ACE

Category: International Organizations and Agreements

  • Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    The creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament that occurred on a global scale. The NPT is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and achieving international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, that nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and that nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia to create mutual arms control agreements and reduce nuclear stockpiles. Beginning in November of 1969 with the presentation of SALT I, which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses, the two nations went on to engage in more than half a dozen other nuclear-focused disarmament treaties with one another.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. The renewal was significant because it assured both countries’ continued commitment to regulating and limiting nuclear weapons and weapons technology, and because of the upcoming review of the NPT that occurred later this year. However, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. The New START treaty, which was signed in 2010, by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems, and limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. 

    New START gives the U.S invaluable national security information by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, and maintains the international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed.

  • Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

    Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

    Negotiations between Iran and the United Nations Security Council have been ongoing since Iran was detected building uranium enriched centrifuges in 2002, in violation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. However, negotiations did not result in meaningful action until the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed on July 14, 2015 by Iran, the European Union and the P5+1 (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, which included the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany). Iran aimed to relieve sanctions which hindered its economic growth, while the P5+1 wanted to delay Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. The agreement was gradually fulfilled by both sides until the United States withdrew from the JCPOA under the leadership of President Trump. Under President Joe Biden, the JCPOA has been revived with new negotiations underway. 

    The journey towards the JCPOA was not entirely smooth. Initially, Iran had already signed onto the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1967 where it agreed to forgo becoming a nuclear armed state. So when Iran was discovered to have secret nuclear sites in 2003, the international community began to worry about what the discovery would mean for the rest of the world, and the Middle Eastern region in particular. If Iran were to attain a nuclear weapon, Israel, which has had a strained relationship with Iran ever since the Gulf War, promised military action would be a consequence. This would potentially trigger a war involving Hezbollah, a Shiite political party and militant group that opposes Israel, or serve as an example to other Arabian states, like Saudi Arabia, that they could also obtain a nuclear weapon without ramifications.

    For almost ten years, the international community unsuccessfully tried to find different ways of reaching a deal with Iran. The first negotiations that took place were between Iran and the E3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom). This agreement had Iran cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, sign the Additional Protocol and temporarily suspend conversion and enrichment activities but not stop enrichment entirely. The agreement between Iran and the E3 was only temporary and a start to a possible long-term solution that could benefit both sides. However, negotiations broke down in 2005 under the newly elected Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was viewed as a hardliner. Iran announced they would be resuming uranium conversion and rejected the EU3’s proposed Long Term Agreement. For Iran, the agreement was viewed as heavy on demands, light on incentives, and did not adequately compromise with Iran’s demands. Another agreement was proposed in 2008 between Iran and P5+1 which would give Iran access to light water reactor (LWR) technology and a nuclear fuel supply in exchange for Iran’s suspension of enrichment activity. As with the previous agreement, Ahmadinejad refused the offer and instead pushed for more enrichment. In 2011, a potential plan was proposed by the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. This new plan would involve the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran limiting enrichment. The eventual goal would be Iran suspending enrichment entirely and all sanctions being lifted. Iran agreed to the plan, but the United States, United Kingdom, and France refused. Negotiations remained at a stand-still, while the West continued to sanction Iran and Iran continued improving its enrichment capability.  

    Following a 2011 IAEA report which fully laid out Iran’s nuclear program, the rest of the world realized Iran was only a year or two away from attaining a nuclear weapon. This resulted in an increase in bilateral talks to reach a preferential agreement, one of which took place in 2012 between the P5+1 and Iran. The P5+1 proposal included Iran stopping uranium enrichment up to 20%, shipping out the enriched uranium they had already produced, and closing the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, an uranium enrichment facility in Iran. Iran proposed their own plan which included the recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, sanctions relief, cooperation in nuclear energy and safety, and a possible cap on 20% uranium enrichment. Both sides disagreed with the proposals, resulting in further sanctions against Iran. 

    The situation evolved in 2013 when Iran elected a new president, Hassan Rouhani, who campaigned towards ending sanctions and stated in his inaugural address that his goals included “elevating Iran’s position based on national interest and lifting of the oppressive sanctions.” His statement was an indication of Iran becoming more receptive to negotiations regarding nuclear technology. Talks between Iran and the P5+1 were held in 2013, when the US stopped demanding that Iran completely cease enrichment activities. On November 24, an interim deal was struck which detailed the steps that would be taken until a more comprehensive solution could be agreed upon. The negotiations for a lasting agreement took until July 14, 2015.

    The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action required Iran to suspend and concede several points:

    In return, most of the economic sanctions imposed by the EU, UN and the US would be lifted or suspended once the IAEA had certified that Iran had taken the required steps outlined in the agreement. 

    The JCPOA allowed for 90 days between the Finalization Day and Adoption Day for Iran and the US to begin review processes of the agreement domestically. On Adoption Day, October 18, 2015, Iran and the P5+1 took the steps necessary to meet the commitments listed out in the JCPOA. On Implementation Day, 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran had taken the steps necessary to restrict its nuclear program and allowed for increased IAEA monitoring, which resulted in the U.S., EU and UN relieving some sanctions. In 2023, eight years after adoption day, the UN would lift missile restrictions, Iran would ratify the IAEA Additional Protocol, the EU would terminate all nuclear sanctions, and the United States would remove entities from the sanctioned list and continue sanctions relief. The JCPOA would end in October 2025 in which Iran’s nuclear file would be closed. 

