Only twenty
years ago, the cybersecurity matters were of any concern only to people in
Hollywood developing movies like “Hackers” that pictured the cybercrimes and
cyberwarfare as science fiction. Today, we can safely say that we are living
this science fiction.
Growing numbers
of cyberattacks on the data and infrastructural systems underlines the
importance of the comprehensive cybersecurity for states as well as individuals
or corporations. World is experiencing the stage when wealth is digitized and
that includes money, personal data and intellectual property. And if you locate
your wealth in the digitized form, you have to be ready that cybercriminals may
target it.
All that is just
one part of the story. On the other hand, for the states like Azerbaijan, that
are engaged in the protracted armed conflict for more than twenty years now,
the nature of warfare is as changing as rapidly developing information and
military technologies. Moreover, when there is an absence of active hostilities
and only occasional skirmishes on the frontline, with years the warfare only
naturally starts to shift its domains. Right now the shift became apparent.
From classic domains of land and air, the warfare for Azerbaijan shifts towards
so-called “5th domain” or cyberspace.
The rapid
development of information technologies both globally as well as regionally
prompts the countries in the region to keep up with the cyberarms race.
Cybersecurity is becoming more crucial for the comprehensive defense of not
only digitalized wealth or data, but also quite physical infrastructure and
communication systems. Free flow of information by itself constitutes a
blessing as well as challenge to sustain and maintain it free.
In such
situation Azerbaijan can soon face variety of cyberweapons directed against it.
Such weapons were already used in several cases to disrupt, deny and deceive an
adversary’s strategic intentions. Though such weapons have not proved to be yet
coercive by themselves, they might become just that in the course of future
development. Moreover, if used with more conventional instruments of power a coercive
effect might build up. The danger of cyberweapons at the same time is in their
contemporary indiscriminate character. Computer viruses such as Stuxnet or
Flame that have been used as cyberweapons, for example, did not feature the
proper level of targeting and became indiscriminate in the process of their
use. Effective cyberattack is usually a complex operation with large burden of
intelligence. Precisely because of that, for now, the resources and ability to
carry out an effective cyberattack lie in the hands of states. However, due to
the rapid development of technology, that might well change in the course of
next years and provide the groups or even individuals with the same abilities
to be engaged in cyberwarfare.
What is more is
that for now there is no clear opinion in the international law itself on the
matters of cyberwarfare. Many questions relate to if the laws of war apply to
cyberwarfare? Can the state exercise its right to self-defense if attacked by
the cyberattack? Can it retaliate with physical force?
In the situation
of uncertainty even on the theoretical level, cybersecurity of Azerbaijan becomes
of growing importance. In light of variety of threats that starts to be even
more apparent. First and main threat in cyberwarfare is simple espionage. While
it becomes more manageable, the danger to the security of your data, strategic
plans or any other classified information increases dramatically as it becomes
digitalized and networked. Cyberthreats directed toward obtaining such
information should be then countered by the comprehensive security measures.
Another area is
so-called “information war”. Being a victim of aggression and even having international
law on your side does not by itself safeguard Azerbaijan from the flow of false
information and propaganda. As our territories still occupied, so is our
country still on the defensive in the “information war”, countering negative
flow of the information as well as propaganda from Armenia. In such situation
you want to maintain both free flow of information for yourself as well as to
protect your “information hubs” from being compromised or misused by the enemy.
Third level of
danger might bring even more severe consequences if reached. Cyberattacks
proved to be able to bring physical and kinetic effects that become much more
an alarming threat as the cyber-weapons progress. In the situation like that it
is crucial for Azerbaijan to maintain an appropriate level of cybersecurity to
protect its critical infrastructure such as energy grids, financial networks
and defense industrial base. The rapid digitalization in these areas brought
both positive results for overall infrastructure as well as new security
concerns.
For Azerbaijan the development of cybersecurity
strategy becomes increasingly important. Comprehensive strategy in this area
would provide for the implementation of effective centralized cybersecurity for
the whole country to be able to answer any modern challenges of cyberwarfare,
explore potential of cyberspace, protect its networks and systems, add to
technological innovations in the area and strengthen collective cybersecurity
with its international partners.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
03.10.2012
Ukrainian
parliamentary elections are getting closer and closer. On October 28, 2012
Ukraine will have to elect its new “Verkhovna Rada” that consists of 450
members, through new combined proportional and majoritarian (also called “First
Past the Post”) systems. Under the new electoral legislation half of the seats
in Rada will be elected through the former system (party lists), while the rest
of them will be filled through the latter system of elections.
