| N E W S L E T T E R |
Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2004
Editor: Dr. Miltiadis Sarigiannidis
There are a couple of things that I would like to discuss. One thing, is the outcome of the mediation concerning the dispute in Cyprus. I will skip the way both sides conducted their diplomatic tactics, since the UN Secretary General was asked in 1999 to undertake initiatives towards the settlement of this long lasting dispute. The reason for doing so is because there were not any tactics at all; third parties like Alvaro de Soto, only managed to organize timeschedules for non constructive meetings, while the interesting parties were bying time with their out of fashion bazaar-like policies, until we reached the crucial point at the final meeting at Switzerland. There, it was all about strategies, since the last four years no partial agreement was concluded on vital issues. So everything was left to be settled at the very last moment.
Unfortunately, the majority of Cypriot leaders and their people understand diplomacy as a zero sum game; as a bargaining process were one wins and the other loses. Both Greek-Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots live separately for many decades believing that justice is on their side. As a result, any concession is to be considered at best a proof of goodwill, if not a sacrifice. Thus, no side is prepared to accept any plan for unification, unless the agreement satisfies its vital interests. Moreover, they even do not want to share the "carrot". For example, entering the European Union is not an adequate motive, at least for the Greek-Cypriots since they have almost made it, whereas the Turkish-Cypriots cannot overcome the syndrome of insecurity away from mother Turkey. In this case, security is the "carrot" and both European Union and Turkey represent different perceptions and non-shared forms of security.
The Annan Plan recalls the Dayton Agreement, since it takes for granted the coexistence of both sides in one loose federation and generally accepts the territorial status quo established after the unilateral Turkish intervention, that has been condemned by the UN Security Council. Certainly, people can live together in harmony, but for so many years they have learned to capitalize upon their differences and incompatibilities. And nothing has been done so far to reverse it. So, there are reasons to believe that the outcome of the referendum will be dissapointing. The sovereign people of Cyprus is expected to reject the Annan Plan. And there is no power in the international society that can despise a sovereign decision. After all, it is the same international society that for many decades did nothing to settle the dispute in this island.
The accesion of Cyprus-at least a part of it, to the European Union is not a deadline. On the contrary, it appears to be a departure for the realization of more radical diplomatic policies that may give birth to two different sovereign entities, two different states, after conducting tit-for-tat consultations that will include territorial restructuring. Otherwise, sovereign anomaly will continue to affect de facto the social, economic and cultural environment in Cyprus, making gradually the people more aware of the future unavoidable choices. If third parties can not bring the horses into the water, then let the horses gallop away.
The other issue that I would like to underline, is the fact that this issue hosts for the first time an exclusive article. I would like to welcome enthusiastically Stefan Kirchner's contribution to this newsletter regarding the role of the European Court of Human Rights in times of conflict. Stefan's article is well written, interesting and updated, since it concerns ongoing matters. Further, it is a motive for me to launch a call for papers, since I would like this newsletter to become an interactive means, a forum for anybody who would like to test his/her academic skills and views. I hope that many of you will share this effort; Stefan paved the way and I want to thank him once more for his kind initiative.
Finally, I would like to send to all of you my wishes for Easter. Live the spirit of these days and take advantage of the break.
Nicholas Wheeler,Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
The extent to which humanitarian intervention has become a legitimate practice in post-cold war international society is the subject of this book. It maps the changing legitimacy of humanitarian intervention by comparing the international response to cases of humanitarian intervention in the cold war and post-cold war periods. While there are studies of each individual case of intervention--in East Pakistan, Cambodia, Uganda, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo--there is no single work that examines them comprehensively in a comparative framework.
Buy the book
|The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Times of Conflict,by Stefan Kirchner|
Unlike e.g. the Inter-American system, the ECHR-system was not designed to deal with large numbers of Human Rights violations but rather with individual cases. But now that the first cases relating to the conflicts in Kurdistan and Chechnya are being dealt with by the ECtHR, it has been estimated that up to 100,000 new cases could reach Strasbourg every year. Therefore the question whether or not the ECtHR has jurisdiction in cases arising out of armed combat needs to be addressed. Not only do armed conflicts at the outer regions of the CoE-Area contribute to the problem, a factor which holds the potential for more floods of complaints in the future are military activities of parties to the Convention outside their own borders, such as was already the case in the 1999 Kosova War or has been recently when i. a. British, Danish and Polish forces were engaged in operations against Iraq. The decision whether or not the Court will have jurisdiction in such cases will to a large extend depend on the question, whether or not Art. 1 ECHR is applicable, i. e. whether or not the acts which are claimed to constitute a violation of the Convention are included in the scope of the term "jurisdiction" as used in Art. 1 ECHR. An other factor which will often be problematic will be the lack or collapse of the local court system or problems with access to justice for members of certain groups involved in the situation. Both aspects can impose serious hurdles for the applicant with regard to the requirement that all local remedies need to be exhausted in order for an application be admissible in Strasbourg.
"Soldiering in hope":United Nations Peacekeeping in CivilWars,by Anna Robertsl
On March 16, 1994, the U.N. Secretary-General, faced with the choice of withdrawing the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) that had been unable to complete its mandate in Croatia, or leaving it in a situation for which its size was inadequate, remarked that "the choice in Croatia is between continuing a mission that is clearly unable to fulfil [sic] its original mandate in full or withdrawing and risking a renewed war that would probably result in appeals for UNPROFOR to return to restore peace. Given such a choice, soldiering on in hope seems preferable to withdrawing in abdication."
Avoiding a death dance. Adding steps to the International Law on the Use of Force to Improve the Search for Alternatives to Force and Prevent Likely Harms,by Brian J. Foley
The world seems engaged in a death dance. In the past two yars we have seen a massive terrorist attack that targeted New York City and Washington, D.C., and a response by the United States that included invading Afghanistan and toppling its government. A year and a half later, the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled its government, based on the argument that Iraq posed a direct threat to neighboring nations and an indirect threat to distant nations, since its government could potentially supply terrorists with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Acknowledging our Injternational Criminals: Henry Kissinger and East Timor,by Brandon Mark
In a one week period of March 2003, three ostensibly unrelated events transpired that typify a central theme in United States (U.S.) foreign policy since World War II. First, in early March, the inauguration of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was heralded in The Hague. However, no representative from the United States attended, an event described by some "as world justice's biggest step since an international military tribunal in Nuremberg tried Nazi leaders after World War II." The reason no U.S. representative attended the groundbreaking event was because the U.S. is not a party to the tribunal. In fact, the U.S. has been attempting to undermine the tribunal by "persuading other countries to seal bilateral agreements exempting all U.S. citizens from the court's authority."
|To unsubscribe, go towww.sarigiannidis.gr and type your e-mail at the newsletter section.|