Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'international law'.
Found 2 results
Hello everyone, I'm trying to decide between two IB schools based on the subjects they offer and I wanted to ask for your opinion. The two possible subject combinations are: Finnish A HL English B HL, Swedish B SL Economics HL ESS SL Math SL and Finnish A SL English B HL Economics HL, Global Politics HL Biology SL Math SL I'd really like to study both Global Politics and ESS, but that isn't possible in Finland (although I could always try applying to schools in Sweden). I'm not all that interested in sciences which is why I would like to take ESS and I find Global Politics interesting. I've also heard that History is a good subject for law school, but I'm not particularly interested in it. What are your thoughts?
Hey guys! So I'm about to start my third-year this fall and I'm writing a dissertation as one of my optional modules in International law. The topic I'm considering to write on is the legal test employed in international law in recognising a legitimate government of a state in a situation of duality of governing entities. Essentially, my topic questions how should we determine when an authority, claiming to be a government of a state, should be recognised as such, when there is another authority claiming to be the same. I wanted to know what your position on this issue was because there is no determinative test in international law to answer this question. To put it in context, most recently, the legally recognised and constitutional government of Mali was overthrown by a military coup d'état and the international community has taken action with the Security Council issuing statements about the return to the constitutional regime of Mali, as well as the AU taking decisive measures. Conversely, in 2009-10, when a similar revolutionary uprising was taking place in Libya, Colonel Qadaffi's regime was universally denounced and the National Transitional Council (NTC) accepted as the new government of Libya despite not being constitutional nor democratically elected. In earlier instances, the Communist government of China was not recognised as the legal government by the international community for nearly 25 years (the government of Taiwan was recognised by a bare majority of the international community as the legal government of China). In Cambodia the coup d'état government was not recognised, instead they continued to recognise Prince Sinahouk's government in exile for 12 years. In the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) judgment in the Amred Activities in Congo case, the court implicitly recognised the Kabilla government as the legal government of the Congo, despite the fact that they were not democratically elected representatives. In Haiti, from 1990-94, the first democratically-elected President Astride was illegally ousted from office by a coup d'état led by the police chief, François, and throughout Astride's exile he was recognised as the rightful government and leader of Haiti, and brought back into power with UN and OAS internvention in Haiti from '93-'94. So there are two schools of thought: modern and traditional legal theory on the question of recognition of governments. The Traditional theory says that for a government to be recognised it must fulfil the following three criteria: 1. Have effective control of state territory; 2. Have a reasonable assurance of permanence; 3. Have the acquiescence of majority of the state's population (preferably democratically, but not necessarily so). The Modern approach is more restrictive in that they recognise governments based on a conglomeration of disjointed considerations such as, whether the overthrown regime was democratic or dictatorial, whether the new regime is the product of a coup d'état or people's revolution, etc. Both approaches have significant instances in history to support and weaken them. What do you guys think? It is a complicated question with a complicated answer. One that I aim to write about for 15,000 words this summer, but I was curious. Arrowhead.