internationallawpage

written by LL.M. Lotfi Ghouma

During the last years, many countries around the world have witnessed a significant increase in extremist terrorist attacks, which take various forms, whether carried out by radical Islamic groups or far-right extremist groups. These attacks have not only posed a threat to national security but have also acted as a catalyst for the emergence of new political movements, especially in Europe and America, where far-right parties have made significant gains in the political arena.

Terrorism, according to the United Nations Declaration on International Terrorism (1999), is defined as “any act of violence targeting civilians or civilian facilities to create fear or influence the internal or external policies of states.” The United Nations Convention on the Financing of Terrorism (1999) also defines terrorism as “acts of violence intended to coerce a government or international organization into complying with certain demands.” Extremism is defined by the Council of Europe’s Special Group on Combating Extremism as “an absolute adherence to political or religious beliefs that lead to violence, racism, or rejection of cultural diversity.” According to the U.S. Center for Combating Terrorism, extremism is defined as “intellectual tendencies characterized by the rejection of opposing views or equality among individuals based on their religious or ethnic beliefs.”

Far-right extremist parties are political groups that adopt an aggressive nationalist rhetoric, oppose immigration policies and cultural pluralism, and promote traditional values at the expense of civil rights. According to reports by the European Commission, these parties are defined as “following extreme nationalist policies, opposing immigration policies, and promoting traditional values at the expense of cultural pluralism and civil rights.” The Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Germany defines far-right extremism as “a political ideology that calls for cultural isolation, rejects other identities and religions, and often includes hate speech against immigrants and minorities.”

In this context, several issues arise, such as: What are the motivations behind terrorist operations? What is the relationship between the increase in extremist terrorist attacks and the rise of far-right extremist parties on the international political stage? And what are the legal and human rights impacts of the rise of far-right parties?

Extremist terrorist attacks pose a threat to the security and stability of many countries. These attacks are often exploited by far-right extremist parties to bolster their anti-immigration and anti-cultural pluralism rhetoric and to present themselves as defenders of national identity against external threats.

Terrorist operations are complex phenomena that affect societies and countries around the world. The motives behind these operations are diverse, and it is impossible to attribute them to just one cause. Terrorism is typically the result of the intersection of various political, social, religious, and economic factors. One of the most prominent reasons behind terrorist operations is the political motive, where some groups seek to achieve specific goals through violence to bring about political change, such as overthrowing governments or imposing extremist regimes. In many cases, individuals and groups complain about repression and social and political injustice, which makes them feel the need for revenge or to bring about radical change. For instance, Al-Qaeda used violence as a means to achieve political goals, particularly opposing Western dominance over the Arab and Islamic world.

Religious motives are also among the main driving forces behind many terrorist operations. Sometimes, individuals or extremist groups adopt narrow interpretations of religion and view violence as a way to implement their beliefs or achieve the concept of “jihad.” ISIS is a prominent example of this, as it used religion as a tool to justify its brutal actions in Iraq and Syria, targeting innocent people and civilian communities under the pretext of spreading the Islamic caliphate. These groups believe that violence is the only way to achieve their religious and political objectives.

In addition to political and religious motives, economic factors play a significant role in the rise of terrorism. In some cases, individuals face difficult economic conditions, such as poverty and unemployment, making them vulnerable to exploitation by extremist groups. These groups often lure individuals, especially the youth, with recruitment offers that promise financial gain or social status in exchange for engaging in terrorist activities. Somalia and countries in West Africa are examples of this type of terrorism, where harsh economic conditions lead some individuals to feel forced to join extremist groups to improve their situation.

Often, the reasons for extremism go beyond political or economic factors and extend to social and psychological motives. Youth who suffer from social isolation or feel marginalized by society may be more susceptible to joining extremist groups. In these cases, these groups provide a sense of belonging and self-worth. In Nigeria, for example, Boko Haram is one of the groups that attracts young people suffering from poverty and social deprivation, guiding them toward adopting extremist ideas.

When discussing past terrorist operations, we must refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, carried out by Al-Qaeda against American civilian and military targets, resulting in the deaths of around 3,000 people. These attacks marked a turning point in the history of contemporary terrorism, leading to a strategic shift in U.S. and global policies, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Terror. Likewise, the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, carried out by Hezbollah, resulting in the deaths of many American diplomats, marked the beginning of a new phase of terrorism supported by ideological groups.

As for modern terrorist operations, the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris are among the most significant examples of contemporary terrorism. A group of attackers carried out a series of attacks at multiple locations in the French capital, killing 130 people. The attack had a major impact on Europe, increasing fears of the spread of terrorism in Western countries. Similarly, the 2017 suicide bombing in Manchester, UK, during a concert, which killed 22 people, highlighted that terrorist organizations are no longer limited to attacking in the Middle East but have extended to Western capitals.

