Search

Begin New Search Topic Rule of Law Political Geography United States of America

1. Intentionally vague: How Saudi Arabia and Egypt abuse legal systems to suppress online speech

Author:
Dina Sadek, Layla Mashkoor, Iain Robertson, and Andy Carvin
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are weaponizing vaguely written domestic media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws to target and suppress dissent, opposition, and vulnerable groups. Political leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia often claim that their countries’ judicial systems enjoy independence and a lack of interference, a narrative intended to distance the states from the real and overzealous targeting and prosecution of critics. Such claims can be debunked and dismissed, as the Egyptian and Saudi governments have had direct involvement in establishing and implementing laws that are utilized to target journalists and human rights defenders. Egypt and Saudi Arabia were selected as case studies for this report because of their status as among the most frequently documented offenders in the region when it comes to exploiting ambiguously written laws to target and prosecute journalists, critics, activists, human rights defenders, and even apolitical citizens. The two countries have consolidated power domestically, permitting them to utilize and bend their domestic legal systems to exert control over the online information space. Punishments for those targeted can involve draconian prison sentences, travel bans, and fines, which result in a chilling effect that consequently stifles online speech and activities, preventing citizens from discussing political, social, and economic issues. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia enacted media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws with ambiguous language and unclear definitions of legal terms, allowing for flexible interpretations of phrases such as “false information,” “morality,” or “family values and principles.” The laws in both countries also loosely define critical terms like “terrorism,” thereby facilitating expansive interpretations of what constitutes a terrorist crime. Further, anti-terror laws now include articles that connect the “dissemination of false information” with terrorist acts. This vague and elastic legal language has enabled the Egyptian and Saudi regimes to prosecute peaceful citizens on arbitrary grounds, sometimes handing out long prison sentences or even death sentences, undermining respect for the rule of law in the two countries. This report explores the development of media, cybercrime, and counterterrorism laws in both countries, and demonstrates through case studies how Saudi Arabia and Egypt weaponize the laws to prosecute opposition figures and control narratives online. This report examines the relationship between criminal charges tied to one’s professional activities or online speech and how those charges can trigger online smear campaigns and harassment. In cases that involve women, gender-based violence is often used to harm a woman’s reputation. Though a direct correlation between judicial charges and online harassment cannot be ascertained, these case studies suggest that dissidents are likely to face online harm following legal persecution, even after they are released.
Topic:
Human Rights, Internet, Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, Disinformation, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

2. Authoritarian kleptocrats are thriving on the West’s failures. Can they be stopped?

Author:
Francis Shin and Ben Judah
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
A hidden web of power revealed itself to Internet users in early 2022. Following a brutal government crackdown in Kazakhstan in January, anyone using open-source flight-tracking websites could watch kleptocratic elites flee the country on private jets. A little more than a month later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought a new spectacle: social media users were able to track various oligarchs’ superyachts as they jumped from port to port to evade Western sanctions. These feeds captured a national security problem in near real time: In Eurasia and beyond, kleptocratic elites with deep ties to the West were able to move themselves and their assets freely despite a host of speeches by senior officials, sanctions, and structures designed to stop them. Kleptocratic regimes—kleptocracy means “rule by thieves”—have exploited the lax and uneven regulatory environments of the global financial system to hide their ill-gotten gains and interfere in politics abroad, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. They are aided in this task by a large cast of professional enablers within these jurisdictions. The stronger these forces get, the more they erode the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, the international sanctions regime imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine has little hope of long-term success if the global financial system itself continues to weaken. The West still has a long way to go to rein in the authoritarian kleptocrats who have thrived on the institutional dysfunction, regulatory failure, and bureaucratic weakness of the transatlantic community for far too long. We need to rethink not just how we combat kleptocracy, but also how we define it. Policy makers need to understand that authoritarian regimes that threaten transatlantic security are closely linked to illicit financial systems. As it stands, our thinking about how foreign corruption spreads is too constrained by stereotypes about kleptocratic goals and actions.
Topic:
Corruption, Diplomacy, Intelligence, Politics, Sanctions, Authoritarianism, Reform, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Rule of Law, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, United Kingdom, Europe, Ukraine, Canada, and United States of America

