Responsible Public Affairs’ Post

Georgia's New Foreign Influence Law: A Critical Analysis of Regional Geopolitical Dynamics In today’s rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, Georgia's newly enacted "Foreign Influence Law" has emerged as a pivotal issue of international interest. Our latest article on our website, https://lnkd.in/ey-Qc4Z8, outlines that this legislation significantly impacts democracy, sovereignty, and international relations in the Caucasus region. The law has garnered widespread criticism from think tanks, human rights organizations, and Western allies, who argue that it undermines democratic principles and could severely hinder the operations of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media outlets by branding them as foreign agents. This has sparked fears of increased repression against dissenting voices within Georgia and potential ripple effects across Eastern Europe. Crucially, the law's passage may influence Georgia's aspirations to join the European Union (EU) and NATO and its long-standing relationship with the United States. Conversely, Russia's support for the law underscores its broader strategic interests, complicating Georgia's position on the international stage. To gain a deeper understanding of the practical challenges in implementing and enforcing this legislation and to explore its broader geopolitical impacts, read our comprehensive analysis on Our Website. Amnesty International EU Commission DEU.S. Department of State Ministère de la Défense Ministère des Affaires étrangères français Transparency International Carnegie Foundation - Peace Palace OSCE Freedom House The Heritage Foundation Georgia Link Public Affairs Institute of Government & Public Affairs (GIPA) Georgian Institute Of Public Affairs The Institute of Public Affairs Public Affairs Council Département d'économique - Université Laval Isabelle SANTIAGO #ForeignInfluence #Geopolitics #GeorgiaLaw #Democracy #CivilSociety #HumanRights #WesternRelations #GlobalPolicy #EU #NATO #InternationalLaw

Highly recommend listening to the 10th annual Breyer Lecture by Matias Spektor on the US, the West, and international law in an age of strategic competition and the subsequent panel discussion moderated by Ishaan Tharoor. See also article in Washington Post by By Ishaan Tharoor with Sammy Westfall (https://lnkd.in/dCKbJYDb). „In the shadow of the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, a certain shorthand emerged. The battles that raged in war-ravaged cities, trench-lined marshlands and the corridors of the United Nations had sharpened a burgeoning global divide. Countries outside the West did not seem to share the same outrage over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as their U.S. and European counterparts, nor locate in the war the same fears of the collapse of international norms voiced by many in the West. In Washington and Brussels, commentators and foreign policy elites began pointing to a geopolitical gap between the “West and the rest,” lamenting the capacity for nations elsewhere to shrug at the autocratic predations of Russian President Vladimir Putin and be cowed by the growing coercive influences of Beijing. „But Spektor insisted that the “rules-based order” and its liberal elements “were not created by Western fiat.” Rather, they are the product of decades of contestation and diplomatic battles that ran through an era of decolonization and through the emergence and consolidation of principles of human rights in international law and the global public debate.“ For example, “resistance to Western dominance from Angola to Vietnam, Algeria to Afghanistan, paved the way for many of the rules constraining the use of force today,” he argued. “The trade law that we now know was deeply shaped by former colonies asserting permanent jurisdiction over their natural resources, and by coalitions of countries from the postcolonial world who pushed against Western protectionism.” „For all the autocratic threat Russia and China pose in the minds of Western strategists, they are, in their own way, custodians of the same institutions and norms, and have both benefited from them and broken them. “China and Russia, like all great powers, including the United States, will break the rules they don’t like, try as much as possible to push for the rules they like, and be hypocritical when justifying their ways,” Spektor said. That’s why many in the “Global South” aren’t convinced by the “democracy versus autocracy” agenda driven by the Biden administration. They see, Spektor explained, the tensions “not so much between a world safe for democracy versus a world safe for autocracy, but a world where the strong are unconstrained by the global legal order versus a world where the strong have to go through the motions of international law because there are checks on their power.”

The Imperative of Legal Accountability in International Conflicts In the aftermath of World War II, the Nuremberg Trials set a precedent for international justice, demonstrating the global community's commitment to holding individuals accountable for crimes against humanity. This landmark legal process established the principle that individuals, including state leaders and officials, could be tried and punished for actions that violated international law, particularly acts that entail genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Drawing a parallel from history, the call for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other law enforcement bodies to hold current leaders accountable for their actions echoes the imperative of upholding international legal standards. The Israeli government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has faced significant scrutiny and criticism for actions and statements made by its members concerning the conflict in Gaza and the treatment of Palestinians. Recent controversies include statements from Israeli officials that have raised alarm and sparked international backlash. For instance, the suggestion by Israeli Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu of dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip, although quickly condemned and dismissed by Netanyahu as not reflecting the government's stance, underscores the gravity of rhetoric that can exacerbate conflict and potentially constitute incitement. Moreover, Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter's reference to the conflict as “Gaza’s Nakba” and the advocacy by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for policies viewed by some as promoting ethnic cleansing highlight the contentious and polarizing nature of the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The high civilian death toll in Gaza attributed to Israeli actions has further fueled accusations against Netanyahu's government of engaging in war crimes. The comparisons drawn between the actions of Nazi officials tried at Nuremberg and those of certain Israeli officials today are rooted in a demand for accountability and justice under international law. While the contexts of World War II and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict differ significantly, the underlying principle of legal responsibility for crimes against humanity remains a cornerstone of the international legal system. The issuance of international arrest warrants and the trial of individuals for their roles in encouraging or perpetrating acts that violate international humanitarian law are complex processes, influenced by legal, political, and diplomatic considerations. Yet, they serve as a critical mechanism for enforcing international norms and ensuring that actions taken during conflicts are scrutinized under the lens of justice and accountability.

