Search

This paper aims to examine US national interests in the Antarctic as they relate to contemporary American foreign policy objectives in the region. The paper poses two key questions: What are the dimensions of contemporary US national interests in the Antarctic? What possible developments by other Antarctic Treaty parties might undermine the ability of the United States to attain its national interest objectives in the region? The international peace and political stability established in Antarctica by the Antarctic Treaty parties remains indispensable for successful pursuit by the United States of its core interests in the region and has become an important objective in its own right. Continued leadership by the United States in Antarctic matters should continue to well serve US national interests in the Antarctic well into the twenty‐first century.

Since the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated in 1959, it has undergone major substantive legal transformations as it grew into a multifaceted regime known as the Antarctic Treaty system. Many of those transformations stemmed from actions by the principal decision makers, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), as they adopted new strategies and values alongside binding legal agreements for managing their activities in circumpolar southern waters. This essay examines the evolution of the modern law of the sea and seeks to explain how it embellished (has it at times challenged?) the character, significance and purposes of the Antarctic Treaty.

Nuclear terrorism poses a grave threat to national security, a fact dramatically demonstrated on 11 September 2001 by Al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These strikes revealed the vulnerability of Western societies to foreign terrorist threats and underscored the real possibility that terrorist groups might use nuclear weapons against cities in the United States or Europe. This article analyses the nature of this threat and pos- sible remedies within the context of a new multilateral instrument, the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This Convention furnishes a legal basis for international cooperation to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weap- ons. It criminalizes the possession of, use of, or threat to use radioactive devices by non-state actors, their accomplices, and organizers if intended to produce death, serious bodily injury or environmental or property damage. The agreement further encourages increased exchanges of information and greater collaboration between governments in the pursuit of terrorist sus- pects. But the effectiveness of this instrument depends on the degree to which state parties respect, abide by and enforce its provisions. Key in this regard is strengthening security of fi s- sile materials stored in nuclear facilities. If governments fulfi l their duties in this Convention, the agreement will work well and accomplish its purposes. To the degree that governments fall short of meeting their obligations, specifi c protections against nuclear terrorism in the Convention will be eroded, and the risk of nuclear terrorism will remain high.

International Law: A Dictionary. By Boleslaw A. Boczek Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005. 477 pp., $110.00 (ISBN: 0-8108-5078-8). Words have particular meanings and convey particular ideas. But communication is neither simple nor straightforward. “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’” (Carroll 1954:209). This attitude that words should mean exactly what we intend points up the need for special reference works—we call them dictionaries—that list words or concepts along with their objective meanings, histories, and contexts. Dictionaries are serious educational tools that aim to improve knowledge and explain the use of words, concepts, and phrases. They are distinguished by alphabetical organization and a particular mode of use—that is, dictionaries are meant for consultation on a need-to-know basis, as opposed to perusal from beginning to end. Modern international law contains an immense and growing body of rules, norms, and regulations that reaches virtually all aspects of international intercourse. Moreover, international organizations have contributed mightily to the composition of modern international law as a pervasive, organized system of cooperation. Nonetheless, the lexis for international law, like language in general, is hardly so precise that it can measure up to Humpty Dumpty's expectations, as expressed to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass . The vast array of concepts, terms, and principles of international law sometimes seems like alien discourse—not only because foreign words and phrases are often key concepts but also because legal language is often subject to varied interpretations. It is this combination of factors that highlights the intrinsic value of Boleslaw Boczek's International Law: A Dictionary , an encyclopedic work that marks the culmination of a lifetime of learning and teaching international law. Boczek is ably qualified to craft such a magnum opus . Prior to World War II, he studied law at Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland. After …

Rising world demand for petroleum and natural gas makes the Caspian Sea and its resources the focus of increased international attention. This article examines the controversy over the legal condition of the Caspian Sea, both in terms of delimination questions and its status as a lake or a semi-enclosed sea. The natural resource potential of the Caspian is assessed, with a view to highlighting its hydrocarbon and fishery resources, as well as the environmental implications posed by development of industry and pipelines throughout the region. Also examined are the geopolitical priorities of the five Caspian littoral states, as well as the need to maintain the region as a zone for peaceful commercial enterprise and economic development. Toward these ends, the study concludes with an evaluation of the realistic prospects for collaboration among the Caspian states to protect the environment as evidenced by the recent negotiation of a special convention dedicated to that purpose.