Terrorist operations have significantly increased in recent years due to the development of social media, which has become a tool for recruitment and propaganda. These platforms have become a venue for spreading extremist ideologies and motivating individuals to carry out terrorist attacks. Through the internet, extremist groups can easily spread their messages, enhancing their ability to attract new members from around the world. Political divisions and ethnic conflicts in some countries also contribute to the rise of terrorism. In this complex scenario, combating terrorism and extremism remains one of the greatest challenges facing global societies.

In conclusion, terrorist operations are not isolated from the political and social contexts in which they arise. They result from the interaction of various factors, including political repression, difficult economic conditions, and social transformations. With the increasing influence of the internet and social media in spreading extremist ideologies, addressing this phenomenon requires coordinated international efforts, including addressing the root causes of extremism, as well as strengthening security and military cooperation between countries.

The increase in terrorist attacks in recent years is intricately linked to the rise of far-right parties in many European and global countries, including the United States. Far-right extremist parties, which adopt anti-immigration and anti-minority rhetoric, often see terrorist attacks as an opportunity to fuel fear and anxiety among the population. These parties exploit terrorist incidents to increase their public support by presenting themselves as protectors of national security and opponents of external threats, such as immigration and terrorism.

One of the key factors connecting the rise in terrorist attacks and the rise of far-right parties is the public response to these attacks. When terrorist attacks occur, especially those linked to radical Islamic groups, fear of the “other” rises among certain segments of society. This fear can lead to increased support for parties that advocate for tough policies against migrants and Muslims, such as imposing immigration restrictions or adopting stricter counter-terrorism laws. Far-right parties take advantage of this charged atmosphere to attract voters who feel insecure or anxious about different cultural and religious identities.

At the same time, these parties seek to portray terrorist attacks as part of a larger threat related to the waves of immigration their countries are receiving. For example, some right-wing parties promote the idea that terrorist attacks are closely linked to the increasing number of migrants from Islamic regions, reinforcing the notion that immigration poses a threat to cultural and social security. This rhetoric exacerbates tensions between local communities and migrants, contributing to rising hostility and discrimination against minorities.

Right-wing parties also benefit from terrorist attacks to justify their repressive policies. At times, terrorist attacks are used as a pretext to enhance security powers and reduce civil liberties, such as enforcing anti-terrorism laws that may restrict freedom of expression or impose tight surveillance on migrants and diverse communities. These policies may receive support from a wide segment of the population who feel that protecting national security requires sacrificing some individual rights.

On the other hand, terrorist attacks can fuel hostility towards Islam and Muslims, especially when the attacks are linked to extremist groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. In this context, right-wing parties exploit these attacks to increase their support by focusing on the idea that these attacks are a result of extremist religious teachings, furthering their negative views of Muslims in general. This contributes to the rhetoric that considers Islam as a cultural enemy, increasing feelings of fear and rejection toward these groups.

Conversely, the rise of right-wing parties can sometimes contribute to an increase in terrorist attacks. Some extremist groups may see the escalation of hard-right rhetoric as an incentive to carry out more attacks as a way to respond to what they perceive as threats against their religious and cultural identity. This strengthens the vicious cycle between extremism on both sides, with right-wing extremist groups becoming more rigid in their positions, while terrorist groups retaliate against what they perceive as an attack on their culture or religion.

Far-right parties in Europe play a major role in enhancing this tense climate. Among the most prominent leaders of these parties in Europe is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Rally, which has become one of the leading far-right parties in France. Le Pen is one of the strongest critics of immigration and Islam and has adopted an anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant discourse. She advocates for strict immigration laws and opposed the European Union’s policy on open borders.

In Italy, there is Giorgia Meloni, leader of the “Brothers of Italy” party, which has gained increasing popularity in recent years. Meloni, who became Italy’s Prime Minister, promotes an anti-immigration and anti-Islam agenda, viewing illegal immigration as a threat to Italian security. She also embraces a strong nationalist policy and calls for restructuring the European Union to align with the interests of European nations.

In Italy as well, Matteo Salvini leads the “League” party, which has become a prominent face of the far-right currents in his country. Salvini is firmly opposed to immigration, seeing it as a threat to Italian identity, and played a major role in implementing strict policies against migrants during his tenure as Interior Minister.

In Austria, Heinz-Christian Strache leads the “Freedom Party of Austria,” which is considered one of the most prominent far-right parties in the country. Strache promotes policies opposing immigration and the European Union, as well as adopting rhetoric that stirs racial and religious divisions, exploiting fears of terrorism to increase his party’s popularity.

In the Netherlands, we find Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who continues to criticize Islam and immigration from Islamic countries. Wilders is one of the most vocal opponents of immigration and tries to exploit terrorist attacks to reinforce his views on the threats posed by radical Islam.

In Germany, Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democratic Union, recently won in the federal elections along with the “Alternative for Germany” (AfD) party. Although Merz is a conservative figure within his party, AfD promotes anti-immigration policies and calls for more stringent counter-terrorism measures, especially in light of the rising threat of extremism in the country.