If you have even a remote interest in #internationallaw, #geopolitics and geolegality (yes, geolegality) please have a look at the latest piece by my friend and colleague from Berlin days Malcolm Jorgensen on 'Political Framing in China's Foreign Relations Law'. A great introduction into the 'rules-based order' vs 'fundamental norms' debate, and an eye-opener towards potential futures and their impact on international law in general, and its sub-fields. https://lnkd.in/e99sni2A

In this 125th essay on his #internationalrelations blog Tenzer Strategics, Nicolas Tenzer analyzes the meeting between #UN Secretary Antonio #Guterres and #Putin on the sidelines of the #BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. It provoked righteous indignation. He demonstrates here that not only does such a meeting show, on Guterres's part, at the very least, a total disregard for #internationallaw, but also that, on several points, it could be considered as not respecting the United Nations Charter. The fact is that this much-contested, and rightly so, Secretary-General does not uphold the international law of which he is supposed to be the guarantor. Meeting a man wanted by 124 of the world's police forces because of his indictment for #warcrimes by the International Criminal Court is a serious offense. Beyond that, Nicolas is developing the argument that this visit also reflects an outdated vision of #diplomacy on Guterres' part, to say the least, particularly in his relationship with a state guilty of massive crimes and which has launched an all-out war against #Ukraine. As Nicolas already showed in 2021, Guterres alongside many democratic political leaders also ignores the basic rules of communication in international relations, and similarly pays no attention to the factors of legitimization that are more important than ever. Finally, this meeting undermines the Allies' efforts, however very much insufficient, to ensure a victory for Kyiv in accordance with international law. He is thus acting contrary to the objectives of peace and even of the United Nations Charter. It further aggravates the case of an organization that did not need this new blow to its credibility. Since you're here, and if you like the long papers Nicolas Tenzer publishes on Tenzer Strategics, please consider subscribing in full or becoming a founding member, and you'll have access to all the long-reada published here (125 to date). https://lnkd.in/e8q8Vsn6

In this 125th essay on my international relations blog Tenzer Strategics, I analyze the meeting between #UN Secretary Antonio #Guterres and #Putin on the sidelines of the #BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. It provoked righteous indignation. I show here that not only does such a meeting show, on Guterres's part, at the very least, a total disregard for #internationallaw, but also that, on several points, it could be considered as not respecting the United Nations Charter. The fact is that this much-contested, and rightly so, Secretary-General does not uphold the international law of which he is supposed to be the guarantor. Meeting a man wanted by 124 of the world's police forces because of his indictment for #warcrimes by the International Criminal Court is a serious offense. Beyond that, I'm developing the argument that this visit also reflects an outdated vision of #diplomacy on Guterres' part, to say the least, particularly in his relationship with a state guilty of massive crimes and which has launched an all-out war against #Ukraine.  As I already showed in 2021, he also ignores the basic rules of communication in international relations, and similarly ignores the factors of legitimization that are more important than ever. Finally, this meeting undermines the Allies' efforts, however very much insufficient, to ensure a victory for Kyiv in accordance with international law. He is thus acting contrary to the objectives of peace and even of the United Nations Charter. It further aggravates the case of an organization that did not need this new blow to its credibility. Since you're here, and if you like the long papers I publish on Tenzer Strategics, please consider subscribing in full or becoming a founding member, and you'll have access to all the long-reada published here (125 to date). https://lnkd.in/dxJurh8V