3. Access to Justice, the Rule of Law, and Due Process in the US Immigration System: A Tribute to Juan Osuna

Author:
Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper introduces a special collection of papers on access to justice, the rule of law, and due process in the US immigration system. The collection honors Juan Osuna, a devoted public servant and former director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the agency in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that administers the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and legal orientation, assistance, and representation programs. The collection consists of five articles published in the Journal on Migration and Human Security and six CMS essays, written by some of Osuna’s close colleagues and friends. Section I provides a brief biography of Juan Osuna’s life, recites his titles and professional accomplishments, and outlines his views on some of the topics covered in the papers. The section draws heavily from two events that book-ended Osuna’s tenure as EOIR Director, which were organized by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS). The first took place on February 16, 20121 and the second on July 18, 2017,2 just before Osuna’s untimely death at the age of 54 on August 15, 2017. This section also includes remembrances and reflections from Osuna’s colleagues at a November 15, 2018 event in Washington, DC, devoted to honoring his legacy.3 Section II summarizes the 11 papers in this collection, which reflect Juan Osuna’s commitment to humanizing the law and its fair application to all. The papers examine and propose ways to strengthen: • The nation’s response to large-scale migration. • The US asylum system. • The removal adjudication system. • Immigration Court backlog reduction efforts. • The treatment of survivors of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. • Due process for immigrants through legal representation. Section III offers a concluding reflection on the rule of law, and Juan Osuna’s legacy in a time of political division and discord.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Rule of Law, Asylum, and Due Process
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Rule of Law Diplomacy: Why the EU Needs to Become More Vocal in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine

Author:
Laura Gelhaus, Pavel Havlíček, and Stefan Meister
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Supporting the rule of law has been central to the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy since 2009. There has been very limited success in this, however. The EU’s core problem is what is usually its strength: addressing a highly politicized area through a technical approach. EU policymakers need to acknowledge that their political silence is permitting ruling elites in EaP countries to block progress in the rule of law and that the EU is failing to call out pervasive systems of informality there.
Topic:
Diplomacy, European Union, Partnerships, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and United States of America

5. What Is Wrong?

Author:
Kemal Koprulu
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:
Transatlantic Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:
The United States of America is in deep trouble. The political infrastructure of the US, along with its underpinning moral fabric, has been crumbling for some time and is now on the brink of collapse. If it does not restructure and revamp its political system with transparency, accountability, political ethics, and rule of law, the US will be beleaguered by domestic turmoil and be thrusted into a darker hole vis-à-vis rising powers such as China. If the US fails, the whole world will fail. While delving into the systemic issues that plague America’s societal values and political foundation, this article, the first of a two-part article, suggests ways the US can redeem its status as a moral authority on the global stage.
Topic:
Hegemony, Political stability, Rule of Law, and Morality
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. A Court Worth Having? Growing Pains at the International Criminal Court

Author:
Tod Lindberg
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague is a testament to liberal normative aspiration in international politics—the conviction that there should be a neutral juridical body, beyond the influence of the ebb and flow of political power among states, that is capable of holding the perpetrators of atrocities or aggression to account. Now, more than twenty years after the negotiation of the 1998 Rome Statute––the treaty establishing the court––and coming up on seventeen years since the ICC entered into force in 2002 with the ratification by sixty state-parties, one vexing question for proponents of international justice is that of how far beyond mere aspiration the court has managed to get.
Topic:
Politics, Rule of Law, Justice, and International Criminal Court (ICC)
Political Geography:
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, United States of America, and The Hague