Additionally, international figures have played a role in boosting the rise of far-right parties in the West. In the United States, Donald Trump, the current president, remains one of the most prominent supporters of far-right parties globally. Trump has presented an explicitly anti-immigration discourse, advocating for building a border wall with Mexico and attacking immigration agreements with other countries. He also leveraged Americans’ fears after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, using an anti-Islam and anti-refugee stance to bolster his popularity.

In Europe, Elon Musk, owner of companies like Tesla and SpaceX, has become one of the prominent figures indirectly influencing political currents, including the far-right, by supporting freedom of expression and offering a liberal perspective on many issues. Musk has publicly supported several conservative figures known for their hardline stances on immigration and liberal economic and environmental policies, thereby enhancing the political strength of parties adopting these positions.

The European Parliament has also seen a rise in support for the right, with far-right parties securing around 30% of votes in the most recent European parliamentary elections. This rise reflects increasing support for these parties in many European countries, which promote anti-immigration stances, reducing the influence of the European Union, and implementing stricter laws against what they see as cultural and terrorist threats. This growth in support for far-right parties reflects a shift in political trends across the continent, where the role of these parties in shaping future policies has been strengthened.

Right-wing parties also benefit from terrorist attacks to justify their repressive policies. At times, terrorist attacks are used as a pretext to bolster security powers and reduce civil liberties, such as enforcing anti-terrorism laws that might restrict freedom of expression or impose stringent surveillance on migrants and various communities. These policies can garner support from a broad segment of the population who believe that protecting national security requires sacrificing some individual rights.

In conclusion, the increase in terrorist attacks and the rise of far-right parties feed into each other, creating an environment of social and political tension. Far-right parties use terrorist attacks to intensify their anti-immigration and anti-Islam rhetoric, while terrorist groups may feel motivated to carry out more attacks in response to this escalating discourse. This complex interaction makes it difficult to address terrorism and extremism effectively without confronting the underlying causes of these phenomena, whether they are economic, cultural, or political.

The rise of far-right parties in many European and global countries deeply impacts the legal framework surrounding human rights, especially when balancing personal security with the preservation of fundamental freedoms like freedom of expression. In recent years, these parties have increasingly called for stricter legal measures to combat terrorism and extremism, leading to clashes between human rights and security measures, as well as between freedom of speech and hate speech.

Right-wing parties, which are gaining increasing popularity in many countries, often reinforce national security policies and tight surveillance in the face of terrorist threats and extremism. Under the banner of countering terrorism, these parties call for tougher laws against immigration and curbing individuals’ rights in civil society. This has led to direct impacts on individual rights, including restricting freedom of expression and expanding government powers to monitor individuals.

In light of the rising threats of terrorism and violent extremism, these policies have become more acceptable to large segments of society. However, the enforcement of counter-terrorism laws is facing criticism due to its potential infringement on fundamental rights. For instance, in some European countries, anti-terrorism laws have been strengthened to allow for extended detention of suspects without trial, which constitutes a violation of individuals’ right to a fair trial. Security agencies have also been granted greater powers to monitor people online and in public spaces, raising privacy concerns.

The balance between protecting human rights and ensuring national security is one of the most contentious issues of our time. Counter-terrorism measures, often justified based on safeguarding national security, can result in the restriction of basic rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy.

For example, in France, the recently issued “Global Security Law” allows security agencies to use digital surveillance techniques such as public camera monitoring, which could breach individuals’ freedom of movement. Additionally, France has imposed specific counter-terrorism laws that allow authorities to investigate individuals’ financial transactions and conduct financial surveillance to combat the funding of terrorism. While these measures may be necessary to combat security threats, they raise concerns about encroaching on citizens’ civil rights.

Freedom of expression has been notably affected in many countries with the rise of far-right parties, which often promote rhetoric targeting religious and ethnic minorities, whether against Muslims, refugees, or migrants. In this context, the legal challenge is how to preserve freedom of expression while combating hate speech and division.

A prominent example of this is Germany’s Hate Speech Law, which has been enforced strictly in recent years. This law aims to combat extremist and racist content online and allows the closure of accounts involved in spreading hate speech. On the other hand, some argue that this law could be used to restrict freedom of expression, especially when it concerns political or religious criticism.

In the United Kingdom, there are also growing concerns about the use of anti-terrorism laws to restrict freedom of expression. For instance, some individuals who expressed opposition to far-right parties or government policies regarding immigration have been accused of posing a threat to national security. In some cases, individuals were arrested for expressing political views, raising concerns about the restriction of freedom of speech.

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, France adopted a law allowing authorities to impose exceptional measures to combat terrorism, including administrative detention and broad internet surveillance. These measures have been criticized for infringing on individuals’ rights to privacy and liberty.

