magnify
Home States and Statehood Archive for category "Government"

The Settlement Agreement between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Published on June 18, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 12 June, Athens and Skopje announced that they have reached an agreement to resolve a dispute over the former Yugoslav Republic’s name that has troubled relations between the two states for decades. The agreement was signed at Prespes Lake, a lake at the border of Albania, Greece, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on 17 June. Despite the historic significance of the deal, following its announcement, the two governments have faced furious backlash. Voices on both sides condemn the agreement in the strongest possible terms, with the President of Macedonia, Gjorge Ivanov, rejecting the deal point-blank and the Greek opposition submitting a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his government, which failed to carry late on the night of 16 June, a few hours before the signing of the Agreement.

The present contribution provides an overview of the main points of the Agreement reached between the two neighbours to end their 27-year-long bitter dispute.

Historical Background

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the interim designation of the constitutionally named ‘Republic of Macedonia’ (Republika Makedonija) at the time of accession to the UN. The Republic of Macedonia declared independence in 1991 at the dissolution of the SFRY, and sought international recognition. The use of the name ‘Macedonia’ has created a long-lasting dispute with the neighbouring country of Greece. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Resignation of Mugabe: A Military Coup or a Legitimate Expression of the People’s Will?

Published on December 5, 2017        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 15 November 2017, following a rule of 37 years since the independence of Zimbabwe, President Mugabe was placed under house arrest by the army. A military spokesman appeared on state television to declare that the president was safe and that they were only “targeting criminals around him who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering”. He further noted that this was not a military coup. Mugabe resisted stepping down for a week but then finally resigned on 21 November when the Parliament initiated impeachment proceedings. Mnangagwa, the former Vice-President, who was fired by Mugabe only a week before the military intervention, was sworn in as president on 24 November, and the military granted Mugabe immunity from prosecution.

As will be discussed below, the African Union (AU) has adopted an uncompromising approach towards military coups. However, in the very recent case of Zimbabwe it preferred a more cautious stance, which stands in contrast with its previous practice. The Zimbabwe episode demonstrates two important things. Firstly, the event proves that the practice of the AU is highly effective in that even if an army wants to overthrow a ruler, it now needs to find the most appropriate way to avoid the application of the AU’s sanction mechanism. Second, the AU did not adopt the same approach it had followed in many other cases, because the target of the military takeover was a long-established president notorious for his authoritarian rule. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Resignation of Mugabe: A Military Coup or a Legitimate Expression of the People’s Will?

Post-Election Crisis in The Gambia, the Security Council and the Threat of the Use of Force

Published on February 17, 2017        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The Gambian post-election crisis is a gem amongst cases relevant to the law on ius ad bellum – not only because it is a crisis that has been resolved with almost no bloodshed, but also because it offers valuable insights into the interaction between Security Council authorization, the doctrine of intervention by invitation, and the prohibition on the threat to use of force (see for some analysis here, here, here, or here).

Professor Hallo de Wolf has concluded that “the legality of the ECOWAS’ military intervention is dubious”. His analysis primarily focuses on the question of legality of the ECOWAS’ intervention after the inauguration of The Gambia’s new president, Adama Barrow. However, his conclusion may be challenged if one is to read Security Council resolution 2337 (2017) as a non-prohibitive non-authorization, which indirectly opens and strengthens the alternative avenue of the doctrine of intervention by invitation . Elsewhere, I have evaluated this interpretation against State practice and the Council’s resolutions in the Syrian and Yemeni incidents and concluded that the consent of the new president, Barrow, may suffice to justify the military intervention in The Gambia.

If one is ready to follow this line of thought, a question arises as to the effect of the consent; what conduct is justified by the invitation? The post-election crisis in The Gambia, for which the course of events may be recalled here or here, entails temporal complications in this respect. The crisis can be divided in three phases: (1) pre- inauguration (Jammeh’s clinging to power up until the inauguration, and end of the ECOWAS’ ultimatum, 19 January 2017); (2) the time between passage of the ultimatum and official inauguration; (3) post- inauguration. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:

The Use of Force to (Re-)Establish Democracies: Lessons from The Gambia

Published on February 16, 2017        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

It has been almost a month since predominantly Senegalese troops entered The Gambia as part of an ECOWAS intervention after long-term president Yahya Jammeh had refused to accept the results of the December 2016 elections. ECOWAS troops remain in the country until this day in order to support newly-elected president, Adama Barrow, in establishing and maintaining public order.

