Hong Kong, a special administrative region (SAR) of China, has found itself amidst difficulties. The disruptions began when the Hong Kong government was set to pass an extradition bill, allowing China to extradite criminals from Hong Kong. History demonstrates the distinction in frameworks between the two nations - citizens of Hong Kong are more independent than those in China. The passing of the bill would thus jeopardize Hong Kong's existing autonomy since critics of Beijing based in SAR would be susceptible to be tried in China, known for its human rights violations towards prisoners.
The protesters contended the above and put forward five key demands including withdrawal of the bill and establishment of an independent inquiry into the police’s handling of protests. The legislature defended the bill, expressing that it would keep hoodlums from escaping to other jurisdictions, and further argued that the bill won't have any significant bearing on free speech issues. The government later, however, used disproportional power to check the developing dissent. In mid-June, the protest escalated, and the government employed police force to curb it. Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong, stated that the bill is dead, but the protesters believed it to be a façade. The demonstrators demanded that Lam step down, but China stood firm with her. Nonconformists in July constrained authorities to close the air terminal and warned travelers that Hong Kong is no longer safe for them. President Trump denied any involvement of the US in these protests. The US issued a travel warning for those going to Hong Kong, advising visitors to avoid areas where protests could break out. Hong Kong is therefore in a critical situation, and there is no telling how much further it will escalate.
0 Comments
Recently South Korean Trade Minister, Sung Yun-mo has announced the decision to remove Japan from a list of trusted trading partners and place it in the newly created restrictive trade list citing Tokyo's violations of "the basic principles of the international export control regime". This is being touted as a tit-for-tat move for the same done by Japan earlier this month.
It has been a long-running dispute between the two countries that was escalated last year after a South Korean court ordered Japanese companies to pay compensation to Korean workers for forced labor during World War II. Japan, on the other hand, considers this issue to be resolved since 1965 when the two countries normalized their diplomatic ties. Recently Japan placed restrictions on the export of some chemicals to South Korea citing security reasons. These chemicals are vital for the production of semiconductors and therefore crucial to tech manufacturing companies. Japan claims that these chemicals are being illegally transported to North Korea where they could be used in making weapons while experts see these sanctions as a retaliatory action against the court's ruling. Earlier this month, Japan also removed South Korea from its index of trusted trade partners. The few attempts made by the US, to alleviate tension between the two of its close allies, have not been successful. In financial terms, South Korea is Japan's third-largest trading partner buying about $54 billion worth of Japanese goods, including industrial machines, chemicals, and cars. This move by South Korea will make it difficult for companies to obtain permits to the export of certain materials to Japan. Though the South Korean minister has not specified the materials that will be affected, this is likely to further hamper the global supply chain for big tech companies. Since both the countries are hubs of tech manufacture, these repeated sanctions have induced fear of risk over the global electronic market. After months of negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, both sides have signaled that they are nearing an initial peace deal for Afghanistan. The conflict has stretched for nearly 18 years, taking the lives of tens of thousands of Afghans and more than 3,500 American and coalition forces, and costing hundreds of billions of dollars. About 14,000 US troops and around 17,000 troops from 39 NATO allies and partner countries are in Afghanistan in a non-combative
role. Khalilzad, an Afghan-US diplomat who served as US ambassador to the United Nations (2007-2009), Iraq (2005-2007) and Afghanistan (2003-2005), is representing Washington in the Doha talks. The Taliban is represented by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the chief of the group's political office in Doha, and co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was released in October last year from a Pakistani prison. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan has been a sticking point in the meetings between the two sides in Doha. The Taliban insists it will not commit to anything until the US announces a withdrawal timeline and wants the troops out of the country within months. The Taliban has long refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, which has repeatedly invited the group for talks with no success. Since the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, the group maintains that the country has been occupied by foreign forces. It says the Kabul government has no real power and considers it a "puppet regime". The group says any engagement with the government would grant it legitimacy. Climate change has been one of the most compelling issues of recent times. While we discuss climate change regularly, its effect towards migration has not received much attention.
Climate change precipitates migration and over the years has uprooted millions of people. However, the people who migrate due to adverse climatic conditions do not get the protection that is offered to refugees. The definition of refugees in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees only includes those people who flee in fear of persecution. Therefore, under the existing law, only refugees get protection whereas migrants are left at the mercy of the whims of the receiving country. A glimmer of hope came in the form of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (‘GCM’) adopted by the General Assembly, which provides 23 objectives to tackle migration through shared responsibility. Its effectiveness, however, is questionable considering that it does not bind countries through obligations. In Australia, for example, there have recently been reports of a likely onslaught of migrants due to the crises brought about by natural forces. Despite the government granting refugee status to most of the people in their centres, reports suggest that they incarcerate the migrants and on various occasions, send back boats containing helpless people. They spend more resources for the elimination of migrants as opposed to giving them any sanctuary. This response raises the troubling question of what is to become of all the helpless people who have no place to turn to as official statistics related to climate migration reveal that it is likely to increase manifold in the coming years. Fifty years after the Promethean achievement of Apollo 11, the major space-faring nations are showing a renewed interest in missions to the Moon. While in the 1960s, the decision to land humans on the Moon was perceived as a strategic political instrument between the two blocs, now in the 21st century, a considerably increased number of space actors complicate the scene with multiple sectoral and national interests.
The commercialisation and privatisation of space activities leads to new challenges which raise the issue of the role of the international legal framework. In this context, the Agreement Governing the Activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1979 (“Moon Agreement”) should be able to play a relevant role. The treaty establishes guidelines on future uses of Earth’s moon and outer space. The form of the international regime introduced in the Moon Treaty has yet to be fleshed out, but it is probable that it would be similar in form to the international regime called “The Enterprise”, which was proposed in Part XI of the 1994 Agreement of the Law of the Sea Convention to oversee the mining of mineral resources in the world’s oceans. If the international regime envisioned by the Moon Treaty takes a form similar to that of the Enterprise, developed nations would be required to relinquish a portion of the resources extracted from the Moon and other celestial bodies. They would also be required to surrender technology developed by private industries under their jurisdiction for extracting extraterrestrial resources so that developing nations could participate, as well. Due to the fear of this ‘socialisation’ of outer space, the three major space faring nations (“the Big Three”) are non-parties to the Moon Treaty, which has led to the opinion that the Moon Treaty is a failure. The true test of the Moon Treaty both as treaty and customary law will not be seen until the exploitation of extraterritorial resources becomes technically and economically feasible. The question is when that time comes, will the shadow of the Moon Treaty have grown sufficiently to blanket parties and non-parties alike under the penumbra of customary international law? |