    When then U.S. President Donald Trump was elected, he unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and re-imposed all U.S. sanctions on Iran. Trump cited the sunset clause in the agreement as one of the reasons for his withdrawal. The sunset clause provided an expiration date to the ceasing of Iran’s enrichment activity. Many critics, including the Trump administration, viewed this as a countdown clock that would still lead to the eventual development of nuclear weapons by Iran. In addition, IAEA inspections would only take place at sites where legitimate concern for nuclear activity could be demonstrated, which excluded many military sites. Many critics claimed military sites are potential places for nuclear activity. Lastly, Trump also claimed the deal failed to account Iran’s ballistic missile program as during JCPOA negotiations, this topic was excluded from talks. The US withdrawal from the deal meant a reinstatement of sanctions against Iran that were previously waived. The US also terminated sanction waivers for cooperative nuclear projects, including transfer of enriched uranium out of Iran, transfer and storage of heavy water outside of Iran, and construction of additional reactor units at the Bushehr nuclear reactor. 

    While the US withdrew from the JCPOA, the rest of the signatories—France, the United Kingdom, and Germany—reemphasized their support for the deal and the importance of nonproliferation. The United Nations and Russia’s Foreign Ministry also released a statement in continued support of the JCPOA. 

    In response to the renewed sanctions, Iran began to recede from their JCPOA commitments. Iran began to enrich uranium past 3.67% and invested in research and development of centrifuge technology that did not adhere to IAEA monitoring and safeguards. Iran also notified the IAEA that its stock of heavy water had exceeded 130 metric tons. Additionally, in 2020, Iran passed new legislation to increase nuclear activities by boosting enrichment, increasing monthly uranium output and conducting research and development on centrifuges. Still, Iran continues to allow IAEA inspectors onto sites related to the JCPOA for verification and monitoring.  The Biden administration has been more willing to enter into negotiations with Iran on the future of the agreement. Biden has stated that the US would only rejoin the agreement if Iran returns to compliance, but also wants to further broaden the agreement topics to include Iran’s missile program. Iran is willing to return to compliance only to the original deal. Negotiations are currently still taking place between Iran and the P5+1.

  • Introduction to the G7

    Introduction to the G7

    History

    The Group of Seven (G7) is a group of like-minded countries who meet regularly to address pressing global issues. The seven countries’ influence on the international stage has led to further interest in their meetings and their diagnosis of the most important issues to address. 

    The Group of Seven (G7), consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, held its first summit in 1975 in response to global economic challenges. In 1944, the Bretton Woods system established the U.S. dollar as the “world currency” by requiring nations to peg their currency to the dollar which was then tied to the price of gold. In 1971, President Nixon announced the end of the gold standard in the United States and countries were left to select a new exchange agreement for currency. For example, a nation could link the value of its currency to that of another nation, “float” the currency and allow the market to determine its value, participate in a currency bloc, or adopt a new currency. 

    A few years later, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) placed an embargo on exports to the United States for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War, causing oil prices to skyrocket. The rise of fiat currency paired with the 1970s recession led the world’s largest economic powers to convene and discuss the future of international economic policy with the first G7 meeting.

    From the G6 to the G8 and Back to the G7

    The G7 was initially known as the G6 before Canada joined the group in 1976. Russia then became the newest member in 1998. President Bill Clinton hoped by granting membership to Russia, he could encourage the nation’s first post-Soviet leader to develop closer relations with the West. However, Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 resulted in Russia’s indefinite suspension. President Trump suggested Russia be readmitted in 2018 but that idea was rejected by other members. 

    Initiatives

    The heads of government for each G7 nation meet annually to discuss an array of issues. The European Union participates in the annual summits as a “non-enumerated” member represented by the presidents of the European Council. The G7 is not based on a treaty and has no permanent secretariat, and the presidency rotates each year.

    The G7’s agenda focuses on the most pressing global issues, as seen by the nations involved. For example, in the 1990s the group focused heavily on the economic transition of former communist states. Although the G7 formed to discuss economic cooperation, the group evolved to address foreign policy and human rights issues as well. At the June 2021 meeting, the G7 discussed rebounding from the economic hardships of COVID-19 in a sustainable manner. They pledged to increase global vaccine manufacturing capacity, invest in recovery plans that promote economic growth, reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and increase access to education, especially for women. The group also launched its Build Back Better World initiative to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The plan aims to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investments to developing countries.

    Although the G7 is not able to pass laws as a collective body, the members still work in unison to achieve their objectives. In 2002, the G7 played an instrumental role in creating the Global Fund to fight against HIV, TB, and malaria across 155 countries. G7 members have provided 75% of the Global Fund’s $45.4 billion in assistance since its creation. The effort has saved an estimated 38 million lives so far. Member nations also helped organize the Muskoka Initiative in 2010 to help reduce maternal and infant mortality and committed billions in funding. Experts projected the initiative would prevent more than 1.3 million deaths.

    Future of the G7

    Although the G7 has experienced notable success, questions remain as to whether the group is losing relevance. G7 nations accounted for 63% of the global GDP in 1975. Today, that share has dropped to 45%. 

