ICJ

1. Iran - US

   1. The US accused Iran of having nuclear weapons

   2. Iran brought the case to ICJ, unanimously deciding the US must lift sanctions

   3. ‘Order of provisional measures’

2. Australia - Japan Whaling

   1. Japan and Australia => ICRW which banned whaling

   2. Japan kept on whaling under ‘scientific purposes’

   3. Australia found out and brought this to the ICJ because ICRW included ICJ in its treaty

   4. Japan lost, and the requirements for ‘scientific purposes’ get stricter

   5. Ironic end: Japan whaling industry demand is declining

3. Yerodia Congo - Belgium (pg. 293)

   1. Belgium created a domestic law that has universal applicability (according to Belgium)

   2. Using that law, Belgium prosecuted Congo’s President Yerodia

   3. Congo brought the case to ICJ, arguing Belgium had violated its sovereignty

   4. ICJ used customary law and Belgium lost

4. Canada optional clause

   1. Canada wanted to decrease fishing in the international water close to its EEZ

   2. Canada amended its domestic law, omitting the optional clause of the ICJ

   3. When Spain fisherman came close to Canada’s EEZ, Canada deployed its warships and airforce to Spanish boats

   4. Spain complained to the ICJ but they can’t bring Canada to ICJ because of the amendment earlie

ICC

1. Al-Bashir, Sudan 2009

   1. ICC can’t force countries to arrest/realise the arrest warrants

   2. UNSC referred the case to the ICC to claim jurisdiction because Sudan is not an ICC member

   3. ICC prosecuted al-Bashir for orders of rape, murder and displacement

   4. ICC issued arrest warrants but lacks an enforcement body to conduct arrests

      1. Al-Bashir remained at large until a coup in 2019

2. US - ICC Relation

   1. 2002: American Service Members Protection Act: if any Americans are held captive under the ICC, the US could liberate these captives with force towards the ICC

   2. Bush Administration: The US created “court-free zone” in its agreements with other states which would ensure its partners to not bring American citizens to ICC

   3. 2018: If its partners indicted US citizen to the ICC, the US could impose sanctions towards the parties that assisted/complained to the ICC

   4. 2019: US revoked the visa of ICC prosecutors

   5. 2020: economic sanctions against ICC officials that directly engage with ICC investigation towards the US

UNSC: Mass killing cases

1. Darfur (2003): Sudanese governments aimed to destroy three ethnic groups

   1. Difficult for UNSC to enforce peace enforcement because it wasn’t a ‘threat to international peace and security’ (happened within Sudanese borders and to Sudanese citizens)

   2. 2004: the US ruled it as genocide, but China and Russia denied seeing it as such

      • Genocide = classified as a threat to int. peace and security

   3. Instead of using peace enforcements, they ended up using peacekeeping (got Sudan’s consent, included Sudanese government as a negotiating partner)

2. Rwanda (1994): massacred Tutsis to prevent power-sharing agreement negotiated by UN

   1. Within Rwanda and targeted Rwandans, SC decided that the killing did not constitute a threat to international peace and security

   2. When mass killings progressed, SC decided that increasing flow of refugees = threat to int. peace and security

   3. The US refused to call it a genocide because doing so = void the legal interpretation that the problem was a domestic matter and not a threat to international peace and security

   4. Initially only authorized a peacekeeping mission (with the consent of Rwandan government), eventually authorized peace enforcement w/ UN-authorized military force but by then it was too late

3. Syrian Civil War (c. 2011) = people’s revolution against Assad dictatorship

   1. The government constantly attacks the civilian population

   2. UNSC failed to take constructive action because lack of consensus among P5 members

      • US, France, UK want to overthrow Assad

      • Russia supplies Assad military weapons

   3. Shows that without Great Power consensus, SC can’t do anything

UNGA:

1. Goldstone Report

   1. Emphasize how the UNGA could be influential despite having limited enforcement instruments

   2. Background: UNGA HR committee investigated humanitarian violations in Israel and Palestine.

   3. The committee issued a report and included recommendations

   4. The report motivated states, IOs, and other advocacy groups to push further judicial accountability for those who commit war crimes

2. Cholera in Haiti

   1. UN Peacekeepers personnel came to Haiti when they had an earthquake in 2010

   2. Haiti accused these peacekeepers to have brought cholera from Nepal (where the personnel were from)

   3. This case demonstrates how the UN can’t be persecuted because of its status as an IO and that it enjoys immunity

WHO: Global crises

1. 2003 SARS

   1. WHO was praised for the fast response

   2. WHO imposed travel restrictions and reformed International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005

   3. The WHO could declare Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). But there is tension between keeping human health or keeping the economy, thus making WHO reluctant to declare PHEIC

2. 2015 Ebola

   1. WHO was complained because of its slow response

   2. Created new emergencies programs: Global Emergency Workforce and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Network

