This year’s meeting was a very special one for another reason: on 3 November 2016 the members of the ILC were elected for their next term. The International Law Commission is comprised of 34 members who, according to the ILC statutes, must have recognised competency in international law. The statutes also envisage that the ILC should represent the main forms of civilization and key legal systems around the world. Each UN member state could nominate candidates for the election and the members voted on these in a secret ballot – 49 candidates had applied for the 34 spaces.

The German candidate, Professor Dr. Georg Nolte from the Humboldt University Berlin, was elected to the ILC in the first and only vote with the second highest number of votes for any candidate (167 of in total 193 votes) at the General Assembly. Prof. Nolte was nominated for this position on 29 October 2014 by the Federal Cabinet and has been an ILC member since 2007. After the successful election, he will now be a representative in the Commission for his third period in office, which lasts another five years (Quinquennium 2017-2021). This outstanding result is an expression of the appreciation that Prof. Nolte has gained in nearly ten years of active work in the International Law Commission – but at the same time is also a huge success for Germany as a member state of the United Nations. As a special rapporteur, Prof. Nolte was able to bring the issue of “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties” to its first reading by the ILC within just five years and will now continue the work.

Of course in addition to the election, the focus was also on the nine issues that the International Law Commission had dealt with in its 68th meeting from 2 May to 10 June and from 4 July to 12 August 2016 in Geneva. Having completed an impressive amount of work, the issues of “Protection of persons in the event of disasters” and secondly “Identification of customary international law” as well as Prof. Nolte’s subject were completed on first reading. Historically, many important international conventions that have now become the foundation for international law go back to the preparatory work undertaken by the Commission. In many other cases, the work completed by the ILC has been recognised as applicable customary international law. They therefore are of key importance for codifying and developing international law – completely in line with the Commission’s objectives.

In the 6th committee of the General Assembly, Germany made statements this year on five of the issues currently being dealt with by the ILC that can be called up on the United Nations website: in addition to the three already stated, these include “Crimes against humanity” and “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”. Finally, 2017 will be a special year for the Commission: it celebrates its 70th anniversary.

This article was published in January’s issue of the Diplomatic Magazine.

#pulseofeurope – Sundays in major cities, 2pm

(Website / Facebook / twitter)

Strong campaign that started in Frankfurt and has already spread Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Amsterdam. Also has gathered a lot of media attention. The concept is very simple: People meet for about one hour every sunday in major european capitals to raise their voice for a united Europe and against populism. “We need as many people as possible to help us make the European pulse beat visible and audible. Mark Sunday 2pm in your calendar, connect it with a walk, take family and friends with you. Come on, take European flags and blue ribbons, motivate your colleagues to join! We want to be more visible and louder each week.”

March. for. Europe. – Your local city (e.g. Berlin), March 25th

(Facebook)

March 25th is the day that unites them all. As the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, a broad array of organizations from European Federalists, unions, individual student groups to CISS has decided to coordinate for events in many citys all across Europe. Also, on this weekend, #pulseofeurope will change the date of its weekly demonstration to Saturday 25 March.  So it will probably hard to not find a city in Europe where you can show your support for a united and peaceful continent.

March. For. Europe. – Rome, March 25th

(Website / Facebook / Twitter)

True pan-european movement that organizes a huge demonstration for Europe in Rome on March 25th. You can join or organize a group that leaves from your city to be in Rome when the action happens – already 15 starting points all over Europe are available. The idea is to get together as many people in public support of the European Union with all the Heads of State and Government meeting in Rome for the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. And quite surely, it will be a fun weekend. If you can’t go to Rome, see if there is a local “March for Europe” demonstration in your city (see right above).

The European Moment – Key dates March-May

(Website / Facebook)

Motto: Time to get it together! Organizes four public demonstrations in Berlin on key dates: March 25th (together with March for Europe), April 22nd, May 9th (Europe-Day) and from then on May 27th and every last Saturday. Slightly broader range of issues, but still truly European at heart. You can publish why your heart beats for Europe on their website. Unfortunately, the latter is only in German thus far.

Even if you do not share all of each of the aspects that any of these initiatives stand for, they have a common bottom line: That life with the stability, prosperity and unity that the European Union provides is far better than without it. Do you know more initiatives that you think should be part of this overview? Write us at alexander.pyka@ciss.eu.

