VCE Unit 1 Global Politics 2024

� Causes and Consequences of Global Interconnectedness
� The Mobility of Communication and Technology & The Arab Spring
� Definition: Globalisation
�Refers to acceleration and intensification of exchanges of goods, services, labour and capital, which promote global interdependence. These have been facilitated by rapid changes in communication and technology.�

� Goods: Increased trade between states
� Services: Trade in services � google apps, for example
� Labour: The increased movement of people across state borders
� Capital: Money invested across state borders e.g. a corporation buying/building an office or factory in another state.
� Global Interdependence: These movements mean that states are more dependent upon each other AND the actions of one state can greatly impact on other states.
� Communication and Technology: Instantaneous communication has facilitated vast social and political changes.
� A Brief History of globalisation
� The influence of globalisation on the international system has advanced and retreated on several occasions:
� First emerged in the late 18th century, abruptly ending in 1914.
� From 1914 to 1945, transportation and communications continued to be globalised, though economically, globalisation declined
� From 1946, there was increased mobility of goods and, from the late 1970�s, barriers to the flow of capital were removed.
� From 2008, Global Financial Crisis and China-US trade war disrupt flow of goods, services and capital.
� March 2020, The mobility of goods, services and labour is in rapid decline.
� Phase One: Late 18th Century - 1914
� This period saw an increased mobility of goods, services, capital, labour, communications and technology due to the following factors:
� Colonisation
� Advances in communications technology
� Advances in transportation technology

� The Retreat � 1914-1945
� Two key events saw the retreat of globalisation and the move towards a more �closed� world, particularly in an economic sense:
� 1. The outbreak of the First World War saw a massive disruption to trade and investment
� 2. The Great Depression in the late-1920�s and lasting well in the 1930�s saw states erect barriers to trade an investment. This was the era of �economic nationalism�
� Barriers to Trade � Tariffs
� In simple terms, a tax applied to goods entering a state from a foreign country.

Car Imported from India:
Sold for $10,000 in Australia

Car produced in Australia:
Sold for $12,000 in Australia

� Add 30% tariff to cars important from India:
� Indian car $10,000 + 30% Tariff = $13,000

� Australian produced car = $12,000

� Barriers to Trade: Subsidies
� A subsidy is a government payment to a business or industry. These payments give industries an advantage in global trade. For example:
1 tonne of cotton in the US
� Cost of production: $10
� Sell for at least $11 on global markets

1 tonne of cotton in Egypt
� Cost of production: $5
� Sell for at least $6 on global markets

1 tonne of cotton with subsidy
� Cost of production: $10
� Government subsidy of $6 per tonne
� Sell for at least $5 on global markets

� The government loses money in one sense, but it protects employment in the industries it chooses to subsidise.
� Economic Liberalism
� Whereas the Keynesian model suggested that governments had a responsibility to regulate their economies in order to protect their citizens from the excesses of the market, economic liberalism advocated giving the market a �free hand�.
� Markets should be allowed to set wages and prices for goods and services
� Government�s should limit public spending. During times of economic downturn, the market will correct itself.
� Taxes should be kept as low as possible in order to encourage spending and investment.
� Government owned enterprises should be privatised.
� Tariffs should be reduced. Expose industries to competition in order to make them more efficient.
� Other Factors Determining the Acceleration of Globalisation

� Sovereignty and Information
� Prior to the globalisation of services such as social media, states were able to maintain a degree of sovereignty over the flow of information across state borders. This typically applied to authoritarian states which, in contrast to liberal-democracies who maintained a free press, were able to restrict information flow into and out of their states in order to maintain their international reputation and the legitimacy of their regimes.
Example: Ukraine and the Holodomor
� Between 1929-33, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin undertook a deliberate policy of starvation in the then-Soviet Republic of Ukraine. It is estimated that between 7-10 million Ukrainian�s died of starvation and illness, an event that came to be known as the Holodomor.
� Soviet authorities were able to use censorship, suppression, misinformation and strict control over borders to prevent the flow of information outside of Soviet borders. It was not until the 1950�s that the rest of the world became aware of what happened during the Holodomor.
Example: Censorship in Communist East Germany (1948-1990)
� East Germany, like all communist regimes, maintained strict censorship of information, overseen by the Ministry of Culture. It aimed to ensure that information from the outside did not undermine the legitimacy or the authority of the communist regime:
� The press was controlled by the state. Foreign newspapers, television networks, film and radio were banned inside East Germany.
� The Stasi (East German secret police) reinforced censorship by maintaining mass surveillance over the population, including audio and video surveillance of their homes, reading mail, extortion, and bribery. It is estimated that there was 1 Stasi informant for every 6.5 East German citizens.
� Punishments for accessing information outside the state involved lengthy prison terms and a restriction on access to state services, such as education.

� The Rise of Social Media and Smartphones
� MySpace was the first social media site to reach a million monthly active users � it achieved this milestone around 2004. This was arguably the beginning of social media as we know it.
� In the same year, Youtube was launched, allowing users anywhere around the world to upload media, free from government censorship and other restrictions.
� In 2006, Facebook was launched for public access on a global scale. A 2008 re-design of the user interface saw Facebook become the most widely used social media app in the world.
� On June 9, 2008 the iPhone 3g was launched. It provided a handheld device, connected to a mobile internet network and a camera. Now, anybody with an iPhone could, using Facebook and YouTube, record and broadcast content to the global audience and communicate with anybody inside or outside of state borders.
� Politicians were the first to take advantage, allowing them new ways of conveying messages to the public, other elites, and the press, influencing constituents� opinions, recruiting volunteers and donors, and mobilizing voters (Davis and Owen, 1998; Owen, 2017a).
� The Arab Spring
� The emergence of social media and smartphones challenged the sovereignty of authoritarian states to limit the flow of information into the state and control information within it. In the words of one academic, the development of technology had turned states into �glasshouses.�
� The political ramifications for authoritarian states were apparent during what became known as the Arab Spring. In North Africa and the Middle East, predominately young populations, frustrated by a lack of economic opportunity, were able to use technology to challenge authoritarian rule.
� Smartphones and social media provided the tools required for mobilization, empowerment, the shaping of opinions, and ultimately, political change.
� The Arab Spring: The Spark
� Khaled Koubaa, president of the Internet Society in Tunisia on the Arab Spring: "Social media was absolutely crucial. Three months before Mohammed Bouazizi burned himself in Sidi Bouzid we had a similar case in Monastir. But no one knew about it because it was not filmed. What made a difference this time is that the images of Bouazizi were put on Facebook and everybody saw it."
� The �Digital Democracy�
� With the exception of Libya, social media use more than doubled in Arab countries during the months of the Arab Spring. Efforts by Arab regimes to block access to Facebook and Twitter were only partially successful due to the use of VPNs that circumvented the ability of authoritarian regimes to control the mobility of communication across and within state borders.
� Journalist John Pollack interviewed two of the leaders of Tunisia�s protest group Takriz, known as �Foetus� and �Waterman�:
Waterman recalls that the Internet was the only viable option for organizers because other media were controlled by Ben Ali [Tunisian President]. Foetus, Takriz's chief technology officer, a skilled hacker who started hacking because he couldn't afford Tunisia's then-exorbitant phone and Internet costs, saw another advantage online: safety. Takriz meetings "in real life" meant "spies and police and all these Stasi," he says, using the term for East Germany's secret police. "Online we could be anonymous."

� Organising
� Facebook and Twitter allowed citizens within Arab states to coordinate their actions. Faced with a communications blackout imposed by authoritarian regimes, VPNs and social media allowed citizens to organise protests i.e. communicate the when and where. A study by Christopher Wilson of the United Nations Development Program concluded that �social media in general, and Facebook in particular, provided new sources of information the regime could not easily control and were crucial in shaping how citizens made individual decisions about participating in protests, the logistics of protest, and the likelihood of success�
� Pollack reported: Takriz used many other online tools: It created a fake Twitter account and website for Tunisia's foreign minister. Activists used Skype and Mumble to talk to one another over the Internet. One activist even used Foursquare to broadcast his location when he was being held in the Ministry of the Interior. �We were online every day," Foetus told Pollock, "and on the streets pretty much every day, collecting information, collecting videos, organizing protests, getting into protests� these sites are where people found out the basic logistics of the protests -- where to go and when to show up.�

� Broadcasting
� More important was the power of audio-visual images captured on mobile phones and distributed via social media. The images of Mohamed Bouazizi�s suicide and funeral were captured on mobile phones, posted to YouTube and Facebook and shared, not only within Tunisia but throughout the Arab world.
� In the days following the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, protests erupted in towns across Tunisia's poor interior. Dozens of protesters were killed. One video emerged filmed inside a hospital in the town of Kasserine: a young man lay dead with his brains spilling out.
� Pollack reported: Posted and reposted hundreds of times on YouTube, Facebook, and elsewhere, [the video] set off a wave of revulsion across North Africa and the Middle East. Like thousands of Tunisians, Rim Nour, a business consultant, was "online almost 24 hours a day," spending a lot of time identifying government stooges on Facebook groups. She remembers the video vividly: "A friend put it up and wrote something like 'You don't want to see this, it's horrible, but you must. You have a moral obligation to look at what is happening in your country.'"

� One of the key turning points in Egypt came from a display of state brutality that went viral online: On June 6, 2010, police dragged a computer programmer named Khaled Said out of a cybercafe and beat him to death in the street. Months later, he would become a symbol of resistance against Egypt's authoritarian regime.
� Pollack reports that during the Egyptian uprising less than a year after Said�s death: Said became a revolutionary icon when ghastly post-mortem photos, taken on his brother Ahmed's cell phone, were posted to Facebook. We Are All Khaled Said emerged as an enormously influential Facebook group; it now has almost 1.5 million members.
� Cross-border Coordination
� Social media also enabled protest groups in Arab states to coordinate with each other and with groups outside North Africa and the Middle East.
� Pollack reports: Egyptian activism displays strategies and tools similar to Tunisia's. Of course, that's no accident: the Egyptian activists were following the events in Tunisia, learning from them, and even communicating with some of the leaders -- over Facebook, of course.
� In 2000, the activities of the student-led Serbian uprising, Otpor! led to the overthrow of dictator Slobodan Milo�evi?. Some of its members went on to set up the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, which provides training and workshops for pro-democracy activists. Protest movements in Tunisia and Egypt learnt and applied the strategies devised by Otpor! In their own revolutions.
� Internationalisation: Libya
� Whereas the protests in Tunisia and Egypt led to largely peaceful resignations of authoritarian leaders, Libya�s dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, used military force to retain power.
� As was the case in Tunisia and Egypt, The Libyan governments initial inability to control the flow of information within and across its borders contributed to the conflict:
� Various forms of social media, including Twitter and Facebook were used to coordinate the initial uprising on February 17 2011 � the �Day of Rage�
� Using smartphones, video and photos were uploaded to Facebook and YouTube showing graphic images of the government crackdown on protesters. This inspired further revolts, predominately in eastern regions of Libya.

� Qaddafi�s actions and rhetoric clearly indicated that there was an imminent possibility of mass atrocities:
� Qaddafi�s son and military commander, Saif al-Islam had made a number of statements that clearly indicated the intention of government forces. Saif warned the protesters that �thousands� would die, �rivers of blood would flow�, and that authorities would �fight [down] to the last man, woman, and bullet�
� On February 22, Qaddafi called on his supporters in a state television speech: �Come out of your homes and attack [the opposition] in their dens�. Muammar al-Qaddafi called the protesters �greasy rats� and �cockroaches� and threatened to �cleanse Libya house by house�
� In the same speech he praised Chinese authorities� crackdown of the famous protests in Tiananmen Square as an example of national unity being �worth more than a small number of protesters�.