As the international community responds to the September 11 attacks and the general war on terrorism, member states in the United Nations (UN) must continue to address the balance between the rights of the individual and the security of the state. This study highlights the various roles that the UN plays in combating transnational terrorism through norm setting, codification of human rights law, as well as the drafting and effective implementation of 12 key multilateral agreements aimed at counter‐terrorism. In these ways, the UN provides direction and guidance for implementing human rights rules and the ways in which they should be enforced. Even so, national governments must make these rules work. In a system of sovereign states, the role of the UN organization in checking or reversing these human rights abuses remains severely limited and largely dependent upon the political will of the member states. As a consequence, part of the price paid for protecting national security against threats posed by terrorism may well be the curtailment of some human rights and civil liberties within the liberal democratic state.

Worldwide interconnectivity through massive computer networks now makes states vulnerable to new threats. Foreign governments can launch computer-based assaults, or acts of information warfare, on another state's domestic systems such as energy grids, telecommunications, and financial facilities that could severely damage or disrupt national defence or vital social services. Even realizing the new forms of computer-generated weapons and changing concepts of sovereignty and territory brought about by global interdependence, international law is likely to rely on UN Charter principles to define the legal boundaries of cyberspace. While perhaps not armed force literally, resort to cyberforce may be viewed as a form of intervention that can produce harmful or coercive effects, and put at risk the national security of another state. There is need for modern international law to define more precisely the criteria used to distinguish which state actions are permissible as normal computer- generated transborder data flow from those cyberactivities that might qualify as an 'armed attack' against a state. Clearer rules are also needed for what responses are permissible as self-defence by a state targeted in an information warfare situation and how international institutions might facilitate the attainment of these objectives.

This study surveys the international regime governing the use of ocean space by examining various agreements that have come to comprise it. While the regime for the oceans is commonly viewed within the context of a general, universal convention for the law of the sea, the contemporary scope of global oceans law extends far beyond that single instrument. Indeed, the law of the sea is broad, far-reaching and reflective of the increasingly complex, interdependent nature of contemporary international relations. In this regard, by end of the 20th century there has emerged a pronounced trend toward worldwide participation in and adherence to the multifaceted legal regime established to manage the oceans. This panorama of legal instruments focuses both on international instruments and regional accords. The study's premise is this: Since 1958 several multilateral agreements have been negotiated and implemented specifically to regulate various uses of ocean space. Viewed as an integrated whole, these agreements comprise at the beginning of the 21st century an intertwined, sophisticated international legal regime for managing ocean activities. The range of agreements discussed here, however, is neither exhaustive nor meant to suggest that sufficient law is available for regulating all activities affecting the oceans now or in the future. Rather, the survey furnishes a starting point for appreciating just how far the international community has come in establishing a legal regime for managing people and their technological activities that impact on ocean space.

During the 1990s, the World Trade Organization (WTO) rejected as impermissible unilateral efforts by the United States to promote conservation of endangered marine species through trade sanctions against other governments. These acts of unilateral economic coercion were held to be discriminatory tactics done in unfair restraint of international trade. But in so doing, the WTO findings aroused the ire of environmentalists worldwide. These findings by the WTO became portrayed not as decisions upholding free trade, but as mandates against marine conservation and environmental protection. Even so, this denial of lawful permissibility to use unilateral economic coercion to protect endangered species internationally does not signal the demise of national efforts to conserve living marine resources. Rather, these WTO findings point up the manner in which potential trade and marine conservation disputes should be handled, i.e., through means of peaceful settlement. The key to future international marine conservat...

