Germany sides with India in Kashmir conflict

Published: 11 November 2019  Author: Stefan Talmon  DOI: 10.17176/20220122-155946-0

The conflict over Kashmir dates back to August 1947 when the predominantly Hindu State of India and the Muslim State of Pakistan were created out of colonial British India. At the same time, the paramountcy of the British Crown over the princely states of the Indian subcontinent and its treaty relations with them came to an end. The princely states were free to decide their own future. In October 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir with a majority Muslim population, but ruled by a Hindu maharajah, decided to accede to the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. In the run-up to the accession decision parts of the Muslim population of the state had revolted against the maharajah and a large force of Pakistani tribesmen had invaded Jammu and Kashmir and was moving on the state capital of Srinagar. It was at that moment that the maharajah decided to accede and appealed to India for assistance. On 27 October 1947, Indian troops landed in Srinagar and the first Indo-Pakistani war over Jammu and Kashmir ensued which ended only 27 July 1949 with the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the two States. The cease-fire line, which is also referred to as the “line of control” is supervised to the present day by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). India and Pakistan fought three more wars over Jammu and Kashmir in 1965, 1971 and 1999. In addition, since 1989 the state has witnessed an armed revolt against Indian rule which left tens of thousands dead and forced India to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops to the territory to quell it, making it one of the most militarized areas in the world.

(more…)

Germany sides with India in Kashmir conflict Read More

German-Syrian diplomatic relations in times of civil war: the realities of diplomacy

Published: 29 October 2019  Authors: Stefan Talmon and Julian Craven  DOI: 10.17176/20220122-160710-0

In March 2011, the Syrian civil war started with major unrest in Damascus and Aleppo. With the continuation and intensification of the conflict and the increasing violations by the Syrian Government under President Bashar al-Assad of international humanitarian law and human rights law, the relations between Germany and the Syrian Government deteriorated. On 7 February 2012, Germany expelled four employees of the Syrian embassy in Berlin for taking action in Germany against members of the Syrian opposition. In response to the massacre in the village of Houla on 25 May 2012, where 108 people, including 34 women and 49 children, were killed by Syrian troops and pro-government militias, Germany, together with Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States expelled the heads of the Syrian diplomatic mission in their country.

(more…)

German-Syrian diplomatic relations in times of civil war: the realities of diplomacy Read More

Germany’s new Arctic policy guidelines

Published: 25 October 2019  Author: Kristina Schönfeldt  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-171542-0

The Arctic is an increasingly important region facing major challenges caused first and foremost by the effects of climate change. The fast-growing interest in its living and non-living resources, its attraction as a new tourist destination, and its use as a route for navigation also contribute to these challenges. The ongoing melting ice and milder temperatures makes this harsh and inhospitable region accessible and potentially prosperous. Therefore, the eight Arctic States have drawn more attention to the region. Moreover, several non-Arctic actors from Asia and Europe are also seeking to gain a seat at the table. Germany is one of them. (more…)

Germany’s new Arctic policy guidelines Read More

In another Argentinian State bankruptcy case the German Federal Constitutional Court once again rejects the existence of a state of necessity as a general principle of international law

Published: 24 October 2019  Author: Julia Wagner  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-170720-0

In an Order published on July 3, 2019, the German Federal Constitutional Court did not admit for decision two constitutional complaints lodged by the Republic of Argentina concerning the Argentine debt crisis. In these complaints, Argentina once again argued that a general principle of international law conferred upon States the right to refuse debt service on bonds held by private creditors who – in contrast to the vast majority of creditors – had not accepted a conversion offer (debt swap) made by the issuing State in the context of a national debt crisis, seeking full payment of the debt instead. (more…)

In another Argentinian State bankruptcy case the German Federal Constitutional Court once again rejects the existence of a state of necessity as a general principle of international law Read More

Namibian Ambassador to Germany shielded by diplomatic immunity

Published: 22 October 2019  Author: Julian Craven  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-170235-0

In May 2019, it was reported that the Namibian Ambassador to Germany, Andreas B.D. Guibeb, allegedly owed money to several companies and had attachment orders against him to the value of some €80,000. One of the companies which had conducted the Namibian Embassy’s media work and had provided website and project support sued the ambassador in th German courts. As the Ambassador did not appear at the various hearings, on 16 May 2018 the District Court of Berlin Schöneberg issued an arrest warrant against the Ambassador in execution proceedings for unpaid debt. The arrest warrant provided as follows: (more…)

Namibian Ambassador to Germany shielded by diplomatic immunity Read More

A roundabout way to say that the Turkish invasion of north-eastern Syria is illegal under international law

Published: 21 October 2019  Author: Stefan Talmon  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-165616-0

In its ninth year, the armed conflict in Syria saw a new development. On 9 October 2019, Turkey launched a military incursion into north-eastern Syria, code-named “Operation Peace Spring”. The aim of the operation was to “counter the imminent terrorist threat” caused by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Turkey considered to be the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK had been fighting for an independent Kurdish State since the 1980s and was listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union. The “PKK/PYD/YPG” occupied large parts of Syrian territory along the border with Turkey and regularly carried out cross-border attacks on Turkish military posts and civilians. Turkey intended to establish a so-called “safe zone” extending some 32 kilometres into Syria along the 444 kilometre-long boundary between the two States in order to ensure Turkey’s border security and to liberate Syrians from the tyranny of terrorist organizations. Turkey which hosted some 3.6 million Syrian refugees also planned to re-settle up to 2 million of these refugees in that zone. (more…)

A roundabout way to say that the Turkish invasion of north-eastern Syria is illegal under international law Read More

The Federal Government continues to justify the fight against ISIL in Syria on grounds of collective self-defence

Published: 21 October 2019  Author: Benjamin Nussberger  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-165019-0

On 18 September 2019, the Federal Government requested the German Parliament to extend the mandate to continue to deploy German armed forces to fight the so called “Islamic State” (ISIL). The Government’s request sets out in detail the legal basis for the military operations.

The legal considerations did not substantially depart from the Federal Government’s previous justifications. The use of armed forces in Iraq was still based on the “Iraqi Government’s continuously valid request and continued consent.” For the operations in Syria, the Federal Government continued to rely on collective self-defence on behalf and on request of Iraq against attacks from ISIL, “in connection with” Security Council resolution 2249 (2015). (more…)

The Federal Government continues to justify the fight against ISIL in Syria on grounds of collective self-defence Read More

The distinction in international law between “bearing responsibility” and “being responsible”

Published: 21 October 2019  Author: Stefan Talmon  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-164144-0 

On 14 September 2019, a combined drone and cruise missile attack was carried out on Saudi Arabia’s Khurais oil field and Abquiq oil-processing plant. The attack briefly interrupted the supply of an estimated 5.7 million barrels of crude oil per day – around five per cent of global supply. The Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen which are engaged in an armed conflict with Saudi Arabia claimed responsibility for the attack on the facilities, but Saudi Arabia and the United States blamed the attack on Iraq which denied any involvement. In a letter to the United Nations, Saudi Arabia stated: “All preliminary signs and indicators reveal that this attack did not emanate from Yemeni lands as claimed by the terrorist Houthi militia, and that the weapons used were Iranian-made.” Saudi Arabia launched an investigation into who was responsible for the attack and invited United Nations and international experts to view the situation on the ground and to participate in the investigations. On 19 September 2019, a team of experts from the United Nations Sanctions Committees on Yemen arrived in Saudi Arabia to join the investigation. (more…)

The distinction in international law between “bearing responsibility” and “being responsible” Read More

Germany opposes Facebook’s Libra currency on grounds of State sovereignty

Published: 16 October 2019  Author: Stefan Talmon  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-153522-0

On 18 June 2019, U.S. social media company Facebook announced plans for offering to its 2.4 billion users a new blockchain-based global digital currency called Libra in 2020. As a stabelcoin cryptocurrency, Libra is to be backed by traditional assets such a money deposits, short-term government securities or gold. (more…)

Germany opposes Facebook’s Libra currency on grounds of State sovereignty Read More

German Constitutional Court considers self-defence against non-State actors a tenable interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter

Published: 10 October 2019  Author: Stefan Talmon  DOI: 10.17176/20220113-152926-0

In an Order, dated 17 September 2019, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed as inadmissible an application brought by a parliamentary opposition group in the German Bundestag seeking a declaration that, by approving the deployment of German armed forces to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed by the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIL), the Federal Government and the Bundestag had violated the German Constitution. In its decision the Federal Constitutional Court also addressed the question of self-defence against non-State actors. (more…)

German Constitutional Court considers self-defence against non-State actors a tenable interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter Read More