    Two of the six largest economies in the world, China and India, are not members of the group despite their rising share of the global GDP. The G20, a complimentary organization to the G7, includes all G7 members in addition to India and China, among others. The group’s members make up 80% of global GDP and 60% of the world’s population. While the G7 addresses both economic and political issues, the G20 tends to focus almost exclusively on economic matters.

    Efforts to counter China, such as the Build Back Better World initiative, continue to dominate the G7 agenda. As former White House advisor and member of the secretary of state’s policy planning staff Ash Jain explained, “The G7 is being rebranded as a group of like-minded democracies, as opposed to a group of ‘highly industrialized nations.’ They’re changing the emphasis.” The effort to counter the rise of China explains the G7 as more of a “like-minded” coalition of nations rather than a forum dealing exclusively with economic concerns. 

  • Intro to the European Union

    Intro to the European Union

    Formation History

    As of 2021, there are 27 member states of the European Union. However, the current coalition and its structure has developed gradually throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the present day. In 1950, French statesman Robert Schuman issued the Schuman Declaration, which called for France and Germany to pool their coal and steel production so that the economic crises that contributed to World War II would not happen again. In 1951, the European Coal & Steel Community was founded by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. By the late 1950s, this independent economic authority had grown into the European Economic Community and through the Treaty of Rome, a common market of goods, services, and people was established. The United Kingdom and Denmark joined in 1973, followed by Greece in 1981. The Schengen Agreement of 1985 was a pivotal moment for the European Community. It eliminated border controls and passport checks within the Schengen Area, facilitating the free movement of people to travel, work, and live within the area. The European Union was created with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and by that time Spain, Portugal and a reunified Germany had joined as well. The European Union has three pillars: the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches. It is the first truly supranational organization in modern history, where countries could be held to a greater independent authority than each of their own. Most recently, the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 increased centralization, improved regulations and introduced a new global diplomatic framework.

    The 5 Main Institutions of the European Union

    The EU has evolved into a system of government that resembles the United States, and its European relatives. There are 5 main institutions –  the European Council, European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the EU, and the Court of Justice of the EU.

    1. The European Council ensures that the highest elected officials in EU nations are represented in the European Union. It is made up of the heads of state of all EU member countries. They nominate the President of the European Council and the European Commission. This body cannot pass laws. It sets the direction of the EU’s common foreign security agenda and may request legislation to be pursued. The European Council President serves a two and a half year term, once renewable, and presides over four meetings a year in Brussels, known collectively as the EU summits. Decision-making is generally by consensus and only heads of state can vote. Additionally, the European Council participates in the Euro Summit, where the heads of state of the Eurozone, the Council President and the Commission President meet exclusively to discuss economic policy in the Euro Area.
    1. The European Parliament is the law-making body of the EU. It could be described as the body of the European citizens, with direct elections held every five years. The Parliament formally elects the Commission President and approves the Commission body, and has the power to form investigative sessions . They also undertake election observations, sending delegations to countries outside the EU, to analyze their election process and ensure democratic principles are upheld. The Parliament establishes the EU budget with the European Council and sets monetary policy with the European Central Bank.
    1. The European Commission is responsible for drafting proposals for legislation for the European Parliament. It represents the interests of the European Union as a whole, implementing its global vision for EU development and funding programs. It proposes and manages the EU budget, which is submitted to the Council of Europe and then Parliament for approval and final ratification. The Commission works with member states to execute funding projects, and acts in a supervisory and regulatory capacity. While the Commission President and commissioners are chosen by the European Council, the European Commission is intended to act as its own independent authority that does not follow a single state’s agenda. The Commission President defines the policy direction, and with the Commissioners produces an annual work programme that outlines the EU’s strategic objectives and how they are to be implemented. In its own words, the European Commission sets objectives that support and promote European values of “freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
    1. The Council of the EU, also known as The Council, works closely with the other branches to finalize the agenda of the European Union. They are the ‘decision-maker’ of the EU. The Council will negotiate and adopt EU laws from European Commission proposals. They are responsible for developing EU foreign and security policy with European Council guidelines, as well as adopting the annual EU budget with the European Parliament. The Council meets with other nations and international organizations to finalize agreements between them and the EU. There are no fixed members and the President serves a six month term that rotates between nations. There are ten different policy areas on which the Council meets, and each member state will send their respective minister for that configuration. For example, if the meeting is on foreign affairs, then 27 foreign ministers will attend. The decision-making process is a qualified majority system with four countries needed for a veto. For ‘sensitive topics’ such as foreign policy and taxation, a unanimous vote is necessary.
    1. As an intergovernmental organization, each nation interprets the EU’s laws in accordance with its own constitution. The Court of Justice of the EU or CJEU is responsible for making sure that EU laws are applied to member states in the same way. It is the judicial branch of the EU. It settles legal disputes between nations and EU institutions. For instance, if the European Commission or a different nation feels that a member state is failing to comply with EU law, then it is up to the courts to rule whether an infringement has occurred. On the other hand, if a member state or any institution believes that an EU act violates EU treaties or the sovereignty of the national court, it can ask the CJEU to annul the legislation. There are two courts of the CJEU, the Court of Justice and the General Court. The Court of Justice is the Supreme Court of the EU, and deals with requests for preliminary rulings from national courts seeking guidance on how to interpret EU law. The General Court is responsible for contestations to EU institution actions against its member states that violate their fundamental rights or EU treaties. It deals mainly with competition law, state aid, trade, agriculture and anti-terrorist law. First, a written statement for annulment of an EU law is submitted to the Court. A general meeting, usually with five judges, then takes place to discuss if a hearing should be held and if the advocate general is necessary. The advocate general issues official opinions on the case to the judges after the lawyers of either side present their case. Their statements are not legally binding, but greatly influence whether an action for annulment will be successful. It is General Court procedure to have most cases heard by three judges. Any EU citizen, private company, or international organization can submit a case to the CJEU.