Moreover, the
new legislation provides that the voting barrier to be reached by the party to
be able to get any seats in parliament was raised to 5%, while political blocks
are not able to participate in elections at all anymore – political parties
only.
Considering all
that, when we look at the pre-election situation it seems quite different from
what was to see in 2007. No more there are political forces led by the Vladimir
Litvin or Alexander Moroz with leftist and socialist ideas and at the same time
there are changes in the opposition to the ruling Party of Regions too. Both
most charismatic leaders of the opposition Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko
are serving their sentences in jail due to criminal charges pressed against
them almost a year ago. Hence, the opposition went with the policy of
unification and gathered under the banners of All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland". While the nominal leader of
this Union is still Tymoshenko, it is becoming more obvious that the real
leadership already belongs to Arseniy Yatsenyuk whose party Front of Changes
became a part of the Fatherland in February this year.
Furthermore, there are new players in the game. Famous Ukrainian boxer
Vitaliy Klychko is going to the elections as the leader of his newly developed
party UDAR (Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform). Almost no one expected
such a pre-election success of that party and it has to be noted that its
currents polls shows 12% of possible votes under the proportional system. Some
experts forecast even 15% as the elections result for this party. Interesting
situation is with another newcomer to the political battleground in Ukraine –
the Party of Natalia Korolevska “Ukraine – Forward!” Though it is still unknown
if this party will be able to reach 5% barrier (current polls less than 4%), it
is still impressive how such a fast-runner could prove so well on the
pre-election stage.
Last but not
least is the participation in the elections of All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" led by Oleh
Tyahnybok. The Union unites the nationalistic
ideologies of Ukraine and currently believed to be able to pass the voting
barrier and get its seats in parliament. Svoboda is in strong opposition to the
Communist Party of Ukraine that has been steady in its decrease in popularity,
however still able to get enough votes to secure seats in parliament.
From the general outlook to the situation one can see the progress in
the political development in Ukraine in the sense that there are new political
forces on the ground, new coalitions and balances on the table and there seems
to be no stagnation in the ideological matters. However, when analyzing the
situation on the practical level, everything seems quite different.
United opposition Fatherland on the current polls is a little bit
stronger that the Party of Regions on proportional system and they have already
negotiated the representation of the candidates in majoritarian system with
Svoboda. However, there are still hindrances to the opposition in terms of the
unequal opportunities in the pre-election campaigning.
When it comes to UDAR of Klychko and the party of Natalia Korolevska
they tend to position themselves as an opposition to the current government,
however there are some specifics that may indicate that the situation is less
clear. For example, the main financial sources of “Ukraine – Forward!” come
from the circles that are close to the Party of Regions, whereas the party of
Klychko is still unable to reach some kind of agreement with the united
opposition and their allies.
That leaves us with the Party of Regions that has a very interesting
strategy. Apart from their customary coalition with the Communist Party, they
seem to direct attention more to the first past the post candidates rather than
to their party lists. The strategy then will be in form of “Ukrainian Gambit”,
by sacrificing the victory on proportional system to the opposition, while
gaining more seats in parliament through majoritarian system and securing the
dominancy when attracting the possible “swinging parties” like “Ukraine –
Forward!” or even UDAR of Klychko (if unable to reach an agreement with
opposition) to their coalition in the parliament.
Will the ruling Party of Regions be able to get its ultimate goal of 300 seats in parliament, thus securing an absolute constitutional majority, remains to be seen. Much will depend on if the new parties will be willing to make their own gambit and sacrifice the democracy for the representation in the parliament.
Will the ruling Party of Regions be able to get its ultimate goal of 300 seats in parliament, thus securing an absolute constitutional majority, remains to be seen. Much will depend on if the new parties will be willing to make their own gambit and sacrifice the democracy for the representation in the parliament.
There are
certain things that sometimes escape international lawyer’s mind. Important
things that sometimes are lost in the shadows of conflicts and crisis
situations, treaties and customary regulations of war and peace. I am talking
about environmental concerns of the modern world and how international law is
in attempt to regulate them.