After postings in Sudan and Buenos Aires, Dr. Born was responsible for bilateral relations to all western European countries including Turkey and the negotiations for the Schengen-Agreement at the Federal Chancellery. He later represented Germany as ambassador to Mexico, Turkey and Spain.

Read his full biography
Lebenlauf Dr. Wolf-Ruthart Born

Dr. Born met members of CISS last year for an exclusive backgroun session to talk about career opportunities in international relations as well as current developments in foreign affairs. He will advise and support CISS in its projects and development.

Introduction

We live in a pleasant world. At least so it seems – but alert. There is war, as far it may seem occasionally and we are being confronted with images of destruction and demolition in every news report. The question of the cause may be answered in philosophical, historical even religious dimensions but in practical terms spoken: weapons are the most direct cause.

Thus the latest waves of discussions and debates about “our” (referring to the German society) connection to war through arms trade is only legitimate. Normally expertise and knowledge aim to be the foundation of any debate but due to the huge lack of information on this topic the first problem in relation to arms trade is being revealed: Intransparency.

Not even the UN resolution for an open Register of arms trades was capable of breaking the code of trade secrets among the actors in these trades. I see the real dangers of transparency in the consequences such as neglecting and underestimation.

Both result in the admired lack of action, action against weapons, against war and thus against the military industry. Although this point has to be put into perspective since there is actual protest against all of the above – but the big uproar fails to appear. This might change in the very moment when the actual number of killings caused by “German” arms will be revealed. Up to that point the debate remains academic.

In these debates the arguments in favor of export can be reduced to the following three key points:

1. Dependence of all importers and thus gain of political power and influence
2. Self-defence benefit
3. Economic profits (and thus the huge negative impact on economy in case of reduction of the arms trade)

All of these arguments only concern the direct and indirect influences of arms trade but fail to reflect on the ethical basics of corporates’ responsibilities.

The rules they follow

On the website of the biggest German producer of sidearms “Heckler and Koch” they announce that they clearly follow all laws and regulations and that their corporation’s ethics are orientated on such. This illustrates the immense impact of politics on weapons-trade, since this – the law – is the only direct instance that can actually influence these within our country. Following that path of argument the existing rules should follow our general moral standards to ensure that the practice of arms trade does as well.

Regarding the existing regulation this appears to be done with little care, since the conclusion of export contracts with countries that neither belong to the EU nor NATO (and thus can’t automatically be qualified as allies) needs to be approved one by one by the committee Bundessicherheitsrat. In practice this Security Council only contains members of the cabinet and hosts the corpus of its meetings in secret.

The approval itself shall only be given to states that act according to the human rights declaration and at best aren’t in times of inner crisis. As far as I am concerned the United Arab Emirates do not quite follow the idea of equality e.g. between women and men. Unfortunately they rank high (enough) on the list of importers and apparently this renders human rights protests irrelevant to the issue.

Furthermore the parliament, as the connection between the nation’s will and advocate of its wishes, isn’t part of the specific decision making process. The main rules and ideas of democracy: influence of the public (even if only through a representative instance) thus influence of the parliament and transparency of political processes are being neglected and ignored. As a conclusion of that one must not accept and approve any of the decisions as long as the process of this decision making remains this unethical.

The justification of the common procedure lays in the first argument of all pro speakers that through economic relations dependence and thus political power is being established. Since there is absolutely no positive change in the human rights situation neither in the UAE nor in countries like Indonesia is visible, this point is invalid.

In terms of dependence one must state that Germany is the third largest exporter of weapons. But with great power comes even greater responsibility. Since Germany is clearly one of the leaders in this economic field it should be our aim to look beyond our own benefits and long for more than simple profit.

This is a clearly idealistic and less economic point of view but since our laws reflect our moral standards, ideas and practice shouldn’t be separated. As long as the German economy wants to profit from the values a brand like “Made in Germany” represents, they must accept the responsibility that comes with it. I will comment on the specifics of these values in my third point (III).

Corporate responsibility and the prospect of change

Following the normative logics of microeconomic theories the only potential interest a company can have is the increase of profits. This would require the optimal homo oeconomicus forming the basis of both society and economy. Such a thing can hardly exist in a social state (as Germany defines itself in its declaration). Assuming that there is thus no such one-dimensional thinking homo oeconomicus in our society the shareholder perspective according to the Friedmann debate must be supplemented by Freeman’s stakeholder theory.

