Notes

WEEK 1 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 1

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY (1)

Art 1 of the UN charter states the purposes of the UN (maintain international peace and security), to
fulfill them the countries created the UN
- Countries wanted this to be the first article because maintaining peace and security was
- The two other paragraphs are more so complementary and instrumental to the success of the
main purpose
- 3 Most important words: International, peace and security

INTERNATIONAL: From 1945-1950 there was a discussion as of the meaning of this term and how
it could limit the competences of the UN. Some doctrines interpreted it as having a limiting meaning
-> Thus, it would not be of the competences of the UN to maintain internal peace. Other discussions
established that it was not limiting at all, because in a contemporary international society, even within
the bipolar cold war world, to distinguish between international and internal issues is no longer
acceptable. Because there are no real limits to the causes and consequences of any situation because
any situation whatsoever has a potential (can have) causes and consequences beyond the borders of
the countries particularly involved in the conflicts. Borders don't stop the influence that may incur
(butterfly effect), international economy, human rights, investment, trade, etc., having consequences
beyond the national realm. (Ex. Chernobyl had consequences beyond the borders of the national
territory). So the UN not only has competences where there is a threat to international peace and
security, ex. what is going on in Haiti.

From the Cold War period to nowadays, both terms – peace and security– have experienced the same
evolution for the same reasons

PEACE: There are too many approaches to this term:

- Negative peace: The absence of conflict/violence/wars. Negative because it says NO
violence, NO conflicts, etc. This is a narrow concept and more limited in scope
- Positive peace: Access to basic needs, respect for human rights, harmony in society, etc. Is
the atmosphere in which all rights are respected (human rights, civil, political, social,
economic, cultural rights). Connected to almost everything so it is bigger in scope, it includes
negative peace and goes beyond it. It can happen that in a society where there is no war
(negative peace), there is no positive peace (human rights).

We can answer in a level sense of peace, meaning that there is no black or white and we talk more
about percentages of peace, both positive and negative.

Rowling: Some peace researchers refrain from speaking to the causes of violence between personal
violence and structural violence.

Mark: 2 reigns of terror: 1 lasted mere months, the other lasted 1000 years. The momentary terror is
that of the axe (violence), whilst the other one stems from hunger, diseases, cruelty and other
amenities (life-long)
From the positive peace perspective, there are societies that have managed to reach a higher level of
peace than others. From Kant: Perpetual peace in only found in death, only when we are dead and
there is no freedom at all we are at peace, as we are free and alive we can do good or bad things and
that’s why we are responsible.

Rousseau explains the same idea differently, he says that complete security exists only in jail, meaning
that only when human beings have no freedom at all then absolute security is reached. Societies like
North Korea and Singapore, where freedom is restricted, security is at the highest rates.

SECURITY: During the Cold War, national security meant military security alone, that definition was
useful for that time, but not anymore. At the time, every country knew where the main threats to their
own peace (negative and positive) and security were. Western countries knew that the threat was the
USSR and allies and the other way around (very simple).

Words are important, the Cold War referred to a situation where there was no real war but there was
an ideological division resulting in competitiveness. However a real cold war only existed in Europe,
this is one of the most eurocentric expressions; Instead, Asia and America had full fledged wars
(Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Sub-saharan Africa, Korea, Guatemala, El salvador, Nicaragua,
South america atrocities and violations of human rights due to military regimes, etc). Only in Europe
there was a COLD war, as in the rest of the world it was really a HOT war. Careful with words;
Europe and EU are not synonymous, America (US) and the American continent are not the same, etc.

During the cold war many were accused of being spies (The enemy inside -> Witch hunting). In the
case of LATAM countries, the events that unfolded there were much worse, states assumed that the
national security doctrine with eh school of the americas (a real university of torture; all official
studied there practices of repression), as a result, thousands of indigenous people, argentinians,
peruvians, etc., died. In the second half of the 80s, in Central America, between the context of peace
negotiation, a new approach to the word security appeared (distinguished perfectly from the
stigmatized national security approach) -> “Human Security”
- National security: Military security alone, a narrow approach
- Human security: Includes military security but goes beyond that to also include health, food,
common crimes, economic security…

WEEK 2 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 2

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY (2)

The first approach to security was referring to national, military security alone -> Fitting the period of
the Cold War, a fairly simple and easy period. Enemies were very clear and everything was
predictable. The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of globalization and a much more
complex society.

The UNGA A/64/701 document on human security is the first one related to human security. It states:
- While national security remains pivotal to peace and stability, there is a growing recognition
of the need for an expanded paradigm of security
- The guarantee of national security no longer
Human security is the new paradigm, while military security is needed (negative peace), we should go
beyond that (positive peace). It is in the 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP) that human
security was first introduced as a distinct concept, defining it as “freedom from ”. Moreover in 2001,
the independent Commission on Human Security led by Sadako Ogata and Amartya Sen defines it as
“to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human
fulfillment. Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms – freedoms that are the essence
of life. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and
situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating
political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the
building blocks of survival livelihood and dignity”.

What are the main features of human security?

- People-centered
- Multi-sectoral
- Comprehensive
- Context specific: There is not the same level of human security everywhere
- Prevention oriented: It is not reactive for once peace has been broken to rebuild it, it is
preventive

TYPE OF SECURITY EXAMPLES OF MAIN THREATS

ECONOMIC SECURITY Persistent poverty, unemployment

FOOD SECURITY Hunger, famine

HEALTH SECURITY Deadly infectious diseases, unsafe food,

malnutrition, lack of access to basic health care

ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY Environmental degradation, resource depletion,

natural disasters, pollution

PERSONAL SECURITY Physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic

violence, child labor

COMMUNITY SECURITY Inter-ethnic, religious and other identity based

tensions

POLITICAL SECURITY Political repression, human rights abuses

In today’s increasingly interlinked world, where threats can potentially spread rapidly within and
across countries, human security is a practical approach to the growing interdependence of
vulnerabilities facing peoples and communities. It calls for people-centered, comprehensive,
context-specific and preventive responses. Such an approach helps focus attention on current and
emerging threats; Identifies the root causes behind these threats; and supports early warning systems
that help mitigate the impact of such threats. Furthermore, such an approach promotes
multi-stakeholder responses that enable the protection and empowerment of people and communities.
Together, these aim to advance freedom from fear, freedom from want and freedom to live in dignity
for all.
Success depends on implementing comprehensive protection and empowerment strategies. Are
governments going to wait until they have to learn by experience because the worst case scenario
already happened? It seems so, but it is not a matter of ignorance rather unwillingness.

We are using these terminologies from a political sciences approach, not from an international law
approach, meaning that “Crises” or “Conflicts” have/could have different interpretations (narrower or
broader), depending on the speaker's approach to it. This is normally used in political sciences or in
media, but it does not have a legal meaning at all, however that does not mean that the uses of this
word are unimportant but rather that they are imprecise.

On the contrary, when you use terms such as “international issues” or “armed conflict” you are using a
legal language that is defined under international law. According to the ICJ, a dispute is defined as “a
disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests between two persons”, if
those two persons are subjects of IL such as States or IOs (having international legal personality), then
we are talking about an international dispute.
- Objective element: A clear cut disagreement clearly established of law or fact
- This is the main difference with previous term crisis conflicts

● A conflict is termed under the political sciences approach, however an armed conflict in the
Geneva Conventions can be distinguished in two categories, international armed conflicts and
non-international armed conflict. An international one is always between two or more regular
armies of sovereign states, a non international one (also known as internal armed conflict or
civil war) involves two or more parts within a country. Usually the official army of a state and
ones that rise against the government.

Not the whole IHL is applicable to both of them, most of it is only applicable to international armed
conflicts. To the internal one, only art 3 common to the 4th Geneva Convention and the additional
Protocol II of the 4th Geneva Conventions, which is devoted as a whole to be applied to
non-international armed conflicts.

In recent years, cyber operations have risen to question, when they arise to armed attacks and when
they can classify as an armed conflict. Also if a cyberattack amounts to an armed attack in order to
give validation to self defense clauses (Jus in bello), so if it is then IHL would apply in cyberattack
cases.
- The ICRC (international committee of the red cross) is the most expanded NGO
The ICRC says that when cyber activities are carried out by one state against other in support of
military operations, it amounts to an international armed conflict -> A mixture of weapons and
cyberattacks at the same time. However, the situation appears less clear when cyber operations are the
only means by which hostile action is used by a state against another, the question of whether it
amounts to an armed conflict or not is even more complex when such operations remain isolated. It is
generally accepted that cyber operations are of similar effect as that of kinetic operations, thus will
amount to an international armed conflict, especially when causing deaths of civilians, soldiers…
However, cyber operations do not always have such effects, but more of disruptive or material
consequences (lowering the threshold of the damage).

- Three different possibilities;

1. Cyberattacks in hand with military operations -> Armed attack
 2. Just a cyberattack or a systematic use of it that causes huge damages including the
loss of lives of soldiers, civilians, etc -> Armed attack
3. When the systematic use of a cyberattack does not amount to losses of lives -> No
clear answer, it depends on the reaction of the countries

E.x. Israel’s cyberattack on Iran or North Korea against Western countries, causing important
disruptions. We can see that countries victim of these attacks have not reacted with arms. Now, even
the cyberattacks disrupting to that level would not amount to an armed attack. There is a void there
that might be filled in the future as cyberattacks are the wars of the future. So, the ICRC has said that
we need a new convention on autonomous weapons but there are countries that don’t agree (the ones
that are the most advanced in creating autonomous weapons)

- Normally, law is reactive, which means that it arises from new situations rather than being
preventive towards situations that have not happened.

The grey zone is of an area that is not clear and a hybrid conflict is one that does not fall under an
armed conflict, where countries use different instruments to try to cause harm to other countries
against their will. It doesn't really matter what is the instrument used but that there is the will and a
factual harm to another state, like migratory flows used from one country to affect another or causing
damages on the basic infrastructure of a country or the use of “sanctions” that are not real sanctions
because they in reality are unilateral measures used by one country towards an(others)
- Only the authority can adopt sanctions
- The adoption of sanctions by authority enjoy an important presumption of
rightfulness/legality

E.x., Only the Security Council can adopt sanctions, the rest of “sanctions” that are adopted are in
reality unilateral measures (Countermeasures), so why use the word “sanctions” at all if it is used
wrong? Because it implies that the person using it is above others and the element of a strong legal
presumption in favor of the unilateral measure

- Peace and Security:

➢ Negative peace and National security
➢ Positive peace and Human security
- Causes: When talking about armed conflicts there is never just one cause, nothing is that easy
➢ Superficial: triggering causes of WWI and WWII
➢ Structural/Deep:
- Prevention/Management:
➢ Light/Superficial: Linked to superficial causes that as a consequence generate
negative peace
➢ Structural tools/Deep prevention: Only working on these positive peace can be
reached

WEEK 3 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 3

RISKS AND THREATS TO PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY
 - Threats: We need to be extremely careful on the words we use to qualify something as a threat
to peace and security, we should be as accurate as possible, because the word threat implies
negativeness. When referring to ‘something’, what we are doing is stigmatizing ‘that
something’. It is really dangerous apart from inaccurate to use general broad terms and
qualify them as a ‘threat’, because by defining threats using broad trends, we stigmatize a
whole group as if it were a threat to our peace and security.

From that fact, negative consequences arise, like for instance, religion as a threat to peace and security
-> Religions are the structural essence/part of human beings, to say that religion is a cause of violence
is to say that human beings are the cause of violence. Same as when we refer to a particular religion as
a threat, from a scientific point of view that is simply not true, but also because of the stigma placed
upon millions of people as a threat to us.

Same happens with the word ‘migration’ or ‘migrants’ -> Human beings have a long history of
traveling around the world, to risk everything to find better. But from the stigma created upon
migration as a threat, it ultimately ends up lying upon all the people belonging to that group. The most
accurate terms that reflect a threat would be “radicalists (inside a particular religion)” and “irregular
migration”

When governments refer, within their national security reports, to threats to their security they used to
focus exclusively on external threats (coming from abroad), while they hardly ever refer to internal
threats. The idea that threats are always external to our own society is wrong from a social science
perspective because there are external, internal and global threats that exist within society as a whole
(e.x., Viruses do not have a passport, climate change affects all areas in the world). But by focusing on
external threats only, we deny the existence of any of the other types, and thus, we are not going to
adopt policies to try to face those internal/global threats properly.