� Images of the violence captured by jerky, low-res mobile phone footage was used extensively by international news networks and served to galvanise international public opinion. NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, working in concert with the UN Human Rights Council documented violations of the Geneva Conventions and Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
� the use of indiscriminate and prohibited weapons in civilian populated areas (expanding bullets, cluster munitions, mines, white phosphorous, mortars, etc.)
� the use of mercenaries;
� arbitrary detention and torture;
� denial of access to medical care;
� sexual violence; and
� the use of children in armed conflict
� As a result, public opinion in Europe and the United States swung sharply in favour of armed intervention under the auspices of the UN to protect civilians from the violence.

� UN Security Council Resolution 1973
� France, the United Kingdom, and Lebanon proposed the adoption of the United Nations Security Council 1973 which invoked the use of Chapter VII powers which authorise the use of military force.
� On March 17th the measure was unanimously adopted with ten Security Council member countries voting in the affirmative, five abstaining, and none opposing.
� Paragraph 6 of the resolution: �Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians�
� Responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone was delegated by the United Nations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The United States played a prominent part in the opening days of the conflict, with Britain and France then taking over the bulk of the responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone.

� Not a happy ending
� While UNSC action did prevent civilians deaths in the short-term and contributed to the overthrow of Gaddafi, it also opened a power vacuum with rebel factions fighting for control of the state to this day. The collapse of the state demonstrated how instability in one state can increase the mobility of goods and labour, causing instability in other states.
� The State Fights Back
� Social Media as a Tool for State Manipulation and Control of Citizens: Russia and China
� The Russian Internet Research Agency
� Founded in mid-2013 and operating out of non-descript office building in St. Petersburg the Russian Internet Research Agency is often described as a troll farm with more than 1000 employees.
� As early as December 2015, the agency initiated an online influence operation designed to support the election of Donald Trump with a focus on using social media platforms to undermine his key rival in the 2016 Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton.
� Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee reported in November 2017: �[The Russian] social media campaign was designed to further a broader Kremlin objective: sowing discord in the U.S. by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues. The Russians did so by weaving together fake accounts, pages, and communities to push politicized content and videos, and to mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests.�
� According to the findings of the US House Intelligence Committee:
� 3,519 advertisements purchased on social media � mostly Facebook;
� More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
� 470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
� 80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
� Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.
� More than 36,000 Russian-linked bot accounts tweeted about the U.S. election
� More than 130,00 tweets by accounts linked to the IRA.
� 3,841 Twitter accounts affiliated with the IRA.

� China: Surveillance State
� In China, the government has always exerted strict control and monitoring of citizen internet use, though since 2017, the effectiveness of these measures has increased considerably:
� In 2017, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released a new regulation which imposed restrictions on the production and distribution of online news. The regulation required all platforms, such as online blogs, forums, websites, social media apps to be managed by party-sanctioned editorial staff. These editorial staff must obtain approval from the national or local government Internet and information offices and get training from the central government.
� Any message sent through a WeChat group is monitored by the app's operator Tencent which is a Chinese technology giant, and those conversations will be kept for six months. Tencent uses AI to monitor content and authorities have admitted that even messages deleted by the user can be retrieved.
� Other messaging apps, such as WhatsApp, Messenger, Line, etc., are mostly blocked or even forced out of the Chinese market.
� In 2017, the Chinese government has required all Sina Weibo (microblogging) account users to register with their real names and identity numbers by September 15.
� In July 2017, the Chinese government required telecommunications carriers, including China Mobile, China Unicom, and China Telecom to block individual access to VPNs by February 1.
� And if all of that is not enough, in 2018 China began collecting smartphone data from citizens in the restive region of Xinjiang. The information from smartphones and other datapoints is fed into a police app, the Integrated Joint Operations Platform. Uighur citizens, an ethnic minority in China, are stopped regularly at police checkpoints where police enter their ID into the app to access a vast array of personal data.
� The app was recently reverse engineered and revealed by Human Rights Watch

Car Imported from India:
Sold for $10,000 in Australia

Car produced in Australia:
Sold for $12,000 in Australia

� Add 30% tariff to cars important from India:
� Indian car $10,000 + 30% Tariff = $13,000

� Australian produced car = $12,000

1 tonne of cotton in Egypt
� Cost of production: $5
� Sell for at least $6 on global markets

1 tonne of cotton with subsidy
� Cost of production: $10
� Government subsidy of $6 per tonne
� Sell for at least $5 on global markets

Israel and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Significance

Legal Significance

Accountability for War Crimes: The ICC's involvement underscores the principle
that individuals, including state officials, can be held accountable for war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and genocide. This is pivotal in promoting adherence to
international humanitarian law.
International Legal Precedent: Prosecuting Israeli officials could set a legal
precedent for future cases involving similar conflicts, reinforcing the ICC's role in the
global legal framework.
Political Significance
International Relations and Diplomacy: ICC charges can influence international
relations, potentially straining Israel's diplomatic ties with countries supporting the
ICC�s actions. It can also impact negotiations and peace processes by adding a layer
of legal accountability.
Pressure on Israeli Government: The threat of ICC prosecution may pressure the
Israeli government to reconsider its military strategies and policies in Gaza,
potentially leading to changes that could reduce civilian harm.
Global Opinion and Advocacy: ICC actions can galvanize global public opinion and
advocacy efforts, drawing more attention to the humanitarian situation in Gaza and
increasing pressure on political leaders to address human rights violations.
Humanitarian Significance
Deterrence of Future Violations: The possibility of ICC prosecution serves as a
deterrent against future violations of international law by Israeli officials and military
personnel, aiming to protect civilian lives and uphold human rights.
Highlighting Humanitarian Issues: ICC investigations and charges bring
international focus to the humanitarian crises resulting from the conflict, potentially
mobilizing greater humanitarian aid and intervention efforts.
Challenges
Jurisdictional Issues: Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which complicates
the ICC's jurisdiction over its nationals. This raises questions about the enforceability
of ICC warrants and the cooperation required from other states.
Political Bias and Fairness: Critics often argue that ICC investigations are politically
motivated or biased, which can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the Court�s
actions.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and Israel:

Interests and Significance.

Part 1: Background Information
ICC�s Involvement

Research and describe when and why the ICC became involved in investigating
Israel's actions in Gaza. Include the main allegations against Israel.
Initial Complaints and Preliminary Examination:
The process began with complaints from Palestinian authorities and various human rights
organizations.
In January 2015, the ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, opened a preliminary examination
into the situation in Palestine, which included alleged crimes committed in Gaza.
Formal Investigation:
After a lengthy preliminary examination, on March 3, 2021, the ICC announced the opening
of a formal investigation into the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem and Gaza.
This decision followed a ruling by the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber in February 2021, which
confirmed that the court has jurisdiction over the territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Allegations
War Crimes
Disproportionate Use of Force: Israel has been accused of using disproportionate force in
military operations in Gaza, particularly during the 2014 Gaza War (Operation Protective
Edge),

Part 2: Legal Framework

Jurisdiction and Legal Basis
o What is the basis of the ICC's jurisdiction over Israel and Gaza? Explain how
the ICC justifies its authority to investigate and prosecute in this context.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Recognition:

The UNGA's 2012 resolution granted Palestine non-member observer state status, which
has been interpreted by the ICC as sufficient to consider Palestine a "state" for the purposes
of the Rome Statute. This status allowed Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute and
thereby accept ICC jurisdiction.

Rome Statute Accession:
By acceding to the Rome Statute, Palestine granted the ICC jurisdiction over its territory. The
ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed that this includes the territories occupied by Israel since
1967.

ICC�s Pre-Trial Chamber Decision:
The Pre-Trial Chamber�s February 2021 decision was a crucial step in affirming the court�s
jurisdiction. It concluded that Palestine's status as a party to the Rome Statute and the
territory it claims (West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza) fall within the ICC�s territorial
jurisdiction.

Relevant International Laws
o Identify and briefly explain the international laws and conventions that are
relevant to the ICC's investigation of Israel's actions in Gaza.

According to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, the basis of the allegations against Israel revolve
around �starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime�intentionally directing
attacks against a civilian population [and] extermination and/or murder�.
The three allegation are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and are defined as
war crimes under the Rome Statute.

Part 3: Perspectives

International Criminal Court (ICC prosecutor requests arrest warrants for
Netanyahu, Gallant and three Hamas leaders)
o Summarize the main findings of the ICC's investigations into Israel�s actions
in Gaza. What crimes have been alleged? What evidence has been
presented?

Allegations:
� Starvation of Civilians as a Method of Warfare
� Wilfully Causing Great Suffering
� Serious Injury to Body or Health or Cruel Treatment
� Wilful Killing or Murder

� Intentionally Directing Attacks Against a Civilian Population
� Crimes Against Humanity:
� Extermination
� Murder
� Persecution
� Other Inhumane Acts

Evidence Presented:
Interviews with Survivors and Eyewitnesses
Expert Analysis from Satellite Imagery
Statements from Israeli Officials
Several Hundred Authenticated Videos, Photographs, and Audio Recordings: Many of these
were taken and shared by victims and eyewitnesses themselves.

Israel (BREAKING NEWS: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Responds To ICC
Arrest Warrant)
o Summarise Israel�s response to the ICC investigation. What argument have
they used to undermine the legitimacy of an ICC investigation into Israels
actions.

Moral Outrage: Israel labels the ICC's decision to seek arrest warrants against its leaders
as a "moral outrage of historic proportions" and a disgrace, asserting it will leave a lasting
mark of shame on the ICC.
Self-defence Against Terrorism: Israel frames its actions as a just war against Hamas,
which it describes as a genocidal terrorist organization responsible for heinous attacks
against Jews, including massacres, rapes, and kidnappings. Israel contends that the ICC's
charges are an attempt to deny Israel its basic right to self-defence.
Lack of Jurisdiction: Israel argues that the ICC has no jurisdiction over it, suggesting that
the investigation is an overreach and that the ICC is abusing its authority.
Compliance with International Law: Israel asserts that it conducts its military operations in
compliance with international law and takes measures to protect innocent civilians and
ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need.
Accusations of Anti-Semitism: The response accuses Prosecutor Khan of fuelling anti-
Semitism through his decision, likening him to infamous German judges who upheld Nazi
laws during the Holocaust.

Part 4: Evaluation

To what extent is decision of the ICC to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli officials
significant.
Significance
Legal Precedent: Pursuing arrest warrants against officials from a nation like Israel, which
is not a party to the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC), sets a precedent for the
court's jurisdiction and reach.
Diplomatic Pressure: It can also lead to increased diplomatic pressure on Israel from other
states and international organizations to comply with international humanitarian law.
Global Public Opinion: It can influence global public opinion, swaying international support
either towards the ICC�s actions or towards Israel, depending on the narratives presented by
various stakeholders.
Strengthening International Law: By taking on high-profile cases involving complex
geopolitical issues, the ICC strengthens the framework of international law and its
applicability to all nations.
Future Investigations: The decision sets a benchmark for future investigations and actions
by the ICC against individuals from powerful and influential states, potentially deterring future
violations of international law.

Factors Undermining Significance
State Sovereignty: The possibility of arrest warrant being enforced are remote � Israel will
be able to use its sovereignty to shield key officials from ICC arrest warrants.