    Current Issues Facing the EU

    Since 2015, the European Migrant Crisis has been one of the longstanding humanitarian issues for the EU, but since then there have been greater measures taken to ensure a humane migration policy. It remains a very significant global issue, and for detailed analysis read Siena Frost’s article here.

    The United Kingdom, the second largest net contributor to the EU, officially left the European Union in 2020 as a result of the controversial Brexit referendum vote in 2016. This will have wide reaching economic impacts on the United Kingdom and the European Union, and the ongoing negotiations demonstrate the intricate ties that the EU has within countries. 

    With the introduction of the Euro, came the most impactful economic mechanism of the European Union. For a breakdown of the Euro, the EU’s common currency, and its issues, read Francesca Reynolds’ article here.
    With a 2 trillion-plus stimulus package, the EU’s largest long-term budget to date will include a 750 billion euros COVID-19 recovery fund for a post-pandemic Europe. Another significant financial injection is the European Green Deal, with one third of the 1.8 trillion recovery plan going to financing its investments in building a more environmentally sustainable Europe.

  • Introduction to the International Criminal Court

    Introduction to the International Criminal Court

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes to the international community. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The Rome Statute, a treaty among 123 parties, established the Court and was signed into effect on July 17, 1998. The Court then began operations on July 1, 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands, where it still resides and operates today.

    Source: International Criminal Court; United Nations

    What does the Rome Statute say?

    The Rome Statute is composed of 13 Sections, with a total of 128 Articles. 

    1. The first section establishes the court and its relationship with the United Nations. 
    2. Section Two addresses which crimes the court has jurisdiction over, and which cases would be admissible. It also identifies what is applicable law. 
    3. In Section Three, the Rome Statute goes over the general principles of criminal law. 
    4. The fourth section explains how the Court is composed and administered. 
    5. Section Five lays out the appropriate process for investigation and prosecution. 
    6. Section Six establishes the proper trial process 
    7. Section Seven defines the appropriate penalties
    8. Section Eight explains how to appeal decisions and potentially revise convictions or sentences. 
    9. Section Nine provides the general obligations for cooperation for the States who sign the Rome Statute
    10. Section Ten explains how States are to enforce a given sentence. 
    11. Section Eleven deals with the assembly of States Parties. 
    12. Section Twelve outlines all details regarding the financing of the ICC, and the final section, 
    13. Section Thirteen, includes miscellaneous articles including information regarding amendments to the Statute and reservations made by certain States. 

    The combination of these thirteen sections clearly outline all aspects of operation for the ICC.

    What are the benefits of the ICC?

    Those in favor of the Court argue that it serves as a deterrent for potential war criminals. The ICC has raised the risk of consequences for violations through two main avenues. First, through investigating and prosecuting international atrocities over which it has jurisdiction, the ICC strongly contributes to prosecutorial deterrence, which is when potential perpetrators avoid or reduce their law-breaking behavior out of fear of being prosecuted. Second, the ICC encourages member states to improve their capacity to reduce, detect, and prosecute such crimes domestically. 

    Another important aspect of the ICC is that it provides an explicit, legitimized process for punishing war atrocities, genocide, or other large-scale international crimes. By having a well-defined process to follow after an atrocity occurs, it becomes less challenging to seek justice for those afflicted. The ICC serves the dual purpose of securing justice for victims, as well as promoting peace, security, and stability. Ultimately, the ICC promotes accountability for perpetrators of atrocities as well as among its member states to ensure that justice is served to those individuals.

    One of the main ways that justice is achieved is through reparations. In the case of The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, on March 8, 2021 the court ordered Mr. Ntaganda to pay a total of 30,000,000 USD to those affected by the war crimes that he committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early 2000s. The ICC has also ordered reparations in the past, like in the Al Mahdi case. In 2016, Al Mahdi was convicted of the war crime of directing attacks on religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali. As part of his punishment he was liable for 2.7 million euros in expenses and was ordered to pay for individual and collective reparations for the community of Timbuktu. In addition to facilitating the imprisonment of perpetrators, the ICC offers justice by granting reparations to victims.

    The goal of the ICC, proponents say, is not to replace national courts, but instead to complement them. The ICC only operates in situations in which national courts are either unwilling or unable to prosecute a certain crime. This might occur where proceedings are unduly delayed or are intended to shield individuals from their criminal responsibility. The ICC states that this notion is the principle of complementarity, under which the national court is given priority and states have the primary responsibility to try perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The ICC acts as both an independent and impartial body, and serves as a safety net for justice.

    What are the criticisms of the ICC?

    There are over 50 countries that choose not to be members of the ICC. These countries include China, India, Russia, and the United States. Without the backing of these four major powers, the ICC has faced an uphill battle to garner legitimacy. The main complaint by states regarding the ICC is that it infringes on state sovereignty. For example, China, who failed to ratify the Rome Statute, felt that the text was a violation of state sovereignty because it imposes obligations on parties who had not agreed to the Rome Statute, and thus was a violation of Article 34 of the Vienna Convention, which holds “[a] treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.” China proposed an opt-in clause which would enable States to temporarily grant the ICC jurisdiction for a specific time frame or instance of crime, but the clause was not adopted.

    Another frequently voiced qualm is that the ICC lacks authority and is overall ineffective in properly punishing war criminals. Notably, in 2010, former President Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d’Ivoire suffered an electoral defeat yet refused to step down. Violence ensued, which was largely attributed to forces under the control of Gbagbo, and nearly 3,000 people died. After several years in ICC custody, Gbagbo was recently acquitted of all charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Former President Ggagbo is just one of multiple heads of states against whom the ICC has initiated proceedings, yet not a single one has been convicted. In fact, in total, the ICC has issued a total of ten convictions, while acquitting four. In comparison, the ad hoc trials established by the UN following the war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone were able to secure 165 convictions.

    The ICC has also come under intense scrutiny for its perceived targeting of African nations. Of the court’s more than two dozen cases, all have dealt with alleged crimes in African states. The Court has indicted over 40 individuals. All of those individuals are from an African country.

    What are the current debates regarding the ICC?

    In 2003, the U.S. State Department stated that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”. This notion was reiterated by John Bolton, U.S. National Security Advisor, in September 2018. Bolton declared that the United States would use any means necessary to ensure that U.S. citizens and allies would be protected from ICC investigations and prosecutions. 

    In 2019, the Trump administration threatened sanctions to ICC Officials to avoid investigations into potential crimes against humanity committed by U.S. soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. Later that year, the Trump administration revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. In 2020, the Trump administration backed up its threats by passing Executive Order 13928, which authorized the imposition of economic sanctions against ICC officials directly engaged in the ICC efforts to investigate U.S. personnel, and expanded visa restrictions for officials directly engaged in those same investigations. 

    Since taking office, President Biden and his administration have revoked Executive Order 13928 as well as other previously imposed restrictions on ICC personnel. While the Trump administration was adamant in their disapproval of the ICC, the Biden administration’s recent revocation of unfavorable ICC policies signals a shift and perhaps a new relationship between the United States and the ICC.

  • Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    The international community implements sanctions against Iran to discourage their development of nuclear technology. These sanctions mainly target the Iranian economy and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear development program. Sanctions come from three major actors: the United States of America, the United Nations and the European Union. In international diplomacy, sanctions, especially economic ones, are utilized by countries or organizations to coerce, deter, punish or shame other international actors that might endanger their own interests or violate international norms of behavior. Iran has become the target of economic sanctions since they were suspected of developing uranium enrichment in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1967. 

    United Nations Sanctions

    The United Nations led the first set of sanctions related to Iran’s development of nuclear technology. The UN adopted Resolution 1737 in 2006, which prohibited countries from transferring nuclear and missile related technology to Iran and required all countries to freeze the assets of Iranian organizations and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Sanctions were levied after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment activities after warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The UN Security Council further expanded its sanctions against Iran in 2008 by adopting Resolution 1803, which required UN member states to actively prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear or missile technology and added thirteen people and seven entities to the UN blacklist. The additional resolution was adopted because Iran continued to oppose IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities. In 2010, Iran, Brazil and Turkey came to a joint agreement to provide fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. In reaction,  the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 which tightened proliferation-related sanctions and banned Iran from carrying out nuclear-capable ballistic missile tests. The resolution also added an arms embargo on the transfer of major weapons systems to Iran. In 2016 the UN acknowledged Iran had complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and passed a new resolution which lifted some sanctions. 

    European Union Sanctions

    Similar to the UN, the European Union levied sanctions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In a 2007 measure, the EU froze the assets of individuals and entities related to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. Further measures like visa bans, frozen assets, and actions against Iranian trade, financial services, energy and transport were implemented by the EU in 2010. The EU lifted their sanctions in 2016 when Iran signed onto the JCPOA and began adhering to those regulations.

    United States Sanctions

    Compared to the UN and the EU, the United States has a more complicated history of sanctions against Iran. The US began to impose sanctions on Iran in 2009 in response to then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stated aim to build 10 uranium enrichment facilities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed sanctions on foreign companies that helped supply gasoline to Iran.

    In 2011, the IAEA released a report detailing how Iran’s current nuclear program could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Following this report, the US designated the Government of Iran and all financial institutions in Iran as entities of money laundering concern and warned global financial institutions that doing business with Iran was risky. That same year President Obama sanctioned the Central Bank of Iran and other financial institutions for processing transactions related to oil and petroleum products on behalf of Iranian companies and the government. Despite continued talks between Iran and the international community, negotiations for an agreement fell through as both sides were unwilling to make concessions In 2012, the US signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act which banned insurance, reinsurance, and other shipping services involved in nuclear proliferation. Congress further limited Iran’s oil exports and access to foreign currency reserves in 2013. President Obama added sanctions against foreign financial institutions that conducted transactions with Iranian currency or had accounts outside of Iran. When the JCPOA was implemented in 2015, the US slowly began to lift sanctions However, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and brought back all previous nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. Similar to the previous set of sanctions, these new sanctions were made against the Central Bank of Iran and required U.S. companies to sever contracts with Iran within 180 days.