Especially the aspect of external stakeholders in this theory follows the idea of industry finding its right to exist by accepting the societies’ values and thus finding acceptance in the population. Normally this is easily regulated by the demand that doesn’t only follow the need but the image of a product and company. Since the inner demand for weapons is highly limited, regulation can either be hosted on a higher (political) level or by personal action.

Still the weapon industry shows a deep believe in successful lobbying but the political turnover in nuclear energy politics should have shown that if the collective pressure increases the political influence in terms of change gains enough strength to show massive impacts. Thus permanent production needs corporate responsibility.

Corporate responsibility includes sustainability and thus a positive reputation, as well as an economic need. This economic need presents itself in this context mainly in the allocation of employment. Furthermore the idea of science and research and the resulting benefits in other economic sectors shall be mentioned, since this is the second argument pro exporters put forward (see above).

I don’t want to neglect the potential positive impact of these factors but the relation to the impact of the products must be the scale. Per definition weapons can’t have the best reputation so the company’s image depends on the responsible handling (sale) of these. In terms of sustainability and responsibility weaponry producing and trading companies would profit in the long run from stricter ethical codes.

Sources of morality

Ethical principles follow the idea that the sources of morality (Fontes Moralitatis) can be distinguished and measured along three criteria:

1. Finis operis (the object: first consequence of action)
2. Circumstatitae (circumstances under which the actions takes place)
3. Finis operantis (goal or intend)

In matters of arms trade one must distinguish between the general production and sale of arms and the specifics of arms exports. The Finis operis is thus firstly the production of arms. This might (expect from a pacifistic point of view) not appear as condemnable. The Circumstances measure the need of such an action in relation to the general surrounding. Although I believe that a stable economy doesn’t necessary rely on the field of weaponry production, the positive effects (or at least the absence of clear disadvantages) exceed up to this point.

Regarding the intend of arms trade I refer to my second (II) point and the correlation between profits and the corporations’ sensitivity for moral values. The general intention of the production and selling of weapons is still to enable another power to defend itself or fight actively.

Whenever questioning weapons trade I pledge to reflect on the general ethics of weapons and war. I personally think that at no point in the history of mankind a war proved to have been the better solution that should be preferred over peaceful resolutions. Even from a less radical point of view the question in how far a product which can only be used to kill, to take away lives can generally be considered good. The intention to produce such a product must be seen in direct relation to its purpose of use.

Concerning the intend behind exports of weaponry arguments such as stabilisation and self-defence are being put forward. I don’t see in how far the enabling of governments (e.g.UAE) that don’t act in accordance to the human rights declaration could potentially stabilise a country in any other way than by repression of critical voices and political oppositions.

All ethical concepts follow the idea of ratio; sense as the reign of human minds. Since sense and sanity live and grow by reflection we must realise that there is a huge discrepancy between the idea of exporting arms and its real results.

Arms trade is out of control.

The whole Iraq war should have shown that weapons do not distinguish whom they shoot in the end. A trustworthy friend today, the “Good ones” can potentially turn into an enemy. Since it remains impossible to control which “final destination” weapons reach I would opt for long term security over short term profits.

The economies’ aim might contain, apart from the obvious goal of drawing profits, political ideas that aren’t morally bad. But in reality the discrepancy remains. Due to the fact that our collective idea of peace stands in contrast to any result of all actions concerning arms trade according to the momentary regulations, there are two options: Either the change the goal or to change to actions towards such.

Since the idea of world peace seems a legitimate goal our actions are the ones that must be changed. Arms trade and especially arms exports of German companies must either be forbidden or seriously regulated.

Conclusion

As long as the lack in information and transparency concerning arms trade persists, regulation must be lifted to higher, explicit and moral standards. It is our responsibility as a society to act according to our own values and believes. Since industry and economy are part of our society they must accept these values as their own. Cutbacks in arms exports might result in financial costs but, since these must otherwise be measured according to the loss of moral integrity, it seems worth the effort.

In the course of growing urbanisation, both the potential as well as the challenges of global development are increasingly concentrating in cities. Therefore, the fundamental role of urbanisation must be reflected in German policymaking. Particularly two challenges should be focused on: the eradication of poverty and the transformation toward sustainability.

These two topics, poverty reduction and sustainability, create different challenges in different cityscapes, to which there are no blanket solutions. Therefore, these challenges must be addressed within the context of all existing city types, such as the wildly growing or shrinking cities, megacities, smaller and mid-sized cities, as well as fragile or “failing cities“, which display a significant lack of political leadership.