Germany also passed the 2018 “NetzDG” law, which aimed at addressing hate speech online. This law obliges digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter to remove content violating hate speech laws within a short timeframe, raising questions about the boundaries of freedom of expression.

In the United States, Donald Trump, after taking office, launched the “Domestic Terrorism” policy, which expanded electronic surveillance and investigations into individuals deemed potential threats to national security. While this policy aimed at securing safety, it raised concerns about its impact on civil rights and freedoms of expression in the country.

The legal effects of the rise of far-right parties include an increase in the use of repressive measures against individual rights and fundamental freedoms. While some argue for the necessity of strong legal measures to combat terrorism and protect national security, others believe these measures lead to the restriction of basic human rights, especially freedom of expression. Moreover, the gap between combating hate speech and safeguarding freedom of expression remains one of the most problematic issues in this context, as governments must strike a delicate balance between ensuring security and upholding the fundamental freedoms that lie at the core of modern democracies.

written by LL.B. Atabek Ismailov

Introduction

International economic disputes are conflicts between states, companies, or international organizations arising due to differences in trade, investment, and financial matters. These disputes can significantly affect the global economy, slowing down trade and investment growth. In this article, we will examine the main causes of international economic disputes, existing resolution mechanisms, and their impact on global economic processes.

Causes of International Economic Disputes

Key causes of international economic conflicts include:

• Trade barriers – the introduction of tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions on imports and exports.
• Breach of contractual obligations – non-compliance with international trade and investment agreements.
• Protectionist policies – measures to protect domestic producers that may infringe on the interests of foreign companies.
• Differences in legal systems – contradictions between the legislations of different countries affecting the enforcement of economic agreements.
• Disputes over natural resources – disagreements over access to oil, gas, water, and other strategically important resources.

Mechanisms for Resolving International Economic Disputes

There are several main ways to resolve economic conflicts on the international stage:

• Negotiations – parties independently negotiate a resolution to the conflict.
• International arbitration courts – specialized organizations such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
• World Trade Organization (WTO) – dispute resolution between states within the framework of the international trade system.
• Regional trade organizations – such as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
• Mediation and consultations – the involvement of neutral parties to facilitate compromise.

Impact of International Economic Disputes on the Global Economy

The consequences of international economic disputes can be significant and affect:

• Economic growth rates – trade wars and sanctions can slow down global economic development.
• Investment climate – instability reduces investor confidence.
• Prices of goods and services – introducing tariffs can increase product prices.
• Global supply chains – trade restrictions can disrupt production processes in various countries.

Conclusion

International economic disputes are an inevitable part of the global economy. Their effective resolution requires a comprehensive approach, including international cooperation, arbitration mechanisms, and compromise-seeking. The development of international law and the improvement of dispute resolution institutions help minimize negative consequences and ensure stability in the global economy.

written by Prof. Ph.D. Sadmir Karović published by European Defendology Center, Banja Luka

For the last two decades, the issue of protecting every individual’s fundamental human right and freedom, regardless of their national, ethnic, religious, or racial affiliation, or any other personal characteristic, has been continuously brought to the forefront. The international community has recognized this global problem that burdens public opinion worldwide and national legal systems, leading to the creation and adoption of numerous international legal documents aimed at incorporating the protection of these basic human rights and freedoms.

Contemporary challenges and problems actually warn us that many international legal documents have not fulfilled their purpose in a practical sense, as we still see many people in the world today who are hungry, homeless, and lacking adequate social and health care, that is, individuals deprived of the satisfaction of their basic existential needs. Social, economic, and other inequalities, along with the divide between the rich and the poor, leave behind certain consequences. I believe it is inappropriate to talk about the protection of human rights and freedoms when we consider the mentioned inequalities and divisions among people, especially taking into account the status and situation of the most vulnerable in the world.

On the other hand, peace, security, freedom, and justice are universal values recognized by the civilized world. Still that world does almost nothing to provide adequate or at least minimal protection and security for these values. Instead of providing adequate protection, prevention, and deterrence against international crimes, billions are invested in enhancing weapons and military equipment that are even deadlier and more destructive. An evident example of human destruction and the culmination of human evil is Gaza, seen as a “graveyard” for basic human rights and freedoms. Thus, instead of stopping and preventing further destruction, Gaza has become a “testing ground” for the use of devastating and modern weapons and military equipment that leave devastation in their wake.

The civilized world has the opportunity to witness horrific scenes from Gaza daily, including organized, planned, and systematic destruction of property and the killing of people, women, children, and the sick. Yet, it does not undertake the necessary protective actions to halt the culmination of human evil, which takes on surreal proportions. An absurd question arises: how can we explain to the people in Gaza that there are basic human rights and freedoms, or how can we make them understand that they, too, have the right to life, a roof over their heads, food, medicine, healthcare, the right to work, the right to education, and so on?