    Impact of Sanctions

    Sanctions have greatly affected Iran’s economy but failed to deter Iran’s development of nuclear technology. Before the JCPOA, Iran’s GDP decreased by 20% and unemployment rose. Oil exports decreased from 2.5 mbd (thousand barrels) in 2011 to 1.1 mbd in 2014 and Iranian currency depreciated. The economic sanctions discouraged international banks and firms from engaging in commercial and financial transactions with Iran. With the return of sanctions and withdrawal from the JCPOA during the Trump presidency, similar economic consequences have impacted Iran’s economy. The reimplementation of sanctions have further damaged the oil industry in Iran with oil exports plummeting in mid-2020. Even with the new sanctions, the Iranian government refuses to slow down their nuclear development. Citing Trump’s backing out of the JCPOA, the Iran government sees the JCPOA as useless and believes it is in their right to push for higher uranium enrichment. As a result, Iran has begun to develop new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment and has placed restrictions on the IAEA’s ability to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities. 

  • Failures and Successes of the UN

    Failures and Successes of the UN

    Introduction

    76 years and half a trillion dollars later, the international community is divided on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Overall, the UN has a positive international image but the partisan divide over supporting the UN has widened, particularly in the United States. The United States’ perception of the UN is important since the United States is the largest donor to the UN and accounts for roughly 20% of the UN’s collective budget. 

    Successes

    1. Material assistance: the United Nations provides a lifeline to millions of people across the world. The World Food Program provides food and cash assistance to over 80 million people. The United Nations provides aid to nearly 69 million displaced people who fled their home due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violations. Furthermore, UN agencies supply 45% of the world’s children with vaccines, saving an estimated 2 to 3 million lives each year from preventable diseases. 

    2. Human rights: the United Nations established the first comprehensive framework for human rights law. The organization defined human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together, these documents defined the rights to equality, free movement, education, religion, and asylum, along with many others. The UN also established mechanisms to promote and protect the rights it outlines. The Human Rights Council, composed of 47 representatives, conducts a review every four years where it assesses the human rights record of all UN member states and presents nations with recommendations. The Council recently came under scrutiny for allowing China to become a member following reports of flagrant human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the oversight bodies which are responsible for enforcing treaties after they are ratified. Although it is unclear whether recommendations and oversight result in legislative changes, the UN’s efforts at the very least create an international standard for nations to strive towards. 

    3. Decolonization: when the UN was founded in 1945, 750 million people lived in territories controlled by a colonial power. Less than 2 million people live under colonial rule today. A key feature of the human rights framework of the United Nations involves every nation’s right to sovereignty and self-determination. The General Assembly passed multiple resolutions on decolonization, including its landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and four International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism resolutions. The Special Committee on Decolonization regularly reviews the list of non-self governing territories and invites representatives from these territories to issue statements at its annual sessions. The UN played a major role in decolonization efforts following WWII and continues to provide a forum to discuss international objectives like decolonization.

    Limitations

    1. Enforcement mechanisms: a recurring criticism of the UN is its inability to effectively enforce mandates. The UN is only as effective as member states allow and members go to great lengths to ensure national sovereignty. Therefore, General Assembly resolutions are typically considered to be recommendations. The Security Council is able to enforce its resolutions by means of sanctions or military force, but any one of the five permanent council members can veto a bill so harsh mechanisms are not frequently used.

    2. Security Council inaction: the Security Council is tasked with taking action to maintain international peace and security, however the veto poses an obstacle to action. P-5 nations ultimately determine what conflicts constitute actionable threats to international peace and security by exercising their veto power. Unsurprisingly these nations have advanced their national interests since the Council’s inception. Following the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, the P-5 nations were in a deadlock. The United Kingdom, United States, and France presented a resolution declaring the Venezuelan election illegitimate and calling for new elections. Russia and China proposed a resolution condemning outside intervention in the election process and called for dialogue in Venezuela. Both resolutions failed and the deadlock delayed the delivery of critical aid. P-5 nations disagree on how most conflicts should be handled causing frequent inaction in the UNSC. 

    3. Western domination of UN institutions: despite its mission emphasizing inclusion and representation, the UN is typically viewed as a Western-oriented organization. From the UN’s inception, European and American interests have prevailed. One example is developmental aid. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are primarily responsible for coordinating economic development efforts while the UN provides guidelines for sustainable development and oversight. Together, they implement the UN’s economic development framework. Both the IMF and World Bank condition loans on neoliberal features like trade liberalization, private enterprise, and an overall reduction in public spending (i.e. the size of government). These practices were especially controversial during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the IMF conditioned loans on tight austerity measures like reductions in public health spending and unemployment benefits. 

    Peacekeeping: The Intersection of Success and Failure

    While the UN has successfully led a number of peacekeeping missions and promoting peace and security is integral to its mission, it failed to intervene in a timely manner and prevent genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Institutional shortcomings contributed to grave UN peacekeeping failures in both Rwanda and Bosnia. First, UN peacekeepers are held to a strict mandate to only use force in self-defense or to help evacuate foreigners. Second, the UN failed to train peacekeepers to negotiate with perpetrators of violence against civilians. Similarly, there existed a cultural disconnect between the training peacekeepers received and the reality of local communities. 