The International Criminal Court
Interests, Roles, Power
Study Design
Key Knowledge
the interests of global political actors and their ability to achieve political stability or create change
the forms of power that may be used by global political actors to pursue their interests

Key Skills
explain how global political actors use power in pursuit of their interests
compare the different perspectives of global political actors
discuss how global political actors use power to achieve political stability and/or change
evaluate the political significance of the use of power by global political actors in the pursuit of their interests

International Justice: History
The modern concept of establishing an international tribunal to prosecute political leaders stems from the following key events:
The Nuremburg Trials were conducted for surviving Nazi officials in the wake of the Second World War.
The genocide in Rwanda saw the international community establish a tribunal to convict those responsible
Tribunal were also established to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity committed during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.
These international tribunals were established in response to specific events with jurisdiction only to prosecute crimes against humanity occurring within those states. Emerging out of this was a sense that a permanent tribunal was needed to prosecute political leaders responsible for crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia wherever they occurred.
The overriding objective was to eliminate the concept of impunity, whereby an elected representative, head of state, a member of government, or public official considered themselves immune from prosecution for their actions.
The Need for a Permanent Court
During the 1990�s, largely in response to events in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the international community concluded that a permanent court was necessary to fulfil the role of dispensing global justice:
The tribunals were not an effective deterrent. They were established in response to some crimes, but not others, whereas a permanent court would deter leaders within states from committing crimes.
What constituted a crime of international concern had been established by precedent. A permanent court would formerly establish crimes of international concern.
A permanent court would avoid the perception of �victors justice�.

Several years of negotiation culminated with a conference convened by the General Assembly in Rome, in June 1998. Emerging out of this conference was the Rome Statute, a treaty that would provide for the formation of the International Criminal Court.

The Rome Statute
In 1998,120 states voted in favour of the statute, with 21 abstaining. Seven states voted against the statute:
China
Iraq
Israel
Libya
Qatar
United States
Yemen
The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002 when 60 states ratified the treaty. Under the agreement, the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after 1 July 2002
Unlike the UN, the court is intended to operate independently of states, except when it comes to voting on judges and the Chief Prosecutor.
The Interests of the ICC
The ICC�s stated aims are to:
Ensure the worst perpetrators are held accountable for their crimes
Serve as the court of last resort that can investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Assist national judiciaries in investigating and prosecuting the worst perpetrators, allowing states to be the first to investigate and prosecute.
Help promote peace and security by deterring future would-be perpetrators.

Other interests of the ICC involve:
Ending the concept of impunity for state leaders.
Victims� rights and reparations
Maintaining independence and impartiality
Public Awareness and Education

Roles of the ICC
To Enforce the Rome Statutes: The Rome Statutes represent the Treaty that established the ICC and defines the jurisdiction of the court
To Conduct Trials: Trials are conducted under a hybrid common law and civil law judicial system, with three justices presiding and passing verdict.
To Prosecute the Perpetrators of Serious Crimes: Prosecution are conducted against those who ordered the crimes i.e. heads of state and high-ranking government and military officials.

Power of the ICC: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the icc.
Genocide
Genocide involves the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Crimes against humanity
From the ICC: �Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice�They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy � or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.�

Key difference: Genocide involve deliberate destruction, whereas crimes against humanity do not have as their intended outcome the destruction of a group.
War Crimes
The definition incorporate a number of pre-existing treaties and conventions. A war crime can include the following:
The murder, ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory
The murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war
The wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities
As with crimes against humanity, these acts must be systematic, rather than isolated incidents.
The Crime of Aggression
Refers to wars of aggression, without the justification of self-defence, that are waged to conquer territory.
The ICC's jurisdiction over aggression was activated on 17 July 2018 after a decision by two-thirds of states parties.
As of 2022, only 43 states party to the Rome Statute have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC over the crime of aggression.
Power of the ICC: Territorial jurisdiction
The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over individuals in the following circumstances:
The accused is a nation of a state that has signed and ratified the Rome Statute
The alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state that has signed and ratified the Rome Statute
A situation has been referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council
During the negotiations on the Rome Statute, the United States had insisted that the ICC only have jurisdiction over matters referred to it by the UNSC. The majority of states rejected this proposal and voted for a far stronger court as a result.
Many states had argued for universal jurisdiction whereby the court prosecute the nationals of any state for crimes committed in any state, regardless of whether they has signed and ratified the statute.
Power of the ICC: Preconditions to exercise of jurisdiction
In most cases, the ICC�s Chief Prosecutor may start an investigation only when a state party or the UNSC have referred a situation to the Court. However, the Chief Prosecutor may investigate claims brought by individuals or non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
The preamble to the Rome Statute states that the ICC is the court of last resort. Therefore, Article 17 of the Rome Statute prevents ICC proceedings where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute

As the Rome Statute makes clear, the court is intended to compliment, not replace, courts and legal codes in member-states.

Power of the ICC: Legitimacy
In assessing the power of an IGO, our first step is to look at membership � in other words, how many states have accepted the authority of the IGO as legitimate.
The number of states is important � substantially more than half of the international community would point towards legitimacy
The power of the states that are members are also important. If large power remain outside the IGO, this can severely undermine its influence and its ability to carry achieve its aims.
Power of the ICC: Permeance of the Court and Deterrence
The deterrence value of the court is a key source of ICC power. Unlike the international tribunals that preceded it, the permanence of the ICC as a global institution means that leaders are aware that they might eventually be held accountable for their actions.
In the case of Sudan�s former leader, Omar al-Bashir, sovereignty shielded him from facing trial for crimes against humanity for a decade. However, he was subsequently removed from power and Sudan�s new government has indicated he will be handed over for trial.
The ICC compels state leaders to take into account the potential for punishment when deciding whether or not to take actions that might constitute crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Prior to the formation of the ICC, impunity was the norm and therefore, there were few constraints on leaders within states.
Legitimacy and claims of Neo-Imperialism
Over the past decade, states in Africa, initially the biggest supporters of the concept of the ICC, have increasingly claimed that the ICC is a tool of western imperial powers, designed to exercise control over African states.
Burundi became the first state to formally withdraw from the Rome Statute in October 2017. �The ICC has shown itself to be a political instrument and weapon used by the west to enslave� other states, said presidential office spokesman Willy Nyamitwe. �This is a great victory for Burundi because it has defended its sovereignty and national pride.�
In 2016, South Africa announced its intention to withdraw, and in 2017, the African Union encouraged the mass withdrawal of African states from the IGO. However, South Africa has since rescinded its intention to withdraw (though it still remains the official policy of the ruling ANC party).
Officially, the push for withdrawal is based on the fact that the overwhelming number of investigations and prosecutions have involved African states. The ICC has indicted two heads of state � both African.
Claims of neo-imperialism by African heads of state might be seen self-serving � the claims are made only by those whose actions might be investigated by the ICC.
The overwhelming number of investigations and prosecutions have occurred in Africa, though this is a reflection of the fact that the overwhelming number of armed conflicts are in Africa.
Half of the staff of the ICC are African, as is its Chief Prosecutor.
Burundi�s withdrawal came after the ICC announced a preliminary investigation into atrocities committed in their borders.
Zambia�s government has proposed withdrawing from the ICC, though interestingly, Zambia held public consultations on the proposed move, with an overwhelming 93% of those who participated opting to stay within the court.

Power of the ICC: Limitations
As is the case with the United Nations, the ICC shared three key limitations on its power as an IGO:
Reliant on Members States to Carry out its Will: The ICC lacks any form of coercive power. While they can issue arrest warrants, they do not have a police force and are entirely reliant on member-states to arrest and deliver for trial those they have indicted.
National Interest: Particularly problematic when it comes to investigating states that are not party to the Rome Statute. As UNSC approval is required to proceed with an investigation, P5 members continue to enjoy impunity, and this is extended to allies of P5 members.
Sovereignty: States have used their sovereignty to shield those subject to ICC arrest warrants, disrupt ICC investigations on their territory and extend protection to those subject to arrest on their territory.
Structure of the ICC
The Presidency
Three judges, elected by a majority vote of the Judges of the Court. The Presidency oversees the work of the Registry and can review their decisions. They are also responsible for maintaining relations with states and other entities in order to promote public awareness of the ICC
Judicial Divisions
Consisting of 18 judges, elected by states parties, they sit in judgement of criminal trials and appeals. For each trial and appeal, a three judge panel hears the cases and makes judgement as to guilt and innocence.
Office of the Prosecutor
Headed by the Prosecutor, who is elected by states-parties to a nine year term, the Office of the Prosecutor receives referrals regarding matters that may fall within the ICC�s jurisdiction. The Office of the Prosecutor examines each case, gathers evidence, advises the ICC as to whether a case should be pursued and prosecutes each case brought before the ICC.
Under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor has the right to investigate any alleged crime in a state that has signed and ratified the statute. For investigations of crimes committed by non-member states, a referral from the UNSC is required.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)
Understanding the Geneva Convention
Background Research

Outline the key events and circumstances that led to the drafting of the Geneva Convention after World War II.

World War II Atrocities: The immense suffering and large-scale atrocities committed during World War II, including the Holocaust, civilian bombings, and brutal treatment of prisoners of war, highlighted the need for comprehensive international humanitarian laws.

Inadequacies of Previous Conventions: The earlier Geneva Conventions (1864, 1906, 1929) were found to be insufficient in addressing the complexities and scale of modern warfare. The experiences of World War II exposed gaps in the existing legal framework, necessitating a more robust and comprehensive set of treaties.

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) played a crucial role in advocating for stronger international humanitarian laws. Throughout World War II, the ICRC's efforts to protect and assist victims of conflict underscored the need for enhanced legal protections.

Formation of the United Nations: The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 provided a platform for international cooperation and the development of new legal instruments. The UN's focus on promoting peace, security, and human rights laid the groundwork for the revision and expansion of the Geneva Conventions.

Nuremberg Trials: The prosecution of war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials reinforced the importance of holding individuals accountable for violations of international law. These trials underscored the necessity of clearly defined legal standards for the humane treatment of individuals during conflict.

Identify the core principles and objectives of the Geneva Convention as stated in its preamble.

Humanitarian Protection: The primary objective is to ensure the humane treatment of all individuals who are not actively participating in hostilities, including wounded and sick soldiers, shipwreck survivors, prisoners of war, and civilians.

Prevention of Suffering: The Conventions aim to prevent unnecessary suffering and protect those who are no longer participating in the conflict, ensuring they receive care and protection.

Respect for Human Dignity: Emphasizing the respect for the dignity of individuals, the Conventions establish that all parties to a conflict must treat those who are hors de combat (out of the fight) with respect and humanity.

Impartiality and Non-Discrimination: The principles advocate for the impartial treatment of all individuals, regardless of their nationality, race, religion, or political beliefs.

Legal Accountability: The Conventions establish legal obligations for the parties involved in conflicts to uphold these humanitarian standards and ensure accountability for violations.

International Cooperation: The preamble underscores the importance of international cooperation in the implementation and enforcement of these humanitarian standards to ensure their effectiveness and universality.

Analyzing the Convention

Analyze the key provisions related to the treatment of civilians:

Articles 25-27 on humane treatment, protection against violence, and respect for persons

Articles 25-27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention collectively underscore the importance of humane treatment, protection against violence, and respect for persons. They address the need for family unity, support for relief organizations, and the humane treatment of all individuals, ensuring their protection and dignity in times of war. These articles are foundational to the Convention's goal of safeguarding civilian populations from the horrors of armed conflict.

Articles 30, 35, 37-38 on rules for internment and provisions for protected persons

Articles 30, 35, and 37-38 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provide a robust framework for the humane treatment and protection of interned persons. These articles emphasize the role of humanitarian organizations, the need for adequate living conditions, and the protection of intellectual, cultural, and religious freedoms. They ensure that even in internment, individuals are treated with dignity and respect, and their basic needs and rights are upheld.

