The European Union, borders and conflict transformation: the case of Cyprus

Much of the existing literature on the European Union (EU), conflict transformation and border dynamics has been premised on the assumption that the nature of the border determines EU intervention and the consequences that flow from this in terms of EU impact. The article aims to transcend this literature through assessing how domestic interpretations influence EU border transformation in conflict situations, taking Cyprus as a case study. Moreover, the objective is to fuse the literature on EU bordering impact and perceptions of the EU’s normative projection in conflict resolution. Pursuing this line of inquiry is an attempt to depart from the notion of borders being constructed solely by unidirectional EU logics of engagement or bordering practices to a conceptualization of the border as co-constituted space, where the interpretations of the EU’s normative projections by conflict parties, and the strategies that they pursue, can determine the relative openness of the EU border

‘Normative or Realist’ versus ‘Normative and Realist’

The idea of the EU constituting a form of ‘normative power’ in its external relations is one which holds significant appeal – not only to European policymakers but also to a number of academic commentators. This article first outlines what is meant by ‘normative power’, and then offers a critique based on a political economy understanding of the ways in which ‘norms’ and interests are intermeshed. The example of relations between the EU and Morocco is examined in detail. It is concluded that the EU claim to represent a ‘normative power’ – understood in a necessarily positive and idealist sense – is misleading, but that the EU does seek to promote and support certain norms that may or may not be in the best interests of those at the receiving end of these promotive and supportive efforts

License to Kill: An Analysis of the Legality of Fully Autonomous Drones in the Context of International Use of Force Law

We live in a world of constant technological change; and with this change, comes unknown effects and consequences. This is even truer with weapons and warfare. Indeed, as the means and methods of warfare rapidly modify and transform, the effects and consequences on the laws of war are unknown. This Article addresses one such development in weapon and warfare technology—Fully Autonomous Weapons or “Killer Robots”—and discusses the inevitable use of these weapons within the current international law framework. Recognizing the current, inadequate legal framework, this Article proposes a regulation policy to mitigate the risks associated with Fully Autonomous Weapons. But the debate should not end here; States and the U.N. must work together to adopt a legal framework that coincides with the advancement of technology. This Article starts that discussion

Return to Geneva: The United Kingdom Green Paper

Ye

Legitimacy and independence of international tribunals:an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights

This paper explores the theoretical framework of judicial independence of international tribunals, with specific reference to the independence of the European Court of Human Rights. It then argues that independence is a key aspect of the legitimacy of an international tribunal and suggests that legal reforms designed to enhance the judicial independence of the European Court of Human Rights should focus on the two main structural parts of the Court, namely the judiciary and the Registry. This paper analyses a number of proposed reforms that can make the European Court of Human Rights more independent and credible. These insights are applicable to other international judicial fora

A global platform for accelerating coal efficiency (PACE)

The World Coal Association released this concept paper in December 2014 on establishing a Platform for Accelerating Coal Efficiency (PACE). The vision of PACE would be that for countries choosing to use coal, the most efficient power plant technology possible is deployed. The overriding objective would be to raise the global average efficiency of coal-fired power plants and so minimise CO2 emissions which will otherwise be emitted while maintaining legitimate economic development and poverty alleviation efforts. Key points - In the lead-up to COP21 in Paris there is no evidence to suggest that mitigation action arising from any climate treaty will come close to achieving emissions reductions necessary to limit atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 450ppm. - As developing and developed economies grow and urbanisation increases, demand is growing for affordable, reliable and secure forms of energy in order to combat energy poverty and ensure competitive economies. - This has meant that coal remains the world\u27s fastest growing fossil fuel. Its current contribution to global primary energy consumption (30.1%) is its highest since 1970. In Southeast Asia alone demand is expected to grow by 4.8% a year through to 2035 as the region turns to coal to fuel its growing energy needs. - There appears to be no concerted international government action to integrate the global priorities of reducing energy poverty and supporting economic competitiveness through affordable energy with global ambitions on climate change. - Moving the current average global efficiency rate of coal-fired power plants from 33% to 40% by deploying more advanced off-the-shelf technology could cut 2 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions now, while allowing affordable energy for economic development and poverty reduction. - Deploying high efficiency, low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants is a key first step along a pathway to near-zero emissions from coal with carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS). - There should be coordinated global action to support developing and emerging economies already choosing to use coal to do so with the lowest possible emissions profile. To that end the World Coal Association proposes a Platform for Accelerating Coal Efficiency (PACE)

The Carbon Tax Vacuum and the Debate about Climate Change Impacts: Emission Taxation of Commodity Crop Production in Food System Regulation

The scientific consensus on climate change is far ahead of U.S. policy on point. In fact, the U.S. has a legal vacuum of carbon taxation while climate change continues to impact the codependence of agriculture and the environment. As this Article shows, carbon taxes follow the polluter-pays model, levying taxes on the highest greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions—and contributions to climate change. But this is not only unsustainable; it would also undermine agricultural production and, thus, food security. This Article describes how the law can regulate climate change contributions and promote adaptation and mitigation supported through carbon taxes in the agricultural sector, twenty percent of GHG contributions will be left untouched, jeopardizing the future of U.S. food production at the environment’s expense. This Article reveals new avenues of climate change adaptation and mitigation through carbon taxation of genetically modified (“GMO”) commodity crops to bring the carbon tax to a previously overlooked contributor to climate change: intensive agriculture. However, adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events, droughts, and floods, can only be accomplished through concerted efforts of various industries, governments, and the public like cap-and-trade or carbon tax schemes imposing blanket limits on GHG emissions