By Watcharin Rattanataymee. Approaching its one-year mark in power, the Pheu Thai party has situated much of its policymaking on the ground of persistently low economic growth. However, demographic and environmental changes will require the state to look beyond economic stimulation only.
The EU stands at a critical juncture, grappling with financial instability, rising inflation, escalating immigration issues, and internal political strife that threaten its very foundations. The refusal to adequately support member states during economic crises, coupled with the selective allocation of resources to non-member states, has fueled public discontent. Inflation has reached alarming levels, forcing vulnerable populations to make difficult choices between basic necessities, while the immigration crisis places significant strain on frontline countries, leading to job losses and a black market for labor.
While Article 51 of the UN Charter aims to provide states and state entities with the means to defend themselves, this paper will explore how some have used or misused this provision. It will also examine how the UN, the UN Security Council, and various UN Secretary-Generals have responded to such invocations, assessing the responsibilities of states to adhere to the provisions and limitations outlined by the UN and various rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC).
The Israeli military has been operating such attacks with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs such as automated drones loaded with unguided “dumb bombs”. Although Israel had previously used a similar AI system called Habsora[iii] to carry out attacks in Gaza, this is the first time when the IDF has used AI in military attacks widely and indiscriminately to cause unprecedented civilian deaths in Gaza. In recent attacks, Israel used a technology called Lavender, an AI-based database system to identify more than 37,000 targets based on their links with Hamas.
In theory, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent body that stands apart from international politics. Its effectiveness and fairness are crucial for international criminal justice, which pursues the lofty goals of achieving justice for all, ending impunity, deterring conflict, and preventing future war crimes. However, in an era of global superpower rivalry, this institution is being tested in unprecedented ways.
Novelty has observers rummaging through their inventory of ideas and concepts to find one to fit the new experience. Its application is supposed to provide some rudimentary meaning about the new phenomenon. Many are content with doing just that – however freighted with inappropriate connotations that label might be, however ambiguous its denotation(s).
In a world of shifting power balances, Americans can no longer compete internationally with wealth and weaponry alone. We live in a world in which other nations no longer automatically defer to the United States. Our national margin for error has demonstrably narrowed. In several regions war has already replaced the Pax Americana. It threatens to do the same in still others. Our highly professional military remains peerless, but our diplomacy – our first line of defense – increasingly lacks traction. Our country needs to get a lot better at diplomatic reasoning and the practice of diplomacy. To match the professionalism of our competitors, we must professionalize our own diplomacy. But what is diplomatic professionalism?
Neutralization is essentially based on international recognition and agreement, we must persuade the international community that neutralization of the Korean Peninsula is the most reasonable shortcut to establishing a peace regime in Northeast Asia and further presents an exemplary case of world peace. Here, today, in this endeavor, we would like to find the significance and goals of launching this organization, ‘International Association for Neutralization of Korea.’
The following is a letter by an anonymous viewer of the neutrality studies youtube channel, published here for the purpose of an open discussion. To send your own letter, please contact the editor. Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of neutralitystudies.com or its editors. All views are those expressed by the author….
The following is a Letter to the editor by Mrs. Verena Tobler, who wrote them in reaction to the video interview(s) of German parliamentarian Sevim Dagdelen. The english version has been machine translated. The german original follows below. English Version (1) First, let’s address the problem inherent to capitalism – simplified and focused only on…