We live in a kind of nirvana while stigmatizing everything that comes from abroad when we focus
only on external threats. For example, in the US thousands of people are killed due to guns, etc., but
still the country focuses on security on its borders alone. If you put the blame on others, the negative
attention on others, you (as a politician or government), win a lot of things;
- You drive the attention to others, not yourself
- You establish that the evil came from abroad and you are the good

GEOECONOMICS: Important rare earth

materials and places that are sensitive in trade
routes (Importance of Panama and Gibraltar’s
straits). It explains decisions taken by countries
with regards of trade and territories

RARE EARTH MATERIALS

Another important cause of violence is conquests of territories, it was historically common and since
not long ago to now, we can say it is back. Ukraine´s invasion, Palestine situation with Israel, etc.
Ideological conflicts on the other hand, like the Cold War

WEEK 4 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 4

TERRORISM AS A THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY

We have no definition of terrorism in international law, and that brings many problems in itself. So
let’s talk about the technical concept of terrorism and international arena/law to explain why there
hasn’t been a consensus on what terrorism is.

- Film in class Relatos Salvajes: Follows the travel of many people related to a guy called
“Pasternak”, with whom they have had their wrongdoings, leading to the hijacking of the
plane in which they had been traveling by Pasternak. The film ends up with him crashing
the plane on his parents house with everyone who did him wrong dying.
- Film in class – : Follows the day of a man in which he has had no luck at all. He blames the
corrupt system/society while also exuding violent behaviors himself (frustration or his
natural behavior?). Violence in this film is talked about very generally and loosely in the
sense that it is everywhere. The film ends up with a bomb car scene (placed by the man)
towards the office where the man had his first bad encounter and he ends up perceived as a
hero by the same society/system that mistreated him

So which film depicts terrorism? Both? None? The second film had intentions of having an impact
on societal norms and institutions while the first film resembles more an act of vengeance.

However, both and none can be classified as a terrorist act depending on your perception of the
word “terrorism”

Terrorism –on a general approach–, is loaded with lots of different means. The word terrorism can
refer to one of our contemporary absolutes; Every society at any given time period has its own
absolutes, and there are positive ones and negative ones. In our Western contemporary society,
positive absolutes are HHRR, democracy, justice, freedom, etc., while the negative absolutes are
terrorism, … . These absolutes seem to cover everything but in fact, they say nothing. The
Scandinavian philosopher Ross stated “When you are with a colleague, friend, family…, and you are
discussing a topic, when someone uses the word justice it comes across as definitive or with a
powerful tone that works as an ultimate justification for something”. –When someone tries to use one
of these definitive words, they often don’t take into account the real definition of the word, because
they are using their own personal definition or perception of the word they use–. As for justice, there
are infinite understandings of what it means.

Absolutes are useful, especially for governments, to settle explanations and evade further questions on
the matter. As the word is intended to explain everything but ultimately explains nothing. It saves our
governments the in-depth explanation of what is really going on through the assumption that it is
crystal clear by the use of a definitive word. Kant taught us that everything should be submitted to
critical analysis, and that includes absolutes.

At least, from a political or media point of view, we can witness an inflation of some sort of the usage
of the word terrorism; Hence why we find gender terrorism being spoken about. But when referring to
any term from a legal perspective we have to handle words in their own meaning → What can we
label as terrorism? The act must have:
- Objective element: The use of violence
- Subjective elements: Will (actors willingly commit that act of violence), mens rea (what is
inside the mind of the author of the act) –Here lies the key to distinguish terrorism from other
illegally expressed acts–

Not every violent crime willingly committed is a terrorist act. The answer lies in mens rea, but there
are two different levels of it:
1. Immediate → The actor desires to commit a violent act (could be a homicide, a terrorist act,
etc)
2. Mediate → To reach a political aim or terrorize society for political ends through violence
(intrinsicate to terrorism)

What distinguishes terrorism is its subjective (psychological) element, what was the motivation? to
generate terror by installing extreme fear in the population to reach a political objective? →
Terrorism. If the aim is different then, yes it is a crime, but not terrorism.

WEEK 5 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 5

TERRORISM AS A THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY

What does "political” mean when talking about “political motivation”? We find two different
approaches:
1. Strict narrow definition: Could mean the attack against the constitution of a country, its
political system, values, territorial integrity, etc. So any violent attack against those main
basic features of the political constitution of a country form this narrow straight approach of
 political → Meaning that a violent use of force against any of the integral parts of this
political would mean a terrorist attack
2. Broader approach to the word: Political could mean to try to put pressure on a government/IO
to do something or to abstain from doing something. This means that any violent act that is
committed in order to pressure a government/IO regardless of the level (regional, local, etc)
would be labelled as a terrorist attack

Hence groups such as ETA that use violence to gain independence from a territorial part of the
country amount to political motivation (on a narrower term) because they go against the constitutional
principles of the country. Same goes for extremists (radical left and right) use of violence as they do
not follow the very basis of the political values of the constitution of a country.

Going back to the second film we watched in class, does it go against the very basics of the
constitution-political system-territorial integrity of the Argentinian government?; It depends on the
approach we give to the word political. If we use the narrower one then, the answer would be no, but
if we use the broader one then it is a clear yes. What about an ecologist radical group? One that uses
extreme violence (hijacking a ship), would it be labelled as a terrorist attack or not?; Again, it depends
(narrower→no, broader→yes).

Many violent acts would fall as terrorist attacks under the broader approach of political, the question
lies on whether it is considered to be terrorist or not based on the narrower approach, as then it would
be harder to filter violent attacks as terrorist ones because the criteria is more difficult to justify. Every
country typifies (defines) terrorism within its particular criminal code, it will depend on the internal
legal system of the country (narrow approach of the concept of political motivation while others use a
much broader one). Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on terrorism in international law yet
so we cannot see a global international treaty on that topic.

The Report on the Ad Hoc Committee established by UNGA resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996
with its Sixth session taking place from January 28-February 1 of 2002 is a very important document
on terrorism but they did not reach an agreement, they tried to just negotiate at least to deal a
consensus on the topic. The most important article is:
- Article 2 defining terrorism as “Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this
convention if that, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes; Death or serious
bodily injury to any person or serious damage to public or private property… or damage to
property, places, facilities or system referred to in paragraph 1.b resulting or likely to result in
major economic loss. When the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to
intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an IO to do or to abstain from doing
any act” → Here the use of political is very broad.

We don’t have an international definition mainly because countries have different views and
perspectives on the matter of terrorism, especially when it comes to the legitimization of violence in
cases of rebels/freedom fighters. So, what do we call those French and Spaniards republicans that
used violence during WWII against the German occupation of france? → La Résistance. But what did
the Germans call them? → Terrorists. Same goes for Western media and libyans/syrians, at the
beginning they called all of them Rebels, but then they started to distinguish between rebels and
terrorists (ISIS), then all of them ended up being called terrorists. Again, same goes for LATAM
guerrillas/rebels. All of these examples had non-governmental officials fighting against the
government of a country.
Rebels have a positive connotation, whereas terrorists have a negative one. Hence labelling is key in
those cases, as it includes an illegal and thus, illegitimate use of violence but with different societal
impacts. “Only country agents are the only ones enabled with legitimate use of violence” → Not true
these other non-state agents, depending on the labelling, entail a legitimate use of violence →
Psychopolitics and the importance of the use of language.

Article 1.2 of the UN Charter includes the right of all peoples to self determination, but peoples is not
clarified. Then resolutions 1514 –colonial peoples– and 1541 –defines what colonial peoples is– (XV)
are called the Carta Magna of decolonization, as they establish that there should be a geographical
separation between the colonial-colonized territories. And that there has to be a difference in culture
between them too. But according to the Geneva Convention 1949, we have another type of peoples →
Occupied peoples; the people of a territory that has been occupied by another country, with the criteria
that the territory must have been a sovereign state prior to the occupation. Moreover, the ICCPR and
ICESCR said the same as the UN Charter, meaning all peoples.

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation
among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (XXV) is very important because
it was adopted by unanimity and it explained that “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self
determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the UN, all peoples have the right to freely
determine without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and
cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter”. Meaning that people that enjoy the right to self determination enjoy the
right to choose what they want to be (part of a centralized state, liberalize, etc).

The Declaration also states that “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as
authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the
territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in
compliance with the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples as described above and
thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without
distinction as to race, creed or colour”. Meaning that if a government of a complex country (inside
that country there are different peoples) doesn’t accept the rights of the minorities living inside that
country then those minorities become oppressed peoples → Enjoying the right of self determination

It all comes down to the question: What does the peoples mean?. Here lies the problem of defining
subjects entitled to rights. What is true in terms of international law is that peoples enjoy the right to
self determination. And that there are 3 types of peoples: Colonial, occupied and oppressed (“ad
intra” → when tyranny rules a country and all citizens are under oppression or “ad extra” →
Oppression of a minority within a territory/country).

In these cases, what can a people that enjoys the right to self determination under IL legally do? → A
group of countries answered that they can do whatever they want except using violence, other (more)
countries answered that they can do whatever they want including violence towards the country that is
not allowing them to exercise their right to self determination.

MAGISTRAL ASSIGNMENT: The Journey (British film)

 Northern Ireland division: one catholic, identifies with the color green, the other protestant,
monarchics with color orange

NOTES FROM THE FILM:

“Young men fight for the sake of it, us old folks fight for our legacy”

1. What is the relevance of the psychological element, the leader personality, on a negotiation
decision procedure?
2. Is it acceptable to enter into peace talks/negotiations with terrorists? Explain your pov from
these different perspectives:
- Legally speaking
- Morally/Ethically speaking
- Politically speaking (effectiveness)
3. Role played by victims of terrorism in the negotiating process with terrorists
4. When do we call a group using violence “resistance”/”rebels” or “terrorists”?

WEEK 6 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 6

We are witnessing interesting changes in the world nowadays, someone said that it is much better to
live in “boring times” (because during interesting times, there is less security). Taking a look at the
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 with its Sixth
session taking place from January 28-February 1 of 2002. we see that nothing is written on Article 18,
why?, because of the distinctions in these paragraphs;

- Text circulated by the Coordinator for discussion (Western countries backup this one): The
activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under
international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this
Convention → Meaning that –regular governmental– armed forces cannot commit acts of
terrorism (they commit war crimes) and what applies to them is IHL
- Text proposed by the member states of the organization of the Islamic Conference: The
activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation,
as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by
that law, are not governed by this convention → Meaning that even armed forces can commit
terrorism, and behind the foreign occupation line, what countries are thinking about is
Palestine (peoples that enjoy the right of self-determination)

Western countries are not coherent in their responses, as sometimes they do not call terrorists to
non-regular armed forces; As in the cases of Syria or Libya. Which brings several consequences;
- As there is no definition on IL, defining terrorism is a decentralized matter (Countries define
it as they want to, some are more restricted on their approaches and other expand it in their
own criminal internal law) → Examples: Turkey with PKK or Egypt

The hidden danger of this lies in the use of terrorism as a political tool to prosecute opposition
(political parties)
 - Powerful countries make their own lists of terrorists and some label as terrorist groups those
that might be labeled as rebels/freedom fighters by others. In some cases the UNSC labels
some groups as terrorists (ISIS, AlQaeda, etc), but the problem begins when there is no
agreement and so the UNSC loses its power.

If law does not provide us with an answer for terrorism, the question on who is right remains
unanswered under international law, so principles of legality or rule of law are not useful/applicable to
us → But what always remains applicable is the principle of political opportunity; Depending on my
political interests as a sovereign country I will call you, a group that is using violence in country X
and when my interest lies in backing the government of country X, then I will label terrorists those
that use violence against that government or I will label terrorists those in government on the
opposite case. → Example: Nelson Mandela was seen to be the first president of humanity, he used
violence against the apartheid government in South Africa and was included in the UN list of
international terrorists (kept there for many years). US President Bush Jr was the person who erased
him from that list.

If law does not provide us with an answer for labelling terrorism, the matter does not fall on legal
terms but on political opportunity

In the UN declaration of HR, the preamble states “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be
compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the rule of law” → Meaning that it recognizes rebellion against the
tyrant . In Spain’s case, the people obeyed the tyrant (Franco) and only got rid of him when he died
due to his age. In the US case, the second amendment of its constitution expresses a significant
uprising against the tyrant, similarly the French national anthem expresses the same.

