Tag: internationallaw

  • Iran Issues Arrest Warrant Against President Trump In Response To General Qasem Soleimani’s Killing By US Drone Strike

    Iran Issues Arrest Warrant Against President Trump In Response To General Qasem Soleimani’s Killing By US Drone Strike

    Iran has issued an arrest warrant for US President Donald Trump over the drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in January, as reported by Fars News Agency on June 30. President Trump is one of 36 people Iran has issued arrest warrants for in relation to the death of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Fars, but the Tehran attorney general Ali Alqasi Mehr said President Trump was at the top of the list. Mehr claimed Trump would be prosecuted as soon as his term as President ends, Fars reported. Iran also said it had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for these 36 individuals, semi-official state news agency ISNA reported, though it was unlikely that Interpol would grant the request. In a statement to CNN, Interpol said it “would not consider requests of this nature.” It explained that it was not in accordance with its rules and constitution, which states “it is strictly forbidden for the organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”

    US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook called the move a “political stunt” during a joint press conference with the Saudi Arabian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir on June 30. “It’s propaganda that we’re used to,” Hook said. “This has nothing to do with national security, international peace or promoting stability, so we see it for what it is — it’s a propaganda stunt that no one takes seriously and makes the Iranians look foolish,” he added.

    Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in January along with five others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The strike, condemned by Iran and its allies as an “assassination,” raised the specter of further regional destabilization. A spokesman for Iran’s judiciary, Gholam-Hossein Esmaili, announced in early June that an Iranian citizen had been sentenced to death for allegedly working for foreign intelligence agencies. Esmaili claimed that Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi Majd disclosed the whereabouts of Soleimani to US intelligence officials. The Pentagon blamed Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and US allies in the months leading up to his killing. “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said at the time, calling the strike “decisive defensive” action aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks.

  • Greece & International Law

    Greece & International Law

    The international legal system depends on adoption by the domestic legal systems of individual states to function effectively. The international legal system is interpreted through diverse ways at the domestic level. The execution of international law at the national level is determined by governmental structure, the constitution, and the division of power in individual states. Many nations explicitly describe how international law will be applied within their legal systems in their fundamental laws, including their constitutions, charters, and basic laws. The two main theories regarding international law application are monism and dualism. Monist theory says that both the international and domestic legal systems are one and the same and that the international legal system takes precedence over the domestic system. On the other hand, proponents of dualism argue that international law should be applied through incorporation into the domestic system and that both the international and internal systems are to be separate.

    One example of a state that has interpreted international law and adopted it within its domestic legal system is Greece. The current constitution of Greece was originally adopted in 1975 and amended most recently in 2008. Greece is a parliamentary republic with three branches of government. The three branches of government in Greece are the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The Greek parliament is unicameral and is elected by popular vote, and the total number of members is 300, as determined by law. The executive branch consists of the president, who acts as the head of state, and a prime minister, who serves as the head of government. The judiciary is divided between civil, criminal, and administrative courts that are presided over by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Special Supreme Tribunal. The Greek judicial branch also follows the tradition of civil law as opposed to common law. The background of civil law is based in Roman tradition and is prevalent in Eastern Europe, whereas common law is based in English tradition and is common to Western Europe and the U.S. Greece is subject to the laws of the United Nations and the European Union as an active member of both organizations.

    International law is explicitly referenced in the Greek Constitution in several provisions. The first reference to international law occurs in Article 2 Section 2 of the Greek Constitution, in which it states that Greece will adhere to international law. The provision states that “Greece, following the generally accepted rules of international law, seeks consolidation of peace and justice and fostering of friendly relations among Peoples and States (Greek Constitution art. 2 par. 2). In addition, Article 28 Section 2 states that Greece will accept limits on their autonomy as voted by the majority vote of parliament when it states, “Greece shall accept restrictions on the exercise of national sovereignty by laws passed by the absolute majority of the total number of deputies, if this be dictated by important national interests, if human rights and the foundations of the democratic regime be not violated, and if this be effected on the basis of the principle of equality and on condition of reciprocity” (Greek Constitution art. 28 par. 2). The incorporation of such provisions within its constitution illustrates that Greece views international law as a significant characteristic in its own fundamental laws and that international law will take precedence over internal laws.

