#10 -ˏˋ⚖️🙅♀️💣ˎˊ- Last stop before September
The weekly roundup keeping you on the cutting edge of international justice and human rights issues, or something like that.
Dear all,
It’s issue number 10! I’m glad we made it this far.
Here’s the good news: I still like doing it. Here’s the bad news: I’m failing at promoting/marketing Law Not War.
Every week is the same: I can produce the newsletter with ease, but taking it on Twitter and LinkedIn (haven’t really tried other networks so far) doesn't work that well. I’ll look at how I can ease that process, and if you have any magic tricks to help me, don’t hesitate to let me know.
And what’s best to celebrate issue number 10 than by taking a break? That’s right, Law Not War is going on leave. We’re planning to resume newsletter work in September.
Cheers,
Maxence
This week in Law Not War:
A look into the “status quo coalition”, or why rich and free countries don’t go to war (as they used to) anymore
The human cost of AI in EU-Africa's migration surveillance
Five lessons from the UN’s involvement in Mali
The United States and the ICC : A trip down (recent) memory lane
And more…
Saved from the World-Wide Web over the past few days
🇺🇸 Why rich and free countries do stand together (the status quo coalition)
We have here a refreshing long read remaining us a theory (which I think makes sense) explaining why rich and free countries do stand together - why they don’t go to war, and why they try helping other nations to become rich and free. I’ll give you three extracts, and if you want more, the link for the full text.
Extract 1:
In the pre-industrial past, fighting a war to get productive land was many times more effective than investing in irrigation and capital improvements to your own land, assuming you won the war. But in the industrial world, fighting a war to get a factory is many, many less times more effective than just building a new factory at home, especially since the war is very likely to destroy the factory in the first place. This was not always the case! The great wealth of many countries and indeed industrialization itself was built on resources acquired through imperial expansion; now the cost of that acquisition is higher than simply buying the stuff.
Extract 2:
The good news for these rich and free countries is that the current international system was largely the creation of one really big rich and free country (the United States) working together with a bunch of other rich and free countries, setting the rules the way rich and free countries like them. So the international system, embedded in organizations like the IMF, WTO, the World Bank and to a degree the United Nations, is institutionally structured to prefer the free movement of goods, ideas and capital and to discourage the revision of the status quo by force.
Rather than being simply an expression of American power (though they are that), those institutions are also an expression of the collective interests of this informal collection of rich and free countries, what we might call the status quo coalition.
Extract 3:
For the voting public in the United States, all of this means it is necessary to come to understand that a lot of the good things we enjoy are as much a product of our reputation (again, see the polling above) as a reasonably reliable steward of the status quo as they are of US power directly. That in turn needs to influence political calculations about the costs and benefits of different courses of action: the cost for the United States of deciding to revise the status quo is potentially much higher than it seems, because it shakes the foundations of all of these mostly-invisible institutions that are in fact the root of a lot of the United States’ global power. Because the United States isn’t the king or general of the status quo coalition, it’s the ‘team captain.’ If it proves to be a bad team captain, the team may well choose a new captain, or disband altogether, with catastrophic implications for American interests.
➡ Read more on Bret C. Devereaux’s blog.
🌍 The human cost of AI in EU-Africa's migration surveillance
This article discusses the ethical implications of using AI and surveillance technology to manage migration flows in the EU-Africa context. The EU has been funding surveillance technology in the Middle East and North African region for decades. The deployment of AI and surveillance tools has contributed to instability, discriminatory border procedures, and thousands of deaths each year, argues the author.
Key takeaways:
AI and surveillance technology used in migration management are contributing to instability in the Middle East and North African region, as well as causing discriminatory border procedures and deaths each year.
The EU has allocated billions of euros to fund surveillance technology and border control, leading to concerns about privacy violations, data protection breaches, and questions of proportionality.
It is crucial for civil society to monitor and denounce the use of AI and surveillance technology in migration management, in order to advocate for a humane migration policy that prioritizes the rights of people on the move.
🇲🇱 The primacy of geopolitics: five lessons from the UN’s involvement in Mali
The UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA) is ending after growing tensions between the mission and Malian authorities. This article analyzes the key factors that led to the demise of MINUSMA, drawing out lessons for future peace operations.
Here are 3 key takeaways from the article:
Geopolitical tensions between Western countries like France and Russia have undermined the perceived impartiality and effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This highlights the importance of geopolitics in shaping the success or failure of peace operations.
MINUSMA's close association with French counterterrorism operations made it difficult for the mission to be seen as an impartial actor by the Malian government. This suggests peacekeeping missions should avoid over-identification with any one country.
The Security Council mandated MINUSMA with contradictory tasks, like supporting state authority while also mediating with armed groups. This illustrates how contradictory mandates create operational difficulties for peacekeeping missions.
➡ Read more on the Global Observatory.
🔥 Is the Pentagon relenting?: A close study of opposition to the Int’l Criminal Court’s Ukraine investigation
The article chronicles the evolving US position on the ICC and Ukraine investigation throughout 2021-2022, highlighting the gap between administration statements and actual cooperation due to Pentagon objections. A trip down recent memory lane for those interested in a detailed timeline of the US/ICC relationship over those past two years.
Also rescued from the World-Wide Web
Poland violated rights of judge critical of government reforms, rules European court (Notes from Poland)
Families of Flight PS752 victims breathe a sigh of relief as case goes to international court (CBC)
The ICPA, new kid on the block in the world capital of international justice (Justice info)
With Ukraine’s Cluster Bombs Killing Its Own Citizens, Biden Readies Order to Send More (The Intercept)
Surge in anti-LGBTQ disinformation targets Pride in Europe (France 24)
Council of Europe must not water down their human rights standards in convention on AI (ECNL)
Un Rwandais vivant en France mis en examen et écroué à Paris pour génocide (Le Figaro / AFP)
ICC's next move on the Philippines set for July 18 (Rappler)
How do we define human rights in the age of A.I.? (UChicago)
If you’re still reading this, 👏 (and thanks). This is the end of this edition, thank you for stopping by :)
How was it?
With your feedback, we can improve Law Not War. Click on a link to vote:
I welcome candid feedback, so don’t hesitate to reach out on LinkedIn or on Twitter. You can also reply to this email, just hit the reply button.
Finally, if you liked reading this newsletter, you could consider sharing it with like-minded folks. And ❤️ this post directly using the like button below. It would help and encourage me a lot 💪
See you next time!
Maxence
Currently listening to: Septembre en attendant, Noir Désir
P.S.: Prefer to read in French? You’re in luck: this is a bilingual publication.