Sometimes terrorists are easy to spot because they do not represent the will of “the peoples that
enjoy the right to self determination”

➢ ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT:
We have all grown up receiving inputs on this conflict, allowing us to take a stance on one side or the
other. We’re going to try and explain how Palestinian land went from fully green to almost fully
white.
PALESTINE’S DEMOGRAPHY

Year (important to know) Jews Non-jews (palestinians)

1800 6700 268000

1880 24000 525000

1915 87500 590000

1931 174000 837000

1947 630000 1310000

In the table, Palestinians are not acknowledged by zionists as they are being called “non-jews”.
Because their focus is to erase the existence of the palestinian people. Notice that since the beginning
of the 19th c., the growth of Palestinians is a natural demographic growth, while the 4 times growth
(1800-1880) in the number of jews in Palestine is affected by external causes.

Zionism was created at the end of the 19th c., at that time, Theodor Herzi defended that the only
possible future for the Jewish population was to create a Jewish sovereign state. This idea gained
momentum and started gaining support by the jews that were suffering. This political ideology was
adopted by many jews in Eastern and Central Europe.

At the end of WWII, the survivors of the Holocaust finally went to live in Palestine alongside their
comrades that had previously moved there already. One of the main motos of zionism was “A land
without people for people without land”, let’s break this down:
1) “A land without a people” → Huge lie because Palestinian people were already living there,
just not being recognized by the jews as a population.
 2) “For a people without land” → Zionism is not synonymous to jew people, it is a mere
political ideology created at the end of the 19th c., while jew people exist since millenniums
ago and not all of them are zionists (Nowadays a large group of them actively reject zionism
as a political ideology).

There are at least two very important groups of jews that do not share zionism: (1) the elites and
figures like Hanna Arendt and (2) orthodox groups that oppose Zionism due to religious reasons and
defend that jews should always live in the diaspora. One of the main propaganda used by the Israeli
government since the very beginning (and backed by many Western governments) is that they treat
Israel and Jew people as synonymous → Any criticism launched at Israel as a country and its
government decision is labelled as anti-semitic. However it should be separated as just a criticism
towards a government and we are entitled as human beings to freely criticize any government
(freedom of speech) without being labelled as anti-semitic.

The second point that stems from the table is that what happens in Palestine is a classic example of
colonization. There are two main colonial systems:
1) Colonies of administration: Are those where the European colonial power send troops or civil
servants to administer the territory and take control of the land (raw materials and other
economic interests) → Derives from an economic interest in the colonized land like LATAM,
India or SSA countries that were colonized by UK, France and Spain
2) Colonization of settlement: In this case, huge numbers of Europeans are moved (willingly or
not) to another territory that was previously colonized. In all cases Europeans committed a
genocide over the native people. Examples like Portugal in Brazil or the US in Canada,
Australia and NZ.

The case of Palestine resembles that of a settlement colony, where thousands of European jews moved
there but without exterminating the native people (Palestinians), until now. Yet, instead of committing
ethnic cleansing they jailed Palestinians in the biggest open-jail in the world (WB) in Gaza. But since
October 2023 the horrendous acts committed in Gaza signal a development towards a genocidal-like
colonization.

The Ottoman Empire controlled the Middle East

and were promised to be awarded after the end of
WWI by the British → They would allow the
Arabs to build its own independent state in the
Middle East, agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement
1916.

The problem was that just a year later –1917–, the

Balfour Declaration was adopted by the British
authorities to grant the jewish community an
independent state in the territories of Palestine, but
notice that the letter says Non-jews communities
instead of Palestinians. This was the beginning of
the conflict of Palestine-Israel.
The British did not honor their promises to the Arabs but to the Zionists instead, allowing them to
move to Palestine. Then, the Partition Plan of 1947 was adopted –after violent clashes had taken place
between these two communities and radical zionists had emerged–. This was important because Israel
as a sovereign state was the outcome of a terrorist process coming from those radical zionist jews.

Due to the clashes, the UK decided to leave the problem solely to the UN. They had two possible
solutions in the table:
1. To create a sovereign state called Palestine where jews and palestinians lived together; or
2. Divide that tiny territory into two (two-state partition) between the palestinians and jews →
The Partition Plan 1947

The partition had the following rules: (1) More or less divide it in half, (2)
one of the two communities would have no territorial continuity (jews)
and the other one would (palestinians), and (3) give the zionist jews
special settlements (black dots) –But Jerusalem was declared an
international city belonging to the international community, because it
was the capital city of the three main religions–

However, regardless of our beliefs on any of the three main religions,

inside of Jerusalem “God” remains “Allah”, as the word refers to “God”
in general, not a specific one (an Arab God). But this reinforces a
difference between an us (Western God-Dios) and a them (Arab Allah).

Jerusalem is the most sacred place for the three main religions, and behind
the Muro de las Lamentaciones lies an important place for Muslims.
Since, up to now Jerusalem’s territory has been an important topic of
conflict over who’s in control of it, the spiritual wave of it is so big that
the UN had to put it up to international administration. [Book
recommendation: The Crusades Through Arab Eyes – Amin Maalouf]

Israel-Palestinian wars timeline:

(1) 1948 – Nakba independence war → Almost 1 million Palestinians were expelled from their
homes and their infrastructure was shattered by orders of the Israeli government. First attempt
at ethnic cleansing and first wave of Palestinian refugees to Gaza, West Bank Syria and
Lebanon living in camps
(2) 1957 – Sinaí crisis → Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal, so the British
government (with Israel) decided to conquer the Sinaí Peninsula. This led the US and USSR
to establish their first ‘peace-keeping operation’ (UNEF I) that brought stability and peace to
the region; until
(3) 1967 – 6 days war → Nasser removed its consent for the UNEF I force to be deployed in
Egyptian territory, and because peace-keeping operations need consent, the UN removed its
troops from the Sinaí Peninsula and it was taken by Israel in a “preventive self-defense”
manner to keep Egypt and Syria outside of the peninsula and the Golan Heights.
(4) 1973 – Yom Kippur war → The Egyptians launched a surprise attack to regain their lands
which were celebrating Yom Kippur. Israel was almost defeated even with backup from the
US. But they helped them to launch an attack on Syria and then in the Sinaí peninsula. Israel
won the war due to US influence.
After these 4 wars, the Arabs realized that
they were not able to defeat Israel with
conventional arms. Also, since 1975 Israel
has had nuclear power, changing the balance
of power in the Middle East, so no more
conventional wars were fought between
Arabs and Israelis. Palestinians needed to
fight on their own with the PLO as lead.

WEEK 7 LECTURE AND

SEMINAR 7
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Article 2 of UN Charter
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the
present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in
accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state
against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in
accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the
Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle
shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
The General Approach:

A dispute according to IL, if we go to the Permanent Court of Justice and Mavromatis case, is defined
as a disagreement in a question of law or fact, a conflict of legal view or interests between two
persons → If those persons are subjects of IL then it becomes an international dispute. According to
art. 2.3 of the UN Charter, all disputes shall be resolved using peaceful means. But what is the content
of obligation that this article contains? What are countries obliged to under this article? Countries are
obliged only to use peaceful means to try to resolve the dispute –They can try or not, but if they do
they can only use peaceful means–, if it fails then it can escalate and that would still be lawful.

Article 33.1 of the UN Charter states “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”. Seek→Obligation of
procedure. Or other means of their own choice→Two important points; Proclaims the freedom of
choice of means, provided that the means are peaceful. Countries are sovereign so they can choose
when it complies with the peaceful settlement of disputes. And peaceful means→Negotiation, inquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements. But it is an open list (the use of the word of other peaceful means). We should
distinguish between two types of peaceful means; The similarity is that both of them can be used:

- Political or diplomatic: Not give a compulsory answer to the dispute but a recommendation,
countries are free to choose to comply or not
- Jurisdictional peaceful means: The result of the use of these should be applied by the parties
involved in the dispute as it is compulsory

The role that the third party plays is key, as according to it we can distinguish between the other
peaceful means. Third party cannot be imposed by the parties in the dispute, it has to be agreed by
them

Negotiations : Not open to a third party. Most used peaceful means to try to settle disputes between
countries, consisting of direct open diplomatic negotiations. Preferred by superpowers because they
have more bargaining power.

Good Offices : Involves a third party (can be an NGO, another country, or even an individual, etc.).
In Good Offices, they act as a good host → Norway welcomes parties in the dispute to its territory to
solve the dispute. It cannot intervene by neither getting into the dispute nor offering a possible
solution.

Mediation : The third party gets to study, analyze and listen to the issue and offer a possible
solution, as it is a mediator. But this recommendation is not compulsory to any of the parties in the
conflict, they can accept or reject it at their will. If both or one of them rejects the offer then mediation
fails. But if both of them accept it, the solution will be the content of a bilateral treaty and therefore
compulsory as a treaty.

Inquiry : The third party is an expert or group of experts. Sometimes disputes are technical, like one
over territorial borders, so a good way to solve this type of dispute is by a group of experts that carry
on a study (fact-check) containing clarifications, applicable principles and a solution. The report is not
compulsory, only if both parties agree then a treaty is established
Conciliation: Institutionalized mediation; normally takes place within an IO and works more or less
the same as an inquiry. The conciliation process itself has previously been agreed by the parties.

Arbitration: Everything should be agreed between the parties before the arbitration members address
the dispute. They should agree on arbitrators or members of the arbitration court (usually between 3 or
5; Each party chooses 2 and those 4 chosen get to pick their president who has the final vote). They
also choose the rules of the procedure and whether they want that dispute to be solved according to IL
or the principle of Equity. Also they choose the questions that the arbitrators will answer. After the
process an arbitration award is given and that is binding to the parties. There are three different review
cases:

1. Clarification review → both ask to clarify on a paragraph, sentence or word that is not clear
2. Request of revision → If a substantive mistake or a new fact that is important for the
resolution of the dispute appears (to change the direction of the arbitration award)
3. Allegations of nullity → Fact-based reasons to think that a member of the arbitral tribunal has
not been impartial, bought by the other country or coerced. → This creates a new dispute that
should be solved by the ICJ

Judicial Settlement: Everything has been previously established (The judges, members of the tribunal,
procedure, applicable laws). Has a binding compulsory solution called judgement by an international
court like the ICJ.

WEEK 8 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 8

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY

There are several international courts from which we should distinguish the main ones:

Global perspective/Universal nature:

- ICJ-International Court of Justice: Jurisdiction over states that have ratified its treaty and
enjoy general competences for the cases prosecuted there. 15 judges that are independent
individuals that are chosen for their expertise. The ICJ is a judicial organ of the UN. There are
two different procedures:
1. Contentious procedure: Only sovereign countries ius standi before the court, if both
recognize the competences of the court (have ratified the UN Charter and explicitly
made an unilateral document recognizing its competences), then the court decides if it
has competences over the matter of the case presented
The judgement is compulsory and should be applied by the parties

2. Advisory procedure: Only some IOs (UN and other specialized agencies) are able to
enjoy ius standi and ask for a clarification, this procedure cannot be applied by states.
Once an advisory opinion has been asked for, then those states that wish to have a say
on the matter can explain their position in the court.
The procedure ends with a non-compulsory opinion

- ICC-International Criminal Court: Jurisdiction over only individuals to establish criminal

responsibility on those individuals that have committed Crimes Against Humanity, War
Crimes… Ius Standi
 - ITLS-International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas: Jurisdiction over states, has a limited
scope because it can only prosecute cases related to the law of the seas

Regional nature (jurisdiction related to HHRR):

- European Court of Human Rights: Created under the Council of Europe and its competence
lies on HHRR alone
- Inter-American Court of Human Rights:
- European Union Court of Justice: Institution of the EU entitled to apply EU law

From a subjective perspective, the ECHR and the IACHR judge sovereign states and decide whether a
country has broken any article of their convention of HHRR.

We understand law from two perspectives: The common law is bottom-up and continental/civil law is
top-down on the application of the law from case to case. Continental/civil law is winning momentum
in the global legal landscape.
When talking about the International Law of Conflicts, we need to distinguish between:
- Ius ad Bellum – “The right to use violence to make war against another”
- Ius in Bello (IHL) – “The laws applicable in times of war”

THEORETICAL APPROACHES:

“Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass” portrays a scene in which she is observing the
Queen of hearts and trying to understand the reasoning behind her “Off with his head” rulings.
Humpty says “She’s the Queen”, reinforcing her power.

