Search

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a legal institution embedded in international politics. Politics shaped the Rome Statute of the ICC, which is rooted in norms and rules of European lineage and security interests of party states. Politics constrains and influences the operation of the Court, which has adapted in response to oversight and governance of the Assembly of States Parties, and to political actions extrinsic to institutional rules. The ICC also has political effects in situation states. A brief history shows that application of Rome Statute triggers across state parties with different social conditions skewed geographic distribution of its investigations and prosecutions towards Africa, a structural bias that catalysed a legitimation crisis for the ICC. Subsequent exercises of expansive jurisdiction aimed at nationals of non-African, non-party states – including Israel and some of the world's great powers – have dampened African complaints and advanced the ICC agenda, but intensified non-legitimacy claims by powerful non-party states. To survive, Court organs must follow legal mandates, yet be responsive to pressing international political demands, continuously risking the legitimacy of the ICC as a legal institution and adverse political reactions by antagonised governments. Careful management of the tension between law and politics at the ICC may modestly reduce antagonism towards the Court, but that tension cannot be resolved, and confrontations over the ICC's legitimacy are certain to recur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the recent year's port and military base competitions and rivalries between international, regional, and local powers in the Red Sea and its implication for the peace and security of the Horn of Africa region. The superpower's global ambitions, military capability, and political and economic influence made the Horn of Africa a pivotal role in geopolitics in shaping the security and economic trajectory. In this context, Security developments in the Horn are being integrated into geopolitical and geoeconomics agendas that stretch far beyond the immediate region. On the other hand, the uptick in engagement by external actors, and their attendant interests, alliances, and agendas offers opportunities for development and integration, but it also poses considerable risks since the Horn of Africa region is vulnerable to intra- and interstate conflict. Further, it raises the prospect of proxy struggles and growing geopolitical interest and tensions which is an obstacle to conflict resolutions and lasting peace in the region. Thus the articles argue Rather than seeking to undermine one another, the regimes of the Horn have increasingly tended to support one another. In addition, this paper recommends regional institutions such as IGAD need to reconsider dynamics within the Red Sea in line to build confidence among actors to advance common economic and security interests and ensure the future development of the shared interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes and compares the impact of the 1968 Prague Spring on military and strategic thinking in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. A great change in the Czechoslovakian military caused Memorandum 68, a proposal of domestic military doctrine which consistently took into account the vital security interests of Czechoslovakia in international relations at that time. The document was mainly based on the inviolability of Czechoslovak territory and the right of its nations to defend their own existence regardless of the superpower interests of the Soviet Union. At the same time Yugoslavia began to develop its own doctrine of the General People's Defence and Social Self-Protection, which emphasized its total nature, creating the reality of the concept of a "nation in arms," which attached great importance to soldiers and the art of soldiering in Y ugoslavia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Russia in global geostrategic defense" by Lothar Schröter deals with the Ukraine conflict and the impact of NATO's eastward expansion on Russia's security interests. It discusses whether Russia's intervention preempted a possible massive offensive by Ukraine. The article describes the geostrategic upheaval currently being experienced by the world, and the struggle between the West, which seeks a unipolar world order, and Russia and China, which claim their equal place as great powers. The West is trying to weaken Russia in order to control its resources, while Russia and China are in global geostrategic defense. [Extracted from the article]

The goal of this paper is to focus on learning major divergences for understanding global human security and modern world order in the 21st century, with the strategic perspective of an integrated approach for peace and economy, considering current events. No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others' legitimate security interests. The best way for the major powers to begin to achieve that is to choose the path of mutual understanding and de-escalation over Ukraine and Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party concluded that it could grow rich without giving up power, in fact it could buy off rebellion and rival America's strategic superiority. Whatever the outcome of the current crises, what is now clear is that Moscow and Beijing are not going to become like us any time soon, and we need to accept the regrettable reality that we are entering another period of strong divergence for global human security and world order. The ultimate problem we face today in EU is still our inability to solve most of the shared existential challenges we face quickly. But there is hope. Divergence Openness is the only way through which we will learn to get through global crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]