International interests have neglected universal human rights and have once again, for who knows how many times, confirmed that the right of the stronger prevails. On the international social scene, we have a glaring example of the impotence of international (criminal) law, which shows its apathy and all other weaknesses in the realm of general prevention against international crimes. I could never have imagined that in the 21st century, we would again witness the culmination of human destruction, especially when I had the opportunity to see horrifying, gruesome, and brutal scenes on TV, such as a child being pulled from the rubble of a collapsed building, fighting for its life. Or when I read about newborn twins being killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza while their father was at the local authorities’ office to register their birth. More than 12,000 children have been killed in Gaza! After this, I am ashamed to even mention children’s rights, let alone discuss them!

The civilized world and the international community are aware of all this; they know about these and many other horrific, brutal, and gruesome examples from Gaza. This is not a secret nor is it a matter of hearsay or unverified claims, yet they turn their heads away and pretend everything is fine in the comfort of their offices, meeting rooms, and conference halls. I mention children specifically because they are a vulnerable age group that deserves special attention and sensitivity, as well as adequate protection. The mentioned examples indicate that basic human rights and freedoms apply only to certain people, not all, because the people, women, children, the sick, the elderly, disabled individuals, and other categories in Gaza are unequivocal evidence that the universal human rights promoted by the civilized world do not exist for them.

Here, a key human question arises: are you human or not? It is not a matter of whose side you are on. There is a stark, compelling, and recognizable difference between humanity and human destruction (killing, property destruction, etc.), and the only question is whether we want to see that obvious difference or turn our heads away and talk about human rights and freedoms as some kind of abstraction or a “colorful lie” for the weak and powerless. A crime is a crime and has no other name or justification.

Unfortunately, in the world, especially in Africa, there are other crisis hotspots, armed conflicts, unfinished civil wars, and other forms of human destruction that receive less media coverage, where it is also absurd to talk about respecting and implementing basic human rights and freedoms. After Gaza, I ask myself: what needs to happen for the international community and this civilized world to act urgently and vigorously to prevent or stop human destruction, killing, and property destruction… and to show that basic human rights and freedoms truly exist in practice? It has long been clear to everyone that evil, or crimes, must be responded to urgently and in proportion to their severity, scope, prevalence, and other destructive characteristics, and that appeals, pleas, diplomatic pressures, and economic sanctions have no effect and are not a proportional response to the evil that threatens.

Moreover, the purpose and effectiveness of international (criminal) law and international justice are often questioned, especially when considering their role in preventing and combating international crimes. Despite these efforts, such crimes continue to occur, often with increasingly devastating consequences.

written by Stefan Andjelkovic

On April 11th, 2024, Mexico instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (hereinafter: Court) and filed a request for provisional measures. This case deals with legal issues about diplomatic relations, the peaceful resolution of international conflicts, and the inviolability of diplomatic missions and their personnel.

On April 5th, 2024, at approximately 10 p.m., the Government of Mexico observed concerning actions by the Government of Ecuador regarding the premises of the Mexican Embassy in Quito. It has been reported that around 15 special operations agents, accompanied by two vehicles, entered the Embassy grounds using forceful means and without prior authorization. During this incident, the Deputy Chief of Mission, Mr. Roberto Canseco Martínez, made efforts to address the situation upon witnessing the presence of these agents within the Embassy. Unfortunately, his attempts to intervene were met with violence in the Embassy library. Subsequently, the agents took Mr. Jorge David Glas Espinel, former Vice-President of the Republic of Ecuador, into custody, placing him in one of the vehicles before departing the premises. Mexico expresses its deep concern regarding these events and reiterates the importance of diplomatic norms and the inviolability of diplomatic missions. (Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador), Application No. 2024/30, International Court of Justice, p. 1)

Mexico stated that the recent assault was not an isolated incident but rather part of a pattern of ongoing intimidation and harassment. This series of events began on December 17, 2023, as Mr. Jorge David Glas Espinel, the former Vice-President of Ecuador, arrived at the Mexican Embassy in Quito seeking protection, citing concerns for his safety. Following this, Mr. Glas Espinel remained at the Embassy and formally requested asylum from Mexican authorities. Since that date, there has been a persistent police presence surrounding the Mexican Embassy.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Glas and his asylum request were discussed during a meeting between the foreign ministers of Ecuador, Mrs. Gabriela Sommerfeld, and Mexico, on January 16, 2024. On February 8, 2024, Mrs. Gabriela Sommerfeld and Laura Elena Carrillo, Mexico’s Undersecretary for Latin America, had a follow-up meeting where they talked about the subject. This indicates Mexico’s willingness to work with Equator to resolve any potential disputes through diplomatic channels (Ibid.).

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador sent a diplomatic note on February 17th, 2024, inquiring about the location of Mr. Glas at the Mexican Embassy. Moreover, on February 29th, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador issued a second diplomatic note asking for permission from the Mexican diplomatic mission for Ecuadorian law enforcement agencies to enter the Mexican Embassy and arrest Mr. Glas. That consent could only have been granted by the Head of Mission (Ibid. p. 2).