he UN has been maligned over the past decade for peacekeeping failures in Somalia and Bosnia and for being a bloated, inefficient, JL ineffective bureaucracy. Yet, at the same time, the organization has become increasingly active in promoting the democratic process around the world, particularly in developing countries. It is, in fact, not hyperbole to assert that the UN Secretariat has assumed the impressive role of inter national agent for democratization, as it has engaged the UN organization in various activities toward that end in more than seventy-five states and territories over the past decade. Unfortunately, this formidable UN effort at assisting the democratic process worldwide has gone largely neglected and unappreciated. This study aims to remedy this neglect by pursuing three main pur poses. First, I examine the concept of "democracy" as interpreted and ap plied by the UN so that a clearer picture can be derived of the particular political system envisioned, promoted, and supported by the UN Secre tariat. I also offer an appraisal of the Secretariat's rationale for undertak ing such efforts at promoting democracy and the special role, if any, that certain member states might play in these efforts. Second, I examine the ways and means the UN has adopted for im plementing assistance to states that have requested special help from the UN in the democratization process. This analysis provides insights into how the UN facilitates the democratic process and which states have been most active in seeking UN support. For the discussion, a clearer picture emerges of which facets of democracy are considered paramount by the UN and how the organization has contributed to institutionalizing those facets in various countries around the world. A third purpose of the study is to gauge what success the UN has had in its efforts to promote democracy. I do this by examining certain key questions, among them: Have the UN's efforts been worthwhile? Where has the UN succeeded in promoting democracy, and where has it failed? Are there political, legal, and ideological lessons to be learned from the UN experience in promoting democracy? In sum, can the UN make a dif ference in promoting the acceptability of democracy worldwide? If so, how, and to what degree? Finally, the conclusion aims to draw lessons

Part I. The UN System as a Source of Law: 1. The UN legal order: an overview Oscar Schachter 2. General law-making processes Paul Szasz 3. Specialized law-making processes Frederic L. Kirgis, Jr Part II. Substantive Law: 4. Force and arms John F. Murphy 5. Human rights Hurst Hannum 6. Refugees and migration David A. Martin 7. Women Rebecca J. Cook 8. Labor Virginia A. Leary 9. Economic relations and development Stephen Zamora 10. Environment Ved P. Nanda 11. Law of the sea Bernard H. Oxman 12. Outer space Ralph G. Steinhardt 13. International crimes John F. Murphy Part III. International Law: 14. Law of the international civil service Robert S. Jordan 15. Financial responsibility of members Jose E. Alvarez 16. Conclusion: the United Nations as international law-giver Christopher C. Joyner.

The United States has important national interests vested in both the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans. Thus, in recent decades the United States has progressively codified its national commitment to conserve and manage both these marine regions and their resources and to protect them from activities that might produce adverse impacts. The U.S. legislation passed since the 1960s selectively affects both polar regions and supports major American policy objectives there: to maintain the Arctic and Antarctic as areas of international cooperation for peaceful purposes; to satisfy economic needs, especially hydrocarbon, mineral, and living resources; to protect opportunities for scientific research; to protect the marine environment; and to conserve living resources in the circumpolar seas. Future trends suggest a shift in U.S. policy attention to the Arctic. Accordingly, new U.S. legislation will be needed to regulate increased activities in the polar north.

The Spratly Islands archipelago has become pivotal as a strategic, economic and political asset in the South China Sea. This situation has become particularly evident since the end of the Cold War, as the Spratlys have been used by six littoral states as legal basepoints to project claims over strategic sea-lanes, fishery waters and submarine hydrocarbon resources in the South China Sea. The claimant state having predominant military and economic influence in the region is China, which has used military force on occasion to substantiate its claims. It is not inconceivable that the dispute over the Spratlys could lead to military conflict. Successful settlement of sovereignty disputes for the Timor Gap area, Antarctica and the Svalbard archipelago provide models for creating a joint resource development authority to promote regional co-operation among Spratly claimants. The most critical ingredient for mitigating tensions in the South China Sea is the political willingness of Spratly claimants, especially China, to make dispute settlement happen.

The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and its annexes contribute substantially to contemporary international law prohibiting marine pollution. As the Protocol approaches obtaining the number of ratifications necessary for entry into force, its relevance for international ocean law accordingly becomes more salient. Thus, measures in the Protocol and its annexes take on particular importance, as they are made to apply to all sources of pollution affecting the Southern Ocean ecosystem (i.e., sources from land, dumping, vessels, the atmosphere and the seabed). Such an all-encompassing approach well serves to bolster both the normative and policy framework for effecting anti-pollution marine law in the region.