7. Frontier Justice: A New Approach for U.S. Rule of Law Assistance

Author:
Robert M. Perito and Donald J. Planty
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
United States rule of law assistance is failing to help recipient governments provide good governance, security and justice. This is particularly true in three categories of states in crisis: (1) states that are experiencing extreme levels of organized criminal violence; (2) states where international Islamist terrorism is attempting to impose extreme versions of Shariah law; and (3) states where corrupt authoritarian governments have morphed into kleptocracies. Though conditions have changed in these countries, U.S. rule of law assistance continues to employ a fragmented and technocratic approach to improving foreign criminal justice systems. Dedicated officials, civil society leaders, and concerned citizens in these countries want to establish the rule of law. In many cases, our current assistance does not help them change the prevailing paradigm. What new approaches for U.S. rule of law assistance are required to provide them with the support needed to change the system? In countries threatened by criminal violence, terrorism, and corrupt authoritarian rule, the study found that those working to promote a democratic political process believed rule of law was the essential element in providing good governance, security, and justice. They pointed out that law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice system were primary targets for those seeking to impose despotic regimes. They looked to the United States as a natural ally sharing common values and providing a model of what they can achieve. These individuals confirmed the critical importance of U.S. assistance in preventing further deterioration in the local conditions and to providing any hope that the situation might be improved. In all cases, these activists lamented the fact that U.S. rule of law assistance programs were often not strategically focused, culturally relevant, or adequately resourced. They made clear that more—not less—U.S. help is required to move forward. Indeed, they called for increased use of U.S. political and diplomatic leverage, closer consultations on program selection and development, and more intelligent targeting of financial resources. Whether aimed at establishing justice, enabling economic development, or promoting foreign investment, U.S. rule of law assistance has been a tool of U.S. foreign and national security policy since the end of World War II. The Obama Administration, however, subordinated rule of law programming to assistance for promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and enabling good governance. There also was a sharp drop in the financial resources devoted to aiding the justice sector. Outside of large programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding for aid to courts and corrections fell from several billion dollars to $1.9 billion in 2013 to less than $500 million in 2016. At the same time, rule of law assistance became ‘securitized’ with assistance increasingly focused on convicting and incarcerating drug traffickers and terrorists. The study identified other conditions and practices that undermined the effectiveness of U.S. rule of law programming. From the Washington perspective there is no readily knowable number for the total amount the United States spends annually on rule of law assistance, nor is there a common policy, doctrine, strategy, or coordinating mechanism for this aid. Funding is provided from a number of legislative funding sources, allocated to various government departments, and then spread among numerous implementing partners, primarily non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and commercial contractors. Assistance programs militarize civilian security forces and train prosecutors to charge terrorism suspects and jailors to prevent radicalization. Government agencies concerned with the rule of law programming utilize staff with legal and law enforcement backgrounds largely as advisors and rely upon generic program officers to handle program design, funding and program management. As a result, establishing the rule of law is less a tool than an end state that hopefully will result from programs to ensure free elections, fight drug trafficking, and counter violent extremism. In the field, the study found the administration of U.S. rule of law assistance is neither strategically focused nor designed to produce sustainable change. U.S. programs fail to emphasize that state building efforts are political initiatives and not technical exercises. Program funding is not concentrated to achieve objectives and mobilize sufficient local support. In areas where criminals, jihadists, and insurgents operate without respect for national borders, U.S. assistance does not have a regional perspective. Project implementation is also affected by a lack of U.S. government staff with legal and law enforcement backgrounds on the ground and by risk adverse State Department personnel policies that restrict the movement of U.S. officials making it difficult for them to meet with counterparts and visit project sites to access progress.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Legal Theory, Rule of Law, Borders, and Legal Sector
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Exit Strategy: Rule of Law and the U.S. Army

Author:
Shima D. Keene
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Establishing the rule of law is a key goal and end state in counterinsurgency (COIN) operations and is a critical aspect of securing peace and preventing future conflict. However, recent experience in theaters such as Afghanistan has shown that establishing effective rule of law institutions and practices is not a straightforward task. Consequently, considerations as to how and when rule of law institutions can start to be developed and integrated into the stability transition process must not only be planned in advance, but also form part of the U.S. Army’s strategy from the start of any military intervention. The analysis provided in this monograph will assist the U.S. Army, and more broadly the Departments of Defense and State, in better facilitating a seamless rebalancing from military to police functions in post-conflict environments, and to ensure that sustainable and effective rule of law interventions are delivered as part of an exit strategy.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Armed Forces, Military Intervention, Rule of Law, Army, and Nation Building
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Rule of/by Law?

Author:
Brad Glosserman and Ralph A. Cossa
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The rule of law took a few huge hits during the year’s second trimester, as Beijing chose to ignore the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling that negated many of its South China Sea claims, while Pyongyang displayed its usual disdain for the latest UN Security Council Resolution 2270 with a series of ballistic missile launches, highlighted by a submarine-launched ballistic missile test. There were also a number of significant multilateral forums addressing regional security and economic issues, or both. Most in some form also touched upon the South China Sea and Korean Peninsula, even as ASEAN danced around the Tribunal’s ruling. Meanwhile in the battle of who gets to make trade rules, the Chinese-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) seemed to fare only slightly better than the US-driven Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the objection to which seems to be the only thing the two US presidential candidates agree upon.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Territorial Disputes, Maritime, Conflict, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America