Velimir Zivkovic’s 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

Georgia's New Foreign Influence Law: A Turning Point in Regional Geopolitics Analyzing Its Impact on Democracy and International Relations Georgia's "Foreign Influence Law" stands as a critical juncture in the regional geopolitical landscape, reverberating through democratic institutions and international alliances. This legislation has sparked considerable debate, raising significant concerns about its implications for civil liberties and freedom of the press. Critically, the law could jeopardize Georgia's aspirations to align more closely with the European Union and NATO, while simultaneously bolstering Russia's influence in the region. For an in-depth analysis and to contribute your perspectives, read our comprehensive article on https://lnkd.in/eUp63ZDR Join the conversation

"As we approach the 75th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions later this year, it is important to remember that the development of modern international humanitarian law did not follow a direct, linear path. Determining where it theoretically began, or at which point it became most effective, may end up discounting the contributions which don’t receive the same recognition as others. This is particularly true in the case of the western-centric domination in the creation and interpretation of international law up until the mid-20th century. While the ‘Treaty for the Regularization of War’ may not have had the same effect as later contributions to IHL, what it does show is that at least the ideas which ultimately culminated in the 1863 Lieber Code and 1864 Geneva Convention were not produced in a vacuum. This treaty is a key indicator that by the early 19th century, people were already searching for a way to codify protections for all people affected by armed conflict on the basis of a moral obligation to prevent unnecessary death and destruction. [1] All of the articles listed in this paper are translated from the original Spanish copy of the treaty located in the collection of General O’Leary, Chapter XVII. [2] One thing that must be taken into consideration is that the preamble to the 1820 treaty specifically translates into English as ‘law of cultured nations’ (leyes de las naciones cultas) as opposed to just ‘law of nations’. In this instance, there appears to be an academic consensus that given the context, both of these have the same meaning. [3] Spain had already retaken Venezuela following its first attempt at independence in 1812 and Great Britain as well as Portugal were still regularly intervening in South America until the late 19th century."  

Monica Hakimi and I have a new paper on the prohibition of territorial annexations. The prohibition is often mischaracterized, we argue, historically, conceptually, and doctrinally. For example, it is frequently described as a by-product of the prohibition on the use of force. But as we explain, it is actually linked to three core projects of international law: the territorial entrenchment of states, the right to self-determination, and limits on the use force. The confusion about the prohibition of annexations (coupled with geopolitical competition) has obscured its significance, we think, and we urge more attention to it in the context of #Ukraine, #Palestine, #Golan, Western Sahara, and beyond. https://lnkd.in/d7NaD_P5

BLOG!! "Before the Lieber Code and Geneva Conventions came a treaty between the Spanish Empire and Simon Bolivar’s revolutionary forces in Colombia and Venezuela. The 1820 Treaty for the Regularization of War aimed at reducing the unnecessary suffering of both soldiers and civilians affected by armed conflict and occupation across a broader spectrum than any previous international agreements. However, despite the significance of such a development in international law, the treaty fell into relative obscurity after the Colombian War of Independence until being slowly reintroduced throughout the 20th century. In this post, graduate student Jacob Coffelt from the University of Padua explores what can be considered the birth of international humanitarian law in Latin America as well as the effects colonialism has had on its legacy. Using both historical and contemporary sources, he argues that the codification of modern principles of international humanitarian law had occurred decades prior to what is traditionally suggested". #IHLColombia #IHLHistory #IHL #DIH https://lnkd.in/ex4jiM5h

My research article on China’s use of “political framing” in international law is now published open access via the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law. Read especially for an explanation of how commitment to “multipolar international order” has subverted criticism of Russian illegality in the ongoing #UkraineWar https://lnkd.in/dkrMkRN6

