| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
140846
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The humanitarian crisis in Syria has triggered diverse questions on the role of the international community and regional actors – in particular the Arab League – to assume their responsibility in matters of peace and security. Military interventions in past conflicts show proof that the Arab League has the military and doctrinal capacity to justify and accommodate their deployment in its member states and to contribute to international peace and security as envisaged under the UN Charter. A blueprint on future operationalization of military operations under its flag examines the relevant laws which they have to respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
144094
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China’s establishment of its Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) is yet another manifestation on the strenuous development of regional security in East Asia. China by virtue of its so-called lawfare has instrumentalized international air law, the law of the sea, and law on the use force to reinforce its comprehensive security doctrine both on the military as well as economic front. Accordingly, China has advanced is sovereign interests through each of these branches of international law when extending its domestic laws in airspace above its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), affirming its sovereignty over the disputed islands and being prepared to respond to imminent threats. Conversely, opponents of the zone have equally exploited those normative frameworks to defend their geopolitical and strategic interests in East Asia under the veil of the communitarian freedoms of overflight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
147535
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Governing contemporary warfare is deeply rooted in the shift since the end of the Cold War towards humanitarianism, whose practice has been accompanied by the parallel evolution of international laws that regulate the use of force (jus ad bellum), the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), and post-conflict justice (jus post bellum). Yet, new unequal obligations on behalf of the territorial state faced with proxy warfare internally and foreign intervention externally have challenged the core role of such governance, and led to further erosion of the normativity of those rules in the theatres of conflict. As a result, this rule-based approach to government falls short of restoring the actual relationships and human ties between the warring parties. The undesired outcome of such humanitarian ambitions can be mediated through relational governance, as espoused by Yaqing Qin, one of China’s leading international relations scholars, which is founded in a Chinese epistemological and relation-focused framework. Its tools and methods stress the importance of trust and harmonization of relationships, in order for the international laws governing warfare to regain their normativity based on such relationality; without a fertile soil, evolving norms may not gain root and compliance with those norms cannot be fostered in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
142116
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China's stance on its Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence is diametrically opposed to its evolving attitude within the Security Council in a number of dossiers where it has lent its support either tacitly or affirmatively to resolutions adopted that endorsed, facilitated, reversed and prevented regime change since the end of the Cold War. Rather than measuring such developments from a conflictual perspective, China's increasing contribution in the international legal and political order, with a view to promoting a so-called harmonious world, may be seen in light of the international law of co-progressiveness and theory of relationality and relational governance respectively espoused by two Chinese international law and relations scholars Sienho Yee and Yaqing Qin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|