Not exact matches
It is, at least, apparent that the
debates about humanitarian intervention by military force in the last decade, about the creation of
international criminal tribunals in a number of cases, about the idea of a state's «universal jurisdiction» in cases of violations of the Genocide Convention or other «crimes against humanity,» about how far the global war on terror may proceed without violating the rights of states, and most recently, about the United - States - led use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, have all
raised important points of positive and customary
international law, and that in every one of these cases the outcome remains unsettled.
At the dynamic Education Fast Forward 12
Debate on January 19, I spoke with Stefan Dercon (Chief Economist Department for
International Development in London) and Andreas Schleicher (Special Advisor on Education Policy OECD in Paris) about their opinions on the issues
raised in the «Turning School Performance to Economic Success» discussion.
Notably, it provides climate - savvy political leaders like in California an opportunity to
raise the issue of
international solidarity and global justice in the context of state - level
debates.
These developments are not only sparking political
debates, they also
raise practical questions in the realm of
international business dispute resolution.
Over the past year since the report was issued, much of the
debate over fully autonomous weapons has focused on the weapons» potential role in armed conflict,
raising questions over whether the weapons would ever be able to comply with
international humanitarian law, also called the laws of war, but calls have increased in recent weeks for the human rights concerns to be taken into account.