As motors of national and global growth, cities generate about 80 percent of the worldwide GDP. Simultaneously, the reduction of poverty in rapidly growing cities is becoming a significant challenge. This coming generation will already live in a world where every third person lives in informal settlements, and therefore under extremely vulnerable conditions. This statistic reveals the increasing deficits present in residential construction, urban services, infrastructures, and law enforcement.

All of these problems raise the urgent question of how living conditions in informal settlements can be improved, while also designed in more sustainable manners. Collaborative approaches in which residents, city governments, and intermediary organisations work together offer a basis for realistic and solution-oriented policy measures, and should therefore be supported. In the transnational initiative Slum Dwellers International, for example, slum dwellers have become active in creating new, liveable, and safe living spaces within the framework of such a coalition.

Apart from poverty eradication, the move toward sustainability must stand at the centre of policymaking. Cities will decide whether this transformation – and therefore the preservation of humanity’s natural livelihood – will succeed. Currently, cities are already responsible for about 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cities are decisive contributors and simultaneous victims of global changes. But cities are also potential problem solvers that possess special transformative and innovative potential.

The significance of cities for global development requires an integrated perspective and a comprehensive urbanisation concept. The model for this should rest on three pillars: a people-oriented approach, which takes into account the needs of city dwellers, as well as their potential toward self-actualisation and participation; a broader concept of welfare that also takes subjective wellbeing into account; and sustainability on a comprehensive level.

Sustainability requires the consideration of planetary guard rails, meaning the damage thresholds for global environmental changes, whose crossing would have intolerable consequences. An example for this kind of guard rail concept, developed by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), is the 2°C limit in the context of international climate policymaking. When guard rails are crossed, the preservation of natural living conditions and therefore the eradication of poverty becomes threatened. The planetary guard rails must therefore play a central role in a successful urbanisation concept.

With this in mind, there are four different fields of action that contain comprehensive chances and risks for global development: first, the spacial construction of cities, particularly their level of density; second, infrastructure, particularly with a focus on energy, mobility, and buildings; third, welfare in cities; fourth, urban governance and cities in global governance.

From the perspective of global sustainability, urban density as well as urban infrastructure, with a focus on energy, buildings, and mobility, are essential. These two components have an enormously high guard rail relevance, and must therefore be emphasised. They determine the use of resources, the pressure exerted on ecosystems, and the emission of greenhouse gases. The current problem is that the growth of cities is unstructured, and geared towards motorised private transport. A look at Atlanta and Barcelona illustrates the difference these cities reveal when compared under the same context. The New Climate Economy Report 2014 stresses that both cities have about 5 million inhabitants, but while Atlanta extends to over 4,200 km2 and emits 7.5 tons of transport related CO2 per capita, Barcelona is much more compact, with a surface area of 162 km2 and CO2 emissions of only 0.7 tons per capita. Furthermore, Barcelona, as opposed to Atlanta, has a capable public transport system.

More compact and better connected cities with a sustainable mobility system can therefore help overcome central sustainability challenges. There are many positive examples of this. Global megacities and “matured“ centres such as London, Tokyo, and Hamburg have become denser in the past years, not in small part due to investment in public transport systems. And Curitiba and Bogotá are part of the 160 model cities that have become successful flagships for the benefits of bus rapid transit (BRT) that offer reliable transportation to millions of passengers, therefore decreasing transport costs, traffic jams, and health hazards, while simultaneously improving safety and environmental quality.

Cities reveal how the third field of action – welfare – is not only dependant on economic dimensions such as GDP. Therefore, components of welfare that address subjective elements of people’s wellbeing, but are not necessarily large drivers of resources and emissions and therefore do not pose direct threats to planetary guard rails must also be considered. Social justice, education, civil engagement, security, and participation are examples of such dimensions.

The fourth field of action – governance – should be addressed through transformative governance strategies that support the move toward more sustainability and that contribute toward creating a people-oriented urbanisation and realizing new welfare concepts. For instance, questions regarding the possibilities of political participation for city inhabitants, deciding how much fiscal autonomy and what regulatory capacities cities should have in a complex multi-level governance system, and how their role as a new and significant transnational actor can be strengthened in global governance are all important to consider.

