the ground that this relocation conflicted with a provision in the Environment Chapter's “Annex on Forest Sector Governance” (Forest Annex), which states that “OSINFOR shall be an independent and separate agency.” Following the consultations, Peru agreed to restore OSINFOR to its original location within the Peruvian government.
In 2020, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 75/123 declaring the period 2021-2030 as the “Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism” and called on States to ...step up their efforts to eliminate this terrible scourge that has affected humanity since immemorial times. At the beginning of the 20th century, 60% of the world’s population was subject to some form of subjugation. Today, in 2021, almost two million people still live under colonial rule in 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories. One of these territories to be decolonized are the Malvinas/Falklands Islands which, since 1833, have been subject to a sovereignty dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina and whose solution is the way to put an end to this colonial situation in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations.
En el año 2020, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas aprobó la resolución 75/123 por la que se declaró el período 2021-2030 como el «Cuarto Decenio Internacional para la Eliminación del Colonialismo» y exhortó a los Estados a que aumentaran sus esfuerzos para la erradicación de este flagelo que afecta a la humanidad desde tiempos inmemoriales. A comienzos del Siglo XX, el 60% de la población mundial estaba sujeta a alguna forma de dominación. Hoy, en pleno 2021, casi dos millones de personas viven aún bajo dominio colonial en 17 Territorios No Autónomos. Uno de esos territorios a descolonizar son las Islas Malvinas (Falklands) que, desde 1833, se encuentran sujetas a una disputa de soberanía entre el Reino Unido y la Argentina y cuya solución es el medio de poner fin a dicha situación colonial de conformidad a lo establecido por las Naciones Unidas.
The lesson learned about the EU says that the Union is not a hard power organization. This fact does not diminish the value and significance of its existence. In addition, the 28 Member States still ...see the EU in the majority of policy areas as the best format to achieve goals as a result of joint actions rather than the pure individual actions of its members. Put it simply, the EU is stronger whole and united, rather than a mere set of its parts. At the same time, the aforementioned 28 either individually or in groups are faced with a set of common challenges, risks and threats. These motivate the EU to define common external political and security priorities. One of the basic foreign policy priorities is multilateralism in external action. For authors and decision-makers of the EU's Global Strategy, this is one of the ways to make the EU more influential in international scene, and to achieve external relations objectives that are enlisted in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty. In the very heart of this system is the UN and that is asserted in the text of the EU Global Strategy. Do the EU and the UN jointly have the potential for multiplication of their influence, and can they serve as a platform for achieving the goals of both organizations on the international arena, and how these relations look in the contemporary and historical retrospective are all the main subject and content of this article.
The proliferation of conflicts of different scope and nature in the African continent has been identified as one of the factors hindering the development of the continent, leading to efforts to ...create due mechanisms to tackle them. This essay examines both the OAU and AU mechanisms, compares them and assesses their adequacy for the settlement of African disputes. Once these shortcomings are identified, this dissertation looks into the common characteristics of traditional dispute settlement and conflict management to discuss whether they can somehow contribute to the improvement of modern institutional mechanisms.Published online: 11 December 2017
This paper examines the legal status and historical context of the city of Jerusalem, specifically addressing the prohibition on establishment or maintenance of diplomatic missions within the Holy ...City. This will be undertaken firstly by exploring Security Council resolution 478 of August 1980, and secondly through a discussion of State practice and opinio juris. This paper was inspired by the recent developments regarding the conduct of the United States of America, the Republics of Guatemala and Paraguay in relocating their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018. Unlike the Republic of Paraguay, which subsequently restituted its embassy to Tel Aviv in September 2018, the United States of America and the Republic of Guatemala have hitherto maintained their embassies in Jerusalem. This paper adopts a comparative approach by drawing on the particularities of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) and Kuwait. It gradually examines the crux of the matter regarding the merits of the case initiated by Palestine against the United States of America in September 2018: namely the customary international diplomatic law underpinning the prohibition on establishing embassies in Jerusalem under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It further explores equally important issues relating to questions of jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and admissibility of the application.