To start
discussing the regulations in themselves it is important to first remind
ourselves about the reasoning behind the environmental challenges. I was
reminded by one particular panel on Crans Montana Forum that was held in Baku
in the very end of June, called “The Impact of Globalization on the World
Environment”. When panel’s keynote-speaker Vice-President of Heydar Aliyev
Foundation, IDEA Campaign founder Leyla Aliyeva was delivering her speech it
was striking to me that though I knew that our country was left with major
environmental concerns just after the Soviet past, I practically never stopped
to think that it is I who will be one of those responsible for future cleanup,
as every other citizen of my generation will be. When Ms. Aliyeva was talking
about the role of younger generation in the prevention of negative effects to
the environment – it became clear to me that everyone of us will be responsible
to the answer the environmental challenges in his/her own capacity. If I am an
international lawyer – then it is quite obvious where I should raise awareness.
However it is
not enough just to spread the word and conduct your efforts accordingly. You
need to relay them into the future. Just as Ms. Aliyeva pointed out – education
on environment is essential to
address the future environmental challenges. Our generation when growing up
lacked that kind of education due to the period of change and struggle to the
basic development, however now we owe it to our children to provide them with
the knowledge they need to continue what we will start in preserving our
nature, taking care of environment and striving for sustainable development.
Because just like Ms. Aliyeva said – the young people are the forth front for
environmental developments.
If there will be
no action now we might one day find ourselves in the situation described by the
other speaker on the panel Mr. Subramaniam Eassuwaren, New Leader 2012 from Sri
Lanka who told his very said however educational story of how Sri Lanka lost
almost 90% of its rainforests to the development without heed to the
environmental protection. If we don’t want to face such situation sometime in
the future, we need to answer the call of Ms. Aliyeva that there is a need for
urgent actions and commitments on the part of younger generations.
So what does the
international law do right now to protect environment? Mostly sought topics of
regulation in international law concerning environment are climate change,
sustainable development, biodiversity, transfrontier pollution, marine
pollution, endangered species, hazardous materials and activities, cultural
preservation, desertification and the uses of seas. All of these topics in one
or another matter have found themselves in the scope of international environmental
law. It is worth mentioning that United Nations has its own Environmental
Programme.
However the main
question still remains on how to enforce the international environmental law.
Of course there are forums that provide the arbitration to environmental
disputes between states. There are several international arbitration panels,
including International Court of Justice itself. The major problem is that such
arbitrations require states to voluntarily submit to their jurisdictions. In
addition even if there is a decision made in the international arbitration, it
heavily depends on national governments to enforce such decisions. Problems
arise when the implementations of ruling is withheld or suspended due to the
political or economic reasons.
Another
hindrance in the implementation of international environmental law is the lack
of the international body charged with the responsibility to enforce such law
directly. Thus the responsibility lies on the national authorities to adopt and
use implementing policies. That is why it is very important for the
international bodies to at least conduct monitoring and diplomatic functions
when it comes to the responsibility of the states to protect environment.
Nonetheless, it seems that there is an upcoming tendency
of international community to get more involved in the matters concerning
international environmental regulations. Though a lot still depends on the good
will of the states it is everybody’s responsibility to raise awareness of the
situation and demand the effective implementation of the norms that will help
us save our future. And it is the responsibility of international lawyers everywhere
to take action in the lobbying and promoting the efforts to enforce
international environmental law. With that it can truly be said that environment
is meant to gain its proper space in international law.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Caspian
Basin can best be described as a strategic natural border linking five states:
Russia on the north, Iran on the south, two Central-Asian states of Kazakhstan
and Turkmenistan on the east and South-Caucasian Azerbaijan on the west.
Caspian Basin rich with natural resources and at the same time situated in
geopolitically important region has long since become their collective concern
of the neighboring states both in matters of delimitation of the basin as well
as with security issues.
Most
of the conflicts of interest on the Caspian arise due to the fact that
neighboring states have yet to decide on its legal status and establish
recognized borders. Azerbaijan in its turn has always maintained the view that
Caspian Sea has to be divided into five sectors. Thus in the limits of its own
sector each state would be able to exercise its sovereignty.
Such
a position has a strong merit due to the fact that though Caspian is usually
referred to as “sea” in reality is a very big lake as it is inland and does not
constitute a part of the ocean. Thus, international law that can be applied to
the seas does not apply to the Caspian, making the legal status of Caspian
negotiable between the neighboring countries. However, it should be kept in
mind that the customary practice of states in cases with bordering lakes is
usually sector-based approach.