On April 4, 2024, Ecuador declared persona non grata the Ambassador of Mexico in Ecuador, citing the President of Mexico’s comments on Ecuador’s presidential elections as the reason for their decision. Mexico regretted declaring its Ambassador persona non grata and decided to offer political asylum to Mr. Glas Espinel. Mexico also stated its intention to seek safe passage for Mr. Glas Espinel and insisted that Ecuador ensure the protection of its diplomatic mission. Ecuador quickly replied on that same day, stating that they considered the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Glas Espinel as illegal and that they would not provide him with safe passage. Ecuador stated that it would keep protecting the Mexican Embassy in Quito under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (hereinafter: Vienna Convention). Around 10 p.m. on 5 April 2024, armed Ecuadorian security forces entered the Mexican Embassy without permission from the Head of Mission, restrained the Deputy Chief of Mission, and forcefully took Mr Glas Espinel from the premises.

On April 6, 2024, the Mexican Government informed Ecuador through a Note Verbale of its immediate termination of diplomatic and consular relations between the two countries. Ecuador reiterated on that day that Mexico’s act of granting diplomatic asylum to Mr. Glas Espinel was against the law. The decision of Ecuador’s President to allow entry into the Mexican Embassy was made due to Mr. Glas Espinel facing a genuine and immediate risk of fleeing (Ibid.).

Regarding the grounds of the claim, Mexico claimed that Ecuador violated Mexico’s rights under customary and conventional international law, as well as fundamental principles upon which the international legal system is based. Mexico referred to article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter: Charter) which regulates the main principles of the United Nations, for this case the most important principle “to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” (Article 2 of the Charter), and to article 4 of the Charter which stipulates that “membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations” (Article 4 of the  Charter).

Furthermore, Mexico claimed “that Ecuador has openly disregarded its obligations vis-à-vis Mexico under the Vienna Convention, the Pact of Bogota, and the Charter of the Organization of American States” (Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador), Application No. 2024/30, International Court of Justice, p. 5).

Regarding the Vienna Convention, certainly the most applicable article, in this case, is Article 22 (1), which stipulates that the premises of the mission shall be inviolable and that the agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, and article 29 which guarantees the inviolability of the person of a diplomatic agent and prohibits any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat the diplomatic agent with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom, or dignity.

Mexico requested the Court to adjudge and declare as follows:

a) Concerning the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means,

i. To adjudge and declare that, by employing the use of force to break into the premises of the Mexican Embassy, Ecuador is in breach of its obligations under international law, notably article 2(3) of the Charter, article 3(i) of the Charter of the Organization of American States, and article 2 of the Pact of Bogota;

ii. To adjudge and declare that Ecuador has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter;

b) About the premises of Mexico’s Embassy to Ecuador and its diplomatic personnel,

• To determine and declare that Ecuador, by deploying special police and military forces both outside and inside Mexico’s diplomatic premises, thereby compromising the personal integrity and dignity of Mexican diplomatic personnel, interfering with private communications of the Embassy, and forcibly entering the premises, violates its obligations under international law;

• . To order Ecuador to undertake all appropriate and immediate measures to respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, in conformity with the Vienna Convention; and
• To order Ecuador to make full reparation to Mexico for the harm suffered.

c) Given all the violations by Ecuador of international obligations owed to Mexico,

i. To adjudge and declare that Ecuador is responsible for the harm that the violations of its international obligations have caused and are still causing to Mexico;

ii. To suspend Ecuador as a member of the United Nations, until it issues a public apology recognizing its violations of the fundamental principles and norms of international law, to guarantee reparation for the moral harm inflicted upon the United Mexican States and its affected nationals;

iii. To adjudge and declare that, in case of a violation of the principles established in the Charter similar to the ones committed by Ecuador in the present case, the Court is the appropriate judicial body to determine the responsibility of a State, to initiate the process of expulsion under article 6 of the United Nations Charter; and iv. To set a precedent stating that a State or nation that acts as Ecuador did in the present case will ultimately be expelled from the United Nations under the procedure foreseen under Article 6 of the Charter (Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador), Application No. 2024/30, International Court of Justice, p. 9 – 10).

Moreover, concerning the Vienna Convention, Mexico requested provisional measures to safeguard the enjoyment of its rights, which are as follows: the inviolability of its diplomatic mission premises in Quito; the entirety of its property and archives; and the private residence of diplomatic agents, including in the event of a break in diplomatic relations (Ibid. p. 11).