Always behind every norm there is power. Two approaches

1. Power above law (authoritarian system of law; e.g., Queen of hearts)
2. Power and law at the same level → “Justice might. –It is right that what is just should be
obeyed; it is necessary that what is strongest should be obeyed. Justice without might is
helpless; might without justice is tyrannical. Justice without might is gainsaid, because there
are always offenders; might without justice is condemned. We must then combine justice and
might, and for this end make what is just strong, or what is strong just.” (Blaise Pascal,
Pensées).
Pascal is not naive so he states “Justice is subjected to dispute; might is easily recognized and is not
disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gained said justice, and has declared
that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made
what is strong just”

3. Law above power → Kant says “The rights of men must be held sacred, however much
sacrifice it may cost the ruling power. One cannot compromise here and seek the middle
course … law between the morally right and the expedient. All politics must bend its knee
before the right. But by this it can hope slowly to reach the stage where it will shine with an
immortal glory” → What rules in reality is law which is applicable to all subjects (rule of law
system)

Power, regardless of its position, is always there. Law is the same for everybody, but it bends
differently for each one of us. → Power is behind every norm . How is violence ruled by law then?
 - 18th c.(Enlightenment) philosophers approach: The state of nature
All actors that live in that state of nature (society) are absolutely free to live in the way that they want
(absolute freedom of action) and follow no law → Montesquieu argues that it is a false freedom
because the only real freedom is the one that law gives to us; to live in a state of nature is thus to live
under false freedom, because just a few are really free to behave how they want (the most powerful).

- Contractualist approach: Social contract

The exit door is the social contract, all members of that state of nature should sign one. In the context
of violence, the social contract should have these two elements: (1) a norm that prohibits the use of
violence to all actors, and (2) all members choose an authority that monopolizes the legal (and
legitimate) use of violence in that society. → Because there are always offenders (Pascal, Pensées),
and thus, there’s a need for an authority to restore peace and security.

Hence we should distinguish between natural law and the law created by men

-Ius Naturalism
There is a group of law that never changes, and is eternal. First there was a teleological ius naturalism;
The laws given by God were the natural law (and thus, the Church concentrated its power in the Pope)
and it prevails over the temporary law of men. Two main distinctions:
a. Bellum iustum: Just wars, in accordance to the law of God
b. Bellum iniustum: Unjust wars, wars that were against the law of God
In the end, the royals managed to get that power back from the Pope

- The Renaissance
Instead of teleological ius naturalism, we started talking about rational naturalism; Although there is
an eternal group of laws called natural law, what differentiates it is that rationalists believe that those
norms can be known by the use of our reason(ing) → We do not need the church anymore because we
are capable of knowing which norms are part of Natural law
a. Hugo Grotius: First rational naturalist, wrote a book called De jure belli ac pacis in which he
tried to find out whether there were norms to the use of violence, repetitive behaviors in
history… He reached the conclusion that there were no single norm that put a limit to the use
of violence/armed form in the classic international society → Sovereign countries live in a
state of nature, any reason was acceptable to go to war/use violence
b. Vattel: Another rational naturalist, studied the behavior of countries in war to know whether
there were rules that they followed; He found that all countries behave the same way when
before they engaged in war, they previously declared it –their intentions of going to war–. →
He believed that there was a norm that obliged them to previously send a formal declaration
of war before engaging in it.

During the second half of the 19th c., there were many secret treaties between European countries that
ultimately led to mistrust → WWI because as of the state of nature, IL states that countries in that
epoque behaved in an anarchical state. Self-protection → based on rearmament and alliances (between
European countries). President Wilson (USA), at the end of the war, tried to build a plan for the future
after the war. This plan was systematized in 14 points; one of these points referred to the creation of
an IO with competences in peace and security and the establishment of the first international common
security system. → this led to the establishment of the The League of Nations Covenant (1919;
published as an annex of the Treaty of Versailles). Drago and Porter (1907) → Argentina and USA.
● Two countries agreed on one substantive limit to the use of armed force
● They established that they couldn’t use armed force to try to earn public debts from the other
country.
● (Before this time, even public debts were considered a legal reason to wage war against another
country). There were mistakes that can learnt from The League of Nations Covenant:
1. The League of Nations was open to all countries in the world; however, neither the USA nor
Russia were members. In other words, the two superpowers after WWI were not members.
(The USA wasn’t a member because President Wilson was a democrat and was in favor of the
LoN, but the Congress, which was republican, thought that it imposed too many limits to the
USA sovereignty and decided not to ratify it).
2. When there was a conflict there was a mandatory period of 3 months of peaceful settlement.
After the first 3 months of a conflict, countries were allowed to use even violence to solve
disputes. The Authority that monopolizes the legitimate use of power was the Council of the
League of Nations (of which all members were a part of), which decided based on unanimity
(all countries needed to be in favor or against), because of this, the Council of the League of
Nations was useless.

Article 2 of the UN Charter is the small constitution of the International Community:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in
accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state
against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act
in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require
the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this
principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

2.4 has problems of interpretation as it contains many words (which are more susceptible to being
interpreted at the interest of the person in need), which gives rise to two different interpretations:
1. The prohibitions from the use of force only applies to international conflicts but not to
internal ones (because of the non-interference in the sovereign territory of a state).
2. The use of the word “force” is not accompanied by “armed”, which means that it could be
interpreted as any type of force (economic, political, etc) → But it has been established that
although it does not specify it, “force” means armed force alone. Moreover, the word “threat”
should also be specified, we should say that the meaning of the word threat is a very narrow
meaning → As understood by countries, it means only a real factual threat (movements of
military troops) that leads to the use of armed force
3. For the provision of the article, it could be interpreted as applicable only in the cases of
“territorial integrity, political independence…or any other manner inconsistent with the UN
purposes”. Or it could be interpreted in a general sense → Selon le propos qu’on met, IHL
serait appliquée

By using the specific interpretation, IHL does not go against 2.4 but is in line with 1.3 → This
doctrine was applied later in 1999 in the Kosovo war by NATO, as it was neither self defense nor
authorized by the UNSC, but an action in favor of the protection of Kosovo’s minority and in line
with 1.3 and 2.4

Exceptions to the Articles 2.4: Self Defense, UNSC authorization (Ch, VII)... and Humanitarian
Intervention

Interpretation rules:
➔ The Authoritative approach: What the writers if the articles had in mind when they wrote the
article → Original intentions. Those that wrote and adapted art 2.4 had in mind that by adding
the expressions following “from the threat or use of force…” that there was no reason
whatsoever for the use of armed force in general. Moreover, in the preamble of the UN
Charter “the common interests” mean application in a general approach
➔ For the UNSC to monopolize the use of armed force, the prohibition should be general. To
build an authority that has the last word on the use of armed force then no other actions or
threat of armed force by any other actor should be allowed.
➔ The Legal Security approach: If we understand 2.4 in a general interpretation then there is
nothing else to interpret. However, if we use the specific interpretation then it leads us to
question when the use of armed force would be falling in line with (against) “territorial
integrity, political independence…”

Paragraph 2.3 would have no meaning if we use a specific approach to art 2.4 → Only if there is a
general prohibition then there is a general obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means
For countries, HHRR and IHL are never reasons for actions but alibis for action → Countries have
real interests behind those actions, and they are never purely HHRR and IHL

Venezuelan Aid Crisis In-Class Video

Lessons learned:
- How a lie can become a truth to everyone in spite of evidences proving the contrary
- Humanitarian Intervention should not be an alibi for the use of armed force

WEEK 9 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 9

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

- Conflict prevention: measures used to develop in order to prevent a conflict from happening
- Peace keeping:
- Peace enforcement:
- Peace Building
Prevention and peace building share the same aim as both of
them try to prevent a conflict from happening while building
peace after a conflict. They share aims and instruments:
→ No previous conflict: Conflict prevention
→ With previous conflict: Peace building

However, if we have a look at the practices applied on different

situations and conflict, we notice that it is fairly easy to enforce
peace, but we have no idea how to prevent conflict or build
peace. For example: Irak, Afghanistan, Bosnia…

When we talk about conflict, we understand peace in its

narrowest concept (absence of violence alone), for that we only need basic requirements:
- Political will
- Having more power than the enemy (armed force)
But when we talk about positive peace, then it is much harder to reach peace keeping.

UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

Peacekeeping operations are atypical, meaning that they had not been foreseen in the UN Charter. The
San Francisco’s conference did not have this in mind and the original system did not work (as for the
fulfillment of art 45). Former Secretary-General of the UN Hammarskjöld invented the system for
peacekeeping operations in the UN

Article 2.7 of the UN Charter proclaims the principle of non intervention within the internal
jurisdiction of states. This norm is the most important norm of the charter, because it tells us what the
UN is and what it is not. The general principle is that the UN has no right to intervene; The UN is an
intergovernmental organization for cooperation of sovereign states, and is not a supranational
authority with jurisdiction over sovereign states. Yet, at the very end of art 2.7 there is an exception of
this principle, in which the UN places itself above states; “Action with Respect to Threats to the
Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Chapter VII)”. In these cases, technically, it
would not be an intervention but a consensual act as the states agreed to give up part of their
sovereignty for the UN to deploy these operations. → It is also consensual for the military units that
cooperate with the UN

Sometimes, when a country is facing a civil war, what is at stake is who is going to give consent in the
name of the country for the UN to deploy these operations (Civil War → Attempt to change
government). Important principles that form the legal regime of the peacekeeping operations:

1. Principle of Consent
2. Principle of Impartiality
3. Use of armed force only in self-defense

When a country faces a civil war, the consent is not clear as there is a question on who the
government is (going to be). Hence in these cases there is no written rule but different principles:
- Principle of internal legality/Democratic principle (lege ferenda): Egypt El-Sisi coup d’état
- Principle of effectiveness: The one in control of most of the territory and population
- Principle of international legality: Hardly applicable as it is the UNSC

In Spain, there were two governments at the time of Franco vs Republicans, so the principle of
effectiveness was applied in which the representative government was Franco’s regime. ONUSOM II
was the first peacekeeping operation in which there was no consent as there was no government.

The UN Peacekeeping Operations need to be consent and impartial, hence they are based on the
principle of impartiality to maintain the consent among the parties involved. Hence, in traditional
peacekeeping operations, the use of armed force was only possible in self-defense. Impartiality
traditionally meant that consent was given to use of force only in cases of self defense

The evolution of peacekeeping operations:

1) 1st Generation (1956-1988): Starting with these two military operations deployed UNTSO &
UNMOGIP (Blue Berets), later also UNEF I, ONUE (1960-1964) and lastly UNFICYP
(1964-nowadays)

They all had in common two things: (1) they all applied the principles above mentioned and (2) they
were traditional peacekeeping operations (formed mainly by military units alone)

2) 2nd Generation (1988-1992): UNTAG, UNTAC (MINUGUA, ONUSAC…). First

peacekeeping operations in which HR were included as mandates. Just after the Cold War, in
which the UN established more peacekeeping operations than in the previous years because
most of the conflicts were connected to the Cold War (Exceptions: Islas Malvinas conflict).

This is the period in which the budget of the UN got unbalanced because peacekeeping operations are
paid with the UN budget (because they are subsidiary organs). This generation had in common with
the first one that both respected the principles that form the legal regime of peacekeeping operations,
and the difference between them is that they were complex (military, civilian, police) peacekeeping
operations in terms of the functions they are meant to develop.
 3) 3rd Generation: UNPROFOR, UNAMIR, ONUSOM II. These were absolute failures in terms
of applying their mandates, due to the “Mission Creep”; Gradual or incremental expansion of
the intervention, project or mission, beyond its original scope, focus or goal that goes against
impartiality.

4) 4th Generation (2000-...): After 5 years without peacekeeping operations, it was decided that
they should be applied in line with Chapter VII to prevent “Mission Creep” from happening.

WEEK 10 LECTURE AND SEMINAR 10

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: THE UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
Let’s try to be Kantian, what it meant to him to be a citizen of the enlightenment was “the bold to
know”. Also, to forget who is on the good or bad way to think on a more self critical way.

Ukraine, in the slavic languages means “border” and that is what that country is and has always been,
as it is placed in the borderline of 2 or 3 historic and present empires (Moscow – Russia and the
Western Empires). Hence, this country has two souls, it has never been homogenic; One part of its
population look to the East (ethnically Russian, speak Russian, etc) and the other half look to the West
(The Germanic civilization).