The case has been widely discussed as it raises a number of questions concerning the use of force in general, the right to intervention by invitation and authorizations by regional organizations (see here, here, or here). In particular, it shows that, if the circumstances admit it, the international community is more than willing to accept the use of force to establish or re-establish democracies. The following post will focus on this debate and briefly describe how it evolved until this very day. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:

Editorial: The Case for a Kinder, Gentler Brexit

Published on February 6, 2017        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Of course, we know better than to be shooting at each other; but the post-23 June  relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is woefully bellicose, and increasingly so. In tone and mood, diplomatic niceties are barely maintained and in content positions seem to be hardening. I am mostly concerned with attitudes and positions of and within the Union and its 27 remaining Member States. Handling Brexit cannot be dissociated from the handling of the broader challenges facing the Union. I will readily accept that the UK leadership bears considerable responsibility for the bellicosity and the escalating lawfare. But the inequality of arms so strikingly favours the Union that its attitude and policies can afford a certain magnanimous disregard of ongoing British provocations.

It is easy to understand European Union frustration with the UK. I want to list three – the first being an understandable human reaction. It is clear that when Cameron called for a renegotiation followed by a referendum he had no clue what it was he wanted and needed to renegotiate. The Union waited patiently for months to receive his list – the insignificance of which, when it did come, was breathtaking. For ‘this’ one was willing to risk breaking up the Union and perhaps the UK? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:

Russia’s Intervention in Syria

Published on November 25, 2015        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Previous posts on Syria (see for example here and here) have commented on the air strikes by the US-led coalition, but the Russian air strikes on Syrian territory (as reported here and here) have been largely left undiscussed. This post will analyse the legality of Russia’s actions. Russia has been acting upon the request of President Assad (see here and here), which means that the international legal basis for Russia’s use of force is intervention by invitation. First, the concept of intervention by invitation itself needs to be addressed. Second, it is contested whether an intervention is even allowed during a civil war.

Intervention by Invitation

There is no explicit reference to intervention by invitation in the UN Charter nor is it covered by article 2(4). Pursuant to that article, states shall refrain from using force “in their international relations”. Using force upon an invitation, however, is not using force in international relations as no force is used by one state against another, but the two states are working together, using the force on one side. This falls outside the scope of article 2(4). Therefore no prohibition comes into play and this type of force is allowed. The importance of valid consent (the invitation) was addressed by the ICJ in the case DRC v. Uganda. The Court dealt with the situation after the consent had been withdrawn by the DRC, thereby emphasising the importance of valid consent, yet also indirectly making clear that before the withdrawal no violation of international law occurred. Thus, intervention by invitation falls outside the scope of article 2(4), as long as the consent is valid.

Intervention in a Civil War?

The second issue, which is a contemporary topic of international law as evidenced here, questions the legality of an intervention by invitation in a civil war. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Jus ad Bellum and the Airstrikes in Yemen: Double Standards for Decamping Presidents?

Published on April 30, 2015        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

A democratically elected president has lost control of his country and fears for his safety. He flees and seeks refuge in a more powerful neighbouring State. He writes a letter as the legitimate President, inviting his host State to take military action against the insurgents who have forced him into exile. The host State does so. Will such a situation meet with condemnation or support from the international community? Does it depend on whether the President’s name is Yanukovych or Hadi, and the intervening State is Russia or Saudi Arabia?

Russia’s Sputnik news agency has been quick the draw the parallels between the Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2014 (the jus ad bellum aspects of which have previously been discussed on this blog, including by myself – see here, here and here) and the continuing Saudi-led intervention in Yemen in 2015, seeking to highlight the divergent reaction to two seemingly very similar situations to skewer alleged Western hypocrisy. In contrast, the US State Department’s spokesperson, Marie Harf, denied the parallels between the two cases when quizzed about the issue at a press briefing:

QUESTION: … People have been asking why is it that the president, the Yemeni president, who fled from his capital, remains legitimate in your eyes.

HARF: Well, I think —

QUESTION: Whereas, like another president who fled. (Laughter.) […]

. . .

HARF: It’s completely different.

QUESTION: My question is the same. The similarities between the two cases are striking.

HARF: In that there aren’t many? […]

QUESTION: There are a lot, I think, but anyways —

HARF:Okay. We can agree to disagree.

This blog post is a tentative exploration of the issues raised by a comparison of the two cases. Are there clear standards for identifying the government of a State, for the purpose of determining who can validly consent to military action on the State’s behalf, or are these standards malleable enough that powerful States can produce whatever legal outcome they want? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: Government, Use of Force
 

Oxford University Press Debate Map on Ukraine

Published on March 14, 2014        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Over the past couple weeks, there has been a flurry of writing on this blog  (see here, here, here and here) and elsewhere about events in Crimea/Ukraine. Oxford University Press have produced another of their ever so useful Debate Maps on Ukraine.