Another
matter is the environmental security of the basin. Here the approach changes
due to the fact that any environmental damage to the Caspian Sea in localized
sector would inevitably cause damage to all of the neighboring states. Hence,
the situation calls for the approach based on the collective responsibility to
protect environment.
As
opposed to the environment there are also military concerns. Recent years have
shown steady growth of naval forces of all five neighboring states with Russia
and Iran conducting modernization of their Caspian-based vessels and equipment,
while Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan made considerable purchases of their own.
Such situation was inevitably stimulating for Azerbaijan to start developing
its naval military presence to be able to maintain its own naval security.
Though such a military growth created a lot of speculations on why there is a
need for Azerbaijan to develop naval presence so rapidly and against which
country such a trend can be directed, these speculations are quite baseless due
to the fact that the equipment Azerbaijan have purchased, was defensive in
nature and thus cannot be directed against anybody. Plus it is only natural
that Azerbaijan would build up on its naval security considering the overall
geopolitical situation in the region.
In
May 2012 in line with such strategy Azerbaijan has conducted its naval military
exercises called “Protection of Oil and Gas
Fields, Platforms, and Export Pipelines” using ships, speedboats and
helicopters. The main focus of the exercises was on protection and defense
against terrorist attacks with no offensive objectives.
However,
the largest focus in Caspian still remains on energy security. Due to its
geographic location Caspian is a very important link for energy transfers
between rich with natural gas Turkmenistan and South Caucasus with opening
corridors to Europe. For that same reason the idea of Transcaspian pipeline has
dragged a lot of attention in both Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan as well as in
Europe. Construction of such a pipeline would allow for the access of
Turkmenistan on the European market while supplying Europe with the natural gas
it needs thus creating a steady and secure flow of the energy resources from
Central Asia.
Though
the project in itself is purely financial, there is a clear picture that it
might not be in full accord with political, financial and other interests of
other Caspian states. Especially with the borders of Caspian Sea still under
question, level of political pressure rises atop the idea of the new pipeline.
However, for official Baku it seems the issue stays in the limits of pure practicality.
While Azerbaijan expresses both its interest and readiness for the creating of
Transcaspian pipeline it will pursue its financial interests and the final
decision will be made surely on the grounds of financial feasibility rather
than issue-based negotiations. In light of that, it seems only logical that the
decision should be made by the two interested states in the limits of their sovereign
sectors of the Caspian without need for politicizing the overall process.
All
in all the common security of the Caspian is a serious issue for Azerbaijan.
There are still challenges with both legal status of the sea as well as in
issues of energy and military security. All of these are possible to overcome
with the constructive and pragmatic approach that Azerbaijan is trying to adopt
and relay.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
It is more than three weeks since Melinda Taylor was detained in
Zintan as the result of the standoff between International Criminal
Court (ICC) and Libyan interim authorities on who will put Saif
Gaddafi on trial. Ms. Taylor was a part of ICC delegation that
traveled June 6, 2012 to Zintan to meet with S.Gaddafi. Due to the
indictment of Gaddafi by the ICC in crimes against humanity, Ms.
Taylor was appointed as his lawyer to represent him in future trial
in Hague. Militants that are responsible for the detention of the
Saif Gaddafi, have reported that ICC team was in possession of
several documents, one of which was a letter from one of the former
accomplices of Gaddafi that is now residing in Egypt. That letter
served as an official motive for the militants to detain Ms. Taylor
and her team on June 7th.
The situation attracted concern and attention from international
community and many experts in international criminal and humanitarian
law as well as certain governments and their officials.
Australian Prime Minister J.Gillard called on Libyan authorities to
expedite the end of Ms. Taylor’s (who is an Australian national)
detention. Australian Foreign Minister B.Carr said that there seems
to be no interest from Libyans in the early release of Taylor and she
was denied communication with her family, however her detention
conditions are quite good. International movement Coalition for
International Criminal Court have also extended its support to Taylor
and urged the Libya to release the lawyer as soon as possible.