Due to this, almost half of the country is dominated by Russian quarters, and they are concentrated in
the East-South part of the country, whereas Ukrainian nationalism is strong in the West-North part.

When the Euromaidan arrived, the Ukrainian nationalists took power abruptly. The democratically
elected pro-Russian president resigned, and new elections were held.

Since then, there have been no pro-Russian candidates in presidential elections, so the participation of
Russian speakers in these elections has been decreasing.

This is what the country was before, a non homogeneous country splitted in two. It is indeed a
sovereign country, but with its specialities.

The Kievan Rus' is one of the origins of Ukrainian nationalism

Geographical position is an important factor that the Ukrainian Government should have taken into
account, also its two souls. When the Euromaidan happened, the Ukrainian nationalists made a wrong
choice in…

There was another possible choice which was more sound in geostrategic terms and above all, taking
into account the feelings of its own population. The other possible route they could have taken was to
recognize what they are and where they are. They are a mixture of two different feelings and they are
in the middle of two different powerful civilizations; If you choose one of them, the other one will
react.

From an internal perspective, what happened during the Euromaidan and its outcomes were really
awful for Ukraine. Any Ukrainian government should have recognized where the country is in
geographical terms and take advantage of it. But instead of doing that, the Euromaidan government
chose to become part of one of the two empires, and that torn apart Ukrainian people and provoked
the reaction of the other empire

From a geostrategic perspective, Russian violation of article 2.4 when it started its invasion of
Ukraine

Realism should not be dismissed because it takes into account power alone (from a broad
perspective). We should take it into account because it allows us to see what is really at the stake in
this conflict.
Russia: The formation of the USSR

After WWII, new blocs were formed (the capitalist bloc with NATO and the communist bloc with the
Warsaw Pact). Then, NATO started its expansion. Kesinger states that it would be a huge mistake for
the West to let NATO expand to the East, and mostly with former soviet republics

Russia could not stop nor prevent NATO’s expansion due to its weakness at the time

NATO invited Georgia and Ukraine to join in 2008 → President Donald Trump said that Ukraine
joining NATO would be a huge mistake

Finland and Sweden however, remained neutral countries, until they joined in 2023 and 2024
respectfully

The idea of Mother Russia is very important to Russia, as well as christian orthodox charts and those
instruments were recovered in Russia by Boris N. (later succeeded by Vladimir Putin), alongside
another important weapon; Strong Russian Nationalism.

Russia’s government started to become assertive in face of Western countries and in front of the US
as well, and in 2008 when NATO formally invited Georgia and Ukraine, they strongly resisted that
attempt and so the Russian army intervened in Georgia. But the EU and the US kept on economically
and politically intervening in Ukraine in order to attract it to the West

Thus, the main interest of Russia from a historical approach and current perspective is that Ukraine
cannot be under the Western influence in terms of military security and cannot dismiss Russian
nationalism

- For the US: Since the second Obama’s term, it became clear that China was a substantial
enemy, being even much stronger than the USSR during the Cold War. It is a certainty that
arose from data, and thus, the US government has assumed that its only worries are focused
on deterring China, not Russia → This is the starting point

The focus of the US (with Biden) then was to separate Russia from China, and to do so they had to get
Russia on their knees. However, on December 2022, Russia asked for 2 things for them not to invade
Ukraine:
1. Ukraine never being part of NATO
2. Ukraine’s army will remain neutral, not too powerful → Weak
But Biden saw Ukraine as a way to defeat Russia, as defeating Russia on their own territory was/is
impossible. This was a huge mistake because Russia is not that weak and the global society
(westerners) are not as strong as they think (in economic terms) and also because other third countries
are stronger now than what we think they are (westerners thought they would follow them, but they
didn’t).

So, with the backup of China and the indirect but essential backup of India and other countries like
Brazil (from a trade and investing perspective) Russia managed to stand up.

Trump’s approach is a bit different than Biden’s as he tries to cooperate with Russia and that way,
separate Russia from China. Hence, he wants to attract Russia as an ally then separate it from China.
But Moscow has its own interests → But the outcome of this strategy is to give Russia everything it
wants (meaning that we have already lost that war, and the focus now should be to reduce the losses)

There are thousands of Ukrainians backing Russia within Ukraine

MAGISTRAL ASSIGNMENT: Professor Jeffrey Sachs – Cambridge University

Can there ever be an international order?

We are in a period of huge and very dangerous change, for some reason the generation of
politicians running the world right now are not very prudent and wise and that is leading us to an
intense dangerous time.

We could view the situation as promising (where the world could be achieving great things) and
we’re all blessings stuck together in this planet, having the same outcome; a good one or a disaster

1. We can’t go on with the kind of wars that we have and to threaten our survival because we
are in the nuclear age → J.F Kennedy said for our times are very different we hold in our
hands the ability to end all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life → We are
so close to disaster every day because we are not properly led and our ideas of international
order are outdated
2. It does not make sense to think that in an interconnected, complex and with climate and
environmental challenges that somehow we’ll be able to have winners when half of the
world is struggling to survive → Environmental disasters affect every part of the world,
though in different degrees

There are always more organisms than can be supported in their environments

Our struggle as human beings is that we are in a struggle for survival → Darwinism → This idea is
wrong because Malthus thought that richer people would have more survival children but what he
didn’t foresee was modern contraceptives and low fertility rates (especially in developed countries)
and he didn't understand the benefits of technological advances → But the legacies of that idea is
that we are in –constant– struggle

We are not in a struggle between US-China nor an intrinsic war with Russia. The war is about
completely different things; What about this international order?

The international order is dangerous because we are at the break of environmental disasters and
leaders who are not quite up to the challenges that we face and are not properly addressing them
The question: Could we have an international order that is peaceful, secure, ordered and improves
the wellbeing of the people around the world? Yes, is that what we have? NO. We could make the
UN actually fulfill its purposes because –he– thinks that is our best hope to achieve this
international order

As it was set up in 1945 so that the big powers have a veto, the decisions of the UNGA have been
overall very good, but he thinks we are not so far from a vision of what we could have. But he
thinks that the idea of an international order like that is not so far from implementation except that
we need to understand that we do not US leadership but UN decency and cooperation

Why does he think that since 2008 foreign aid has lost ground? Because it is not so much
macroeconomics but what really influenced him were the economic consequences of the peace. The
treaty of Versailles (according to Keynes prediction) was always meant to create huge chaos by
imposing such a carthaginian peace and rise in the next generation with vengeance

We are to experience something similar if our situation continues as it is

His idea all along was to be nice to people in need because it all can come full circle

Helping poor countries can help them invest in the things that would make them not poor anymore
→ Poverty trap

(…)

Prisoners’ Dilemma → The real human practice if you put two normal people in a prisoner's
dilemma is to cooperate most of the time, and more if you allow them to have a previous
conversation.

The folk theorem → If in a repeated prisoner's dilemma then you cooperate to prevent future
deviations. He views international relations theory as basically being the prisoners dilemma of
states being in an anarchical environment

(…)

Q&A Part of the video

- How the US empire does not need to position itself as the leader, but there is a struggle
between democracies and dictatorships (if not between the US and China). Is there any way
in which we still have power in our hands?

He does not believe that the US has any authority to establish democracy anywhere else nor does he
think that the US democracy functions properly. They lie about everything related to these wars
(and that is not democracy, as everything is fungi and about narrative). What is this democracy vs.
dictatorship? These are not sensible terms. And under UN terms every state can have what it wants.
So this is not about democracy, this is a game, especially played by the CIA. Because they have
complete secrecy and unaccountability and that is a very dangerous world when led that way. The
risk does not come from China, but from the US itself

- What is his view on the upcoming US elections?

Strong non-voter because no candidate meets the minimum threshold. Because he wants a
candidate that actually has a possibility to do something. But then, Kamala Harris says that she
 stands with Ukraine → But 2000 Ukrainians die or end up severely wounded every day. But he also
thinks that he’s not without hope as US politics is determined by the security state apparatus and
what is happening right now is not in US security interests.

Roosevelt phobia never abated

In the middle of 1945 Churchill asked the war offices to consider invading the USSR “let’s
continue the war” in order words. That's how Britain has thought and it taught the US everything it
knows and the US continues with the same deep rooted trends. The US agencies need to understand
that we are in a multipolar world, there is no meaning of victory and so we need a different strategy
→ That’s what we can hope for
- How would you go about dismantling the institutions of power in the US? How would you
ever go about dissuading officials to lose those ties?

Israel lobbies have been increasingly significant in the recent decades. And American foreign
policy can be easily bought if you have enough money. This should change based on (1) american
public opinion (which is against what Israel is doing) and (2) the world –political– opinion is shut
(Israel has no backing in the UN for what is doing, but the US has veto power and Europe stands
behind the US in which resolution after resolution there is a stronger sentiment against Israel).
These are two forces that are at play, he’s actively urging the organization of Islamic cooperation
and Arab League to put on a specific operation for a two state solution → This is the only way, a
state of Palestine agreed under IL alongside the state of Israel. And Iran saying that it stops its aid
to Hezbollah and Hamas.

The US veto is what stands in the way of this solution. It’s not a short deal but the rest of the world
should say to the US that it is the only obstacle in the way of peace.

- By your logic of nuclear war having an expected value of negative infinity, is there a case
in which the US should intervene even if there could be a place for nuclear war?

The US should not intervene to provoke. Two decisive actions: 2002 US withdrawal from the
antimissile treaty triggered the US putting missile systems in the Eastern front which Russia saw as
a threat. And in 2003 the US invaded Iraq. The US was pushing NATO (...) when it had previously
agreed not to do so.

Putin always offered to avoid the war at the expense of no NATO expansion.

Stay out of eachothers red lines and get back to nuclear arms control.

WEEKS 11-12 LECTURES AND SEMINARS 11-12

THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLES IN ARMED CONFLICTS

International Humanitarian Law is the most complex branch of IL. It is a very fine tuning law because
it refers to matters and topics that are especially sensitive to countries. It is not easy, even
contradictory in a way, to try to establish rules applicable in times of war. Countries only care about
who wins the war. Politicians and leaders only think about the end goal; that’s why it’s so difficult to
try to get the law within the logic of war.

The logic of war: the logic of how to win the war.

In every civilization, you can find laws and norms that limit what can be done and what is forbidden
to do in a war.
Middle of the 19th century Europe →
● The enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century helped build the context for International
humanitarian law to be had.
● Internal public opinion: result of the revolution and the appearance of the first newspaper in
Western Europe (during the Crimean war, journalists were sent to cover the war for the first
time). Articles written, for example, by war journalists, started influencing people and gave
them the opportunity for them to have public opinion.

There are 2 important fact dualisms:

● TIMES news sending their reporters to the battlefields
● Books being written

Henry Durant → father of the international committee of the red cross.

● The first location was the committee of Geneva; but only a couple of years later every country
had its own committee.
● All these committees together formed the international committee of the red cross. Principle
of distinctions: to distinguish you need a very clear sign (those who have attacked from those
who have not)
● The first idea was to use a white flag; however it also had another meaning, that of
“surrender”.
● Because of that, one of them proposed to use the Swiss flag but changing the colors.
● The red cross flag means “protection” in International Humanitarian Law.

The International Committee for the Red Cross laid the foundation for both the fourth geneva
convention and IHL as we know it today. Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions enables the red
cross and red crescent to perform their functions even in contexts where they might be perceived as
biased → Red Crystal symbol

The Ottoman Empire stated that they were in favor of being a part of international Humanitarian Law;
however, it had a problem with the cross as it had christian connotation and asked for a crescent moon
to be used (everyone agreed). Because of this, the red cross and the red crescent are both symbols of
protection After WWII, everyone started to ask for their own representative symbol, but the
committee did not allow it because using lots of different symbols to say the same would mean a
problem of efficiency. That’s why, at the end of the 21st century a new proposition was added to the
Geneva convention: “The Red Crystal”.

International law of human rights is Lex generalis (General law: applicable in any situation at any
time)
International humanitarian law is Lex especialis (Special law: applicable only in times of war)

● Both are concerned with the preservation of human dignity

● In times of war, both of them are in force; however, it is preferable to use Lex specialist
because it was built for those situations.