"Even if the International Court of Justice were to determine that the Zionist settler-colonial state is intentionally committing genocide, the punishment would be trivial. Article IV of the Convention declares, “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” Contemporary international law punishes individuals, but not sovereign states. In the case of a settler-colonial state, potential punishment of specific public figures or soldiers is woefully inadequate. Surveys show that nearly 90% of Israelis believe that the Zionist settler-colonial state’s massacres are justified and a large majority oppose permitting humanitarian aid into Gaza. Potential indictments by international courts of specific Israeli leaders will not prevent future massacres because Zionists endorse and rationalize mass civilian deaths. Moreover, settler-colonial and neocolonial states employ extreme violence against civilian populations, but international law does not punish these states. Probably the only punishment that could potentially deter civilian massacres is the loss of state recognition in the international legal system. (By way of example, the General Assembly’s suspension of South Africa in 1974 arguably contributed to the eventual dismantling of apartheid.) So long as the UN recognizes the Zionist settler-colonial state, the UN is complicit in its massacres." 

South Africa's Historic Stand for Justice at The Hague In a pivotal moment at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, South Africa took center stage, representing the Palestinians in a landmark legal battle against Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip. The live broadcast of the session marked a significant development in the history of the Palestinian question and international law, signifying a notable shift in global attitudes towards universal legal institutions established after World War II. Four key issues emerged from this momentous event: The Brutality of War: The South African legal team meticulously detailed the grave violations of the Genocide Convention during the Israeli war in Gaza. They highlighted the use of advanced technology to inflict unprecedented human and material damage within a confined geographical area. The presentation accused the highest Israeli officials, from the President to military personnel, of orchestrating and celebrating actions amounting to genocide. South Africa's Representation: South Africa, with its history of overcoming colonialism and apartheid, assumed the role of a champion for Palestinian rights. The juxtaposition of South Africa's diverse and pluralistic society against Israel's history of racism and supremacism resonated globally. This legal confrontation underscored the geopolitical shift and the symbolic significance of a nation that once battled apartheid now leading the charge against a perceived Israeli genocide. Changing Defenders of International Humanitarian Law: The event highlighted a transformation in the guardianship of international humanitarian law. Traditional Western powers, having conceptualized these laws, faced a challenge as emerging democracies like South Africa, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Bangladesh supported its application to Israel. This shift raised questions about the monopoly of international legal instruments by Western nations. Legal Expectations: The Israeli defense attempted to cast doubt on the occurrence of genocide and the legitimacy of South Africa's complaint. While a swift decision on the halt of Israeli military operations was anticipated, the determination of genocide was expected to take a considerable amount of time due to the complex nature of distinguishing it from other crimes against humanity. In addition to the International Court of Justice proceedings, five countries—South Africa, Bolivia, Djibouti, Bangladesh, and the Comoros—officially initiated pressure on the International Criminal Court to investigate crimes committed in Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The outcome of these legal actions is poised to have a lasting impact on the philosophy of law and the international balance of relations, reinforcing the historical significance of South Africa's stand for justice in The Hague.

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

🌍 Exploring the Impact of International Courts: A Reflection on the South Africa-Palestine Case at the ICJ 🇿🇦🇵🇸 In the wake of the recent South Africa-Palestine case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it's crucial to delve into the effectiveness of international courts in addressing complex geopolitical issues. 🤝 International Collaboration: The case highlights the significance of international collaboration and the role of the ICJ as a platform for peaceful dispute resolution. As a community of nations, we must recognize the importance of diplomatic avenues and legal frameworks in fostering dialogue and understanding. ⚖️ Legal Precedents: International courts play a pivotal role in establishing legal precedents that guide future cases. The outcomes contribute to the development of international law, shaping the way nations interact and resolve disputes. The South Africa-Palestine case underscores the enduring impact of such decisions on global legal landscapes. 🌐 Challenges and Opportunities: While international courts offer a forum for addressing disputes, challenges persist. Issues such as enforcement, compliance, and the involvement of all relevant parties pose hurdles to the effectiveness of these institutions. However, they also provide opportunities for dialogue, reconciliation, and the pursuit of justice on a global scale. 🌱 A Call for Engagement: As professionals engaged in international affairs, let's use this moment to reflect on the potential of international courts in fostering peace and justice. Encourage open conversations, share insights, and contribute to the ongoing discourse on the role of these institutions in shaping a more harmonious world. 🌐🗣️ #InternationalLaw #ICJ #GlobalJustice #Diplomacy #SouthAfricaPalestineCase