In this study, I explore the mediation techniques used by an international organization (IO) to settle an international crisis. Specifically, I have focused on the use of formal and informal techniques with a case study of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) mediation during the Cod Wars between Iceland and the United Kingdom. My analysis indicates that a combination of both formal and informal mediation techniques was instrumental in resolving the Cod Wars conflict. Further research would clarify whether this finding can be generalized to other cases of NATO mediation and interventions of third parties in addition to NATO. 相似文献
The International Energy Agency estimates that $16 trillion of investment will be needed to meet world energy requirements
from 2003 to 2030. The world's poorest countries, where some of the fastest rates of increase in energy production are expected,
will require a significant portion of this investment. Energy investment, both as a source of foreign exchange and to expand
local access to electricity and other forms of energy, is integral to socioeconomic development. It is reasonable to expect
that this anticipated investment will witness a significant number of disputes between investors and host governments. A fair
and just dispute settlement system can help promote the needed investment and sustainable development. The Energy Charter
Treaty (ECT) takes a comprehensive approach to the international energy sector, including coverage of trade, transit, competition
and the environment, but its investment provisions have proven most significant with three international arbitral tribunals
having issued decisions under the treaty and more disputes pending. While much of the ECT's effort has been to bridge the
former East–West economic divide, the Treaty's scope of application is potentially worldwide, and given the inextricable link
between energy, development and the environment it makes sense that the Treaty process forge a developing-country regime,
one that promotes the development of energy resources and sustainable development. Drawing upon the work of Konrad von Moltke
and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and in light of tribunal decisions to date, this essay
maintains, inter alia, that the ECT should impose basic transparency and good faith requirements on investors and create a
special developing-country regime, promoting sustainable development.
This article explores the paradox in the reaction of the United States to the two different proliferation cases: Pakistan's proliferation and Iran's weaponization effort. The article tries to find answer to the following key question; why the United States, as one of the guardians of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) which would prefer to see a region that is entirely free of weapons of mass destruction, ultimately has accepted Pakistan's proliferation, while imposed considerable amount of pressure to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The paper posits that number of factors explain such differences; first, and at the theoretical level, Pakistan was never considered an “irrational” and “messianic” state like Iran, but regarded as a country with a certain degree of cold-war type nuclear rationality. Second and at the applied level, while Pakistan was a US ally with not having a history of challenging the United States, Iran has been considered enemy and a threat toward the US interest.
Third, while Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was viewed as a defensive mean against overwhelming strength of India, Iran's possible nuclear arsenal considered to be for offensive uses against the United States and Israel. The fourth factor pertains to the consequences of proliferation, which is what happens when Iran's neighboring countries may feel threatened by Iranian nuclear weapon and proceed to develop their own arsenal. Fifth factor deals with the possible Iran's temptation to give some nuclear material to a terror group in which made the United States serious in preventing Iran's weaponization. Last but not least, Israel was not involved to pressure and agitate against Pakistan, while it was applied a tremendous pressure against Iran to prevent it from achieving nuclear weapons. 相似文献
Southern Africa is at a pivotal point in time for transboundary water cooperation. The number and extent of coverage of existing
international water agreements and joint management institutions merits cautious optimism about future water management in
the region. Yet, taken alone, a numerical account of water treaties reveals little about the context in which the agreements
were negotiated, the nature of the rules and regulations adopted, or the influence of the agreements in addressing problems
or enhancing joint governance. Drawing on a database containing all the international freshwater agreements entered into between
South Africa and its neighbours since 1910, this article examines trends in the articulation of these treaties and discusses
the implications of the rules and regulations they embody. Specific consideration is given to issues of information sharing,
water allocation and organizations. This analysis is a first step towards understanding the impact of existing agreements,
identifying opportunities for the negotiation of new treaties and enhancing existing systems.