Protecting recognized Geneva Convention refugees outside their states of asylum

This article highlights the predicament of persons recognized as refugees according to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951 refugees) when they travel outside their state of asylum. Their status entails ipso facto that, if they are ill-treated abroad, they cannot turn to representatives of their state of nationality and request its diplomatic protection, nor can they expect to receive its consular assistance. It is submitted that a state of asylum ought to extend the scope of protection that it offers CSR1951 refugees residing in its territory, and provide them diplomatic protection and consular assistance when they travel abroad as if they were its nationals. Four claims are advanced in support of this contention: First: the advent of human rights treaties has not rendered obsolete the protection of nationals abroad nor has the practice fallen into disuse. On the contrary, protection abroad retains its pedigree and significance, as is illustrated by the recently adopted International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection and by frequent resort to consular assistance. Second: while states previously enjoyed unfettered discretion concerning whether and when to protect their nationals abroad, recent developments in domestic jurisdictions as well as in European Union (EU) treaties point to the potential emergence of a qualified duty to exercise state protection or to be willing to provide justifications for its refusal. These developments call particular attention to the vulnerability of CSR1951 refugees: the professed aim of the EU treaty regime is that EU citizens should enjoy effective state protection wherever they travel; by contrast, CSR1951 refugees are in need of state protection wherever they travel. Third: according to CSR1951, states of asylum are required to issue Convention Travel Documents (CTDs) to recognized refugees lawfully staying in their territory. While CTDs do not in of themselves authorize states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their CSR1951 refugees, they reflect partial recognition of the instrumental role of these states in facilitating safe refugee travel. Fourth: while the 'nationality of claims' requirement remains pivotal to the institution of diplomatic protection, and efforts to effectuate its general relaxation have thus far failed, the International Law Commission (ILC) has 'carved out' an exception authorizing states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their recognized refugees. The ILC's protection-enhancing agenda, reflecting progressive development of the law, is laudable, even though it has opted for a rather cautious approach.

‘Warsaw Pact Military Doctrines in the 70s and 80s: Findings in the East German Archives’

This article draws on Warsaw Treaty Organisation and East German military archives to demonstrate that the WTO's military exercises until the mid-1990s always envisaged an offensive strategy with the aim of reaching the Channel in a few days. Only gradually did this change under Gorbachev and to include also defensive strategies, very much against the opposition of East Germany.

Characterising loss and damage from climate change

Policy-makers are creating mechanisms to help developing countries cope with loss and damage from climate change, but the negotiations are largely neglecting scientific questions about what the impacts of climate change actually are. Mitigation efforts have failed to prevent the continued increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Adaptation is now unlikely to be sufficient to prevent negative impacts from current and future climate change1. In this context, vulnerable nations argue that existing frameworks to promote mitigation and adaptation are inadequate, and have called for a third international mechanism to deal with residual climate change impacts, or “loss and damage”2. In 2013, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) responded to these calls and established the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to address loss and damage from the impacts of climate change in developing countries3. An interim Executive Committee of party representatives has been set up, and is currently drafting a two-year workplan comprising meetings, reports, and expert groups; and aiming to enhance knowledge and understanding of loss and damage, strengthen dialogue among stakeholders, and promote enhanced action and support. Issues identified as priorities for the WIM thus far include: how to deal with non-economic losses, such as loss of life, livelihood, and cultural heritage; and linkages between loss and damage and patterns of migration and displacement2. In all this, one fundamental issue still demands our attention: which losses and damages are relevant to the WIM? What counts as loss and damage from climate change?

After the referendum: options for a constitutional convention

Whatever the result of Scotland’s independence referendum, careful constitutional thinking will be needed. If Scots vote Yes, Scotland will need a new constitution and the rest of the UK will have to rethink its governing structures. Even in the event of a No vote, everyone agrees that the shape of the Union will need to change over the coming years. This paper examines how such constitution-making should take place. It sets out the options, gathers evidence from around the world on how those options might work, and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. It concludes that constitutional proposals in the UK should best be developed by a convention comprising a mixture of ordinary members of the public and politicians; these proposals should be put to a referendum. This approach, the paper argues, offers the best route to high-quality debate, stronger democratic engagement, and, ultimately, deeper legitimacy for our governing structures.

Attribution of extreme weather events in Africa: A preliminary exploration of the science and policy implications

At the most recent session of the Conference of the Parties (COP19) in Warsaw (November 2013) the Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The mechanism aims at promoting the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, it aims to enhance understanding of risk management approaches to address loss and damage. Understanding risks associated with impacts due to highly predictable (slow onset) events like sea-level rise is relatively straightforward whereas assessing the effects of climate change on extreme weather events and their impacts is much more difficult. However, extreme weather events are a significant cause of loss of life and livelihoods, particularly in vulnerable countries and communities in Africa. The emerging science of probabilistic event attribution is relevant as it provides scientific evidence on the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to changes in risk of extreme events. It thus provides the opportunity to explore scientifically-backed assessments of the human influence on such events. However, different ways of framing attribution questions can lead to very different assessments of change in risk. Here we explain the methods of, and implications of different approaches to attributing extreme weather events with a focus on Africa. Crucially, it demonstrates that defining the most appropriate attribution question to ask is not a science decision but needs to be made in dialogue with those stakeholders who will use the answers.

Implications of event attribution for loss and damage policy

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to deal with loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including extreme events, in developing countries. It is not yet known whether events will need to be attributed to anthropogenic climate change to be considered under the WIM. Attribution is possible for some extreme events- a climate model assessment can estimate how greenhouse gas emissions have affected the likelihood of their occurrence. Dialogue between scientists and stakeholders is required to establish whether, and how, this science could play a role in the WIM.

Stakeholder perceptions of event attribution in the loss and damage debate

In 2013 the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage (L&D) associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For scientists, L&D raises ques- tions around the extent that such impacts can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, which may generate complex results and be controversial in the policy arena. This is particularly true in the case of probabilistic event attribution (PEA) science, a new and rapidly evolving field that assesses whether changes in the probabilities of extreme events are attributable to GHG emissions. If the potential applications of PEA are to be considered responsibly, dialogue between scientists and policy makers is fundamental. Two key questions are considered here through a literature review and key stakeholder interviews with representatives from the science and policy sectors underpinning L&D. These provided the opportunity for in-depth insights into stakeholders’ views on firstly, how much is known and understood about PEA by those associated with the L&D debate? Secondly, how might PEA inform L&D and wider climate policy? Results show debate within the climate science community, and limited understanding among other stakeholders, around the sense in which extreme events can be attributed to climate change. However, stake- holders do identify and discuss potential uses for PEA in the WIM and wider policy, but it remains difficult to explore precise applications given the ambiguity surrounding L&D. This implies a need for stakeholders to develop greater understandings of alternative conceptions of L&D and the role of science, and also identify how PEA can best be used to support policy, and address associated challenges.

The Significance of World Heritage : Origins, Management, Consequences : The Future of the World Heritage Convention in a Nordic Perspective

Världsarvets Världar