Articles 48, 81, 86 on relief operations and distribution of supplies

Articles 48, 81, and 86 of the Fourth Geneva Convention emphasize the protection of the rights and well-being of civilians during times of war. Article 48 focuses on the right of protected persons to leave conflict zones, ensuring their safe and dignified departure. Article 81 highlights the critical role of relief organizations in providing humanitarian aid and the necessity of cooperation from the Detaining Power. Article 86 ensures that protected persons subjected to disciplinary or judicial measures receive fair and humane treatment, safeguarding their legal rights and due process.

Articles 93, 105, 107 on criminal proceedings and penalties

Articles 93, 105, and 107 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establish essential safeguards for the treatment of internees and protected persons in the context of penal and disciplinary actions. Article 93 ensures fair treatment and due process for internees subjected to disciplinary or penal sanctions. Article 105 mandates the notification of the Protecting Power about penal proceedings, ensuring transparency and oversight. Article 107 prohibits retroactive penal sanctions and guarantees fair trial standards for crimes committed before internment.
Effectiveness and Critique

Analyze the role and actions of the International Committee of the Red Cross in promoting compliance to the Convention.

Inspection Visits: The ICRC regularly visits places of detention and internment to monitor the treatment and conditions of detainees and internees. These visits help ensure that the rights and humane treatment of protected persons, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, are upheld.
Confidential Reports: After visits, the ICRC provides confidential reports to the detaining authorities, highlighting any concerns and making recommendations for improvements.
Humanitarian Assistance:

Relief Operations: The ICRC delivers humanitarian aid, including food, medical supplies, and other essential items, to civilians affected by armed conflict. This aid helps mitigate the humanitarian impact of conflicts and ensures that basic needs are met.
Family Reunification: The ICRC facilitates the reunification of families separated by conflict and assists in the exchange of information to help trace missing persons.
Promotion of IHL:

Education and Training: The ICRC conducts training sessions and workshops for armed forces, government officials, and other stakeholders on the principles and application of IHL. This education helps raise awareness and understanding of the Geneva Conventions.
Public Advocacy: The ICRC engages in public advocacy to promote respect for IHL. This includes campaigns, publications, and media engagement to highlight the importance of protecting civilians and adhering to the Conventions.
Diplomatic Engagement:

Dialogue with Parties to Conflict: The ICRC engages in bilateral dialogue with governments, armed groups, and other parties to a conflict. This dialogue aims to ensure respect for IHL, address violations, and facilitate humanitarian access.
Participation in International Forums: The ICRC participates in international forums and conferences, advocating for stronger adherence to IHL and addressing emerging humanitarian challenges.

Documentation and Reporting:

Field Reports: The ICRC documents its observations and findings from conflict zones, which are shared with relevant authorities and used to inform policy recommendations.
Annual Reports: The ICRC publishes annual reports detailing its activities, challenges, and successes in promoting compliance with IHL. These reports provide transparency and accountability in its efforts.

What challenges exist in ensuring universal adherence and enforcement?

Sovereignty and Non-Interference: States may view international scrutiny and enforcement of IHL as infringements on their sovereignty. This can lead to resistance against international oversight and reluctance to cooperate with mechanisms designed to ensure compliance.

Lack of Political Will: Even when states ratify the Geneva Conventions, there may be a lack of political will to enforce them, especially if doing so conflicts with national interests or military objectives.

Lack of Universal Ratification: Although the Geneva Conventions have been widely ratified, not all countries have adopted the Additional Protocols, which expand and clarify protections. This creates gaps in the legal framework and inconsistent application of IHL.

Ambiguities in Interpretation: Differences in the interpretation of specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions can lead to inconsistent enforcement and application. Disputes over definitions, such as what constitutes a "civilian" or "combatant," can complicate adherence.

Domestic Implementation: Countries must incorporate the provisions of the Geneva Conventions into their national legislation. The process and effectiveness of domestic implementation vary widely, leading to discrepancies in how the Conventions are enforced at the national level.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)

Understanding the Genocide Convention
Background Research
Define the term "genocide" and explain its historical context and significance.

The term "genocide" was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944. Lemkin created the term by combining the Greek word "genos" (race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (killing). Lemkin's work, particularly his book "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe," highlighted the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and sought to provide a legal framework to prevent and punish such acts.

Genocide is defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group:
Killing members of the group.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Outline the key events and circumstances that led to the drafting of the Genocide Convention after World War II.

The Holocaust: The systematic extermination of six million Jews and millions of others by Nazi Germany highlighted the need for a legal framework to prevent and punish such atrocities. The sheer scale and horror of the Holocaust galvanized the international community to take action.

World War II Atrocities: Beyond the Holocaust, the war saw numerous atrocities committed by various parties, underscoring the need for comprehensive international laws to protect civilians and prevent mass killings.

Nuremberg Trials: The Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key Nazi leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, set a precedent for international accountability. These trials emphasized the necessity of having clear definitions and legal standards for crimes like genocide.

Raphael Lemkin's Advocacy: Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide," was instrumental in advocating for an international treaty to prevent and punish such acts. His efforts, including his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe," were pivotal in shaping the discourse on genocide.

United Nations Formation: The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 provided a platform for international cooperation and the creation of legal instruments aimed at maintaining peace and security. The UN Charter and its focus on human rights set the stage for the Genocide Convention.

Identify the core principles and objectives of the Genocide Convention as stated in its preamble.

Core Principles:

Condemnation of Genocide: Acknowledging the historical and ongoing impact of genocide and condemning it as a severe crime against humanity.

Affirmation of Human Rights: Emphasizing the dignity and worth of all human beings and the promotion and protection of human rights without discrimination.

Genocide as a Crime Under International Law: Recognizing genocide as a crime that is contrary to international law and the principles of the United Nations.

Core Objectives:

Prevention of Genocide: Establishing measures and frameworks to prevent the occurrence of genocide through international cooperation and proactive efforts.

Punishment of Genocide: Ensuring that those who commit genocide are held accountable and face appropriate legal consequences.

International Cooperation: Highlighting the necessity of global collaboration to effectively prevent and punish genocide, recognizing that it is a crime that affects all of humanity.
Analyzing the Convention
Examine Article II of the Convention, which defines the acts constituting genocide. Discuss the specific acts listed and any potential limitations or ambiguities in the definition.

Requirement of Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis)
One of the primary challenges in prosecuting genocide is the requirement to prove specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This intent (dolus specialis) is what differentiates genocide from other serious international crimes. Proving this specific intent can be extremely difficult, as it often relies on demonstrating the mindset of perpetrators, which may not always be explicitly documented.

Scope of Protected Groups
The Genocide Convention limits protected groups to national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. This exclusion leaves other groups, such as political, social, or cultural groups, without specific protection under the Convention. This limitation can result in significant atrocities not being classified as genocide.

Interpretation of "In Whole or in Part"
The phrase "in whole or in part" introduces ambiguity regarding the scale of destruction required for an act to be considered genocide. Different legal interpretations can arise about what constitutes a "substantial" part of the group, leading to varied applications in different cases.

Ambiguities in Acts of Genocide
"Serious Bodily or Mental Harm": The subjectivity involved in determining what constitutes serious harm can lead to inconsistent applications and interpretations.
"Conditions of Life Calculated to Bring About Physical Destruction": Proving that specific conditions were intended to destroy the group, rather than resulting from negligence or general wartime conditions, can be challenging.

Explain the "intent" requirement for an act to be considered genocide, as outlined in Article II. Analyze the challenges in proving intent and the implications of this requirement.

High Burden of Proof:
The specific intent requirement imposes a high burden of proof on prosecutors. This makes it difficult to secure convictions for genocide compared to other crimes such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, which do not require proof of specific intent to destroy a group.

Potential for Non-Recognition:
Atrocities that do not meet the strict legal definition of genocide, despite being severe and widespread, may not be recognized as such. This can affect the international community�s response, the provision of justice for victims, and the historical record.

Legal and Political Consequences:
The classification of an act as genocide carries significant legal and political weight. It obligates states to take action to prevent and punish the crime, which can have far-reaching diplomatic and humanitarian implications. The difficulty in proving intent can delay or complicate international responses.

Evaluate the groups protected under the Convention (national, ethnical, racial, and religious groups). Discuss the exclusion of political groups and the implications of this omission.

The exclusion of political groups from the Genocide Convention is partly due to the historical context in which the Convention was drafted. At the time, there was significant resistance from states concerned about sovereignty and the potential for international intervention in internal political matters.

Scope of Protection:
By excluding political groups, the Convention limits its scope of protection. Acts aimed at destroying political groups, such as the systematic killing of political opponents, do not fall under the Convention's definition of genocide. This creates a gap in international legal protection against mass atrocities.

Political Persecution:
Political persecution can result in mass killings and other severe human rights abuses. The omission of political groups means that such acts may be prosecuted under different legal frameworks, such as crimes against humanity, but not under the Genocide Convention. This can affect the classification and perception of such crimes.

Assess the effectiveness of territorial jurisdiction and available recourse mechanisms outlined in the Convention, including the role of the International Court of Justice.

Role of the ICJ:

The ICJ has jurisdiction over disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Genocide Convention (Article IX).

States can bring cases to the ICJ alleging violations of the Convention by other states. The ICJ can issue binding judgments, which states are obliged to comply with.

Territorial Jurisdiction:

Obligation to Enact Legislation:

Article V of the Genocide Convention requires States Parties to enact necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, including effective penalties for perpetrators of genocide.
This provision mandates that each state incorporates the crime of genocide into its domestic legal system, enabling national courts to exercise jurisdiction over such crimes.

Prosecution Within State Territory:

States are obliged to prosecute acts of genocide committed within their territory. This includes crimes committed by their nationals and, in some cases, crimes committed by foreigners within their borders.
This mechanism relies heavily on the willingness and capacity of national judicial systems to prosecute genocide cases.

Extradition:

Article VII of the Convention stipulates that genocide shall not be considered a political crime for the purposes of extradition, meaning that perpetrators should be extradited to face charges in another state's courts if necessary.

This provision facilitates international cooperation in bringing perpetrators to justice, although it depends on existing extradition treaties and the political will of states to comply.
Effectiveness and Critique

Analyze the critiques and limitations of the Genocide Convention, such as the omission of cultural genocide, the specific intent requirement, and the limitations on territorial jurisdiction.

Omission of Cultural Genocide: This leaves gaps in protection for groups facing cultural destruction and undermines the comprehensive protection of group identities.

Specific Intent Requirement: The high burden of proving specific intent complicates the prosecution of genocide and can lead to inconsistent application and challenges in holding perpetrators accountable.

Limitations on Territorial Jurisdiction: Issues of state sovereignty, capacity, and political will affect the effectiveness of national prosecutions and can lead to impunity and fragmented justice efforts.