Principles of IHL and International conventions:

1. Principle of military necessity
a. Basic principle
b. Janus
c. All uses of violence that cannot be covered or explained by military necessity are
forbidden. → Military necessity: Achieve a legitimate military objective (attacks only
on military facilities)
2. Principle of distinction
a. Making a difference between combatants and civilians
b. There are collateral damages: civilians killed in the midst of the battle
 3. Principle of proportionality
a. if the civilian damages are more serious than the value of the military objective then a
full fledged military attack is forbidden.
b. However, if the value of the military objective is more important than the damages to
civilians then the attack would become legal
c. This opens the door to interpretation. This can be good but there’s always a limit;
beyond that line it is clear that there’s no proportionality at all.
d. ROEs (Rules Of Engagement): rules that every army has in case of engagement.
i. Since the 7th of October 2023, the state of Israel changed the ROE of its
army → 1 hamas member life amounts to 50 israeli civilians.
ii. The proportionality by which Israel governs itself goes far beyond the line e.

ROEs should be established taking into account the principles given by IHL. A genocide is not easy to
prove because you need to demonstrate a will to eliminate (mens rea).

Victims had no right to say at all in crimes, not even a secondary one. While according to the tradition
of ? The star is the alleged criminal. It gives the victims an unimportant rules (in terms of criminal
law, procedural criminal law)

The change into modern ages makes us see why victims started having a less and less important role

The Middle Ages meant divisions of power, in many different aspects and was the golden age of
victims. There were different powers: To blame others, to pardon others, and more

The transition from the Middle Ages to Modern Ages meant the concentration of power in the
sovereign state and that referred to all powers, including those that had to do with criminal law and
procedural law. The change took over from victims their previous power, because they were assumed
by the sovereign state (the power to investigate crimes, to judge, and the power to sanction above all)
Victims stopped having a role in all of this and instead turned into witnesses, they were useless in
terms of criminal and procedural criminal law

The beginning of the Contemporary Era with the US and French Revolutions saw the UDHR
proclaimed for the first time, and within them there are rights to presume innocence, right to not
declare against one self, the right to be judged by a fair independent tribunal etc. From then on, all
cameras focused on the alleged criminal because he had rights he was important. Victims were useless
in the eyes of the law.

This is the explanation why this tradition … started to change. This happened at the beginning of the
60s - 70s last century when some criminal law teachers in leading universities started to focus on a
topic that had never been referred to previously: Victims. That gave way to the new branch of criminal
law: Victimology. In the second half of the 60 thy started to adopt some laws that recognized the
rights of the victims → Victimology was born in the 60s-70s thanks to a shift in academic focus
towards victims. This jump into the IL during the 80s both the regional systems (europan,
interamerican) and the universal system (UDHR, UN). In the regional systems, (Europe)

Everything started in the Council of Europe when it adopted the European treaty on compensation of
victims of violent crimes in 1983 and the parliament of the council adopted its recommendation on the
role of victims in criminal law and procedural criminal law in 1985. This evolution would lead to an
important paradigm

The interamerican system: Everything goes to the interamerican court of HR when it passed the
judgement on blazquez rodriguez against honduras, it incorporates these new ways of doing things
focused on victims.

The Universal perspective: First time the UNGA adopted a resolution specifically focused on victims
rights was the A-RES-40-34 of 1985 Declaration of basic principles of justice of victims of crime and
abuse of power. It was a short resolution, but it was the first time and that's why it is important. The
most important one is of 2005 and is the General Assembly Res 60-147 principles and guidelines on
the right to remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of IHRL and serious violations of
IHL. Here we can find the international legal status of the victims of international … crimes. This led
to a serious change of paradigm on this issue.

The roles played by the European Court of Human Rights, the Interamerican Court of Human Rights
and the United Nations were huge as with their resolutions that focused on the legal status of victims
and their new enhanced role, a new paradigm rose

Previously victims had no role to play on International criminal law, but now we are starting to
witness victims go up to the theater and have a role to play, a role as important as the role used to play
by the alleged criminal, because victims now have rights. Because international and internal law have
recognized victims as subjects of law entitled to their own rights, and this changes everything.

The crystallization of this process occurred in 1998 with the adoption of the ICC Statute, since then
we live in the new paradigm within which victims are important. These are really important
consequences, not only legal but also political and social.

For instance, social movements such as “Me too”, “BLM”, etc, occur now and not 40, 30 or 50 years
ago, because now victims matter, and not in the past. They matter because they enjoy rights and they
do so because the paradigm has shifted from the traditional one to the new one. So, victims have a
right to justice (access to justice) which means lots of different things:
- Countries have a duty to investigate what happens and to judge those alleged criminals
- These crimes cannot be left unjudged, unpunished
And that means that general laws that pardoned these kinds of crimes are outlawed from then on.

Now, lets connect this change of paradigm with the second change of paradigm that occurred at the
same time because of the first one: The relations between peace and justice

There is a deep relation between peace and justice, this deep relation is always a complex, difficult
one. According to the traditional paradigm this relation was a disjunctive one, and you had to choose
between one or the other; either peace or justice, but both at the same time are impossible in the
transitional periods (of dictatorship to democracy, etc). Which one of the two countries always chose?
Peace, always peace. Because all of us have sons and daughters. Because we want our children to live
in a new society all together again, but by choosing peace, justice is unserved, ignored. And thus,
impunity was law.
 - The Spanish Transition Case: Spain today is the second country with more disappeared people
in the world (1st is Cambodia) more than 120000 Spaniards were killed and disappeared by
general Franco’s regime and nobody knows where they are, their families ignore where they
are. That was the price Spaniards paid because the transitional period in Spain occurred in the
traditional paradigm (they chose peace and reconciliation over justice, forgiveness at the cost
of forgetting what happened) . But of course as the victims position in front of criminal law
changed into the new paradigm, this first challenged to a second one related to relations
between peace and justice, now in the present times (new paradigm) peace and justice are not
separate

The new paradigm is not based in peace vs justice but in peace with justice meaning that the only
sustainable peace is the one made with justice. So change in the paradigm from the traditional one
where you had to compulsory choose either one or the other (realpolitik) to the new paradigm where
both of them are complementary and they feed each other.

That’s why after 1998, impunity is not possible anymore because victims have rights and that
connects to the new paradigm of the relations between peace and justice. Especially related to War
crimes, Crimes against humanity, etc

However, that means that this new paradigm has the limitation of mediations and negotiations
between parties in a peace process. The paradigm example here is Colombia and its peace process
(FARC vs Colombian government), those negotiations ended with the adoption of the general peace
treaty between the parties involved that recognized rights to victims, but it was not that easy. It was
easier according to the previous paradigm, but we have learned that this is not the answer

That’s why in Spain the issue of those Spaniards killed and disappeared is still alive (a matter of
discussion) more than 40 years after those crimes. Because all the pain and suffering caused by those
crimes was never clarified and is still open. The only way to finish this is to
- Recognize victims as subjects of lw
- Respect their rights

But what are their rights? According to the resolution 60-147 paragraph 11
(a) Equal and effective access to justice
(b) Adequate. effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered
(c) Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms

All countries in the world have their wardrobes full of skeletons. They have been built upon lost lives.
Now countries are compelled to answer to that. That is why history is asking us to give an answer and
all our governments are compelled to answer this important question. Victims are important also in
political terms.

Modern monuments now are not devoted to generals, kings, heroes, but to victims. These are the new
monuments, those that are devoted to victims, because
- Victims matter now socially, politically and legally
- They win battles, they are the ones that win conflicts
In any conflict, internal or international, if one of the parties involved in the conflict (armed or not)
succeeds in showing the public opinion that they are the victims, they have won the conflict. Together
with the ground battle that is going on with Ukraine, Gaza, etc, the battle of victimization matters.
And this is a very tough, rough battle, the one to convince the public opinion that I am the victim and
they are the criminal

Both Israel and Palestine are fighting very strongly in the media arena to convince public opinion that
both sides are the victims. Because victims are recognized, have rights and the paradigm has changed
ICJ Advisory Opinion
 Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024

BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION

- Request: UN General Assembly (UNGA) asked the ICJ to assess legal consequences of
Israel’s policies in the OPT (Resolution 77/247, 2022).
- Jurisdiction: ICJ confirmed authority under Article 96 UN Charter and Article 65 ICJ
Statute (The Court considers that these questions are legal questions). The request has been
made in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and of the Statute of the Court. The
fact that the Court has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion does not mean that it is obliged
to exercise it
- Questions:
- What are the legal consequences of Israel’s violations? (self-determination,
occupation, annexation, discriminatory legislation and measures).
- How do these policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation and what
are consequences for states/UN from this status?.

The Court does not regard the subject-matter of the UNGA request as being only a bilateral matter
between Israel and Palestine. This issue is of particular interest and concern to the UN, therefore the
Court considers that the issues raised by the request are part of the Palestinian question, including
UNGA’s role relating thereto. Consequently, the Court cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, decline
to give the opinion requested on the ground of avoiding the principle of consent to judicial settlement.

The Court does not consider that there is a compelling reason that it should lead it to decline to give
its opinions on the ground that such opinion would not assist the UNGA in the performance of its
functions. The request is put forward by the UNGA with reference to its own responsibilities and
functions regarding the issue of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (A/RES/77/247)

The Court notes that whether the opinion of the Court would have an adverse effect on the negotiation
framework is a matter of conjecture on which the Court should not speculate. The Court has sufficient
information to address the questions posed, whose scope and meaning can be freely determined by the
Court.

The Court notes that the questions define the material, territorial and temporal scope of the Court’s
enquiry. With regard to the material scope, question (a) identifies 3 types of conduct which question
(b) describes as “policies and practices of Israel”:
(1) “The ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”
(2) “Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory
occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”
(3) “Israel’s adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures”

In this regard, the Court limits itself to observing a feature common to all of them, namely that the
terms of question (a) assume that these policies and practices are contrary to international law. The
Court considers that question (a) requires an assessment of the conformity with international law of
those policies and practices of Israel identified in the request. Therefore, in order to give an advisory
opinion in this case, it is not necessary for the Court to make findings of fact with regard to specific
incidents allegedly in violation of international law. The Court need only establish the main features
of Israel’s policies and practices and, on that basis, assess the conformity of these policies and
practices with international law.

The Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single
territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all
references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial
unit. “The Holy City of Jerusalem” = East Jerusalem.

GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE CONFLICT

Having been part of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of WWI, Palestine was placed under a Mandate
that was entrusted to Great Britain by the LoN. On 29 November 1947, the UNGA adopted resolution
181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, which “[r]ecommend[ed] to the United Kingdom . . .
and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation . . . of the Plan of
Partition” of the territory, as set forth in the resolution, between two independent States, one Arab,
the other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régime for the City of Jerusalem.
While the Jewish population accepted the Plan of Partition, the Arab population of Palestine and the
Arab States rejected this plan, contending, inter alia, that it was unbalanced.

On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence with reference to the UNGA resolution 181 (II);
An armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States, and the Plan of
Partition was not implemented. By resolution 62 (1948) of November 1948, the UNSC decided that
“an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine”. In conformity with this decision, general
armistice agreements were concluded in 1949 in Rhodes between Israel and its neighbouring States
through mediation by the United Nations, fixing the armistice demarcation lines between Israeli and
Arab forces (often later collectively called the “Green Line” owing to the colour used for it on maps).

On 29 November 1948, referring to resolution 181 (II) Israel applied for admission to membership of
the UN. On 11 May 1949, when it admitted Israel as a MS of the UN, the UNGA recalled resolution
181 (II) and took note of Israel’s declarations “in respect of the implementation of the said
resolution”. In 1967, an armed conflict (also known as the 6-day war) broke out between Israel and
neighbouring countries Egypt, Syria and Jordan. By the time hostilities had ceased, Israeli forces
occupied all the territories of Palestine under British Mandate beyond the Green Line.

On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which
“emphasiz[ed] the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” and called for the “[w]ithdrawal
of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. From 1967 onwards, Israel
started to establish or support settlements in the territories it had occupied and took a number of
measures aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. . The Security Council, after recalling
on a number of occasions “the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is
inadmissible”, condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971,
confirmed that “All legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the
City of Jerusalem (...) aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and
cannot change that status”
On 14 October 1974, the General Assembly recognized, by resolution 3210 (XXIX), the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people. By resolution 3236
(XXIX) of 22 November 1974, it recognized “that the Palestinian people are entitled to
self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. On 17 September 1978,
Israel and Egypt signed the “Camp David Accords”, which led in the following year to a Peace Treaty
between the two countries. Later, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994 between Israel and
Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the two States according to the lines set under the
Mandate for Palestine.

On 15 November 1988, referring to resolution 181 (II) “which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a
Jewish State”, the PLO “proclaim[ed] the establishment of the State of Palestine”. In 1993 and 1995,
Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo I and Oslo II Accords. In an exchange of letters on 9 September
1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and Israel recognized the PLO
as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Oslo I Accord established general
guidelines for the negotiations to be conducted between Israel and Palestine. The Oslo II Accord, inter
alia, divided the Israeli-occupied West Bank into three administrative areas (A, B and C) with Area C,
which covers more than 60 per cent of the West Bank, being exclusively administered by Israel.

The Oslo Accords required Israel to, inter alia, transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and
responsibilities exercised in Areas A and B of the West Bank by its military authorities and civil
administration. Where such transfers, which have remained limited and partial, have taken place,
Israel has retained significant control in relation to security matters.

Following an increase in acts of violence from the West Bank, in the early 2000s Israel began building
a “continuous fence” (hereinafter the “wall”) largely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A plan of
this type was approved for the first time by the Israeli Government in July 2001 and the first part of
the relevant works was declared completed on 31 July 2003. Notwithstanding the Court’s opinion in
2004, finding “[t]he construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime
[to be] contrary to international law”, the construction of the wall continued, as well as the expansion
of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Reports indicate that, by 2005, settlers who had been residing in 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and
in four settlements in the northern West Bank, were evacuated pursuant to an Israeli “Disengagement
Plan”. By 2023, approximately 465,000 settlers resided in the West Bank, spread across around 300
settlements and outposts, while some 230,000 settlers resided in East Jerusalem. The residents of
settlements and “outposts” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“settlers”) are predominantly
Israelis, as well as non-Israeli Jews who qualify for Israeli nationality under Israeli legislation.

On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly, recalling, inter alia, resolution 181 (II), accorded
Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations (resolution 67/19). In 2016, the
Security Council adopted resolution 2334 (2016) in which it urged “The intensification and
acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving without
delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East (...) and an end to the Israeli
occupation that began in 1967”

On 10 May 2024, the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/23 in which it “[d]etermines that
the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4
of the Charter of the United Nations and should therefore be admitted to membership in the United
Nations”. On 10 June 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2735 (2024), whereby it
reiterated “Its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic
States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
consistent with international law (...)”

KEY FINDINGS ON ISRAEL’s POLICIES AND PRACTICES

A. Prolonged Occupation (1967–2024)
- Violation: Occupation exceeds temporary nature allowed under international law (57+ years).
- Law: Occupations must be temporary; prolonged occupation undermines Palestinian
self-determination.

The Court notes that Israel’s occupation has lasted for more than 57 years. By virtue of its status as an
occupying Power, a State assumes a set of powers and duties with respect to the territory over which it
exercises effective control. In this context, the occupying Power bears a duty to administer the
territory for the benefit of the local population. The nature and scope of these powers and duties are
always premised on the same assumption: that occupation is a temporary situation to respond to
military necessity, and it cannot transfer title of sovereignty to the occupying Power. The fact that an
occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under IHL. In particular,
occupation consists of the exercise by a State of effective control in foreign territory. In order to be
permissible, therefore, such exercise of effective control must at all times be consistent with the rules
concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force, including the prohibition of territorial
acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force, as well as with the right to self-determination.

B. Settlements & Annexation

- Settlements:
- Violate **Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention** (no transfer of civilian
population to occupied territory).
- Supported by Israeli incentives (e.g., land confiscation, infrastructure).

The Court considers that the transfer of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as
Israel’s maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the 6th paragraph of Art 49 of the 4th Geneva
Convention. The Court further notes that the expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem is based on the confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land, in the present case,
the public property for the development of Israeli settlements benefits the civilian population of
settlers, to the detriment of the local Palestinian population; Israel’s land policies are not in conformity
with Art 46, 52 and 55 of the Hague Regulations

Under the principle of customary international law contained in Art 55 of the Hague Regulations, the
occupying Power shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of natural resources in the
occupied territory (...) therefore, the use by the occupying Power must not exceed what is necessary
for the purpose of the occupation. The Court considers that Israel’s use of the natural resources in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligations under IL. By severely restricting the
access of the Palestinian population to water that is available in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Israel acts inconsistently with its obligation to ensure the availability of water in sufficient quantity
and quality. Israel’s policy of exploitation is inconsistent with its obligation to respect the Palestinian
people’s right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
The Court recalls that under Art 43 of the Hague Regulations, the occupying Power must in principle
respect the law in force in the occupied territory unless absolutely prevented from doing so (The law
of occupation does not deprive the local population’s civilian institutions in the occupied territory of
the regulatory authority that they may have). The Court considers that Israel has exercised its
regulatory authority as an occupying Power in a manner that is inconsistent with the rule reflected in
Art 43 of the Hague Regulations and Art 64 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

The Court considers that the transfers may be “forcible” –and thus prohibited under the 1st paragraph
of Art 49– not only when it is achieved through the use of physical force, but also when the people
concerned have no choice but to leave. The nature of Israel’s acts, including the fact that Israel
frequently confiscates land following the demolition of Palestinian property for reallocation to Israeli
settlements, indicates that its measures are not temporary in character and therefore cannot be
considered as permissible evacuations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. In the Court’s view,
Israel’s policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected
population under the first paragraph of Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In light of the
above, the Court reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the
régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of
international law. The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been
expanding since the Court’s Wall Advisory Opinion.

- Annexation:
- Israel’s actions (e.g., extending Israeli law to East Jerusalem, wall construction) show
intent to permanently control OPT.
- Violates **prohibition of territorial acquisition by force** (UN Charter, customary
law).

By the term annexation, in the present context, the Court understands the forcible acquisition by the
occupying Power of the territory that it occupies, namely its integration into the territory of the
occupying Power. Annexation, then, presupposes the intent of the occupying Power to exercise
permanent control over the occupied territory. The Court comes to the conclusion that Israel’s policies
and practices are designed to remain in place indefinitely and to create irreversible effects on the
ground. Consequently, they amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

C. Discriminatory Measures
- Examples:** Restrictive permits, movement barriers, home demolitions (11,000+ since 2009).
- Violations:**
- ICCPR/ICESCR/CERD** (racial discrimination, apartheid-like practices).
- Article 3 CERD:** Systemic segregation between settlers and Palestinians.

The Court considers that discrimination, common to all of the relevant provisions of international law
is the concept of differential treatment between persons belonging to different groups. It observes, in
this connection, that the existence of the Palestinian people is not at issue. Therefore, in the Court’s
view, differential treatment of Palestinians can give rise to discrimination. The Court concludes from
the evidence presented to it and on the basis of its analysis that a broad array of legislation adopted
and measures taken by Israel in its capacity as an occupying Power treat Palestinians differently on
grounds specified by international law. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of
comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of
Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of
CERD.

D. Self-Determination**
- Right:** Palestinian people’s **inalienable right** to sovereignty.
- Violation:** Israel’s policies fragment OPT, impede statehood.

The Court has already affirmed, in its Wall opinion, the existence of the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination. As a consequence of Israel’s policies and practices, which span decades, the
Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self-determination over a long period, and further
prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future. For
these reasons, the Court is of the view that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of
Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination

3. Legal Consequences**
For Israel:**
1. End occupation** "as rapidly as possible."
2. Cease settlements**, evacuate settlers, dismantle the wall.
3. Provide reparations** (restitution, compensation).

The Court is of the view that Israel’s assertion of sovereignty and its annexation of certain parts of the
territory constitute a violation of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and constitute
an obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. Violating
fundamental principles of IL and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
unlawful. The Court observes that the Oslo Accords do not permit Israel to annex parts of the
Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to meet its security needs. Nor do they authorize Israel to
maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for such security needs.

The maintenance of these policies and practices is an unlawful act of a continuing character entailing
Israel’s international responsibility. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its
presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible. In this respect, Israel must
immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel is also under an obligation to provide full
reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons
concerned. Reparation includes restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction. Specifically, Israel
remains bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination and its obligations under IHL and IHRL.

For Other States & UN:

1. Non-recognition:** Do not treat Israel’s control as legal.
2. No aid/assistance** to maintain illegal occupation.
3. UN/GA/Security Council** must act to end occupation.

While it is for the UNGA and UNSC to pronounce on the modalities required to ensure an end to
Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the full realization of the right of
self-determination of the Palestinian people, all States must cooperate with the UN to put those
modalities into effect and MS are under the obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical
character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by
Israel on 5 June 1967 (includ. East Jerusalem). All States are under an obligation not to recognize the
legal situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, also
not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence. In
addition, all the States parties to the 4th Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the
UN Charter and IL, to ensure compliance by Israel with IHL as embodied in that Convention.

It is for the UNGA and UNSC to consider what further action is required to put an end to the illegal
presence of Israel, taking into account the present Advisory Opinion. The Court also considers that the
–TWO STATE SOLUTION– realization of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its
right to an independent and sovereign State, living side by side in peace with the State of Israel within
secure and recognized borders for both states WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO REGIONAL STABILITY
AND THE SECURITY OF ALL STATES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

4. Voting & Dissenting Opinions

- Majority: 11–4 (unlawful occupation), 14–1 (settlements must end).
- Dissent (Judge Sebutinde):
- Criticized lack of balanced facts.
- Argued negotiation frameworks (e.g., Oslo Accords) should resolve disputes, not ICJ.

Key Concepts to Memorize

1. Erga Omnes Obligations: All states must uphold Palestinian self-determination.
2. Jus Cogens Norms: Prohibition of territorial acquisition by force; self-determination.
3. Fourth Geneva Convention: Protects civilians under occupation (Articles 49, 64).
4. Annexation vs. Occupation: Annexation = permanent control (illegal); occupation =
temporary (legal only if brief).

https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Perpetual Peace
 ● PRIMER ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR
○ “No debe considerarse válido ningún tratado de paz que se haya celebrado con la
reserva secreta sobre alguna causa de guerra en el futuro”
○ “No peace treaty is valid if it was made with mental reservations that could lead to a
future war”

Peace means the end of all hostilities so when one or both parties sign a peace treaty (1) only because
they are too exhausted to continue the war, and in bad faith or (2) enter into the treaty with a –silent–
mental reservation concerning issues that are to be confronted later on, this peace treaty would only
be a truce, a suspension of hostilities

● SEGUNDO ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR

○ .
○ “No independent States, large or small, are to come under the dominion of another
state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift”

Because a state is not a piece of property that is to be owned, it is a society of men that cannot rightly
be commanded or disposed of by anyone, except of course, by itself.

● TERCER ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR

○ .
○ “Standing armies are eventually to be abolished”

Because the constant appearance of war-readiness by the existence of a standing army means a
continuing threat to other states, encouraging a never ending arms-race, making peace eventually
more of a burden than a short war. Also, paying men to kill or to be killed seems to be using them as
mere machines, which does not sit well with individual HR

● CUARTO ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR

○ .
○ “National debts are not to be incurred as an aid to the conduct of foreign policy”

To use national struggles as a tool of power against each other through a credit system is a dangerous
kind of money-power.

● QUINTO ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR

○ .
○ “No State is to interfere by force with the constitution or government of another
State”

Because even if its –internal– policies seem morally troubling, unless that states has already collapsed
into anarchy, an interference with the constitution or government of another state is a violation of its
sovereignty and a dangerous precedent

● SEXTO ARTÍCULO PRELIMINAR

○ .
○ “No State during a war is to permit acts of hostility that would make mutual
confidence impossible after the war is over–e.g., the use of assassins and prisoners,
 breach of capitulation, incitement to treason in the opposing State” → Ius in Bello,
Ius Cogens

Because even in war there must be some confidence in the enemy’s character; otherwise, no peace
could be concluded, and the hostilities would degenerate into a war of extermination. It follows that a
war of extermination, which can wipe out (1) both parties and (2) all justice, can lead to ‘perpetual
peace’ only in the vast burial ground of the human race.

Preliminary articles are called as such not because compliance is not strict, but because the
delay to be obeyed is permissible, but not until hell freezes over!