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) provides valuable lessons for future formulation of law to govern global commons, areas that lie beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and to which all peoples have free and open access. Although endowed with the advantage of a certain degree of scientific certainty about the need for regulation of the ocean environment, UNCLOS III fell victim to a North‐South schism that impaired the search for consensus on important issues and undermined the final product of the negotiations. An examination of the UNCLOS III experience suggests that agreements that exclude specially affected states are unlikely to succeed, and points to a variety of advantages and disadvantages that come from linking several issues under one negotiating framework. The consensus approach to negotiation used at the Conference tends to expand the time and effort needed to reach a successful outcome, which can lead the negotiations themselves to be outstripped by te...

Canada's seizure of the Spanish fishing vessel Estai in March 1995 touched off severe political tensions between Canada and the European Community. Known as the "Turbot War", the dispute arose over quota levels agreed to by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization for turbot stocks in fishing grounds straddling the high seas beyond Canada's proclaimed 200-mile national fishery zone. While underscoring tensions between coastal states and foreign fishing nations, this dispute became a diplomatic catalyst for the promulgation in August 1995 of a special UN Convention on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks. The "Turbot War" thus highlighted the utility of regional fishery organizations in monitoring and enforcing international fishing regulations and strengthened the international regulatory framework for managing straddling stocks under the 1982 LOS Convention.

This article examines the objections by the United States to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and explains why the government rejected a treaty that it had worked so long and hard to produce. This study also evaluates UN efforts since 1990 to reconcile international difficulties over seabed mining. The focus here falls on how deep seabed provisions of the 1982 text were revised to render the Convention more acceptable to the United States. Certain lessons for multilateral negotiations from the protracted law of the sea experience are also proffered, especially how circumstances of time, economics, politics, and personalities can affect the outcomes of complex international negotiations. Finally, the 1994 Implementation Agreement is assessed. The conclusion is that this Agreement makes notable improvements benefitting U.S. interests as a principal ocean miner. It replaces an overly detailed and costly regime in Part XI of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention text with a more streamlined approach to deep se...

Forging Peace: Intervention, Human Rights and the Management of Media Space. Edited by Monroe E. Price, Mark Thompson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. 416 pp., $64.95 cloth (ISBN: 0-253-34197-3), $27.95 paper (ISBN: 0-253-21573-0). How should the international community react to the incendiary use of the media to encourage genocide during civil wars, as occurred in Rwanda and Bosnia? How can international peace operations confront and overcome the manipulative propaganda often used by host governments to incite violence against segments of their populations? What roles do international legal rules play in forging acceptable standards and practices for the media in war-torn societies? These questions underpin the main aim of Forging Peace , namely, to examine the ways in which international organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, have promoted pluralist, independent media in recent postconflict situations. The actions advocated—called information intervention—offer feasible and lawful ways to prevent mass human rights atrocities, the leitmotiv of this volume. Forging Peace begins with an excellent introductory chapter by Mark Thompson and Monroe Price that spells out the characteristics and instruments of information intervention as a lawful instrument of human rights protection. Thereafter, the volume is divided into four sections. The first section contains an interview by Mark Thompson of Jamie Metzl, in which Metzl elaborates on his original definition of information intervention (Metzl 1997). Having thus defined the concept, the second section analyzes the moral, legal, and practical implications of information intervention. In an authoritative discussion, Stephanie Farrior assesses hate propaganda's relevance for human rights law. Such broadcasts violate the norms of decency inherent in free information freely broadcast, and Farrior rightly concludes that we need to rethink the legal status of such pernicious misinformation. In a companion piece, Eric Blinderman critiques the lawfulness of information intervention as it relates to sovereignty under international legal rules. Although current law prohibits jamming broadcasts within a state …

Despite rapid evolution in international fisheries law and establishment of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), straddling stocks still remain susceptible to heavy harvesting in high seas areas by distant‐water fishing states there by undermining coastal state management. The notion mar presencial (presential sea) has recently been proposed by Chile as a solution for the problem of straddling stocks. The presential sea concept was nationally designed and promoted to curtail such foreign fishing in areas adjacent to Chile's EEZ. This article examines the presential sea as a geostrategic concept, its justification for being, and the question of its permissibility under contemporary international fisheries law. Attention is also given to recent international developments that challenge the legal viability of the presential sea concept. The authors conclude that if this concept were to be widely adopted by coastal states, the traditional freedom to fish on the high seas might be severely compromised. ...

This article contends that the recent war to remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait has established legal precedent for effective United Nations‐sponsored actions in the arms control field. In th...