� International Law: The 1951 Convention On the Status of Refugees

� International Refugee Law
� The St. Louis
� In 1939, on the eve of the Second World War, 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution travelled on the S.S. St Louis, in search of refuge across the Atlantic.
� Their first port of call was Cuba. Fearing the Jewish refugees might be communists, almost all were turned away.
� In the United States, anti-Jewish sentiment saw the State Department refuse to accept the passengers. The State Department advised them to �await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States.� Canada also declined to accept the passengers.
� The ship was forced to return to Europe. 25% of the passengers were killed in the Holocaust. In the past decade, both Canada and the US have formally apologised for the incident.
Post-Second World War Europe
� From 1939 to 1945, the Second World War uprooted populations across Europe. People fled the fighting, others were conscripted by the Nazis as forced labourers � approximately 12 million people from 20 countries abducted from their homes and dispatched throughout Europe.
� By the end of the war, there were over 40 million people residing outside their state of origin in Europe alone. Many would be still trekking across Europe 2 years after the conclusion of the conflict in order to get home.
� The overwhelming majority possessed no identification documents. Some could not return home due to fear of persecution. Most needed to cross several borders to reach home.
� The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
� The 1951 Refugee Convention was approved at a special United Nations conference in July 1951. The purpose was to define who could be categorised as a refugee and then provided series of rights to refugees.
Definition of Refugee: Article 1
� As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Key Rights Provided to Refugees:
� Article 16(1): A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States.
� Article 32: The host state is not to impose penalties on refugees for their illegal entry or presence when they come directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened; provided they present themselves to authorities without delay. Nor should their movement be restricted for an undue length of time.
� Article 33: Refugees bear the right not to be forcibly returned or expelled to a situation which would threaten one�s life or freedom. This is the principle of non-refoulement.
� Article 34: The host state should, upon conferment of refugee status, begin procedures to naturalise the refugee and provide citizenship rights.
� Enforcement Mechanisms: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
� The UNHCR is responsible for monitoring and reporting state compliance with the 1951 Convention:
� Reviewing state reports submitted under Article 35 on the condition of refugees, implementation of the Convention, and relevant laws/regulations.
� Conducting field monitoring missions to assess the situation of refugees and compliance with international standards.
� Gathering information from various sources like NGOs, refugees themselves, and UN agencies to evaluate protection gaps.

� Where state fail to meet their obligations under the convention, the UNHCR will report negative findings. This can potentially undermine the international standing of states.
� UNHCR: Promoting the 1951 Convention
� The UNHCR has adopted a cosmopolitan approach that coordinates the efforts of states, regional groupings and NGOs in order to assist states to protect the rights of Ukrainian refugees throughout Europe. The UNHCR�s inter-agency Regional Refugee Response Plan:
� Collects funding from states, NGOs and private donations to assist states in meeting the needs of Ukrainian refugees in host states.
� Provides humanitarian assistance to Ukrainian refugees. This involved assisting Polish authorities in creating and operating reception centers and providing medical and counselling assistance to polish refugees.
� Advises states on how to protect the rights of refugees.
� As a multilateral body, the UNHCR is uniquely placed to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the issue that focuses on cooperation from a range of global actors.

� Nevertheless, the limited economic resources of the UN have undermined the ability of the UNHCR to provide assistance, with only 25% of required funds received. As always, the ability of the UN to achieve its aims are largely dependent on the contribution of member-states.

Interests and Arguments: UNSC Debate on Palestinian Statehood

Voted in Favour Veto/Abstain
State: Jordan

Position: For Palestinian Statehood/Permanent Membership

Key Arguments:
� Without intervention from global agencies, escalation of conflict will increase instability in the middle eastern region
� Israel�s invasion of Palestine is similar to terrorism
� The invasion and killing of civilians in Gaza disrespects international law
� The Israeli occupation of Gaza breaks human rights laws in preventing education and genocide laws

Interests in relation to the Issue:
� Jordan believes in giving Palestine statehood and full membership of the UN because Israel�s invasion has left them unsupported and exposed, without valuable interference by other states. Jordan says that Israel is breaking international law and action must be taken by the UN. Additionally, Jordan is concerned with their own sovereignty because the war has put Jordanian citizens at risk. Their airspace has been continuously used in the war and there are concerns that Hamas are inciting their own tribes to join the conflict.
� Jordan also has a deep history with Palestine and the Palestinian people. Back when Israel was first announced a country (14th May 1948), the next day, an alliance of surrounding middle-eastern countries attacked it. These countries included Palestine, Egypt and Jordan. Jordan has a longstanding history of supporting Palestine, due to cultural and historical connections, and are traditionally against Israel.
� Their interest and concern for Palestine are rooted in two reasons. One is that there have been a considerable number of Palestinians who have Jordan citizenship after Jordan gave asylum to Palestinian refugees. Reason two is that a discussed solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict could happen at Jordan�s expense or otherwise involve Jordanian rule including Jordan occupying the West Bank, which was previously under Jordanian rule.

State:

Position:

Key Arguments:

Interests in relation to the Issue:

State: Iran
Position: The Islamic Republic of Iran supports Palestine becoming a sovereign state. They have condemned the idea of a two-state solution and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran�s Supreme leader, stated that �any plan that partitions Palestine is totally rejected.�

Key Arguments:
� Israel is an occupying power with no legitimate claim to the land
� Israel has committed numerous war crimes including targeted killing of journalists, the use of phosphorous bombs against Palestinian civilians in Gaza and genocide
� Palestinian people have the right to self determination
� Israel has violated the UN charter and Vienna conventions and have nuclear weapons which also violates international law
Interests in relation to the Issue:
� See Israel apprehended for its crimes
� Israel�s sources of arms and funds cut off
� Israel is very powerful within the Middle East, so by getting rid of arms, funds and international support they will become less of a threat
� Not to escalate the conflict with Israel
� Oppose Israel for missile-striking Isfahan, Iran
� Iran wants an �immediate, complete, unconditional, and permanent� ceasefire
� Exchange of prisoners, Israeli �regime� to completely withdraw military forces from Palestine, and the safe return of Palestinians to areas that they were displaced from.
� Increases their reputation internationally by not supporting genocide/supporting Palestine State: USA ??

Position: Vetoed against Palestinian statehood

Key Arguments:
� USA has consistently supported Israel, even going to say that their �protection of Israel is iron-fold�
� Condemning Iran to further support Israel - USA is sanctioning key actors involved in Israel bombing
� The matter of ceasefire is �solely� waiting for Hamas as Israel is ready for peace
� They see a political horizon of a two-state solution (contradictory?)
� Rebuttal against Russia�s arguments by saying how Russia itself is not upholding human rights obligations and therefore do not deserve a right to speak on the matter

Interests in relation to the Issue:
� Have always supported Israel since the 1940s
� Due to the zionist movement, both USA and Israel wanted Palestine to become the Jewish National home, therefore held the same interests
� 42 out of the 83 times the US has used the UNSC veto power was to stop resolutions condemning Israel
� Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US aid
� At this point now, USA continues to support Israel because of Israel�s economic and military power as well as their influence and power over the Middle East
State:

Position:

Key Arguments:

Interests in relation to the Issue:
� � State: Israel

Position: Against Palestinian statehood

Key Arguments:
� they believe that the UN must condemn Hamas and its actions before discussing anything else.
� they also think that offering Palestine statehood will not benefit any party, not Israel nor the Palestinian citizens.
� They also think that the UN should only be open to all �peace-loving states�, arguing that Palestine does not meet that criteria.
� They also think that giving Palestine statehood would not recognise the Palestinian authority but will instead legitimise the terrorist groups governing most neighbourhoods of Palestine.
� They believe that Palestine is not likely to follow and adhere to the UN charter, claiming that they will only refer to the Charter for their interests to disadvantage Israel. This ties in with Israel�s interests concerning their own national security, giving them statehood will give Palestine more power.
�

Interests in relation to the Issue:
� interests concerning national security; if Palestine is granted statehood, it will give them the power to take potential action against Israel and legtimize their �wrongdoings�.
� recognising Palestine also raises the question of who the sovereignty is going to; the UN might be handing sovereignty to terrorist groups in Palestine instead, further increasing Israel�s concern for their national security.

State: Palestine

Position:
For Palestinian statehood. They are grateful to the countries which have supported them and developed relations with Palestine.

Key Arguments:
� Palestinian�s are victims of events and international situations beyond their control and they want to live in peace, security and be an independent state like other countries.
� They want to resolve issues of palestinian refugees
� Territorial integrity
� They have made historical concessions to achieve peace based on the two state solution so they can establish the Palestinian state.
� International support from other countries
� Stability as a statehood

Interests in relation to the Issue:
� Peace and security for all citizens of Palestine
� They want to gain stability and independence
� If Palestine were to be a part of the UN the charter will be respected by the other nations and would have its own opinions and contributions.
� Historical and religious claims
� Acceptance from the other countries
� End of occupation: they are seeking for israel occupation to end in the west bank and gaza strip, which they view as a violation of their right

State: The Islamic Republic of Iran

Position: The Islamic Republic of Iran accepts Palestine�s claim to statehood.

Key Arguments:
� Believes that Israel's attack on Palestine is a clear violation of the charter of the United Nations and of international law.
� Iran argues that �no state� will remain silent during such brazen military attacks, which costs civilian casualties.
� Iran also argues that its attack on Israel on April 18th was �necessary� because they were left with no other option, and was set up as a response towards the intense attacks from the Israeli regime.
� They believe Israel is violating their sovereignty and rights of statehood.
� They believe Israel's actions are based on terrorism, aggression, violence and conflict.
� Iran believes that Israel is not a legitimate state, rather nust an occupying power, as it violates international law. �The occupation of a land is temporary even if it lasts for decades� is quoted by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
� Believes that the root of the conflict in the Middle East is due to the occupation of the historical land of Palestine.

Interests in relation to the Issue:

Establishing an immediate, complete, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in all areas of Gaza, including Rafah and Westbank.
Full lifting of human blockade against Gaza.
Exchange of prisoners for humanitarian purposes.
Obligating the regime to immediately and completely and unconditionally withdraw all military forces and warfare equipment from Gaza And the necessity of the safe return of the people to the areas and places.
Enforcing an immediate and comprehensive arms embargo against a Zionist regime
Supporting the legally binding provision of orders of the International Court of Justice and also providing the basis of the trial and accountability of all the perpetrators, commanders and supporters of the Israeli crime in Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories due to the widespread and heinous crimes. Including the killing of journalists, humanitarian workers and the illegal use of weapons such as phosphorus bombs, as well as the constant threat of Israeli officials to use nuclear bombs.

The Role of the UN General Assembly
Author: CFR.org Staff
Updated: September 19, 2014