3. Covid-19

   1. The dilemma within WHO:

      • The WHO could treat China too harshly and thereby would lose access to its data

      • The WHO could treat China too lightly and then other states would fail to accurately receive the data

   2. The WHO can’t enforce governments to take action, WHO can only assist technically and advisably and make countries share its data

   3. WHO provided PPE, guidelines for disease management, providing test kits, collecting and pooling information on clinical trials

UNHCR: Environmental Refugee (1951 Convention, UNHCR, IOM)

1. Climate change has displaced people due to unlivable living conditions

2. To tackle this problem, refugee agencies reinterpreted their mandate regarding what causes/produces refugees. These agencies included environmental causes

3. Another way is that they make a coalition and organised with the UN. This legitimises the actions of NGO/other agencies in regard to refugees

WTO:

1. Indonesia - US Cigarettes

   1. The US banned flavoured cigarettes except for mint

   2. Indonesia complained because mint cigarettes are made by US companies and thus protected its domestic production

   3. The WTO ruled: the US lost and must pay a certain amount of money to Indonesia to make up its loss of this ban

   4. In the end, they settled the dispute privately. The US kept its law and Indonesia instead exported cigars

2. Shrimp-Turtle Case

   1. The dispute revolves around shrimp catching methods in relation to the concept of “like-products”

   2. The US enforced a law that bans shrimp catching methods in an environmentally unfriendly way which would make environmental waste and endanger other species. The US banned any imports of shrimps that are caught in this unfriendly way

   3. Asian countries complained because the US treated American and Caribbean countries with assistance and longer transitional periods

   4. The WTO found the US to be violating its commitments to WTO by discriminating among trade partners (MFN principle)

   5. This ruling by WTO concerned environmental activist because it can be perceived that environmental laws are unaccepted

   6. This also emphasises “like-products” issue. Are shrimps caught environmentally friendly and using unfriendly methods different? The WTO said it’s the same.

3. US - WTO Relationship

   1. The US has vetoed/voted against judge appointment multiple times, leaving the judge in the WTO to only 2 which would make the Appellate Body dysfunctional

ILO:

1. Qatar Kafala System

   1. Kafala system is criticized as modern-day slavery e.g. late payments, poor conditions

   2. ILO launched an investigation after complaints from ITUC and ITWF for violations of the two conventions

   3. ILO decided Qatar has 1 year to reform the Kafala system

      1. International pressure on Qatar to comply

2. Myanmar Case

   1. Forced civilians to work unwillingly in construction projects, military shuts down workers’ insurgencies and rallies

   2. Enforcement began (1996) when worker delegates submitted the complaint to ILO

   3. Commission of Inquiry submitted a report that there was widespread use of forced labour

   4. Commission had demanded to Myanmar for it to change its laws

   5. However, the Commission’s authority ultimately recommends rather than demands because the ILO has no coercive enforcement mechanisms (even though the language in the Commission’s report was forceful)

WB and IMF:

1. Argentina

   1. Argentina experienced a balance of payment crisis, borrowed from IMF to stabilize the currency

   2. As a condition of borrowing loans from the IMF, it adopted the neoliberal economic model (1990s) under IMF guidance with IMF funding

      1. Unsustainable: could not meet payments on debt and basic social services

   3. Argentina borrowing repeatedly from IMF to pay obligations to the foreigners who previously lent it money

   4. Paid debts in January 2006 = independence from the IMF and neoliberal economics 18.

UNEP:

1. CFC Case / Montreal

   1. Scientific evidence confirmed ozone depletion in 1975

   2. 1977: Washington Conference: World Plan of Action

   3. 1985: Vienna Convention

   4. 1987: Montreal Conference: adopted the Montreal Protocol e.

   5. 1990: London Amendment: developed countries to phase out in 2000, developing in 2010

   6. 1992: Copenhagen Amendment: developed countries to phase out in 1996

   7. It was successful because of:

      1. Hegemonic role

      2. Strong coalition

      3. Assistance towards developing nations

      4. Easy technical replacement

      5. The inclusion of strong epistemic communities

      6. Domestic transnational/civil society pressure

      7. Monitoring on the implementations

Climate:

1. Paris Climate Agreement (2016)

   1. Legally binding if the agreement is ratified and if the NDC is ratified in its respective country

   2. opened for signature on 22 April 2016 – Earth Day – at UN Headquarters in New York. It entered into force on 4 November 2016,

   3. 189-197 parties to the convention have ratified the agreement until today

   4. Pros and cons of the Paris climate agreement:

      1. Pro: The Paris Agreement Has Almost Global Support.

      2. Pro: The Paris Agreement Will Help Control Global Warming.

      3. Con: The Paris Agreement Has Different Rules for Different Countries.

      4. Con (and Pro): The Paris Agreement Will Impact American Jobs.

   5. June 1, 2017: President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement.