Comments on Editors, East Asia Forum "Australia’s fraught decision on submarines", 18/04/2016
This editorial is well balanced.
The following point from Tatsumi's post this week was quoted: ‘the bid for SEA1000 is important for Japan in the overall context of deepening security ties with Australia’. Japan’s ‘2013 National Security Strategy identified Australia as an important security partner not only as a fellow US ally, but also as a regional partner that shares Japan’s key strategic interest in upholding an international order based on the fundamental norms that have underpinned the post-WWII world. Such norms include the rule of law, freedom of navigation and the non-use of coercive measures to assert diplomatic positions’.
The norms mentioned there are based on the so called post-WWII world international order, as Tatsumi stated. Some of the foundations were unjust, because some territories which had belonged to different countries were given by the Americans to its allies including Japan, particularly as the world gradually became divided into the American led and the Soviet led two opposing camps, with some in between. Certainly some Chinese have held the view that some of its former territories were dealt with in such deals between the Americans and some of its allies or its controlled subordinating countries.
If the foundation of the current international order is unjust, then is the argument to maintain this order just or justified?
We can write another story in which someone has stole other peoples' properties then after that that person argues for the rule of law and the protection of existing property rights, a seemingly quite 'just' prevailing order. We also have some accomplices has a strong force and police the existing order!
Showing posts with label International justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International justice. Show all posts
2011-04-08
Problems created by Resolution 1973
Comments on Donald R. Rothwell and Hitoshi Nasu “UN Security Council resolutions on Libya and the significance of ‘R2P’”, 8/04/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/04/08/un-security-council-resolutions-on-libya-and-the-significance-of-r2p/
While the intent of "R2P" is undoubtedly good, the outcome of passing Resolution 1973 as that form was not necessarily as good.
It has had too much ambiguity and created opportunities for abuse the "R2P" intent.
Instead of protection, it could be used to kill, albeit in the empty name of protecting.
For example, an independent person would ask the following: were many of the air strike bombings completely necessary for the imposition of no fly zone? Have any of the bombers and fight jets from the enforcers encountered any threats?
Let's be honest, were the bomb and killing of Libyan government military personnel when they didn't engage in killing civilians or when they were in some sort of military facilities that were not engaged in killing civilians justified and justifiable? Just ask for an innocent Libyan soldier why should they be killed while they are not in actions of killing civilians or in fighting with the enforcers, just because they are Libyan government soldiers?
How could anyone say that killing and bombing are humanitarian actions?
Some of the actions have clearly gone significantly beyond the “R2P” as a consequence of the loose and ill-defined (quite deliberately I’d say by some of its authors) Resolution 1973.
If that is international law, it is a dangerous law.
PS: as the authors mentioned the regime change was clearly beyond Resolution 1973. So far it has been clear that some of the leaders involved in the military actions against Libyan government forces simply used it as a cover and excuse to achieve their quite different objectives than the ‘R2P’.
Any arming of the rebels, including external military ground involvement to assist the rebels, would go beyond that. It would not be protecting people, it would magnify and prolong military conflicts and result in more killings and deaths including civilians.
While the intent of "R2P" is undoubtedly good, the outcome of passing Resolution 1973 as that form was not necessarily as good.
It has had too much ambiguity and created opportunities for abuse the "R2P" intent.
Instead of protection, it could be used to kill, albeit in the empty name of protecting.
For example, an independent person would ask the following: were many of the air strike bombings completely necessary for the imposition of no fly zone? Have any of the bombers and fight jets from the enforcers encountered any threats?
Let's be honest, were the bomb and killing of Libyan government military personnel when they didn't engage in killing civilians or when they were in some sort of military facilities that were not engaged in killing civilians justified and justifiable? Just ask for an innocent Libyan soldier why should they be killed while they are not in actions of killing civilians or in fighting with the enforcers, just because they are Libyan government soldiers?
How could anyone say that killing and bombing are humanitarian actions?
Some of the actions have clearly gone significantly beyond the “R2P” as a consequence of the loose and ill-defined (quite deliberately I’d say by some of its authors) Resolution 1973.
If that is international law, it is a dangerous law.
PS: as the authors mentioned the regime change was clearly beyond Resolution 1973. So far it has been clear that some of the leaders involved in the military actions against Libyan government forces simply used it as a cover and excuse to achieve their quite different objectives than the ‘R2P’.
Any arming of the rebels, including external military ground involvement to assist the rebels, would go beyond that. It would not be protecting people, it would magnify and prolong military conflicts and result in more killings and deaths including civilians.
2010-05-04
Establishing an effective and complete international financial system
Comments on Masahiro Kawai and Michael Pomerleano of ADBI “International financial stability architecture for the 21st century”, 4/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/04/international-financial-stability-architecture-for-the-21st-century/
While there are both merits and difficulties to have an international body to play a supervision role in international financial stability, an extremely important issue has often been neglected, that is the governance of individual countries and a mechanism that will deter poor governance by individual authorities.
This has clearly some resemblance to the moral hazard issue where individual authorities do not have enough incentive to work hard and prevent financial instability.
Instead of only having an international body of supervision like general policing, there should be a “law” that can be used to prosecute authorities for their negligence, and a “court” where prosecutions can be conducted.
Imagine that there is a whole international system of financial/economic governance that includes policing, prosecution and sentencing of financial culprits represented by individual authorities, would not it be much easier to minimise the occurrence or at least the severity and frequency of financial crises of “international” nature?
There is WTO for trade matters, though not very effective. There is international criminal court prosecute international or war criminals.
The question is: why is there no such a system for financial and economic matters beyond trade, given that financial crises can cause much greater damages to other nations?
It seems now it is high time for the creation of such a system. Otherwise the international community will not have the most effective tools to deter financial crises from occurring.
While there are both merits and difficulties to have an international body to play a supervision role in international financial stability, an extremely important issue has often been neglected, that is the governance of individual countries and a mechanism that will deter poor governance by individual authorities.
This has clearly some resemblance to the moral hazard issue where individual authorities do not have enough incentive to work hard and prevent financial instability.
Instead of only having an international body of supervision like general policing, there should be a “law” that can be used to prosecute authorities for their negligence, and a “court” where prosecutions can be conducted.
Imagine that there is a whole international system of financial/economic governance that includes policing, prosecution and sentencing of financial culprits represented by individual authorities, would not it be much easier to minimise the occurrence or at least the severity and frequency of financial crises of “international” nature?
There is WTO for trade matters, though not very effective. There is international criminal court prosecute international or war criminals.
The question is: why is there no such a system for financial and economic matters beyond trade, given that financial crises can cause much greater damages to other nations?
It seems now it is high time for the creation of such a system. Otherwise the international community will not have the most effective tools to deter financial crises from occurring.
2009-07-13
We can't afford to be hypocritical between the rich and the poor nations
Comments on the comments by hc on my earlier comments on “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
2009-07-10
US congress acts like a bully
Comments on Andrew W. Shoyer “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, 10/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
2009-05-28
A lesson from North Korea nuke test - all countries should follow international laws
Comments on Tobias Harris “The North Korea test: a study of powerlessness”, 28/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/27/the-north-korean-test-a-study-in-powerlessness/
It is already very bad to see a nuclear proliferation by the North Korea regime. It would be much worse to see another one by Japan. It is unthinkable. It also indicates the urgency to bring the North Korea regime to the road of denuclearisation as quickly as possible. The six party members must act together resolutely and effectively.
Anyone, Japan included, should not use the recent test by the North Korea as an excuse to pursue nuclear proliferation. Someone’s violation of international laws does not make it right for any other one to violate them. Any violation is intolerable and should be dealt with accordingly and effectively.
The international community needs to enforce international laws in a meaningful, just and effective way. The international war crimes courts should be focused more on what is happening now, rather than being used as a tool of witch hunt for some past events in an unjust and unbalanced way. The court should establish its credibility and should become more effective deterrence for future offenders.
The UN Security Council should have the power to intervene to make the court accountable to the international community through the UN representation system.
It is already very bad to see a nuclear proliferation by the North Korea regime. It would be much worse to see another one by Japan. It is unthinkable. It also indicates the urgency to bring the North Korea regime to the road of denuclearisation as quickly as possible. The six party members must act together resolutely and effectively.
Anyone, Japan included, should not use the recent test by the North Korea as an excuse to pursue nuclear proliferation. Someone’s violation of international laws does not make it right for any other one to violate them. Any violation is intolerable and should be dealt with accordingly and effectively.
The international community needs to enforce international laws in a meaningful, just and effective way. The international war crimes courts should be focused more on what is happening now, rather than being used as a tool of witch hunt for some past events in an unjust and unbalanced way. The court should establish its credibility and should become more effective deterrence for future offenders.
The UN Security Council should have the power to intervene to make the court accountable to the international community through the UN representation system.
2009-05-27
Enforcing international laws to deal with the North Korea regime
Comments on the question to me by Aurelia George Mulgan, 26/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/25/roos-to-japan/#comments
I can’t answer the question that Aurelia George Mulgan asked of me. That is a question for China.
What I’d like to say is that why don’t the international community use the international court system to indict the leaders of the current NK regime, if they have violated international laws, as US president Obama has said? I think the Security Council should authorise the international prosecutors to do that and put pressures on the current NK leaderships.
I think this might be a good way to enforce international laws. In a case involving head of government or state, it should be authorised by the Security Council before any indictment being made.
That approach will make sure both that any significant breaches of international laws can be prosecuted and that the system of international court is not abused by any individual country. What are those laws for? They are there for countries and people to abide. If any one does not, then there should be a workable mechanism to enforce those international laws. That is the point I want to make.
There is an urgent need for a fair, just and effective framework to enforce international laws. I hope my proposal can provide some food for thought in making the UN system more effective. Every country has sovereignty, but if you are a member of UN and subscribe to its laws, you should abide them. If you don't, there will be consequences of not complying with them. Otherwise why do we need the UN and international laws?
I can’t answer the question that Aurelia George Mulgan asked of me. That is a question for China.
What I’d like to say is that why don’t the international community use the international court system to indict the leaders of the current NK regime, if they have violated international laws, as US president Obama has said? I think the Security Council should authorise the international prosecutors to do that and put pressures on the current NK leaderships.
I think this might be a good way to enforce international laws. In a case involving head of government or state, it should be authorised by the Security Council before any indictment being made.
That approach will make sure both that any significant breaches of international laws can be prosecuted and that the system of international court is not abused by any individual country. What are those laws for? They are there for countries and people to abide. If any one does not, then there should be a workable mechanism to enforce those international laws. That is the point I want to make.
There is an urgent need for a fair, just and effective framework to enforce international laws. I hope my proposal can provide some food for thought in making the UN system more effective. Every country has sovereignty, but if you are a member of UN and subscribe to its laws, you should abide them. If you don't, there will be consequences of not complying with them. Otherwise why do we need the UN and international laws?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