    With regards to the provisions referencing the role of international law within its constitution, Greece is operating under the principles of monist theory as opposed to dualist theory. Monist theory stipulates that international law does not need to be translated into domestic law and that the act of ratifying a treaty incorporates both international law and national law. The provision in the Greek Constitution that supports monist theory is Article 28 Section 1. In Article 28 Section 1, the Constitution mentions that the generally recognized rules of international law will be an aspect of Greek law upon their ratification and will prevail over any contrary constitutional provision. In contrast, dualist theory specifies that international law is not directly applicable domestically and that it must be translated into national legislation before it can be applied nationally.

    International law within Greece can be implemented through parliamentary procedures. For any treaty to come into effect, parliament must vote in favor by a 3/5th majority, as stated in Article 28 Section 2. Additionally, if the President opts to act as a representative of the state and personally endorse any “conventions on trade, taxation, economic cooperation and participation in international organizations or unions and all others containing concessions,” as referenced in Article 36 Section 2, all policies must be ratified by the Parliament before being enacted (Greek Constitution art. 3 par. 2). In constitutional law, the powers of judicial administration are granted by the constitution to the state and the state enacts legislation under its judgment to promote the well-being of all citizens. Fundamental law, on the other hand, explicitly states the laws for individual people. Because Greek law is dictated by parliamentary and executive operatives, it can be considered constitutional in nature. For example, Article 1 of the Greek constitution states that “Popular sovereignty is the foundation of government,” and, “All powers derive from the People and exist for the People and the Nation; they shall be exercised as specified by the Constitution” (Greek Constitution art. 1). This is saying that powers of government entities are dictated by the constitution.

    In Greece, jurisdiction over issues such as whether rules of international law belong to customary international law and the clarification of international law provisions rests with the Supreme Special Court. According to Article 100 of the Greek Constitution, the Supreme Special Court is comprised of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts, four members of the Court of Cassation, and four members of the Council of State. The selected members of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State serve on the Supreme Special Court for a 2-year term. The Supreme Special Court is not a permanent standing court and only called when a case relating to its special competencies arises. Decisions of the Supreme Special Court are also binding and irrevocable for all the other branches of the judiciary.

    Greece has interpreted the meaning of specific sources of international law within its domestic system. A recent example of Greece interpreting international law in its internal system occurred with its implementing of austerity measures as ordered by the European Union to solve the debt crisis the country has been experiencing over the past few years. As a result of the financial crisis of the late 2000s, the Greek economy has declined, and the level of government debt grew to unsustainable levels. As a consequence of the unstable economic conditions within the country, the European Union offered Greece a bailout to stabilize its finances and restore some order in its economy. The bailout came with the conditions that Greece would need to implement austerity measures such as tax increases and cuts in government spending. In response to the bailout provisions and reflecting their view that international conventions in which they are party to represent an essential part of their domestic legal system, Greece had to abide by the bailout conditions and implement a variety of austerity measures through their legislative and executive branches.

    Another example of Greece interpreting the meaning of international law occurred through its declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory with several reservations in 2015. In its statement, Greece stated that it will hold any of the rulings of the court as mandatory with the exception of any dispute relating to military action taken to protect its sovereignty, any dispute concerning State boundaries or sovereignty over its territory and any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only in relation to or for the purpose of that dispute. Through the determination of such reservations, the Greek government is asserting its perception that the ICJ statute goes against what it views as customary international law.

    The future of Greece’s perception of international law depends on several factors. One such factor is related to the ongoing Greek debt crisis. As a result of the economic turmoil within the country and the conditions brought about by austerity measures the country has taken, a potential backlash may emerge against organizations that Greece is a party to such as the European Union. In recent years, an active nationalist movement led by groups such as Golden Dawn also emerged in Greece in response to the issues facing the country and called for less participation in international organizations. In addition, the expressed reservations by Greece against the ICJ statute may serve as an indicator as to how Greece may perceive international law in the future.