Quo vadis Kosovo? Zorić, Bojana; Deda, Ilir
2024, Volume:
8, May 2024
Journal Article
Open access
As Europe and the United States head into key elections, the strained security situation in northern Kosovo and heightened tensions between Kosovo and Serbia are raising concerns about stability in ...the region. To restore its credibility, particularly in its pursuit of EU and NATO membership, Kosovo needs to demonstrate full alignment with Western policies. This includes increased efforts to improve relations with local Serb communities and upholding its Dialogue commitments with Serbia. Sustained Western diplomatic engagement with Kosovo and Serbia is essential in the period June-December 2024 to prevent the security situation from deteriorating further.
This article analyses the possible system of dispute settlement within the future implementation agreement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable ...use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. In order to explain the dispute settlement system foreseen in UNCLOS Part XV, that likely will be adopted by the BBNJ Agreement, its main aspects are addressed in addition to, specially, its reception by the Part VIII of the implementation agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In this sense, the current terms of the draft agreement point out a new broad reception of the dispute settlement system of the Convention. Finally, taking into account the highly technic character of the disputes in this field, the article reflects on the possible convenience of changing the default mechanism for these disputes from the Annex VII arbitration to a more specialized jurisdictional organ, either the Annex VIII special arbitration or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Cet article étudie le possible règlement des différends dans le futur accord d’application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer relative à la préservation et l’utilisation durable de la biodiversité marine dans les zones situées au-delà de la juridiction nationale. Aux fins de contextualiser le système de règlement des différends prévue par la Partie XV de la CNUDM que probablement sera accueilli par le nouvel Accord BBNJ, leurs aspects principales sont exposés ainsi que sa réception dans la Partie VIII de l’accord de application de 1995 relative à la conservation et à la gestion des stocks chevauchants et des stocks de poissons grands migrateurs. À cet égard, la formulation actuelle du projet de convention vise à une nouvelle large réception du system de règlement des différends de la Convention. Finalement, compte tenu du caractère technique de ces différends, on réfléchit sur la possible convenance de conférer la condition de mécanisme résiduel pour le règlement des futurs différends à un moyen juridictionnelle plus spécialisé que l’arbitrage général de l’annexe VII de la Convention, ou bien l’arbitrage spécial prévue par l’annexe VIII, ou bien le Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer.
Este trabajo estudia el posible sistema de arreglo de controversias del futuro Acuerdo de aplicación de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar relativo a la conservación y el uso sostenible de la diversidad biológica marina de las zonas situadas fuera de la jurisdicción nacional. Con objeto de contextualizar el sistema de solución de controversias previsto en la Parte XV de la CNUDM que previsiblemente acogerá el nuevo Acuerdo BBNJ, se exponen sus principales aspectos, así como, sobre todo, su recepción en la Parte VIII del Acuerdo de aplicación de 1995, el relativo a las especies transzonales y altamente migratorias. En este sentido, la formulación actual del borrador de acuerdo apunta a nueva recepción amplia del sistema de solución de controversias de la Convención. Finalmente, considerando el carácter altamente técnico de las controversias en esta materia, se reflexiona sobre la posible conveniencia de conferir la condición de mecanismo residual para el arreglo de estas futuras controversias a un medio jurisdiccional más especializado que el del arbitraje general del Anexo VII de la Convención, ya sea el del arbitraje especial previsto en el Anexo VIII o el del Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar.
On January 4, 2019, the United States requested consultations with Peru with respect to its forest governance obligations under the 2007 United States – Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA). The ...PTPA has an environmental chapter with robust terms that were included largely at the insistence of members of Congress, reflecting concerns that a free trade agreement with Peru could increase the country's export of illegally logged wood to the United States. The request for consultations focused on Peru's decision to relocate its Agency for the Supervision of Forest Resources and Wildlife (OSINFOR) to within Peru's Ministry of Environment—a change that, in the view of the United States, “appears to conflict” with a PTPA obligation that “‘OSINFOR shall be an independent and separate agency.’”
PDF