In the Application, Mexico stated that the Republic of Ecuador’s actions seriously harmed Mexico, its diplomatic post, and its employees there. They also seriously jeopardize Mexico’s rights under the Vienna Convention from future violations. Therefore, the recent acts of Ecuador’s security forces amply reinforce the urgency of the provisional measures, and thus, Mexico requested the Court to indicate the following provisional measures:

• That the Government of Ecuador takes appropriate and immediate steps to provide full protection and security of diplomatic premises, their property, and archives, preventing any form of intrusion against them;
• That the Government of Ecuador allows the Mexican Government to clear diplomatic premises and the private residence of diplomatic agents;
• The Government of Ecuador ensures that no action is taken which might prejudice the rights of Mexico in respect of any decision which the Court may render on the merits;
• That the Government of Ecuador refrains from any act or conduct likely to aggravate or widen the dispute of which the Court is seized (Ibid. p. 12 – 13).

During a public hearing held on Wednesday 1 May 2024 at the Peace Palace, the agent of Ecuador, stated that Ecuador has already provided assurances, of its own volition, both to Mexico and to the Court, that it will respect and protect the premises of Mexico’s diplomatic mission in Quito, together with its property and archives, in full accordance with international law. He reiterated unequivocally that, following the Vienna Convention and other relevant rules of international law, Ecuador will:

• (1) provide full protection and security to the premises, property, and archives of the diplomatic mission of Mexico in Quito, to prevent any form of intrusion against them;
• (2) allow Mexico to clear the premises of its diplomatic mission and the private residences of its diplomatic agents; and
• (3) refrain from any action that is likely to aggravate or widen the dispute of which the Court is seised, and instead pursue the peaceful settlement of disputes (Public sitting in the case concerning the Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador), CR 2024/26, International Court of Justice, p. 8-9).

Additionally, an agent from Ecuador stated that they provided written assurances to Mexico as early as April 9, 2024, shortly after Mexico abruptly severed diplomatic relations in response to the unusual incident on April 5, 2024. Mexico did not reply to this communication. Instead, just two days later, it submitted an application to the Court to initiate proceedings and requested provisional measures. Ecuador subsequently submitted its assurances to the Court in a letter dated April 19, 2024. It is important to note that these assurances were crafted in a manner and language that directly addressed the specific terms of Mexico’s request for provisional measures (Ibid. p. 9).

According to Ecuador, at the time of his arrival at the Mexican Embassy, Mr Glas Espinel was on temporary release from prison on health-related grounds, following two final convictions against him for illicit association and bribery. He was also subject to ongoing criminal proceedings in Ecuador for alleged embezzlement of public funds (for which a pre-trial detention order was issued on 5 January 2024) and under investigation for alleged intimidation and psychological violence. In the view of Ecuador, the case also concerns, among other things, the violations by Mexico of the Vienna Convention, the need to prevent abuse of the institution of asylum as known to Latin America, Mexico’s complete disregard of its obligations to cooperate under the inter-American and the UN anti-corruption conventions, and the blatant interference by Mexico in Ecuador’s internal affairs. Ecuador emphasized that it was determined to fight the corruption that had engulfed the whole continent and was determined to fight the impunity that has been harmful to peace and prosperity not only in Ecuador but also far beyond (Ibid. p. 10).

Regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, Ecuador emphasized that the Court does not have prima facie jurisdiction over Mexico’s claims in this case. The first point is Article II of the Pact of Bogota which requires the existence of a dispute “which, in the opinion of the parties, cannot be settled by direct negotiations through the usual diplomatic channels”. Ecuador pointed out in the case of Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea in which the Court decided that “[t]he critical date at which ‘the opinion of the parties’ has to be ascertained for the application of Article II of the Pact is the date on which proceedings are instituted”. For this case, according to Ecuador, that date marks the moment Mexico filed its application. They claimed as well that Mexico did not provide evidence that “the two parties previously attempted to resolve their differences by direct negotiations through the usual diplomatic channels” since there were no negotiations and that at this stage in the proceedings, prima facie Article II of the Pact of Bogota is not satisfied (Ibid. p. 24).

Furthermore, Ecuador emphasized the implausibility of the rights for which Mexico sought protection at this stage of provisional measures, as well as the absence of a connection between the requested measures and those rights. Ecuador asserted that it initially provided assurances to Mexico in a Note dated April 9, 2024, stating that it would act in accordance with the specific measures requested by Mexico (Ibid. p. 35). Given that, according to the Court’s case law, it is insufficient to merely reference rights under a treaty, the Court also examines the “facts and circumstances” to make its determination. Ecuador stressed that the current “facts and circumstances” are inadequate to establish that these rights are relevant to the case at hand. Consequently, the rights Mexico seeks to protect through its Request are not “plausible” enough to warrant the indication of provisional measures (Ibid. p. 37).

Therefore, the Republic of Ecuador requested the Court to reject the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the United Mexican States (Ibid. p. 43).

On 23 May 2024, the Court delivered its Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures.

It was noted by the Court that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico in a Note Verbale dated April 9, 2024, that “the respect and protection of the premises, property, and archives of the Mexican Embassy in Quito will be guaranteed in accordance with Article 45 (a) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Order on the indication of provisional measures, International Court of Justice, p. 8).