    In conclusion, the success international legal system is contingent on the adoption by the domestic legal systems of individual states and the interpretation of the international legal system at the national level is diverse and depends on several factors. Greece is one such country that has applied international law within its domestic system in several ways and has also had to interpret specific sources of international law. Through the study of Greece’s application of international law in the domestic law structure, one can determine how the country will interpret and apply international law in the years to come.

  • International Law & Russia’s Intervention in Syria

    International Law & Russia’s Intervention in Syria

    One of the major foreign policy issues facing the world over the past few years is the Syrian Civil War and the formation of groups such as ISIS as a result of the instabilities created due to the conflict. In spite of the urgency of ending the conflict and combating the rise of organizations such as ISIS, there has been little effort on the world stage to come up with an adequate plan to do so. A major reason the international community has yet to come up with a plan to fight ISIS and end the Syrian Civil War is due to different visions between world powers over the best way to do so. The U.S. argues that the ultimate goal of any intervention in Syria would be that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would peacefully step down from power. In contrast, Russia is a close ally of Assad and their only military outpost in the Middle East is in Syria. Russia believes that any regime change in Syria would lead to increased instability in the Middle East and threaten their military presence in the region.

    In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russian presence in Syria and has begun a military build-up in the country. U.S. diplomats have cautioned Russia against such a move, arguing that it would lead to even greater instability and violence in Syria. Additionally, the U.S. fears that a potential confrontation may emerge between U.S.-backed coalition members and Russian forces in Syria if Russia continues expanding its military presence in the region. Despite the differences in opinion between the U.S. and Russia, Putin has come up with several proposals to combat ISIS, put an end to the Syrian Civil War and restore a greater sense of stability to the Middle East.

    Vladimir Putin’s plan includes several components. The first part is that the U.S. and its allies coordinate their actions against ISIS with the Russian, Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian armies. Through the coordination of their actions, Putin hopes that any conflict between coalition members can be reduced and that a consensus to stop the spread of ISIS can emerge on the international level. Also, Russia also stated that their plan would put in place measures that would gradually transition political power away from Assad. Putin has also stated that if the U.S. and its allies reject his offer, he would be prepared to take military actions against ISIS in Syria unilaterally. Putin is hoping that the U.S. will accept his plan on the basis of it being the only realistic way to bring an end to the Syrian Civil War and contribute greater stability to the Middle East.

    The reaction to Putin’s proposal has been mixed. For example, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers has stated that the U.S. would be unwilling to join in a coalition with the Syrian army because of Syrian Bashar al-Assad’s human rights record and alleged actions over the course of the war. Also, U.S. officials question Putin’s motives and feel that his plan is not comprehensive enough to be successful. Despite their reluctance to side with Russia, the Obama Administration did announce that it would be willing to engage in talks with Russia over the issue in the coming weeks. Additionally, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the U.S. has become more receptive to Russia’s position and that it moderated two parts of its Syrian policy, that Assad must step down from power and that it will not negotiate with his government.

    The proposed course of action by Russia regarding the Syrian Civil War could involve resorting to several components of international law. For example, Russia could present its case before the UN Security Council. After reviewing the case, the Security Council may call on the parties involved in the Syrian Civil War to settle their disputes via peaceful means. Furthermore, Russia can receive the authority to strike ISIS forces within Syria if it is given permission by the Syrian government to do so. If Russia acts without Syria’s permission, they would be in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another country in terms other than that of self-defense. On the other hand, Russia could use the argument that their actions against ISIS are purely self-defense. At that point, Russia’s actions would be in accord with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that any member nations has a right to self-defense until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.

    In conclusion, the Syrian Civil War has been a key issue facing the international community over the past few years and has destabilized the Middle East. The rise of ISIS is a major problem that has arose out of the instability brought on by the Syrian Civil War. Russia has devised a plan including several components that would potentially end the war and stop ISIS and is seeking support from the U.S. and its allies for its actions. If the U.S. rejects their offer, Russia is prepared to act unilaterally in Syria. The Russian plan for the Syrian Civil War can be implemented through existing channels of international law. Only time will tell if the plan can gain support on the international stage and successfully put an end to the Syrian conflict