Introduction
Since its inception more than sixty years ago, the United Nations General Assembly has been a
forum for lofty declarations, sometimes audacious rhetoric, and rigorous debate over the world's
most vexing issues, from poverty and development to peace and security. As the deliberative and
representative organ of the United Nations, the assembly holds general debate in the UN's New York
headquarters from September to December, with special sessions convened thereafter as required.
The sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly opened on September 16, 2014, with heads of state
and government convening for the general debate on September 24. With the target date for the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) around the corner in 2015, setting a "transformative" post-
2015 development agenda will top the official agenda this year. High-level meetings that will take

place on the sidelines include the Climate Change Summit and the first World Conference on
Indigenous Peoples.
The official agenda is likely to be overshadowed, however, by global crises that have escalated in
recent months including advancements made by ISIS, the conflict in Ukraine, the Ebola epidemic in
West Africa, and the aftermath of the latest Israeli-Palestinian clashes.
What is the UN General Assembly?
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only universally representative body of the five principal
organs of the United Nations. The other major bodies are the Security Council, the Economic and
Social Council, the Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice. As delineated in the Charter of
the United Nations, the function of the General Assembly is to discuss, debate, and make

recommendations on a range of subjects pertaining to international peace and security�including
development, disarmament, human rights, international law, and peaceful arbitration between
disputing nations.
It elects the nonpermanent members of the Security Council and other bodies such as the Human
Rights Council, and appoints the secretary-general based on the Security Council's recommendation.
It considers reports from the other four organs of the United Nations, assesses the financial
situations of member states, and approves the UN budget�its most concrete role. The Assembly
also works with the Security Council to elect the judges of the International Court of Justice.
What is the General Assembly's membership?
The General Assembly is the only part of the United Nations that represents all 193 member states,
each of which has one vote. The assembly's president changes with each annual session. The
president of the sixty-ninth session is Sam K. Kutesa, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uganda.
Often voting blocs are formed around groups such as the G77, a loose coalition of member states
from the developing world. Resolutions need a two-thirds majority to pass. In addition, the UN's
nonmember observer states, which include the Vatican, have the right to speak at assembly
meetings but cannot vote on resolutions.
Membership can at times be a contentious issue. Taiwan has been denied UN membership for more
than two decades due to objections from China, which holds a permanent seat on the Security
Council and considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory. Palestine's status in the UN has also
been controversial. The 2011 General Assembly session was dominated by a controversial bid for
recognition of Palestine as a member state, which stalled in the Security Council after the United
States vowed to veto. However, at the 2012 General Assembly, members passed a resolution, 138-9
(41 abstained), to upgrade the Palestinian Authority's status from nonmember observer entity status
to nonmember observer state status. This change gives the territory, which has disputed statehood,
a similar status to that of the Vatican and allows it to serve on various UN bodies.
Is the General Assembly in need of reform?
Yes, say many UN experts and leading donor nations. Efforts towards revitalizing its work have been
ongoing for many years. Key motivating factors (PDF) are considered to be increasing the power of
the assembly vis-�-vis the Security Council, as well as making debates more constructive and less
repetitive. But, the assembly has continued to resist deep-seated reforms, a reflection of the rift
between its many members from the developing world, who want to retain a strong say in its
deliberations, and wealthy nations that serve as its main donors. Small improvements do take place,
however. In April 2007, the General Assembly, for the first time in sixty years, mandated a significant
overhaul of the UN system of internal justice, declaring it "slow, cumbersome, ineffective, and
lacking in professionalism." The new system, which became functional in 2009, formally established
a mediation division within the UN. The Internal Justice Council has already begun interviewing
potential judges to ensure their independence.
In 2005, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented a report that criticized the assembly for
focusing excessively on consensus and passing resolutions that reflected "the lowest common
denominator" of opinions. Michael W. Doyle, an international affairs expert who teaches at
Columbia University, says the assembly is "an important institution that has never quite sorted out
its role" in terms of being a truly deliberative, functional body, and has "insufficient deliberation and
not enough genuine discussion." Doyle, who was an aide to Annan, says that the assembly could

enhance its relevance by holding hearings with expert testimony. The assembly has made an effort
in recent years to make its work more substantive and relevant. Resolution 59/313, adopted in 2005,
established a more influential role for the assembly's president to help achieve this goal.
Have members ever been punished by the assembly?
The General Assembly has the power of censuring states for violating UN Charter principles. In the
1960s the assembly refused to seat the South African delegations because the country was
practicing apartheid, in violation of both Security Council resolutions and principles of international
law. In 1992, the assembly refused to give Serbia the former Yugoslavian seat in the assembly.
Belgrade later was given representation under the name of Yugoslavia.
Israel was barred for many years from serving on UN commissions and panels because the slots were
allotted according to geographical membership in one of the UN's five regional groups (Western
European and Others, Eastern European, Asia-Pacific, African, Latin American and Caribbean). Israel
was not a member of any of them because the Arab states blocked its membership to the Asia
group, in which it would normally belong. This changed in 2000 when it was permitted to become a
temporary member of the Western European and Others regional group, helped by the efforts of
the United States and a number of European countries.
In August 2012, the General Assembly voted 133�12 to strongly denounce the Syrian government
for the atrocities that have occurred since the start of the Syrian uprising in March 2011. Thirty-three
countries abstained from voting on the resolution, which was overwhelmingly backed by Western
countries and their allies.
On March 27, 2014, following Crimea's March 16 referendum to join Russia, the General Assembly
adopted a non-binding resolution declaring the referendum invalid and the annexation of Crimea
illegal. The resolution passed 100�11, with 58 abstentions.
What are some noteworthy assembly actions?
"The General Assembly is not an action body. It is just that�an assembly," says Ambassador Donald
McHenry, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. On some issues, such as the
U.S. embargo on Cuba, resolutions are passed every year, but have yet to stir policy change. General
Assembly resolutions are still significant, however, as indicators of member states' positions on a
given issue. They can also prove useful by outlining organizing principles and proposing initiatives for
member states, says McHenry. Some assembly actions have had more influence or incited more
opposition than others:
� Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1948, two years after the assembly convened its
inaugural session, it promulgated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
contained thirty articles stating the UN's view on human rights. A historic act, it proclaimed
the "inherent dignity" and "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family." The assembly called for the act to be "disseminated, displayed, read, and
expounded" in the schools and educational institutions of all member countries. As the Chair
of the UN's Commission on Human Rights, former U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt helped
to draft and pass the declaration, saying it "may well become the international Magna Carta
for all men everywhere." Human rights issues remain contentious, however. As this CFR
Backgrounder points out, the UN Human Rights Council continues to face criticism for,
among other things, allowing countries with poor human rights standards to be members.

� "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. In 1950, the United States initiated another landmark
resolution of the General Assembly, Resolution 377 (PDF), known as the "Uniting for Peace"
resolution. It states that if the UN Security Council "fails to exercise its primary
responsibility" of maintaining international peace and security, the General Assembly can
and should take up the matter itself and urge member states to consider collective action.
The assembly has enacted this resolution in a handful of instances, including the Suez crisis
of 1956. As a result of its intervention there, a cease-fire was called, a withdrawal occurred,
and the first United States Emergency Force (USEF), a peacekeeping force, was established.
The U.S.-initiated war with Iraq provoked calls from a number of organizations, including the
legal advocacy organization the Center for Constitutional Rights, to have the General
Assembly take up the issue and override the impasse of the Security Council, but the
assembly did not do so.
� Millennium Declaration. The General Assembly proclaimed that its fifty-fifth session in 2000
would be designated the Millennium Assembly. At a summit that year, Annan unveiled the
UN's Millennium Declaration. It set forth what are known as the Millennium Development
Goals, a collection of "time-bound and measurable" targets for combating everything from
poverty to HIV/AIDS. Other key proposals included a security agenda relating to
international law, peace operations, and small arms trafficking; and an environmental
agenda that urged "a new ethic of conservation and stewardship." The development goals
continue to be invoked by many governments, NGOs, and other groups as a way to spur
more aid toward the developing world. Significant inroads have been made on education,
infant mortality, and poverty. Yet as the 2015 deadline looms, the General Assembly will
look ahead, setting new post-2015 goals for sustainable development.
� 'Zionism is Racism' Resolution of 1975. Also known as Resolution 3379, this is the
assembly's most controversial resolution, in which it "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of
racism and racial discrimination." Yet the UN Partition Plan for Palestine approved of and
helped create the state of Israel in 1947. In his address to the UN General Assembly on the
day the resolution was passed, Israeli ambassador Chaim Herzog stated that, "for us, the
Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any
moral or legal value." He then proceeded to tear a copy of the resolution in half. Resolution
3379 was eventually repealed, in 1991. In 2001 during the UN's world conference on
combatting racism in Durban, South Africa, similar language on Zionism was introduced but
later dropped. Fourteen countries, including the United States, boycotted the 2011 meeting
commemorating the Durban conference and while reasons varied by country, most
expressed concerns of anti-Semitism.

The UN Security Council
Author: Zachary Laub, Online Writer/Editor
Updated: December 6, 2013

Introduction
The Security Council is the United Nations' principal crisis-management body, empowered to impose
binding obligations on the UN's 193 member states to maintain peace. The Council's five permanent
and ten elected members meet regularly to assess threats to security, addressing issues that include
civil wars, natural disasters, arms control, and terrorism. Structurally, the body remains largely
unchanged since its founding in 1946, stirring debate among many members about its efficacy and
legitimacy as an arbiter on matters of international security. Syria's civil war poses particular
challenges to the Security Council amid concerns about regional instability, proliferation, and a
mounting humanitarian crisis.
What is the Security Council�s structure?
Any one of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council�China, France, the Russian
Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States�can veto a resolution, a power not afforded
to its ten elected members. The P5's privileged status has its roots in the UN's founding in the
aftermath of World War II. The United States and Russia (then the Soviet Union) were the outright
victors of the war, and, along with the United Kingdom, they shaped the postwar political order. As
their plans for what would become the United Nations took shape, U.S. president Franklin Delano
Roosevelt insisted on Nationalist China's inclusion at the helm, envisioning international security
presided over by "four global policemen." British prime minister Winston Churchill saw in France a
European buffer against potential German or Soviet aggression and so sponsored its bid for restored
great-power status.

The Council's presidency rotates on a monthly basis, ensuring some agenda-setting influence for its
ten nonpermanent members, who are elected by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly to serve
two-year, nonconsecutive terms. The main criterion for eligibility is contribution "to the
maintenance of international peace and security," often defined by financial or troop contributions
to peacekeeping operations or leadership on matters of regional security likely to appear before the
Council.
A secondary consideration, "equitable geographical distribution," gave rise to the regional groups
used since 1965 in elections: the African Group has three seats; the Asia-Pacific Group, two; the
Eastern European Group, one; GRULAC (Latin America and the Caribbean), two; and WEOG (Western
Europe and Other Groups), two. Each has its own electoral norms. An Arab seat alternates between
the African and Asian blocs by informal agreement. Turkey and Israel, which has never served on the
Council, caucus with WEOG.
Subsidiary organs that support the Council's mission include ad hoc committees on sanctions,
counterterrorism, and nonproliferation, and international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the
former Yugoslavia. Within the UN Secretariat, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support manage field operations. The Peacebuilding Commission, established in
2005 as a repository of institutional memory and "lessons learned," serves an advisory role.
What are the Security Council�s tools for conflict management?
The Security Council aims to reach peaceful resolution of international disputes under Chapter VI of
the UN Charter. Failing that, it is empowered to take more aggressive action under Chapter VII, such
as imposing sanctions or authorizing the use of force "to maintain or restore international peace and
security." Peacekeeping missions are the most visible face of the UN's conflict-management work; in
late 2013 the Council was overseeing sixteen operations and nearly ninety-seven thousand
uniformed personnel.
Constrained by U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the Security Council acted infrequently in the four-and-a-half
decades between its founding and the close of the Cold War in 1989. During that time it authorized
seventeen peacekeeping operations.
The Security Council has authorized fifty-one operations in the years since the Cold War, many
responding to failing states, civil wars, or complex humanitarian emergencies, and deploying to
conflict zones in the absence of cease-fires or parties' consent. Under more muscular mandates,
they have combined military operations�including less restrictive rules of engagement that allow
for civilian and refugee protection�with civilian tasks, including policing, electoral assistance, and
legal administration. Developing nations provide the lion's share of personnel.

