The peaceful management of the world's freshwater resources is one of the most challenging tasks the international community is facing. While 'water war' is a catchphrase mainly used by the media, one cannot overstate the disruptive force water disputes have on all aspects of socio-economic development and the environment. Furthermore, the accelerating global water crisis draws a dark picture in which the future may look nothing like the present. With rising demand and declining availability of key natural resources, the world might soon face a 'perfect storm' of food, energy and water shortages. A simultaneous occurrence of these crises would seriously threaten global stability, and thus endanger the very foundation of international security.
The threat of water-related conflicts is comparatively more real and serious in the Middle East and North Africa hydrographic region where the Nile is found. Ominous predictions about water being the next casus belli in the region abound. There are many conflict determinants in the Nile basin which lend much credence to the predictions and the basin's proneness to conflict is quite evident. The unprecedented positive rapport brought about by the launching of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and the enormous hope and optimism evoked by its lofty Shared Vision explain the unprecedented serenity and cooperative atmosphere the basin has witnessed over the past decade. The decade-long effort to work out and agree on an inclusive legal and institutional framework for the basin has, due to the cunning interpolation of the treacherous, non-legal concept of 'water security', ended up in failure., The subsequent shift to and endorsement of benefit sharing as an alternative, simple and cure-all solution to the Nile waters question has further dimmed the prospect for the realization of the Shared Vision which now sounds more like a pipe dream than a realizable vision. Whether these adverse developments would finally pave the way for the ominous predictions to come to pass is as much unlikely as it is perplexing. It will be argued, in this paper, that the likelihood of violent conflicts over the Nile waters is an unlikely scenario, the more likely turn of events being further continuation of the iniquitous status quo.
Imagine a civilian communications system is being temporarily relied upon by an opposing military force for vital operations. If one launches a computer network attack against the communications system, the operation may disable the opposing force's ability to function adequately and, as a result, prompt their surrender. The alternative course of action is to launch a traditional kinetic weapons attack in the hopes of inflicting enough casualties on the troops to induce surrender. Given these options, the law of war would encourage the utilization of the computer network attack because it would result in less unnecessary suffering. But is the same true if we are unsure of the collateral consequences of the computer network attack on a large civilian population that also relies on this communications system? For instance, because civilians use the same communications system to gather critical information, disabling the system might result in rioting, civil disorder, serious injuries, and deaths. Further, civilians may be unable to call for help, seek out medical assistance, or locate emergency response centers. Given these unknown yet potentially severe collateral consequences to civilians, it becomes less clear that a proportionality analysis under the law of war would favor the computer network attack over the traditional kinetic operation. In this article, Professor Lucian E. Dervan examines the application of the law of war to information operations and analyses the role of the Geneva Convention's utilitarian goals in determining the validity of computer network attacks against dual-use civilian objectives.
Information is a fundamental resource in post-conflict societies. However, information-sharing may lead to both advantages and disadvantages. The main focus of the present paper is the flow of information and knowledge from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to the domestic judicial system of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Following a brief introduction of the dynamics of the changing relationship of the Tribunal and the Bosnian judiciary, the paper aims to outline the positive achievements and the practical barriers of the international intervention into the management of war crime cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The paper introduces the practical problems that came forth with the introduction of the adversarial procedure in the domestic judicial system, by which measure international intervention might have gone too far resulting also in negative consequences with regard to the management of domestic war crime trials.
In 2009, the Permanent Court of Arbitration administered a unique case: the Abyei Arbitration between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. This case is unique in several aspects: first, it is an example of intra-state dispute settlement in a conflict zone rich in natural resources, second, it was conducted under a fast-track procedure, and third, it was fully transparent, with all documents and full webcast of the proceedings still available on the PCA website. Currently there is a large number of outstanding intra-state disputes, not limited to Africa, so this paper assesses why the Parties in the Abyei Arbitration chose arbitration in the first place and whether this model could be successfully applied to other similar disputes.
Juan Guillermo Sandoval Coustasse and Emily Sweeney-Samuelson
Publication Date:
06-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Conflicts over resources and the consequences of utilizing those resources can ignite social and political demonstrations, especially when the conflict is over a shared resource. Solving those conflicts requires both an institution and a procedure that are not just binding but also legitimate in the eyes of the constituencies An important aspect of a legitimate procedure is that it correctly establishes the facts.
The article addresses the economic phenomenon of the so called Dutch Disease, also known as the Paradox of Plenty, as faced by countries rich in natural resources. Rendering a rough definition of this occurrence, the article continues to dwell on the link age between violent conflict and illicit resource trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
I am honored, esteemed colleagues and scholars, to assist you in opening this conference. We are gathered here to consider a crucial and timely problem, the linkages between two impossible challenges facing over a billion people in our world today. Conflicts over resources have been responsible for disputes and even wars both among, and within, many countries. They cause suffering for millions today, and continue to hold back important progress for many, many more. This conference doesn't just accept these terrible facts. It actively considers how the law can help to break the vicious cycle, bringing resolution and sustainable development to those who most need it. I congratulate the organizers, and also all of you as speakers and participants, for your foresight and your intellectual courage.
What is it about a twenty-fifth anniversary that seems to demand that we pay attention to the occasion? The obvious response, of course, is the issue of longevity—that someone or something has endured the various travails of a quarter century and, by all appearances, is continuing onward. But surely there is something else, something more essential at issue than merely endurance. There is, I think, the issue of recognition that is of importance here—the recognition that something has been sufficiently valued and appreciated as to warrant perpetuation. That, I suspect, is what we are celebrating when wetake this moment to reflect on our achievements and recommit ourselves to our stated mission.
Thinking about international affairs has oscillated between idealism and realism throughout the modern period. Moralists continue to search for a way to combine what is reasonable in each in an ethically defensible middle between those extremes.