This article is part of CISS’s cooperation with the Diplomatic Magazine and was published first in its February 2015-issue.

The first and foremost experience I took home from this unique conference was, that it was truly international. What probably would have evolved into my peer group if the conference would have continued, was an astonishing mix of around nine people – that came from nine different countries. Nice to see once more, that the divides of our generation do not necessarily run along national border lines. In many cases I shared views and opinions with young people from South Africa, India, Canada or Mexico much more than with the surprisingly few Germans that attended. A great compliment to the organizers that they managed to arrive at a pretty good representation of most regions and countries of the world.

Secondly, the Symposium meets every (best) stereotype of Swiss’ organizational skills. It was a logistical masterpiece, running like a Swiss clock at every time. Not an easy task, when you consider that there were over 1000 people attending that had to be transported, participated in up to 15 workshop sessions simultaneously, just before all having to be in the same room again for a panel discussion.

The latter were of highest quality, as expected. Christine Lagarde (IMF), Ali Babacan (Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey) or Fu Ying (Chairwoman, Foreign Affairs Committee of Chinese Congress) were interviewed by the world’s leading journalists like Stephen Sackur (BBC, HARDtalk) or Nina Dos Santos (CNN). I had inspirational moments listening to the struggel of Mogadishu’s mayor Mohamoud Ahmed Nur or discussing the Arab Spring with Naguib Sawiris, one of the leading figures of the Egyptian revolution. On the other hand, the conference would have even further profited from more balanced panels and opposing views. Most of the panels were clearly biased towards a Thatcherist-liberal-economic view. Considering the >> [historical background] of the conference, this was no surprise. However – and irregardless of if you agree with such approach or not – the Symposium was always at its best, when people on the panels disagreed the most. A positive example of this is shown in the video above.

The 43. St. Gallen Symposium was an incredible experience, that I would like to recommend to everyone. Finally, my thanks go again to the International Students Committee (ISC) for making this wonderful conference a success.

Alexander Pyka
Founder and Executive Board Member >> [Ansprechpartner]

>> [St. Gallen Symposium Website]
>> [St. Gallen Symposium You Tube Channel]
>> [St. Gallen Symposium on Wikipedia]

The KONY 2012-campaign by American film-makers Jason Russel and Lauren Pool aims at making Joseph Kony famous with a 30-minute video on youtube with corresponding facebook and real-life actions. Joseph Koney is a Ugandan guerrilla group leader, head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and has in 2005 been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. By drawing attention to Joseph Kony, the campaign tries to raise awareness about the ongoing atrocities committed by the LRA and to persuade the US-government to continue its military engagement in the region.

The video has gone viral for about a week now and reached up to 50 million views by now:

If you look a little closer, you will find that the campaign and its organization ‘Invisible Children, Inc.‘ face a lot of criticism on the net: It is argued that support for the Ugandan army, which is facing accusations of rape and looting itself, has a bad aftertaste. Further, KONY 2012 is widely accused of over-simplifying the issue and yielding truth to shocking exaggerations. The critique mainly goes back to a blog-post of Grant Oyston, who today published that in response to the wide media attention he received, ‘Invisible Children, Inc.’ offered to fly him to Africa to see the organization and project for himself – an offer he refused, doubting whether the organizations’ money could not be spend more effectively elsewhere. This falls in line with other critizism of the financial practices of ‘Invisible Children, Inc.’ Finally, Oyston makes an interesting point when citing Chris Blattman, a Yale-scholar:

“There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming. Usually misconceived programming.”

I do not agree with all of the arguments presented above and do believe that after carefully weighing the options you can still easily come to the conclusion that joining KONY 2012 is a great idea. If that is the case, I encourage you to do so! Yesterday, ‘Invisible Children, Inc.’ replied to some of the main public concerns, you can read their release [here]. But while you are at it, please also look at some more detailed and neutral info about Joseph Kony and the LRA (e.g. see the following list). And above all: Please always try to remain open to more than one view on an issue.

[Can America make a difference?], The Economist, 21.10.2011

[Joseph Kony (profile)], The New York Times, 14.10.2011

[Obama Takes on the LRA], Foreign Affairs, 15.11.2011

Is it acceptable to simplify matters when you are helping a greater cause? Has the process story drawn attention away from the important issues? Or maybe has the campaign already succeeded, just because we are talking about it right now? Please share your views!

Alexander Pyka