    More generally, peacekeeping is limited in that intervention requires the consent of the host government and other parties to the conflict which makes swift action more difficult.

    Future of UN Operations

    The UN is currently facing large financial constraints in light of the pandemic and the growing number of individuals in need of assistance across the globe. As of September 2020, member states only paid 60% of their contributions to the UN’s general budget. As a result, some UN-appointed human rights experts who work under the Human Rights Council were unable to carry out their mandate to monitor and address human rights abuses. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees operated with 47% of its $9.1 billion budget and cut back on programs providing emergency shelter, water, and food to refugees. UN operations as we know it are at risk if nations fail to bolster financial support for the organization. 
    Furthermore, the UN is still recovering from Trump’s presidency characterized by an isolationist approach to foreign policy. During the Trump era, the United States left the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), threatened to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and ended its commitment to numerous international agreements like the Paris Climate Accords. The UN heavily relies on the United States for funding and assistance with key programs. Although President Biden recommitted the United States to the UN, US reliability and credibility took a hit.

  • Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale with the creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose primary objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and to achieve international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, in regards to the creation of mutual arms control agreements and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles. The two nations would go on to engage in more than half-a-dozen nuclear-focused disarmament treaties, beginning in November of 1969 with SALT I which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. This is significant because it assures continued commitment to the regulation and limitation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, but it is also important in light of the upcoming review of the NPT that is anticipated to occur in August of 2021. Despite the success of the NPT over the past 50 years, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. 

    The New START treaty, which was signed on April 8, 2010 by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems as well as limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory, on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. New START entered into force on February 5, 2011, after both parties had signed and gained Senate and parliamentary approval in their respective governments, and both parties recently agreed to extend the treaty by five years in January of 2021. 

    New START provides invaluable national security information to the U.S. by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, as well as maintains an international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed. The U.S. and Russia have had contentious relations dating back to Soviet-era politics, and the constant imbalance between competition and cooperation perpetuates their struggle to coexist. START is significant for what it aims to achieve in terms of international arms control measures, but also because it is one issue that the U.S. and Russia have been able to work together and agree upon. Although bilateral relations have sharply deteriorated when it comes to other international security issues such as offensive cybersecurity, counter-space, and hypersonic weapons, nuclear non-proliferation remains an issue that the U.S. and Russia actively cooperate with.

  • The COVAX Initiative

    The COVAX Initiative

    Introduction

    COVID-19 is a rapidly transmissible virus which has shut down the global economy for the past 15 months. In the past six months, vaccine production and distribution has ramped up, but vaccine nationalism—the hoarding of vaccines by countries for their own populations—is threatening to prolong the pandemic for several years. The COVAX Initiative seeks to close this vaccination gap by distributing vaccines to low and middle income countries who otherwise wouldn’t have access to them—an essential step to end the acute stage of the pandemic.

    Wealth inequality is the root of the current global vaccine access disparity. As of March 2020, “High-income countries, representing just a fifth of the global adult population (~20%), have purchased more than half (~54%) of all vaccine doses.” 

    As shown by this figure from the Kaiser Family Foundation, high income countries have enough doses to fully vaccinate their adult populations twice over, while lower income countries can only vaccinate around a quarter of their population. This poses risks for the spread of global variants, as well as a slower global economic recovery. 

    Countries hoard vaccines because they are prioritizing domestic economic recovery and aim to reach herd immunity (with 70% of their citizens vaccinated) within their borders. However, this ideology could end up hurting them more than helping them as variants mutate among the unvaccinated and spread as countries ease lockdowns. This would hinder public health progress and slow economic recovery. Therefore, the COVAX initiative is essential to combat vaccine nationalism by distributing vaccines to low and middle income countries which do not have the same ability to purchase vaccines in bulk.  

    The COVAX Initiative

    The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Initiative is an international partnership led by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the World Health Organization (WHO) to close the vaccination gap between high income countries (HICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICS). It fulfills the vaccine pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, which was created in April 2020 to ensure that all countries, regardless of GDP, would have access to needed COVID-19 response resources.

    COVAX seeks to achieve: 

    1. Doses for at least 20% of countries’ populations
    2. Diverse and actively managed portfolio of vaccines
    3. Vaccines delivered as soon as they are available
    4. End the acute phase of the pandemic
    5. Rebuild economies

    COVAX uses international infrastructure to coordinate equitable vaccine distribution and relies on multiple actors in multiple sectors in order to reduce gaps in vaccination coverage. COVAX aims to provide 2 billion COVID-19 vaccines to the most vulnerable citizens in all participating countries through the COVAX Facility, which is a “global risk-sharing mechanism for pooled procurement and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.” This initiative seeks to combat vaccine nationalism by recognizing that no country or single population will be protected from the virus if populations in low and middle income countries remain unvaccinated. 

    COVAX and US Policy

    Changes in U.S. administrative policies on COVAX reflect different ideologies about the United States’ role on the world stage. The Trump Administration did not join or support the COVAX initiative while in office. However, the Biden Administration is now a vocal supporter of the program and has pledged $4 billion dollars to COVAX. They have also supported waiving intellectual property patents on COVID-19 vaccines. This is consistent with the Administration’s foreign policy strategy of rebuilding alliances and repositioning the U.S. on the world stage as a global leader. 