Nonetheless, the most interesting reaction was from ICC itself that
posted press release on June 22, 2012. Through it ICC states that: “…
[it] takes seriously the
information reported by Libyan authorities in relation to the ICC
staff members’ visit. The ICC fully understands the importance of
the matter for the Libyan authorities and the people of Libya”
and that: “… [it] attaches great importance to the principle that
its staff members, when carrying out their functions, should also
respect national laws. The information reported by the Libyan
authorities will be fully investigated in accordance with ICC
procedures following the return of the four staff members. For this
purpose, the Court will be seeking further background information
from the Libyan authorities. The ICC will remain in close contact
with the Libyan authorities to inform them of progress.” Basically,
Court have only acknowledged the graveness of the situation as its
staff members were accused of breaching the domestic laws in Libya
and its readiness to work with Libyan authorities on the matter. At
the same time it did not demand the immediate release of its staff,
only hinted that according to the procedures of the Court there will
be an inquiry after the return of its four staff members.
Moreover, Court “… deeply regrets any events that may have given
rise to concerns on the part of the Libyan authorities. In carrying
out its functions, the Court has no intention of doing anything that
would undermine the national security of Libya. When the ICC has
completed its investigation, the Court will ensure that anyone found
responsible for any misconduct will be subject to appropriate
sanctions”. It seems Court have tried to secure itself in case
there was a legitimate breach of domestic law on account of its staff
and ensures Libyan authorities there are no hostile intentions on its
part.
However, the question is still standing on whether the Libyan
authorities had a right to detain ICC staff in the first place. Right
now in the international law there are two standing arguments both
supporting the claim that ICC staff should possess diplomatic
immunity abroad when engaged in the official Court business. One of
them argues in favor of applying customary international law.
Basically, it argues that even states that are actively at war in
vast majority of cases honor the immunity of their respective
officials and diplomats. International relations are in themselves
bound to one of the oldest principles of international law that is
immunity. When we are talking about diplomacy, negotiations of
treaties and agreements, international organizations activity we have
to keep in mind that all of that would have been impossible without
the notion of immunity. Thus considering the practice of states –
diplomatic immunity should also be covering ICC officials.
The other point of view refers us back to the law of the treaties.
There is an Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the ICC
(APIC). Even though Libya has not ratified this agreement (as it
hasn’t ratified Statute of ICC itself), the argument draws and
analogy to the referral of the case of Gaddafi to the ICC by the UN
Security Council. Thus if Libya is bound by the rules of ICC Statute
through the referral, same goes to the immunities of its staff.
Whatever the stance of the international law is, however, it seems
that ICC and UN Security Council are far from pushing its
implementation, therefore putting Ms. Taylor in the middle.
Nonetheless, diplomatic immunities have to be respected at all times.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
27.06.2012
The dispute
between Philippines and China around the Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan Island in
South China Sea has been getting worse for the past several weeks. The conflict
is over at most the few meters of land, mostly under water, that the two states
claim their sovereignty over. Of course the main bargain is going on over the
fishing and mineral resources in the waters surrounding the area that such
sovereignty gives right to exploit. It is worth mentioning that there is no
common understanding on even the nature of the territory. Chinese regard these
lands as island, while Philippines call it a shoal.
Last several
days the heat of the conflict was mostly stirred up by the Chinese part of the
dispute. There were statements on government’s main media outlet CCTV claiming
(“mistakenly”) the “unquestionable sovereignty” of China over Philippines. The
spokesman on CCTV probably meant the area in dispute, however the statement did
it job in raising tensions over whole situation. Chinese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs have also warned Philippines that China is fully prepared to respond to
any escalation in the dispute if its sovereignty is being threatened. It also
seems that the Chinese travel agencies have temporarily stopped providing tours
to Philippines. At the same time Chinese Embassy in Philippines made a warning
statement to Chinese nationals in Philippines calling on them to be cautious
and preferably refrain from going outdoors as the anti-Chinese protests are
expected to occur. Chinese military have also made statements to the media that
warned that attempts to claim the rightful sovereignty of China over Huangyan
Island will be prevented by the armed forces.
This conflict
has a parallel track of “cyber-warfare”. There are reports of mutual
cyber-attacks on both sides. First at the end of April, Chinese hackers have
reportedly attacked the website of the University of Philippines, while
Filipino hackers have retaliated with their own breaches of the Chinese web
resources. The row of mutual attacks has continued since with the recent
“prank” of Chinese hackers to post a flag of China on the Philippines News
Agency. It is worth noting that Philippines have called on both sides to stop
these cyber-war, while Chinese authorities have not come forward with similar
demands.
