Adam Church Vol. 38 Associate Editor Over the past year, there have been numerous events indicating that populism is on the rise in the Western world. Though the particular forms of these individual events may vary, a common thread linking them together is a desire to retreat from globalization to the perceived safety of protectionism. While a retreat from globalization would likely have steep consequences for a number of market sectors,[1] one sector that may prove to be especially vulnerable is the financial sector. Arguably still reeling from the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis,[2] the international financial sector is already under pressure from events that appear to indicate a retreat from globalization by the West, such as Brexit.[3] Furthermore, as Western nations have traditionally occupied significant leadership positions within the international financial system,[4] their shift towards more protectionist stances would likely create a substantial leadership vacuum within this system. Should Western nations continue to retreat from globalization, the question arises as to who will emerge as a leader and how they will shape the future of international finance and trade. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/shifting-tides-the-future-of-globalization-in-an-era-of-rising-populism/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Katrina Fetsch Vol. 38 Associate Editor In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague ruled against China over territorial claims in the South China Sea. China asserts sovereignty over a region containing the island of Taiwan, as well as areas claimed by China’s neighbors. China rejected the court’s ruling on the grounds that the PCA did not have authority to hear the case and maintains its claim on the territory.[1] This stance by China parallels actions taken by other world superpowers (and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) such as the United States, Russia, and United Kingdom, in which they also seem to ignore rulings by international tribunals.[2] If the most powerful countries in the world feel free to disregard international law, there is a question of whether this is indeed a rising trend and what implications such a trend might have for the future of the international system. This inquiry is even more pertinent in light of shifting tides around the world and the new, outspokenly isolationist regime in the United States. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/a-world-in-flux-the-waning-of-international-cooperation-and-the-rise-of-isolationism-in-the-new-global-climate/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Richard Self Vol. 38 Contributing Editor In mid-January, the U.S. military deployed the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division to Poland.[1] The deployment is the largest United States military deployment since the end of the Cold War and is intended to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.[2] Poland has been a signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty (establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or “NATO”) since 1999, when it joined the organization during NATO’s first major post-Cold War expansion.[3] The core provision of the North Atlantic Treaty states that if one party is subject to an armed attack, that attack shall be considered an attack against all parties.[4] This triggers the right to collective self-defense provided in Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter,[5] which would allow all NATO parties to use armed force against the initial attacker “in order to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”[6] <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/nato-responsiveness-to-the-russian-cyber-m%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b2%d0%b5%d0%b4%d1%8c/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Seema Kassab Vol. 38 Associate Editor There is no clearer example of the failure of the UN to halt mass atrocities and genocide than the current conflict in Syria. Nearly six years, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and millions of refugees later, the UN has repeatedly failed to effectively take action in protecting Syrian civilians. In fact, the situation devolves year after year without a solution in sight. The dire need for humanitarian intervention in Syria is begging for a response from the international community and the invocation of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), an emerging norm in international law that places a responsibility on the international community to prevent and react to mass atrocities. R2P was intended to address genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing,[1] all crimes that the Assad regime has been committing in Syria for the past six years. The doctrine was adopted at the World Summit in 2005 in response to the failures of the international community to intervene in the humanitarian crises in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.[2] So why does R2P even exist if no one invokes it when it is most needed? <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/when-the-security-council-fails-to-intervene-in-mass-atrocities-who-else-can-act/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Ava Morgenstern Vol. 38 Associate Editor Certain U.S. Immigration Court jurisdictions, by almost never granting asylum, arguably violate international law obligations on fair hearings for asylum-seekers. The problem of highly restricted access to asylum will worsen under the Trump administration. Despite possible small measures to alleviate the situation, not much will change unless and until the arrival of a future Presidential administration and Congress more concerned with international human rights obligations. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/asylum-free-zones-u-s-violations-of-international-legal-obligations-to-asylum-seekers/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Articles Laurence R. Helfer and Ingrid B. Wuerth Customary International Law: An Instrument Choice Perspective Catherine Renshaw Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia: Uncovering the Dynamics of State Commitment and Compliance Shana Tabak Ambivalent Enforcement: International Humanitarian Law at Human Rights Tribunals Note C. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/volume-374/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Articles Tiyanjana Maluwa Oil Under Troubled Waters?: Some Legal Aspects of the Boundary Dispute Between Malawi and Tanzania Over Lake Malawi Patrick J. Keenan The Problem of Purpose in International Criminal Law Aravind Ganesh The European Union’s Human Rights Obligations Towards Distant Strangers Note Karima Tawfik To… <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/volume-373/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Lakshmi Gopal Vol. 38 Associate Editor Can white extremists be challenged, without challenging the role of white ideology in international law?[1] As white nationalism achieves international visibility once more, this is a crucial question for all those interested in using international law to a craft a world that transcends, at the very least, race, gender, and class. In the past few weeks, white extremists across the world felicitated the results of the American presidential election as a sign of global resurgence of white nationalism.[2] While white supremacist ties to the American president-elect have sent shockwaves throughout the world,[3] the result and the widespread global presence of these forces should not come as a shock, but rather, must be properly understood as the product of the dominance of white supremacist jurisprudence in international law.[4] This discussion presents an overview of the origins and development of white jurisprudence, a description of its relationship to international law, an overview of the intellectual forces that resist it, as well as some thoughts on the role of international law in breaking cycles of supremacy. <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/defeating-white-jurisprudence-towards-a-new-era-of-international-law/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Jessica (Tae Yean) Kim Vol. 38 Associate Editor On June 17, 2016, the Senate of Canada passed Bill C-14, enacting a new federal law which legalized physician-assisted suicide (PSA) in Canada.[1] This new legislation makes Canada one of the few nations where doctors are lawfully permitted to help terminally ill people die.[2] An interesting aspect of the new law is that it excludes non-Canadians, preventing the prospect of suicide tourism from the U.S and elsewhere.[3] Suicide tourism which is often referred to as “death tourism” can be defined as the phenomenon of individuals traveling abroad in search of assisted dying.[4] The issue of “death tourism” has been so controversial that Swiss journalists coined the term “strebetourismus,” a German word for “death tourism” as Word of the Year for 2007.[5] <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/death-tourism-how-to-regulate-this-thriving-industry/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
Lauren Kimmel Vol. 38 Associate Editor It’s hard to miss recent headlines about the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which has stirred fresh controversy in a wide array of political, environmental and ethical circles. At the head of the opposition are a number of prominent Native American tribes in Iowa and the Dakotas – most notably, the Standing Rock Sioux.[1] The Standing Rock Sioux and their allies argue that construction of the pipeline will substantially compromise its own access to safe water, as well as the tribe’s historical rights to the territory.[2] The pipeline also raises a number of grave concerns about the environment, including “everything from farming and drinking water to entire ecosystems, wildlife and food sources.”[3] Additionally, there remain questions of wrongful use of eminent domain[4] and risks of oil leakage.[5] <a href="https://www.mjilonline.org/does-the-dakota-access-pipeline-violate-treaty-law/" class="read-more">Read More</a>