    Criticisms and Critiques 

    While COVAX is certainly an essential step in the right direction, many organizations feel it is not effectively meeting the needs of the moment. The People’s Vaccine Alliance argues that the COVID-19 vaccines must be seen as a public good and readily available to all those in need, and that COVAX is not the right tool to enable this paradigm shift. These concerns reflect a disconnect between the profit motive of vaccine manufacturers and the imperative to vaccinate as many high risk individuals as possible. In addition, some feel that vaccine hoarding is justified because governments must put the lives of their own citizens before those in other countries. While this does not explain hoarding enough vaccines to vaccinate citizens twice over, it is a main reason why not all countries are ready to give away a portion of their domestic vaccine supply.

  • Introduction to the World Trade Organization

    Introduction to the World Trade Organization

    The World Trade Organization is an international organization dedicated to liberalizing rules of trade between nations. Trade liberalization refers to removing and reducing restrictions to the free movement and trade of goods between countries. Trade liberalization seeks to minimize the role of governments in the resource allocation process to increase economic efficiency globally. The WTO does this by requiring member states to (1) convert all barriers to trade into tariffs (taxes on certain imports or exports) and subsequently reduce these tariffs, and (2) reduce the amount of support and subsidies they offer to exporting industries. It also works to settle trade disputes and promote the economic growth of developing countries. The organization is composed of 164 member states who govern its activities.  

    Forming the World Trade Organization

    The WTO was born out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which was initially created in 1947 by the UN. Members of the GATT decided a new trade organization was necessary in 1995 due to the lackluster dispute settlement system of the GATT. The GATT required positive consensus in both the creation of a dispute resolution panel and adopting of the panel’s report. This positive consensus involved all contracting parties to the decision including the parties to the dispute itself and thus required that every party including the party subject to complaint agree to establish the panel and uphold its report. While most parties subject to complaint did not abuse their veto power, it did create a problem where many disputes went unsolved as those with complaints did not petition to create a panel due to the risk of a veto. The creation of the WTO and subsequently, the Appellate Body within the organization would solve these issues, while presenting new ones. 

    Structure

    The Ministerial Conference is the highest decision-making body. Ministerial Conferences involve all member states meeting every 2 years to make decisions concerning multilateral trade agreements. The General Council has representatives of all member states with the authority to act on behalf of the Ministerial Conference. Since the Ministerial Conference only meets once every 2 years, the General Council carries out day to day functions of the WTO. Sometimes the General Council may meet under a different set of rules as the Dispute Settlement Body or as the Trade Policy Review Body to solve specific issues. 

    The Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services, and the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, all report to the General Council. Each of these councils covers a broad area of trade and handle WTO agreements within their specific area of trade. These councils have committees below them governing more specific areas of trade—for example, the Goods Council has a committee on agriculture. Agreements among some, but not all, member countries are managed by committees composed of the only members to those agreements. Lastly, informal meetings such as Heads of Delegations meetings are where member states meet and make compromises and agreements. Informal meetings are often where breakthroughs and compromises are made in trade agreements.

    Dispute Resolution

    Similar to the original GATT of 1947, the WTO also faces issues with dispute resolution. Currently, there is a crisis with the Appellate Body, as there are not enough members remaining on the body to reach quorum. Without enough members to reach quorum, they are not legally allowed to deliberate on issues. Appellate Body member terms end, and the US has consistently blocked attempts to fill the vacant seats. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all blocked recent appointments to the body. The US objects to the operations of the Appellate Body for three reasons: 

    1. The US claims that the Appellate Body is engaging in judicial activism by often going beyond resolving a singular dispute. Article 3.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, which governs the activities of the Appellate Body states, “recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.” The Appellate Body is allegedly doing this by clarifying and interpreting provisions found in general WTO agreements such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services. 
    2. The US claims that the Appellate Body creates “binding” precedent that oversteps its role and once again steers into the area of “making law.” The Appellate Body has a system of “persuasive” precedent rather than binding precedent which means that previous reports may be relevant in similar cases, but the Appellate Body is not legally bound to consider previous reports. In a system of binding precedent, the judicial body would be legally obligated to consider a previous report in deciding a current case. The US views this usage of precedent as affecting the rights of member states without the member states themselves able to participate due to precedent. 
    3. The US has concerns with case backlog in the Appellate Body as Rule 15 states that former members of the Appellate Body may remain as a member to finish working on an appeal, but this sometimes leads to a delay in issuing a report on an issue longer than 60 days which is forbidden by Article 17.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The US argues that to avoid this, members should rather take no new cases during this time.

    Other Controversies

    Members of both the Republican and Democratic parties have threatened to withdraw from the WTO over the key issues of China’s trade policy, globalization, and a rapidly changing global economy. Critics of the WTO point out that the Chinese government’s increasing involvement in their economy is creating unfair competition for other WTO members. China uses state subsidies to gain a competitive advantage in multiple industries such as steel and aluminum. Many feel that the WTO has been too slow to address China’s rule violations, as well as regulate and adjust to new global economic trends and markets such as ecommerce. Lastly, many attribute problems caused by globalization to the WTO, such as the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US to overseas manufacturers.