“The  . . . index maps scholarly commentary on the legal arguments regarding the public international law (and some domestic constitutional law) aspects of the use of force in Ukraine, published in English language legal blogs and newspapers, and free content from OUP’s online services.

Use this map to review scholarly arguments and to keep track of which issues have been covered and who has said what.”

I could not recommend this Debate Map, and the other OUP maps (here, here, here),  more highly. There is so much writing on topical international law issues that it can be difficult to stay abreast of what has been written, particularly over a short space of time. The Debate Map is an excellent way of doing so.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:

Intervention with the Consent of a Deposed (but Legitimate) Government? Playing the Sierra Leone card.

Published on March 6, 2014        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The most dramatic moment at Monday’s Security Council meeting on Ukraine came when the Russian representative, Vitaly Churkin, produced a letter, purportedly from ousted Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, inviting Russian military intervention. This seemed to indicate a shift in Russia’s legal justification for its actions in Ukraine. The resolution adopted by the Russian legislature authorizing the use of force referred to the alleged threat to the personnel stationed at the existing Russian bases in Ukraine, while at the previous Security Council meeting on 1 March, Mr Churkin appealed primarily to a request from government of Crimea. It appears that Russia has now decided to rely much more heavily on Yanukovych’s consent. Not only did Mr Churkin emphasise it at the Security Council; President Putin, in his press conference on Tuesday, laid great stress on it:

“[W]e have a direct appeal from the incumbent and, as I said, legitimate President of Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych, asking us to use the Armed Forces to protect the lives, freedom and health of the citizens of Ukraine.”

This shift, which has already attracted some attention in the international law blogosphere, is an understandable move. For the reasons explained by Daniel Wisehart in his post on Tuesday, both self-defence and the invitation of the Crimean government are patently inadequate as legal justifications for Russia’s use of force. There is no evidence of an armed attack on the Russian bases in the Crimea, nor can it be seriously maintained that the consent of the government of a sub‑national unit within a State can legalise military intervention, especially when the intervention is opposed by the federal government.

In contrast, it is much easier for Russia to use Yanukovych’s consent to muddy the waters. For it has been argued, with at least some plausibility, that the international community has accepted the legality of foreign military intervention in support of a ‘legitimate’ national government, despite the fact that it has lost effective control of the state. The use of force by ECOWAS in Liberia in 1990, and in Sierra Leone in 1997, could be given as examples. In Liberia, the incumbent President, Samuel Doe, dispatched a letter to ECOWAS requesting assistance at a time when his forces controlled only a small part of the capital city, Monrovia. And in Sierra Leone, after being overthrown by a military coup, the democratically elected President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah had already fled the country (just as Yanukovych has done) before he requested ECOWAS assistance to restore him to power. Despite these facts, in both cases military action met with support rather than censure from the international community. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: Government, Use of Force
 
Tags:

Palestine, Statehood and the Challenges of Representation

Published on December 19, 2011        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Guy Goodwin-Gill is a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford and Professor of International Refugee Law, University of Oxford. Previously, he was Professor of Asylum Law at the University of Amsterdam and Legal Adviser in the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 1976-1988. He practises as a Barrister from Blackstone Chambers, London.[i]

The bid by Palestine for full UN membership in September last has generated controversy, discussion, reflection, and doubt, all now helped along by UNESCO’s recent decision to admit Palestine as a State of full capacity.

The questions arising here, of course, are not just sterile, academic ones about the incidents and criteria of statehood. Rather, we are at an intensely political moment, and what we are seeing is deep-seated frustration on the part, not only of Palestinians, but also once again, of substantial numbers of the world community who see justice for the people of Palestine endlessly obstructed by the intransigence of the Israeli Government.

In this highly contested context, and from a limited international law perspective, Palestinian ‘statehood’ can only seem indeterminate and uncertain, considered against traditional, Montevideo Convention criteria – a fluctuating and hitherto uncounted population, borders at the mercy of realignment by superior force, daily restrictions on the capacity to govern itself. And yet, as many have said, the conception of the Palestinian State may still have its uses, and offer the potential for Palestinians to put their complaints, their disputes, their rights and their claims on a higher plane, and to access more directly a variety of international mechanisms to assist their cause, bringing about or bringing closer that goal of a State in international law, a national home for the people of Palestine which has been the stated aim of the international community for over sixty years.

 Today, however, I do not want to look so much at the issue of Palestinian statehood, but rather at that the ‘Ur-question’ – the question behind the question, the question that we can and should ask of every State, actual and potential. And that question is about who represents the State in its relations with other States, and by what right or claim, and about whether this is a matter of international legal concern.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email