The discharge and dumping of plastic debris into the world's oceans has become an increasingly serious form of marine pollution in recent years. To counter such practices, a number of international agreements containing specific prohibitions against dumping plastics into the marine environment have been promulgated. The 1972 London Dumping Convention, Annex V to the MARPOL Convention, and the 1978 MARPOL Protocol cite plastic pollution as unlawful in international waters. Though not yet in force, particular provisions mandating protection and preservation of the marine environment in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention abo add considerable legal sway. Six special agreements of the UN Regional Seas Programme and three other relevant regional instruments contribute to banning pollution by dumping plastic substances in designated ocean areas. Given the large number of states that have legally committed themselves to being bound by one or more of these international agreements, a firm normative founda...

This chapter addresses the tension between human rights and combating terrorism. To appreciate the permissibility of terrorizing the terrorists, one must understand what acts constitute torture. It appears that many Americans, including a number of high ranking U.S. government officials, are unaware of the absolute, unequivocal legal, moral, and ethical prohibitions against torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of any person. The right to be free from such mistreatment is one of the most fundamental and indisputable of all human rights. As the United States carries out its global war against terrorism, the nexus of perceived national security needs, public anxiety, and the desire for retribution might generate temptations to sacrifice certain fundamental rights and freedoms. But, if respect for international norms and the rule of law are to be preserved, that temptation, especially as regards the prohibition against torture, must be vigorously resisted. Keywords: combating terrorism; human rights; international norms; mistreatment; rule of law; terrorists; terrorizing; torture

A significant body of international law drafted simultaneously but separately for the Antarctic Treaty system (ATS) and the law of the sea affects the Southern Ocean. Although this ocean is characterized by several distinct geophysical zones, it is not easy to secure a consensus regarding an appropriate northern boundary. The law of the sea defines a series of maritime jurisdictional zones, whose application to Antarctica is hindered by the region's continuing uncertain legal status. Nevertheless, the Antarctic relevance of the law of the sea raises a number of interesting questions, while highlighting the fact that legal zones in Antarctica have often developed without taking full account of geographical criteria. An understanding of geographical and other factors facilitates an improved understanding of the need for new legal approaches designed to regulate Antarctic activities in a more equitable and effective manner.

The Indian Ocean littoral states represent a microcosm of the Group of 77 members that began to dabble in Antarctic politics during the 1980s and used the United Nations General Assembly as their main forum. The economic interests and legal priorities of these developing countries have come into conflict with the Antarctic Treaty System, the legal arrangement of largely non‐Indian Ocean states that has evolved for administering the region. Recent developments in Antarctic affairs may exacerbate the tensions in the frozen south: the “Malaysian initiative”; to extend the notion of “common heritage of mankind”; to the Antarctic; the impending 1991 date and the possible convening of an Antarctic Treaty review conference; and the apparent collapse of the 1988 Antarctic mineral resource treaty because of the opposition of France and Australia—these circumstances may complicate the Antarctic legal situation and make future scientific cooperation and peaceful uses only of the region more difficult. If a ...

The fire in Libya's Rabta chemical factor in March 1990 may have been an accident, a hoax perpetrated by the Qaddafi government, or an act of foreign sabotage designed to set back Libya's development of chemical weapons. International law does not generally condone the use of force against another state except in self‐defense. Given the Libyan government's support for terrorist groups, its anti‐Western ideology, and its incipient production of poison gas, the Rabta factory might be perceived as a genuine threat by Western governments. A case for necessity can therefore be made to justify sabotage of the Rabta factora as “anticipatory” or preemptive self‐defiiese. If indeed the fire was sabotage, it was carried out with premeditated proportionality and minimum loss of life. Caution must still be exercised to prevent anticipatory self‐defense from being abused as a legal license by governments to intervene at will into the internal affairs of other states. At the end of the day, responsibility for ...

Under the UN Charter framework for recourse to force, states are proscribed from using force against the “territorial integrity” or “political independence” of states. Force is only explicitly permitted when it is undertaken for self-defense or pursuant to Security Council authorization. Within the state, the right of the government to regulate the lives of its citizens is viewed by international law under most circumstances as a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty, whereas in international relations, transnational intervention is seen as a violation of sovereignty. Thus under the Charter paradigm, nonintervention is considered to be a principle of international law fostering friendly relations among states.