The Ecuadorian Agent’s guarantees, in the Court’s opinion, addressed the worries that Mexico raised in its Request. They include, among other things, pledges to guarantee complete safety and security for the premises, property, and archives of the diplomatic mission of Mexico in Quito and to permit the clearing of both the mission and the private homes of Mexican diplomats. Furthermore, as the Respondent made clear during the hearing, these guarantees were meant to cover “the same ground as Article 45 (a) of the Vienna Convention” and to encompass inviolability to the extent that Article 45 necessitates it (Ibid. p. 9).

In its Order, the Court recalled the fundamental importance of the principles enshrined in the Vienna Convention. As the Court has previously noted, “there is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies so that throughout history nations of all creeds and cultures have observed reciprocal obligations for that purpose” (United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 19, para. 38). In particular, “the institution of diplomacy, with its concomitant privileges and immunities, has withstood the test of centuries and proved to be an instrument essential for effective co-operation in the international community, and for enabling States, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems, to achieve mutual understanding and to resolve their differences by peaceful means” (Ibid. p. 10).

Thus, the Court unanimously decided “that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures” (Ibid. p. 11).

Conclusion

The case of Mexico v. Ecuador involves a conflict between the institution of diplomatic asylum and the inviolability of diplomatic missions, their personnel, and archives on one hand, and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state, as outlined by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Charter of the United Nations, on the other.

In its application, Mexico alleged that Ecuador violated the Vienna Convention’s provisions concerning the inviolability of diplomatic missions, archives, and personnel. Additionally, Mexico claimed that Ecuador failed to respect the granted diplomatic asylum and requested that the Court impose provisional measures. The term “diplomatic asylum,” broadly defined, refers to asylum granted by a state outside its territory, typically within its diplomatic missions (strictly speaking, diplomatic asylum) or consulates. While diplomatic asylum is a well-established practice in Latin American countries, it is not recognized in European international law. The Court’s interpretation of diplomatic asylum will be pivotal in this case.

Conversely, Ecuador contended that Mexico’s provision of diplomatic asylum to Jorge David Glas Espinel (Mr. Glas), Ecuador’s former Vice President, constituted a breach of the Vienna Convention’s articles related to non-interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state and the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. Ecuador argued that the entry into the diplomatic premises was a temporary action indicating its willingness to negotiate with Mexico to restore diplomatic relations and safeguard Mexico’s diplomatic missions, archives, and personnel.

The key issue for the Court will be the interpretation of diplomatic asylum in this context, considering that this practice is not acknowledged in Europe or other regions outside Latin America. The Court will also need to determine whether diplomatic asylum should take precedence over the Vienna Convention and the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state and the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.

written by Artyom Davtyan

The Northern Sea Route (NSR) has long been touted as a potential game-changer for global shipping. With climate change shrinking the Arctic ice cover, this alternative to the Suez Canal offers a shorter passage between Europe and Asia. However, despite its advantages, the route faces significant geopolitical, logistical, and environmental challenges, all of which have thus far limited its broader commercial adoption.

written by LL.M. Stefan Andjelkovic

It is estimated since October 7 when the conflict started that 10.000 Palestinians were killed, including at least 4.880 children and2.509 women while 26.000 Palestinians were injured after Hamas fighters entered Israel using paragliders and went on a gun rampage in neighborhoods close to the Gaza border fence. In Israel, at least 1.430 people were killed while 5.600 were injured. An estimated 150 people have been taken as captives by the Hamas fighters.

Use of the White Phosphorus

Human Rights Watch has expressed concern over Israel’s utilization of white phosphorus during military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, asserting that this practice endangers civilians, potentially leading to severe and enduring injuries. The organization has recently released an informative document addressing questions related to white phosphorus. Human Rights Watch conducted a thorough investigation, which included the verification of videos filmed in Lebanon and Gaza on October 10 and11, 2023. These videos depicted multiple instances of artillery-fired white phosphorus airbursts over the Gaza City port and two rural areas along the Israel-Lebanon border. Additionally, interviews were conducted with individuals who described an attack involving white phosphorus in Gaza.

*written by Marianne Tiamson

Accurate and precise communication is of utmost importance in international law, where borders become less defined and legal issues extend beyond national boundaries. This is where the intricacies of legal translation within international law come into play.

*written by Artyom Davtyan

The South China Sea, with its territorial disputes and rivalries, is undoubtedly one of the world’s most contentious places. The People’s Republic of China and its Communist Party are at the heart of the issues. The “U-shaped line,” also known as the “nine-dotted line” and formerly the “eleven-dotted line,” is essential to China’s involvement in the Asiatic Mediterranean, and more especially the South China Sea. This line was formulated prior to Mao Zedong establishing the still-existing communist state.

Stefan Andjelkovic
LL.M. in International Public Law

The Human Rights Council began on June, 23 2023 an interactive dialogue with the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
Irene Khan.