A number of these operations, including those in Cambodia and El Salvador, were touted as
successes. But increasingly complex emergencies, which mushroomed in the 1990s, challenged the
Council's ability to mount effective, coordinated responses.
Regional organizations have played an increasingly important role in peacekeeping and conflict
resolution, in some cases prodding the Council to action and in others acting as subcontractors on its
behalf. For instance, the Council authorized the use of force in Libya in 2011 after the Arab League
called for a no-fly zone, which NATO then executed. CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Mark Lagon also
points to the increased will and capacity of the African Union, which has partnered with the UN in
carrying out hybrid missions in Somalia and the Darfur region of Sudan.
What coercive measures can the Security Council take?
The sanctions provisions provided for by Article 41 of the UN Charter lay dormant through much of
the Cold War, only to become one of the Security Council's most frequently employed tools.
Sanctions were imposed just twice prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall: in 1966, a trade embargo was
enacted against the white-minority government in Southern Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe), and
in 1977, an arms embargo was enacted against apartheid-era South Africa. Yet the Council began to
make regular use of sanctions in the early 1990s in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Haiti.
These comprehensive embargoes wrought unintended humanitarian consequences, as Iraq
highlighted in particular. After Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War,
the United Nations coupled a successful disarmament regime with severe sanctions. The UN
subsequently established the Oil-for-Food Program to alleviate their human toll. The program was
marred by exploitation and corruption, however, and in a major institutional setback, an
independent inquiry led by Paul Volcker found that some two thousand firms�many of them based
in P5 countries�paid kickbacks to the Iraqi government totaling nearly $2 billion.
So-called "smart sanctions" emerged in the mid-1990s as an alternative to the "blunt instrument" on
display in Iraq, targeting discrete economic and political matters and specific individuals deemed to
threaten international security. Certificate-of-origin regimes have curtailed the trade in "blood
diamonds" that finance several civil wars, for example. Arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes,
and import/export bans on individual goods are now the norm, rather than comprehensive
embargoes, with roughly a dozen regimes in effect at any given time.

CFR Senior Fellow Stewart Patrick says the Security Council has played an important role in setting a
floor for sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program and harmonizing international policy on terrorist
financing.
But targeted sanctions have raised human rights concerns of their own. UN-imposed regimes have a
"ratchet effect," Lagon says. In order to be delisted, blacklisted individuals, entities, and items�
often those with dual uses, such as agricultural or medicinal applications�require an affirmative
vote of sanctions committees in which all Security Council members are represented.
The Council also has the power to refer cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
to the prosecutor of the independent International Criminal Court. It did so for the first time in 2005,
resulting in an outstanding warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir on charges regarding
Darfur.
Is force unsanctioned by the Security Council legitimate?
Under the United Nations charter, the use of force is legal only in cases of self-defense or when it
has been authorized by the Council. The question of legitimate use of force�as distinct from strict
legality�remains contentious.
NATO's seventy-eight�day-long air war in Kosovo is the most oft-cited case in arguing for the
legitimacy of humanitarian interventions outside Security Council authorization. The bombing
campaign was undertaken to protect Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing by Serbs, then leading
rump Yugoslavia, after Russia had indicated it would block authorization in the Council. An
independent commission of scholars later deemed the intervention "illegal but legitimate."
The emergence of the responsibility to protect (R2P) in the early 2000s appeared to justify the use of
force outside Council authorization by qualifying the principle of noninterference in sovereign
affairs. The doctrine, as adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005, stipulates that states have a
responsibility to protect their populations from crimes against humanity; the international
community has a responsibility to use peaceful means to protect threatened populations; and when
a state "manifestly fails" to uphold its responsibilities, coercive Chapter VII measures should be
collectively taken.
Successive U.S. administrations have argued that intervention can be undertaken with regional

organizations or "minilateral" coalitions of the willing, conferring legitimacy. But UN secretary-
general Ban Ki-moon has rejected this position, saying, "The responsibility to protect does not alter,

indeed it reinforces, the legal obligations of Member States to refrain from the use of force except in
conformity with the Charter." This debate was revived in the run-up to the 2011 NATO-led Libya
intervention and continues with the ongoing Syrian civil war.
"Legitimacy is very much in the eye of the beholder." �Jeffrey Laurenti, The Century Foundation
"Legitimacy is very much in the eye of the beholder," veteran UN analyst Jeffrey Laurenti says. Some
experts caution that by lowering the threshold the United States claimed for legitimacy as it sought
to intervene in mass atrocities�most recently, following allegations of chemical weapons use in
Syria in August 2013�the United States may achieve its short-term objectives while setting
precedents counter to its long-term interests.
What criticisms has the Security Council faced?
A number of critics, including member states from the developing world, charge that the Council's
structure is anachronistic. The Council was expanded from six elected members to ten in 1965, and

the People's Republic of China took the permanent seat previously occupied by the Republic of
China (Taiwan), in 1971. Since then, the body's composition has remained unchanged.
Developed and emerging powers such as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria
have sought Council enlargement and a permanent seat for themselves. Others have called for a
common European seat to replace the British and French permanent seats as the EU moves toward
a common security policy. The debate about expansion is often framed as a tradeoff between
legitimacy and efficacy.
Other critics of the Council include advocates of R2P, who say the veto gives undue deference to the
political interests of the P5, leading to inaction in the face of mass atrocities. It is not just P5
members who have demonstrated reluctance to use force. Beyond Russia and China, aspirants to
permanent-member status including Brazil, India, and Germany have views on intervention and
sovereignty at odds with those espoused by the United States.
While R2P advocates criticize the Security Council and its members for a lack of political will, others
question the UN's conflict-management capacity, often citing 1990s peacekeeping crises in Somalia,
the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.
In the shadow of its 1993 experience in Somalia, in which eighteen Army rangers were killed in an
attempt to capture a warlord, the United States was among the powers that prevented a robust UN
response in Rwanda, where in 1994 an estimated eight hundred thousand people were killed in a
genocide committed against ethnic Tutsis.
The UN also suffered humiliating defeats in the Balkans, where peacekeepers were used as human
shields in the siege of Sarajevo and failed to protect civilians in the designated safe area of
Srebrenica from massacre. Experts say these missions were undermined by both logistical and
political problems, including muddled mandates, inadequate resources, and the parochial interests
of major powers.
Peacekeeping mandates continue to be the focus of scrutiny for their scope, cost, and cases in which
peacekeepers themselves have committed abuses. A 2000 self-evaluation, commissioned by then
secretary-general Kofi Annan and led by veteran envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, said the UN had
"repeatedly failed," and would continue to absent "significant institutional change and increased
financial support."
But Laurenti says the UN's overall track record is relatively strong: "Peacekeepers have produced
stabilization in highly explosive conflicts, contained them, and more often than not, slowly,
painstakingly helped resolve them."
Saudi Arabia took the unprecedented step of declining a Security Council seat in October 2013,
announcing a day after it was elected to a 2014�2015 term that it would not serve in the absence of
institutional reform. While Riyadh cited the Council's failure to broker peace in the Syrian civil war
and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Patrick says the episode is better understood as "misplaced pique
directed at the United States" as it tilted away from Saudi interests in dealings with Iran and Syrian
president Bashar al-Assad. Jordan ran unopposed to fill the vacated "Arab swing seat" and was
elected by the General Assembly in December 2013.
What are the Security Council�s prospects for reform?
Prospects for substantial reform are seen as remote because amending the UN Charter requires an
affirmative vote and domestic ratification by two-thirds of UN member states. This includes all of the

Security Council's permanent members, who are unlikely to take measures that curb their own
influence. While there is broad agreement among UN members that the Security Council's makeup is
outdated, each of the various proposals for reform inevitably leaves some aspirants alienated. Some
proposals call for additional permanent members, and others for a new class of elected seats with
the possibility of renewal.
CFR's Patrick and former International Affairs Fellow Kara McDonald wrote in a 2010 Council Special
Report that a state's contribution to collective action should be the primary criterion for permanent
membership.
In the absence of charter reform, smaller states have advocated for procedural changes, including
greater transparency and closer consultations with troop-contributing countries.

Realist Theory
Realism is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. Realists therefore believe that the decisive dynamic among countries is a struggle for power in an effort by each to preserve or, preferably, improve its military security and eco�nomic welfare in competition with other countries. Furthermore, realists see this struggle for power as a zero-sum game, one in which a gain for one country is in�evitably a loss for others. Realists are also prone to seeing humanity as inherently divided by national loyalty to countries or some other focus of political identity such as religion or culture.
As an approach to international politics, realism can be traced to such ancient
practitioners and thinkers as Sun Tzu (544-496 B.C.), the Chinese general and author of The Art of War; Thucydides ( 460-399 B.C.), a Greek historian and author of The History of the Peloponnesian War; and Kautilya ( 4th century B.C.), minister to the Mauryan emperor of India, who wrote in Arthashastra, "A king shall always endeavor to augment his own power." More recently, realism also marked the diplomacy of such statesmen as Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), the Iron Chancellor, who engineered the unification of Germany under Prussia's control. For our purposes here, though, we will pick up the theory of realism when it emerged in the years surrounding World War II (1939-1945) as the dom�inant theory in the developing academic discipline of international relations scholarship.
Realist theory emerged partly as a reaction to the failure to preserve the peace after World War I (1914-1918). That horrific war shocked the conscience of many, who blamed the conflict on the realpolitik policies pursued by the major European powers. In response, an idealist movement developed. It advocated conducting global relations according to such lofty principles as cooperation, morality, and democracy. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading idealist. He argued, for exam�ple, that peace could only be restored and kept by "a partnership of democratic nations." Wilson sought to bring that partnership into reality by helping found the League of Nations. The idealist vision also led to such initiatives as the

United Nations Children�s Fund (UNICEF)
Interests:

UNICEF fulfills the interests of the United Nations by promoting human rights and facilitating cooperation between member-states:

Child Protection:

Objective: Protect children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect.

Emergency Response and Humanitarian Action:

Objective: Provide immediate relief and long-term support to children and families affected by emergencies, including conflicts.

Access to Critical Health Services:

Objective: Ensure that urgent medical cases can safely access critical health services or leave Gaza, and that injured or sick children being evacuated are accompanied by family members.
Power:

Expertise: UNICEF has more expertise than states when it comes to delivering humanitarian relief. UNICEF have used their expertise.

Example: Emergency Family Kits: UNICEF distributed 4,500 emergency family kits, resulting in clean water production for drinking and domestic needs, benefiting over 1 million people, including more than 560,000 children in the Deir Al Balah, Khan Younis, and Rafah areas.

Multilateralism: UNICEF uses multilateralism as a form of power to achieve its interests. It receives funding from member-states which can then be used for relief efforts.

Example: UNICEF has received a total of $15 million from the Australian government to deliver humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip since the escalation of violence in October 2023.
Significance:

Relief Efforts: UNICEF has achieved their interests to a certain extent by providing humanitarian relief in Gaza.

Monitoring and Reporting: UNICEF provides situation reports from Gaza every two weeks and periodically releases reports that are designed to increase international pressure on Israel.

Example: In June, UNICEF released a report that found 90 percent of children in Gaza lack nutrition and face �severe� threats to their �survival, growth and development�. The report was published on UNICEF�s social media and reported on by al-Jazeera, Washington Post and Reuters, drawing global attention to the issue and undermining Israel�s international standing. Factors Limiting Significance:

Financial Constraints: Dependence on voluntary donations and government contributions can lead to financial instability, hindering UNICEF's ability to fully implement its programs.

Example: UNICEF received only 54% of the $4.16 billion USD needed to address basic needs such as health, education, nutrition, and protection for over 41 million children in 59 countries

Sovereignty and Policies: UNICEF's operations rely on the cooperation of host governments, and resistance from local authorities or restrictive national legislation can impede its efforts.

Example: Humanitarian workers, including those from UNICEF, often require special permits to enter and operate in Gaza. The process of obtaining these permits can be lengthy and uncertain, causing delays in the delivery of essential services and aid.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Interests:

The ICJ fulfills the interests of the United Nations by promoting human rights, seeking to maintain global peace and security, and facilitating cooperation between member-states:

Settling Disputes Between States: The ICJ aims to resolve disputes between sovereign states by passing judgements that are based on international law. This supports the United Nations' objective of establishing conditions under which justice and respect for international obligations are maintained.

Ensuring Justice and Human Rights: By applying international laws to UN member states, the ICJ aims to ensure justice and promote human rights globally. This aligns with the UN's goal of encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, language, religion, or other factors.