Overall it seems
that situation is on the track of escalation and raises the fair question on
what will be the U.S. actions if the situation will get much worse and we will
see the political dispute turn to an armed standoff or even hostilities. The
U.S. involvement in the matter will not be dictated by mere geopolitical
presence in the region, but also by U.S. obligations under the international
law.
As it happens a
treaty exists between Philippines and the U.S. called Mutual Defense Treaty.
This treaty was signed in August 30, 1951 and mainly dictates that both nations
would support each other in case they are under attack by the third party. In
its preamble the treaty reinforces the faith in the purposes and principles of
the Charter of the United Nations, expresses desire to strengthen the “fabric
of peace in the Pacific Area”, while attempting to declare the unity and common
determination of U.S. and Philippines to defend themselves from external armed
attack. The most interesting are the articles IV and V of the aforementioned
treaty. Article V of the treaty talks about the definition of such external
armed attack: “…an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include
an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on
the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed
forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific”. Taking into account that
South China Sea is considered to be Pacific, it looks like the Filipino vessels
are largely covered by the treaty in the meaning of an armed attack subject.
However, what
are the U.S. committed to should attack on Philippines occur from the third
party? Article IV provides that: “[e]ach Party recognizes that an armed attack
in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own
peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in
accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all
measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when
the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain
international peace and security.”
The need to involve the UN Security Council is
quite understandable. However, it is worth noting that U.S. is obliged only to
“act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes”
(for example unilateral presidential action). Nonetheless, the overall meaning
of the treaty is quite clear – the attack on either of the parties means the
attack on both parties. And taking into account that U.S. reaffirmed its
commitments under the treaty several times, if the armed conflict between China
and Philippines should erupt there might be full-scale U.S. involvement.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
Please read my new comment on problems of humanitarian access in Syria - here.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
12.04.2012
The
international community is largely still transfixed with the situation
surrounding Iran’s Nuclear Program. Officials from both U.S. and Europe believe
that Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons while Iran maintains that the
Program’s goal is only to provide electricity to the country without using oil
supplies that can be sold abroad as well as to procure the fuel for the medical
reactors. And though the tensions surrounding the Iran’s Nuclear Program in one
of the most volatile regions of the contemporary world have been there for
years their recent escalation began in November 2011, due to the report of the
international inspectors from IAEA and the heavier sanctions that immediately
followed from the West.
Following the
sanctions came Iran’s response in the form of threat to close the Strait of
Hormuz disrupting around 20% of global oil traffic. Threats were answered by the U.S. that made it quite clear they prepared
to take all necessary actions to maintain the oil flow crucial to the global
economy. Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important straits for the
international trade exchange and security. While traversing that strait, ships
have to pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and follow Traffic
Separation Scheme throughout the strait to escape the risk of collision.
Basically, that Scheme separates inbound and outbound traffic in the Hormuz
through the establishment of two 3 km (1.9 mile) lanes and another 3 km (1.9
mile) in between to navigate the ships flow through Hormuz. Total traffic lane
is now around 10 km (5.7 mile) wide.
Generally speaking Iran does not have any legal rights
to block of suspend transit passage of ships through Hormuz. Such actions
should be considered not only grave breach of international law, but due to the
economic and trade nature of the strait, the threat to the international peace
and security. That is why it is not surprising that U.S. are prepared to take
action in such case even with the use of force. The fact that the presence of
the U.S. warships continuously increases in the Gulf area only confirms the
gravity of the situation.
Moreover, the tensions around Iran’s Nuclear Program
boiled to the point when Israel made a clear message that it is ready to attack
Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such statements from Israel are causing the oil
prices to go up thus having an effect that surpasses regional level and goes
straight to rattling the already unstable global economy that still can’t get
back from sovereign debt crisis in Europe.
Recently global geopolitical players came to the
consent to continue negotiations with Iran, after the authorities in Teheran
made statements that they would allow international inspectors access to the
classified military complex Parchin. Before that moment Iran refused such
access. However, it is still unclear how limited and conditional such access
would be.
The primary goal of the sanctions against Iran is
usually described as an effort to disrupt its Nuclear Program by the means of
distancing the country from international financial system, including both
institutions and funds. The coordinated sanctions imposed by Europe and U.S. aim
first at the banking system. Second target became companies that are related to
the Iran’s nuclear industry as well as some petrochemical and oil industries.