Postponement is allowed so that the restoration of freedom and peace is not rushed into

● PRIMER ARTÍCULO DEFINITIVO

○ .
○ “The civil constitution of every state is to be republican”

For Kant, a government can be either republican or despotic. Republicanism being the political
principle of the separation of powers and leadership based on the representation of the people’s will,
whereas despotism is a system in which the public will is administered by the ruler(s) as his(their)
own private will. Only in a republican system will the citizens decide on war or no war and will have
to contemplate all calamities of war, making them very cautious about getting into such a dangerous
game. But in a non-republican system, going to war is the easiest thing in the world as the people are
seen as property of which the ruler(s) can dispose of at his(their) will.

My juridical freedom is my –right or– privilege of not having to obey any laws except those that I
could have consented to. My juridical equality with you in a state is the relationship between us
such that if I am to constrain you by any law, it must be one by which I am also bound (and vice
versa)

● SEGUNDO ARTÍCULO DEFINITIVO

○ .
○ “The law of nations is to be founded on a federation of free states”

Each people can–and for its own security should–encourage the other peoples to enter with it into a
constitution like a civil one; for under such a constitution each can be secure in its right. This would
be a league of nations, but it could not be an international state, a state consisting of nations.

Kant’s ideal is a form of world state/government that rules over all peoples. But Kant is well aware
that existing states will not all desire this situation of a state of peoples, so he proposes a progressive
federation of free states (gradually extended to all states in the world) in which they are subjects to
common laws and rules that would regulate their relations

● TERCER ARTÍCULO DEFINITIVO

○ .
○ “The law of world citizenship is to be united to conditions of universal hospitality”
Hospitality meaning the right of a visiting foreigner not to be treated as an enemy. It is not that the
foreigner has a right to be received as a guest (unless a special friendship convention were in play) but
just that he has the right to visit. A right that all men have to offer themselves as potential members of
any society by virtue of their common possession of the surface of the earth.

Kant concludes by assuring that the ideal of perpetual peace is, in a way, guaranteed by nature.
What nature does is push men towards harmony even against their will, taking advantage of their
selfish impulses (such as economic greed). For this reason, says Kant, nature can be called “destiny”
or “providence” because it is that ultimate wisdom that lies behind historical events leading them
toward their ultimate end. In the end, it will be nature, through its own mechanism, that would
bring about perpetual peace

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1795.pdf
In the Name of Identity
 (1) MY IDENTITY, MY ALLEGIANCES

My identity is what prevents me from being identical to anybody else. Each individual identity is
made up of a number of elements, which are clearly not restricted to the particulars set down in
official records. While there is always a certain hierarchy among the elements that go to make up
individual identities, that hierarchy is not immutable; it changes with time, and in so brings about
fundamental changes in behaviour.

That is precisely what characterizes each individual identity: It is complex, unique and irreplaceable,
not to be confused with any other. Mankind itself is made up of special cases. Life is a creator of
differences. No “reproduction” is ever identical. Every individual without exception possesses a
composite identity. It is important to become aware that our words are not innocent and without
consequence: They may help to perpetuate prejudices which history has shown to be perverse and
deadly. For it is often the way we look at other people that imprisons them within their own narrowest
allegiances. And it is also the way we look at them that may set them free

It is in these wounds that at every stage in life determine not only men’s attitudes towards their
affiliations but also the hierarchy that decides the relative importance of these ties. Identity is also
singular, something that we experience as a complete whole. A person's identity is not an assemblage
of separate affiliations, nor a kind of loose patchwork; it is like a pattern drawn on a tightly stretched
parchment. Touch just one part of it, just one allegiance, and the whole person will react, the whole
drum will sound. What we conveniently call “murderous folly” is the propensity of our
fellow–creatures to turn into butchers when they suspect that their “tribe” is being threatened.

Even when they commit massacres they are convinced they are merely doing what is necessary to
save the lives of their nearest and dearest. This attitude means we turn a blind eye to the fate of their
victims, at least until rivers of blood have been shed. The fact is, it’s difficult to say where legitimate
affirmation of identity ends and encroachment on the rights of other beings. Sometimes the situation is
reversed and the victimisers of yesterday become victims of today; or vice versa only to outside
observers. For people directly involved in conflicts arising out of identity (...) nothing else exists
except “them” and “us”, the insult and the atonement. “We” are (...) innocent victims; “They” are (...)
guilty and have long been so, regardless of what they may be enduring at present. Those who can
accept their diversity fully will hand on the torch between communities and cultures, will be a kind of
mortar joining together and strengthening the societies in which they live. On the other hand, those
who cannot accept their own diversity may be among the most virulent of those prepared to kill for
the sake of identity, attacking those who embody that part of themselves which they would like to see
forgotten

The status of migrant itself is the first victim of a “tribal” notion of identity. Before becoming an
immigrant one is a migrant, an émigré. Before coming to one country one has had to leave another.
And that person’s feelings about the country he has left are never simple. Similarly, one’s feelings
towards one’s country of adoption are also ambiguous. The secret dream of most migrants is to be
taken for “natives” but more often they fail. It is in this connection, more than in others, that tensions
arising out of identity can lead to the most lethal aberrations. “The more you steep yourself in the
culture of the host country the more you will be able to steep yourself in your own” (...) “The more an
immigrant feels that his own culture is respected, the more open he will be to the culture of the host
country”. Again, the key word is ‘reciprocity’. The right to criticize someone else has to be won,
deserved. To approach someone else convincingly you must do so with open arms and head held high,
and your arms can’t be open unless your head is held high

(2) MODERNITY AND “THE OTHER”

I just want to point out that if Christianity shaped Europe, Europe also shaped Christianity.
Christianity today is what European societies have made of it. These societies have been transformed
physically and intellectually, and in the process they have transformed their Christianity. Western
society has invented the Church and the religion it needed. I use the word "need" in the widest
possible sense, which includes the thirst for spirituality. Societies that are sure of themselves are
mirrored by a religion that is confident, serene and open; uncertain societies are reflected in a religion
that is hypersensitive, sanctimonious and aloof. What I am objecting to here is the habit that people
have got into, both in the North and in the South, and whether they are distant observers or zealous
partisans, of classifying everything that happens in a Muslim country as related to Islam, whereas
there are many other factors that are much more relevant. You could read a dozen large tomes on the
history of Islam from its very beginnings and you still wouldn't understand what is going on in
Algeria. But read 30 pages on colonialism and decolonisation and then you'll understand quite a lot.

Wherever on the planet one happens to live, all modernisation is now westernisation. And this trend is
merely accentuated and accelerated by technical progress. This reality is experienced differently by
those born in the dominant civilisation and those born outside it. Even though it has sometimes been
embraced with enthusiasm, it has never been adopted without a certain bitterness, without a feeling of
humiliation and defection. Without a piercing doubt about the dangers of assimilation. Without a
profound identity crisis.

When Modernity bears the mark of “The Other” it is not surprising if some people confronting it
brandish symbols of atavism to assert their difference. Modernisation becomes suspect as soon as it is
perceived as a Trojan horse introduced by another culture that is both alien and overbearing.

(3) THE AGE OF GLOBAL TRIBES

British historian Arnold Toynbee (1973) explained that the history of the human race had consisted of
three successive phases. During the first, all human societies evolved roughly in parallel with one
another and had many characteristics in common. In the second period, knowledge developed at a
much faster rate than the means of disseminating it, so that in every field human societies grew more
and more different from one another. Then, quite recently, a third pl:riod has begun, in which although
knowledge certainly advances more and more rapidly, the dissemination of knowledge progresses
even faster, with the result that human societies are likely to become less and less differentiated from
one another. Never have men had so many things in common (...) But this only increases their desire
to assert their differences

The God of "how" will become hazy one day, but the God of "why" will never die. I dream of a world
where the need for spirituality will no longer be associated with the need to belong. Any would-be
global vision provokes mistrust among our contemporaries, either because it strikes them as naive or
because it seems to threaten their identity.

“Men are more the sons of their time than of their fathers” wrote the historian Marc Bloch. In short,
each one of us has two heritages, a “vertical” one that comes to us from our ancestors, and a
“horizontal” one transmitted to us by our contemporaries and by the age we live in. Yet most
frequently it is the “vertical” inheritance that we invoke, reflected in our perception of ourselves. If we
assert our differences so fiercely it is precisely because we are less and less different from one
another. For globalisation draws us simultaneously towards two contrasting results, one welcome and
the other not: i.e., universality and uniformity.

Traditions deserve to be respected only insofar as they are respectable - that is, exactly insofar as they
themselves respect the fundamental rights of men and women.

For it need hardly be said that, despite certain appearances, we live not in the age of the masses but in
that of the individual. The risks of hegemony are real. It is even euphemistic to speak of mere risks

(4) TAMING THE PANTHER

I start out from the observation that whenever a society sees "the hand of the stranger" in modernity it
tends to repulse it and try to ward it off. Here again the key principle is reciprocity. Identity is in the
first place a matter of symbols, even of appearances. A “thread of affiliation” links me to it. Since
people all over the world now have access to the same images, sounds and products, wouldn't it be
more appropriate if all those images, sounds and products were representative of all cultures, so that
everyone could recognise himself in them and no one feel excluded?. In an earlier chapter I said that
everyone nowadays felt himself to be living to a certain extent in a minority, in exile. This is because
all communities and cultures have a sense that they are up against others stronger than they, a feeling
that they can no longer keep their heritage safe.

So who does the world really belong to? Not to any particular race or any particular country. More
than at any other time in history it belongs to all those who want to make a place for themselves in it.
It belongs to all those who endeavor to understand the new rules of the game, however bewildering
they may be, and try to use them to their own advantage. I don't doubt that globalisation is a threat to
cultural diversity, especially to diversity of languages and of lifestyles. Nonethe:. less, the world of
today also provides those who want to preserve endangered cultures with the means of self-defence. If
you believe in something and have enough energy, passion and love of life, you can find among the
resources offered by the world of today the means to make some of your dreams come true.

Language is bound to remain the mainspring of cultural identity, and linguistic diversity the
mainspring of all other diversities. It is extremely dangerous to try to break the maternal cord
connecting a man to his own language. When it is ruptured or seriously damaged his whole
personality may suffer disastrous repercussions.

Even the language of identity plus the global language are no longer enough. Anyone with the means,
the age and the abilities to do so ought to go further. Between the language of identity and the global
language there stretches a vast space that we must learn how to bridge. The only possible answer is a
voluntary policy aimed at strengthening linguistic diversity and based on a simple idea: nowadays
everybody obviously needs three languages. The first is his language of identity; the third is English.
Between the two we have to promote a third language, freely chosen, which will often but not always
be another European language. This will be for everyone the main foreign language taught at school,
but it will also be much more th;m that the language of the heart, the adopted language, the language
you have married, the language you love.
This would mean that in the years to come we would have not only "general practitioners," knowing
only their own language and English, but also "specialists;' who, in addition to that basic equipment,
would have their own special language for communication, freely chosen in accordance with their
own affinities, and through which they would attain personal and professional fulfilment

Secularism without democracy is a disaster for democracy and secularism alike. Any kind of
discrimination is dangerous, even if it is meant to help a community that has suffered. This is not only
because it replaces one injustice by another, thus increasing hatred and suspicion, but also because of
a principle that I consider even more serious. As long as an individual's place in society goes on
depending on his belonging to some community or another we are perpetuating a perverse state of
affairs that can only deepen divisions, the only reasonable and decent policy is to work to ensure that
every citizen is treated as a fully-fledged member of society, whatever his affiliations.

The law of the majority is not always synonymous with democracy, liberty and equality: Sometimes it
is synonymous with tyranny, slavery and discrimination. Where there is an oppressed minority a free
vote doesn't necessarily set it free. It may even make the oppression worse. Ethnic massacres are
always backed up by fine excuses -justice, equality, independence, the rights of the people,
democracy, the fight against privilege and so on. What is sacred in democracy is not mechanisms but
values. Elections do no more than reflect the image a society has of itself and of its component parts.
They may help it arrive at a diagnosis, but they alone can never produce a cure.

(5) EPILOGUE
For all of them, the ability to live easily with their various allegiances is essential not only for their
own fulfillment, but also for the peace of the society of which they are part. Creating a new Europe
means creating a new concept of identity, for Europe itself, for all the countries in it, and to a certain
extent for the rest of the world too.

https://theoldnewway.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/maalouf-amin-in-the-name-of-id
entity-violence-and-the-need-to-belong-2003.pdf