Navigating the Complexities: Unraveling the Flaws in the United Nations' Legal Framework Introduction: Embarking on a journey through the intricate tapestry of international law, we find ourselves at a crossroads where lofty ideals intersect with harsh realities. The United Nations (UN), an institution heralded for its mission to foster global cooperation and uphold the rule of law, grapples with a myriad of complexities within its legal framework. This exploration aims to delve deeper into the nuances of UN law, shedding light on its flaws while igniting a discourse on the imperative for reform. The Quandary of Enforcement: At the heart of the UN's legal conundrum lies the vexing question of enforcement. While the UN Charter articulates principles for maintaining peace and security, translating these principles into actionable measures often proves elusive. The Security Council, tasked with enforcing resolutions, finds its hands tied by the veto power wielded by its permanent members. This veto power, intended to safeguard the interests of major powers, paradoxically undermines the Council's ability to respond effectively to crises, perpetuating a cycle of impunity and eroding confidence in the UN's ability to deliver justice. (Reference: "The Paralysis of Power: Exploring the Limits of Security Council Enforcement," Journal of International Law and Diplomacy, Vol. 40, Issue 2). The Specter of Selective Applicationi: A specter haunts the corridors of international law: the specter of selective application. While the UN champions the universality of legal norms, the stark reality reveals a landscape marred by inconsistency and double standards. Powerful nations, shielded by the cloak of sovereignty, often evade accountability for their transgressions, while smaller states face the full force of international law. This selective enforcement not only undermines the credibility of the UN but also perpetuates a culture of impunity, where might trumps right, and justice remains elusive. (Reference: "The Illusion of Equality: Unpacking Selective Application in International Law," Georgetown Journal of Global Affairs, Vol. 22, Issue 3) The Imperative for Evolution: In an era defined by rapid globalization and seismic shifts in geopolitics, the static nature of international law poses a formidable challenge. As new threats emerge on the horizon, from cyber warfare to climate change, the UN's legal framework struggles to keep pace with the evolving landscape of global affairs. The failure to adapt not only renders existing laws obsolete but also undermines the UN's capacity to address pressing challenges effectively. Embracing innovation and fostering dialogue are imperative if the UN is to remain relevant in an ever-changing world. (Reference: "Adapting to the Winds of Change: Navigating the Evolution of International Law," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 47

The ICJ ruling on Israel's actions in Palestine may significantly influence international diplomatic efforts. 1. Increased Pressure on Israel: The ruling could intensify global scrutiny and pressure on Israel to comply with international law, particularly regarding its occupation and settlement policies, potentially affecting its diplomatic relations with allies, especially in the West[1][4]. 2. Impact on Western Allies: Countries like the U.S. may face domestic and international pressure to reassess their support for Israel, as the ruling highlights legal and moral implications of their current policies[4]. 3. Legal Precedent: The ruling sets a legal precedent that could embolden other states to pursue similar actions against Israel, potentially leading to more cases in international courts[3][4]. Overall, while the ICJ lacks enforcement power, its decisions can shape diplomatic dynamics and influence state behavior in the international arena. Citations: [1] Israeli officials concerned over diplomatic implications of ICJ ruling https://lnkd.in/dh7u_z3n [2] Diplomatic Protection and the International Court of Justice | Oxford https://lnkd.in/dv43hgXx [3] The International Court of Justice's Balancing Act https://lnkd.in/dGr8ingw [4] What does the ICJ ruling mean for Israel's Western allies? https://lnkd.in/dP5f7RBj [5] Upholding the Rule of Law at the International Level: The Role of the ... https://lnkd.in/d-uxJEhh

The People’s Republic of China’s strategy for pressing its claim that Taiwan is a part of China with no independent status increasingly relies on a claim that UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 2758 establishes, as a matter of international law, the PRC’s “One China” principle. This assertion is based on flawed legal assumptions and arguments. The PRC’s agenda has benefitted from its sustained pressure and influence on UN entities and officials; a pattern of misinterpretation, acquiescence, and misunderstanding by those entities and officials; limited pushback from the United States, Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, and other states (especially in high-profile forums); and structural features of the UN (including its one-state, one-vote format and the low salience of Taiwan issues for many members). #TSIDocuments #TSIWeekly20240428 #TSIOneChina #BestTSI2024 #TSIEssentialReadingsTaiwan https://lnkd.in/e-qTYuHk

🎯🏆💯Jill Goldenziel, Forbes [excerpt]: As weapons have been drawn in the #SouthChinaSea, a battle of legal narratives is brewing—and #academics are on the front lines. An article in today’s South China Morning Post reports that Chinese academics are being encouraged to create narratives to support #China’s illegal claims of sovereignty and jurisdiction over parts of the South China Sea—claims which blatantly violate #internationallaw and violate China’s neighbors’ sovereign rights. The PRC plans to flood regional media with these narratives—which it is well-equipped to do, given its ownership of regional #telecommunications infrastructure and #socialmedia—especially #TikTok. The US must step up its efforts to counter China’s legal warfare before China’s narrative becomes accepted as fact in the region. According to the article, Wu Shicun, chair of the Huayang Institute for Research on Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance, encouraged a seminar of 100 historians and legal scholars to construct narratives and engage in discourse to help China defend its “rights and interests” in the South China Sea. He encouraged debunking the 2016 arbitration ruling that invalidated China’s claim to most of the South China Sea, including hotly contested areas in the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone and regions claimed by Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Wu cited “an increasingly arduous battle over public perception and opinion” and cited its neighbors’ “ . . . cooperation with extraterritorial forces in the study of historical and legal issues.” He claimed that the international academic community has developed “some strange theories which deliberately distort the #history of the South China Sea and maliciously smear China’s rights and claims . . . .” He then urged the audience to “restore the rightful background on South China Sea issues from historical and legal perspectives.” The US must be prepared for the coming legal battle. As I have written extensively, in the US government has no whole-of-government strategy to counter China’s legal warfare or other adversary “lawfare.” US legal academics and military scholars have been writing about lawfare, defined as the use of law as a weapon of war or to achieve a strategic, operational, or tactical objective, for nearly 25 years, with limited success in influencing policy. #news #geopolitics #law #lawfare