Common understanding is that such sanctions should weaken Iranian government
through depravation from possibilities to develop and invest in the oil
industry and gasoline refinement.
As sanctions came into the effect the response of
Teheran was to further escalate the tensions by suspending the oil exports to
U.K. and France and threatening to do the same in relation to other European
states. Interesting fact is that these countries are least dependent on Iranian
oil from all 27 European Union states. Thus the Teheran’s pressure so far seems
more diplomatic in nature than real response to sanctions.
The intensification of tensions around the situation is
on the rise since. Experts speculate about Israeli attack on Iran nuclear
facilities, enforcement of sanctions grows stronger and Iran threatens with
retaliation, while at the same time expresses its readiness to cooperate with
IAEA to prove peaceful nature of its Nuclear Program.
Another situation that adds pressure on regional
security is of course the atrocities in Syria. While the situation is of a
grave concern to the international community UN Security Council is at the
legal stalemate initiated by Russia and China. So far both Russia and the West agree only that the main
role in negotiating peace in the country should belong to the Arab League. The
problem is the fresh memory of the Libyan resolution in the Security Council.
In the Libyan case, the U.S. and EU countries’ interpretation of the strict resolution on
the situation was so wide it included participation on one side of the civil
war, which led to the change of the regime in Libya and ultimately to the
brutal death of former dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who (although an international
criminal) should have been brought to justice. At the same time Russia and
China see an intervention into Syria as an opportunity for U.S. to weaken Iran
distancing the country from one of its allies.
Moreover, the rising tensions in the relations between
Iran and Azerbaijan making the picture of a very tense and otherwise overloaded
with security issues region quite complete. Fearing the possible presence of
the U.S. forces close to Iranian northern borders coupled with concerns for the
large Azerbaijani minority living on the northern part of Iran, made Teheran
start a real information war against Azerbaijan in its media, following the
attempts to assassinate famed Israelis on the Azerbaijani soil through
specially trained armed groups.
Overall situation in the region has been tied into a
very tense geopolitical knot. World powers are watching the situation that can
spill over into the violent outbreak very closely, trying to allocate the
possible scenarios for the future of Iran. Which at the moment doesn’t seem so
bright.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
Watch my speech at the "The Israel-Azerbaijan Strategic Alliance. Marking twenty years since the Khojaly Massacre" conference on February 27 , 2012 in Netanya Academic College, Israel:
In XXI century
public administration is something that has been through already centuries
driven development process. In the realities of democratic building and
development Azerbaijan have also set out certain goals and made certain
achievements on the process of building effective public administration. Recent
studies show that for the public administration to be effective, it needs to be
human rights friendly.
To achieve that
goal you have to take certain steps to ensure integration of human rights into
the administration system. First you need to:
1. work towards improvement of the
human rights protection techniques and ensure compliance of the public and
private sector with their human rights;
2. adopt the program to counter
measures that undermine the universal compliance with human rights standards;
3. take appropriate steps to
include the promotion and protection of human rights into all foreign and
internal policy areas and activities;
4. provide the conditions for the
support of international human rights instruments as well as the national human
rights initiatives;
5. actively involve civil society
into implementation of your human rights driven public administration;
6.
ensure the cooperation with
human rights monitoring institutions;
7.
strive to provide equal
opportunities for human rights defense.
This is a
non-exhaustive list of initial measures to be taken to shape your public
administration system into human rights friendly encasement. Since the UN
Charter came into force in 1945, the process of integration of human rights
into public administration has maintained its focus on ensuring the adoption
and implementation of the international legal norms that apply to the state
when they treat foreign citizens as well as own peoples. The process largely
started with the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and
the two covenants that followed the Declaration in 1966 – the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights as well as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. That process led to a large number of conventions being adopted in more
specific areas of international human rights law. In this regards the states
should consider themselves on a regular and ongoing routine whether there is a necessity
for further regulation in that area. Azerbaijan as well is very active towards creating
all necessary conditions to apply the international instruments on human rights.
Even after you have established norms the challenge would be to turn the words
on paper into action and concentrate on the efforts to implement effectively
these human rights obligations in practice through your public administration.