Example: The ICJ ruled that Israel should take necessary measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians and improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Supporting International Cooperation: The ICJ encourages international cooperation by providing a framework for states to resolve their disputes in a non-violent and just manner. This helps in maintaining peace and security and developing friendly relations among states.

Example: The ICJ�s ruling promoted national humanitarian interests and encouraged states to sanction and condemn Israel�s actions. Power:

Binding Judgments: The ICJ�s decisions in contentious cases are binding on the states involved. States are obligated to comply with the Court�s rulings, although the ICJ lacks direct enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.
Legitimacy and Moral Authority: The ICJ�s rulings and opinions carry significant moral and legal weight, influencing international opinion and the actions of states. Even though it cannot enforce its decisions, its judgments can shape state behavior and international norms.
Example: Ruling on Humanitarian Measures: The ICJ�s decision requiring Israel to take measures to prevent genocide and improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza illustrates its judicial power.

Significance:

Ruling on Humanitarian Measures: The ICJ's ruling requiring Israel to take necessary measures to prevent genocide and improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza is a significant example of the court's impact. While the ICJ lacks enforcement power, this ruling brought international attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and underscored the legal obligations of states to protect civilians and ensure humanitarian aid.

The Ruling Enables other States to take Action against Israel: States can use the ICJ ruling to justify their criticism of Israel, in addition to any other measures they take. For example, Spain referenced the ICJ decision in justifying their decision to recognise Palestine and Belgium used the ruling to justify their decision to suspend arms shipments to Israel. Factors Limiting Significance:

Non-Compliance by States: The ICJ lacks the power to enforce its rulings directly. Compliance with ICJ judgments relies on the voluntary cooperation of states, which can be inconsistent. For example, while the ICJ ruled that Israel should take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, enforcement of this ruling has been limited (OHCHR) (Jacobin).

Dependence on the UN Security Council: The ICJ can refer cases to the UN Security Council for enforcement, but the Council's political dynamics often prevent decisive action. Veto power held by permanent members can block measures intended to enforce ICJ rulings (OHCHR).

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)
Interests:

The UNHCR fulfills the interests of the United Nations by promoting human rights and facilitating cooperation between member-states:

Promotion and Encouragement of Human Rights: The UNHRC aims to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all individuals, as highlighted in Article 1 of the UN Charter. This includes advocating for the dignity, worth, and equal rights of men and women.

Education and Advocacy: Ensuring that people are aware of their human rights and freedoms. This includes educational initiatives and advocacy campaigns to inform and empower individuals to exercise their rights.

Monitoring and Reporting: Monitoring the actions of states and making recommendations regarding how they can better implement human rights. Power:

Diplomatic Power:
� Resolutions: The Council adopts resolutions that represent the views of the international community on human rights issues. These resolutions, while not legally binding, exert political pressure on states to comply with international human rights standards.
� Mandating Inquiries: The UNHRC can mandate inquiries into human rights violations, providing a formal mechanism to investigate and document abuses.
Monitoring and Reporting:
� Universal Periodic Review (UPR): The UPR is a peer review process that examines the human rights records of all UN member states every 4.5 years. This process holds states accountable by publicly reviewing their human rights practices.
Influencing Public/International Opinion:
� Public Reports and Statements: By publishing reports and making public statements, the UNHRC can draw international attention to human rights issues, influencing public opinion and pressuring the state by damaging its international standing.

Significance:

Raising Awareness influencing public/international opinion
� Investigations and Reports: The UNHRC conducts investigations into human rights violations in Gaza and publishes detailed reports. These reports provide a comprehensive account of the situation on the ground, highlighting violations and abuses by various actors. By disseminating this information, the Council raises global awareness about the plight of individuals affected by the conflict.
Accountability and Moral Pressure:
� Resolutions and Recommendations: The UNHRC adopts resolutions that call for specific actions to address human rights violations in Gaza. For instance, resolutions demanding an end to the occupation or cessation of arms transfers to Israel serve as tools to exert moral and diplomatic pressure on the parties involved. While these resolutions are not legally binding, they represent the collective will of the international community and can influence state behavior.
� Mandating Inquiries: The Council mandates inquiries into specific incidents or patterns of violations. These inquiries gather evidence and provide a basis for holding perpetrators accountable. By documenting abuses and recommending actions, the UNHRC plays a crucial role in seeking justice for victims.
The Ruling Enables other States to take Action against Israel: Like the ICJ, the moral authority of the Human Rights Council allows states to justify actions against Israel (e.g. suspension of arms sales) that help the UN achieve its interests. Factors Limiting Significance:

Lack of Authority/Enforcement Mechanisms:
� Non-Binding Resolutions: The UNHRC's resolutions are not legally binding. This means that while they can highlight issues and exert moral pressure, they do not have the power to enforce their recommendations or impose sanctions. The reliance on member states and other UN bodies to take concrete actions limits the direct impact of the Council's decisions.

� Dependence on UNSC: Resolutions can only become legally binding if the UNSC decides to support and also drafts the same resolution successfully. This dependence on another body for enforcement further constrains the UNHRC's effectiveness.

The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA)

Interests:

UNRWA fulfills the interests of the United Nations by promoting human rights and facilitating cooperation between member-states:

� Education: UNRWA operates 706 schools with 543,075 students, providing quality education to Palestinian refugees.

� Healthcare: They have introduced 140 primary healthcare facilities and treat over 7 million patients annually, significantly increasing the availability and quality of healthcare for Palestinian refugees.

� Relief and Social Services: They provide various relief and social services, including emergency assistance, especially in times of armed conflict.

Power:

Economic Power:
� UNRWA uses economic power to fund and implement its projects and services.

� It is mainly funded by UN member states, with 89.2% of its budget coming from them.

� Additional funding sources include businesses, NGOs, foundations, and individual donations.

� This economic power enables UNRWA to provide education, healthcare, relief and social services, camp infrastructure and improvement, microfinance, and emergency assistance.

Expertise:
As with UNICEF, UNRWA has more expertise than states in terms of providing humanitarian assistance.
Example: It operates 140 primary healthcare facilities, treats over 7 million patients annually, and runs 706 schools with over 543,000 students.

Significance:

Multilateralism:
� As a well-known and established UN agency, UNRWA has significant reach in the region and operates with the cooperation of various international donors.
Relief Efforts::
� UNRWA�s role has been crucial in delivering emergency aid, including food, water, and medical supplies, particularly in areas heavily impacted by the conflict. UNRWA has reached over 85% of the Gazan population with flour and has provided 600,000 people with emergency food parcels.

Factors Limiting Significance:

Sovereignty: Israel�s control of land borders surrounding Gaza severely limits their ability to fulfill their interests inside Gaza. For example, Israel has denied 30% of aid into Northern Gaza since March 1st.

Financial Constraints: UNRWA is heavily dependent on funding from UN member states, businesses, NGOs, foundations, and individuals. Any reduction in funding directly affects its ability to deliver aid and maintain its operations. In 2024, the United States suspended over US$400 million in funding for UNRWA. .

This was among the conclusions listed in the report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, released on Wednesday.

�Amid months of losses and despair, retribution and atrocities, the only tangible result has been compounding the immense suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis, with civilians, yet again, bearing the brunt of decisions by those in power,� the Commission said, stressing the impact on women and children.

Clear turning point
The brutal attack of 7 October by Hamas on communities in southern Israel marked a �clear turning point� for both Israelis and Palestinians and presents a �watershed moment� that can change the direction of the conflict, with a real risk of further solidifying and expanding the occupation, the Commission said.

For Israelis, the attack was unprecedented in scale in its modern history, when in one single day hundreds of people were killed and abducted, invoking painful trauma of past persecution not only for Israeli Jews but for Jewish people everywhere.

For Palestinians, Israel�s military operation and attack in Gaza have been the longest, largest and bloodiest since 1948, causing immense damage and loss of life and triggered for many Palestinians traumatic memories of the Nakba and other Israeli incursions.

Tweet URL

Stop recurring cycles of violence
The Commission emphasized that both the attack in Israel and Israel�s subsequent military operation in Gaza should not be seen in isolation.

�The only way to stop the recurring cycles of violence, including aggression and retribution by both sides, is to ensure strict adherence to international law,� it stressed.

�That includes ending the unlawful Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory; discrimination, oppression and the denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, and guaranteeing peace and security for Jews and Palestinians.�

Deliberate targeting by Hamas
The Commission further noted that in relation to the attack of 7 October in Israel, members of the military wings of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, as well as Palestinian civilians who were directly participating in the hostilities, deliberately killed, injured, mistreated, took hostages and committed sexual and gender-based against civilians, including Israeli citizens and foreign nationals.

Such acts were also committed against members of the Israeli Security Forces (ISF), including soldiers considered hors de combat � such as injured soldiers.

�These actions constitute war crimes and violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law,� it said.

The Commission also identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concluded that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes.

Failure to protect civilians
It also noted that Israeli authorities �failed to protect civilians in southern Israel on almost every front�, including failing to swiftly deploy sufficient security forces to protect civilians and evacuate them from civilian locations on 7 October.

In several locations, ISF applied the so-called �Hannibal Directive� and killed at least 14 Israeli civilians. That Directive is reportedly a procedure to prevent capture of ISF members by enemy forces and was alleged to have been directed against Israeli civilians on 7 October.

�Israeli authorities also failed to ensure that forensic evidence was systematically collected by concerned authorities and first responders, particularly in relation to allegations of sexual violence, undermining the possibility of future judicial proceedings, accountability and justice,� the Commission added.

Violations by Israeli military
The independent Commission, established by the UN Human Rights Council, also concluded that, in relation to Israel�s military operations in Gaza, Israel committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws.

The Commission further concluded that the immense numbers of civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian objects and vital civilian infrastructure were the �inevitable results of Israel�s chosen strategy for the use of force� during these hostilities, undertaken with intent to cause maximum damage, disregarding distinction, proportionality and adequate precautions, and thus unlawful.

�ISF�s intentional use of heavy weapons with large destructive capacity in densely populated areas constitutes an intentional and direct attack on the civilian population, particularly affecting women and children,� the Commission said, adding that this was confirmed by the substantial and increasing numbers of casualties, over weeks and months, with �no change in Israeli policies or military strategies�.

Recommendations
Among its recommendations, the Commission report called on the Government of Israel to immediately end attacks resulting in the killing and maiming of civilians in Gaza, end the siege on Gaza, implement a ceasefire, ensure that those whose property has been unlawfully destroyed receive reparations, and ensure that necessities crucial for the health and well-being of the civilian population immediately reach those in need.

It also called on the Government of the State of Palestine and the de-facto authorities in Gaza to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held in the enclave; ensure their protection, including from sexual and gender-based violence; report on their state of health and wellbeing; allow visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), contact with families and medical attention, and ensure their treatment in compliance with international humanitarian and human rights laws.

�Stop all indiscriminate firing of rockets, mortars and other munitions towards civilian populations,� it added.

Israel rejects findings
Upon publication of the report, Israel rejected the findings of the independent Commission.

In a press release, the country�s Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva reiterated accusations of �systematic anti-Israeli discrimination�, political bias and of drawing a �false equivalence� between Israeli soldiers and Hamas fighters.

About the Commission of Inquiry
The Commission of Inquiry was established by the UN Human Rights Council to, among other points, investigate, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021.

Its report will be presented to the Human Rights Council�s 56th session on 19 June 2024 in Geneva. The report is accompanied by two documents providing findings on the 7 October attack in Israel, and on Israel�s military operations and attacks in Gaza until the end of 2023.