3 resultados para Quebec private international law

em Brock University, Canada


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Failed and fragile states that result from intrastate war pose severe threats to the security of both the international system and individual states alike. In the post-Cold War era, the international community has come to recognize the reality of these threats and the difficulty involved in ending violence and building sustainable peace in failed and fragile states. This work focuses upon the development of a comprehensive strategy for sustainable peace-building by incorporating the tenets of the human security doctrine into the peace-building process. Through the use of case studies of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and East Timor, the development and refinement of the doctrine of human security will occur, as well as, an understanding of how and where human security fits into the sustainable peace-building equation. The end result of the analysis is the development of a hierarchical pyramid formation that brings together human security and peace-building into one framework that ultimately creates the foundation and structure of sustainable peace-building. With the development of a sustainable peace-building structure based upon the human security doctrine, the role of Canada in the support of sustainable peace-building is analyzed in relation to the form and level of involvement that Canada undertakes and contributes to in the implementation and support of sustainable peace-building initiatives. Following from this, recommendations are provided regarding what role(s) Canada should undertake in the sustainable peace-building process that take into consideration the present and likely future capabilities of Canada to be involved in various aspects of the peace-building process. ii This paper outlines the need for a peace-building strategy that is designed to be sustainable in order that failed and fragile states resulting from intrastate conflict do not regress or collapse back into a condition of civil war, and subsequently designs such a strategy. The linking of peace-building and human security creates the required framework from which sustainable peace-building is derived. Creating sustainable peace is necessary in order to increase the likelihood that both present and future generations existing in failed and fragile states will be spared from the scourge of intrastate war.