Another matter
that amounted to implementation was the establishment of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights in 1993 and reflected the understanding of the
states the role human rights play in international community’s life. Same trend
continued with the set-up of the International Criminal Court whose main job is
prosecuting perpetrators of most grave violations of international law such as
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Usually it is a
job of the states to commit resources and efforts towards the follow-up on
international obligations that demand compliance with these standards of
implementation, including efforts in public administration.
Civil society,
including international organizations that work independently are playing an
increasingly important role in a networked world where more and more issues,
concerns and solutions are of a transnational nature and require an
international cooperation. Independent institutions make a great effort on
national as well as on international level playing a role of watchdogs and
promoters of international human rights law. And at the national level in their
respective areas they become a source of invaluable expert knowledge.
Monitoring, reporting and advisory functions on human rights are also a large
responsibility of national human rights institutions. These institutions should
be base on the basic principles embedded into the UN system to ensure that they
have a comprehensive mandate for the promotion and protection of human rights,
thus making the public administration more open to human rights organizations.
UN bestowed mandate would mean that contributions of the aforementioned
organizations will be considered of importance to the universality of human
rights.
Thus
government’s approaches in public administration should include high priorities
to effective cooperation with civil society as well as with international and
local NGOs and human rights organizations. Such cooperation should be of a
great value to all the parties. The process of such cooperation should be
considered in the public administration efforts as continuous and developing.
In the end understanding of the importance of such relations between government
and human rights institutions comes with results of the effective public
administration. In this regards the support of civil society in human rights
work on an ongoing basis is very important and should involve relevant organizations.
In that sense next step will be to further ensure the outlined framework of
promotion of the efforts in that area. All such measures would amount to the
effective human rights policy towards public administration.
Political
parties and parliaments that are acting according to the democratic rules are
the corner stones of human rights promotion in public administration. First of
all there should not be a tendency to ignore the parliament’s decisions as they
are an important democratic factor. There should be assistance to political
parties to better manage their mandate on human rights protection. Thus the
governments should take considerable steps to intensify their support for these
areas. The goal and primary objective is to establish responsible, transparent
and effective political system of parties and parliaments. These steps are
crucial to the consolidation of a civil society through the course of promotion
of human rights in public administration.
Governments
should by themselves as well as jointly with other states work towards
promotion and protection of human rights simultaneously in bilateral relations
with other governments and correspondingly – in regional and international cooperation.
Added value should be extracted from the building of the framework where
various actions complement each other thus enabling the government to
synchronize its foreign policy with public administration in the human rights
sphere.
Summarizing aforementioned principles it is worth noting that through the course of making its public administration more human rights friendly Azerbaijan was able to:
1. Strengthen its efforts to develop effective human rights friendly institutions and well-functioning legal system;
2. Strengthen its efforts to comprehensively implement bilateral, multilateral and international initiatives in the human rights area;
3. Take considerable steps towards strengthening the effect of the UN human rights activities on regional and municipal level;
4. Contribute to protection of human rights in courts and legal system;
5. Work to strengthen freedom of expression;
6. Maintain the significance of principles of the rule of law to human rights promotion and protection;
7. Strengthen the institutions that are of great importance to a effectively functioning law-governed society;
8. Take other necessary steps towards ensuring more human rights friendly public administration.
Summarizing aforementioned principles it is worth noting that through the course of making its public administration more human rights friendly Azerbaijan was able to:
1. Strengthen its efforts to develop effective human rights friendly institutions and well-functioning legal system;
2. Strengthen its efforts to comprehensively implement bilateral, multilateral and international initiatives in the human rights area;
3. Take considerable steps towards strengthening the effect of the UN human rights activities on regional and municipal level;
4. Contribute to protection of human rights in courts and legal system;
5. Work to strengthen freedom of expression;
6. Maintain the significance of principles of the rule of law to human rights promotion and protection;
7. Strengthen the institutions that are of great importance to a effectively functioning law-governed society;
8. Take other necessary steps towards ensuring more human rights friendly public administration.
Making your
public administration framework more accessible to human rights area is not a
non-recurrent one-time only case. It is a long and always developing process
that needs to answer the challenges and demands of time every single day.
Keeping in mind the universality of human rights law and its standards may
contribute greatly to the goal of making your public administration
human-oriented.
Kamal Makili-Aliyev
Doctor of Laws (LL.D)
15.03.2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
0 comments: