Russia and China have both backed Iran internationally, in part because Iran “has vociferously defended the Palestinians, but it has stood by as the Russians have slaughtered Chechens and the Chinese have suppressed Muslim Uighurs.[2]” Britain and Russia have both held Iran as an area of interest in the past. France still believes it holds the clout of the ancien regime, however since the collapse of its empire, France has paled in comparison to the other great powers, and only now as a key member of the EU has regained some of its former clout. The United States held Iran as a key ally in the Middle East from the departure of the British to the 1979 Revolution, and after the Iran-Iraq war and the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980’s the US-Iranian relationship is that of enemies at best, Iran claiming America is the Great Satan and the US under the Bush Administration placing Iran at the centre of the ‘Axis of Evil’. The interests of the UN Security Council ought to be taken in account as a whole, but it is important to consider each individual Security Council members interests. The most important thing to keep in mind while discussing nuclear proliferation is that the debate is consigned by two major areas of thought, internationalism which argues for international regimes and laws which will govern the conduct of states and realism, which argues that it is a war of all against all, the actions of individual states is largely governed by realism while the actions of the Security Council as a whole is largely guided by the internationalist conceptions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Russia has throughout its history opposed American expansionism and influence around the world. This occurred most explicitly during the Cold War in opposition to the Marshall Plan and NATO policies. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a high point in this tension, when the accepted construct of ‘backyards’ was threatened by Russia retaliating against American construction of missile sites in Turkey, by supporting the Cuban government in establishing its own nuclear arsenal. Russia’s support for Iran can be viewed in much the same way; it uses Iran as a burr in America’s and the collective West’s side. By supporting Iran, Russia can still hold itself apart and use this support as a leverage on other important issues such as: expansion of the EU and NATO as well as pipeline development for Europe.

The development of nuclear materials has been a matter of great concern to the international community. The Iranian President has made many statements regarding the annihilation of the Israeli state and has hosted a Holocaust denial conference in Iran. The regime of mullahs that came to power after the 1979 Revolution against the American backed Shah has maintained a rigorous support for anti-Western and anti-Israeli forces, under the guise of international Islamism. Now with Tehran beginning to stockpile and refine its fissile materials, “if Iran’s nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before US President Barack Obama’s current term in office expires.[1]” With this in mind, it is important to take into consideration the actions and interests of the other nuclear powers on the UN Security Council.

China maintains steady trade with Iran, through technology and agricultural trade and the ever-important fact that “Iran is China’s third-largest crude oil supplier.[3]” China has some of the same interests as Russia in regards to the international arena. Both states have been accused by the other members of the Security Council of abuses of their populations, and having their own sphere of influence allows them to avoid the international complications of Western allied states avoiding trade because of fear of irritating Washington. With China importing almost all of its oil, mostly by sea, which is patrolled by the massive United States Navy, oil supply is a major security risk for the Chinese government and people as a whole. With this in mind it is important to understand that securing its own strategic oil reserves is more important than mitigating the development of an Iranian nuclear program, a program which would most probably not target any of China’s strategic assets and strengthen their position against the United States in the international order. Furthermore it is important to recognize that the Chinese government has taken a hands off approach to international trade. Whereas the United States demands complicity with its own ideals and often uses the International Monetary Fund as well as aid packages and military support, as bludgeons to achieve these aims China restricts itself to trade taking a pragmatic look at the international arena.

France holds part of its international clout due to its status as a nuclear power and a former great power. France’s primary interest in avoiding Iranian nuclear power is to avoid the collapse of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has held the world in a relatively stable state and limited the development of nuclear capabilities throughout much of the world. With Iran developing a nuclear arsenal it may feel that it can act internationally in a way in which it was incapable before, not only inciting violence against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah but also encouraging violence within Western States based along ethnic and religious lines. France, with a large Algerian Muslim population, must consider this as a serious threat.

Britain has had a historic relationship with Iran, holding it as an area of interest during the Interwar Period, and supporting the Shah alongside America during the early years of the Cold War. Britain is entrenched in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside their American allies. For Iran to establish itself as a nuclear power would increase instability within the region and possibly threaten British forces and economic interests throughout the Middle East. Britain, which wrote the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and distributed it to the international Jewish community, also has a vested interest in supporting Israel, the former Palestine. This support has resulted in a policy, which deems any threat to Israel as a threat to Britain’s interests. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, continues to threaten Israel with destruction and has stated he would use a nuclear armament for exactly those aims[4].

This is of greatest concern to the United States, who is Israel’s most stalwart ally, providing military and economic support that has allowed Israel to survive in a sea of opposition. If and when Iran develops nuclear capabilities, Israel will most certainly feel threatened and the United States will lend its support. The United States has lost much of its international clout over the last decades. From the Iran-Contra Affair through the Bush Administration and its Executive Order concerning ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’, America has slowly whittled away at its own legitimacy as a moral leader on the international scene. Because of this, being unable to contain Iranian nuclear ambitions would “not spell the end of efforts to halt proliferation in other parts of the world, it would undeniably deal the non-proliferation regime a setback, by demonstrating that the great powers are unable or unwilling to act collectively to stop proliferators.[5]”

Taking into account all 5 members of the Security Council, their disparate interests and their mutual vetoes, it is hard to see the 5 working together to create a concrete plan to mitigate Iranian nuclear ambitions. Iran has ignored the complaints of the IAEA, but so have states such as Israel and Pakistan. The development of one more nuclear state may simply be that, “nuclear empowerment could well thwart Iran’s hegemonic ambitions,[6]” by driving its neighbours into the support of the American defensive umbrella. Russia and China may also eventually be destabilized or threatened by Iran’s strident statements and blatant Islamism. Although the interests of the individual Security Council members may be different in the long term, a world with more nuclear weapons it can be agreed is not necessarily a safer one. In the long term, the proliferation of nuclear arms to unstable nation states with vitriolic leaderships will fundamentally destabilize the advantages, which the great powers have supported for themselves. A nuclear Iran would inevitably result in a hair trigger conflict much like India and Pakistan’s, the world would have to be on constant alert for nuclear assault not by two state actors but four. Overall it is in the interest of the 5 to work towards their own agendas in the short term, but as those powers, which steer the global agenda, they have a duty to ensure safety for all nations.

In order to fully understand the International Criminal court it is necessary to discuss the signatories and the most significant non-ratifiers as well as the courts overall jurisdiction. Furthermore I intend to outline the most important sections of The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court. These sections of course will concern themselves with the constitution of the ICC as a body. Along with jurisdiction, location, the State Parties and the constitution of the ICC, I will outline the current cases and warrants before the ICC.

In order for the ICC to come to fruition it was necessary for the USSR and the United States to end the Cold War. Without an end to that conflict, either power would use their veto on the UN Security Council to end any motion, which would result in the creation of an International Criminal Court. This cessation came about in the early 1990’s with the fall of the USSR and the birth of the Russian Federation. Added to this end of history[1] the culmination of the events in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo and the former Yugoslavia led to the international community realizing that the time had come for the institution of an International Criminal Court.

As a result of these conflicts and the atrocities that accompanied them, a diplomatic conference was held in Rome on the 17^th of July, 1998[2]. At this conference The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was written and “as of 21 July 2009, 110 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 30 are African States, 14 are Asian States, 17 are from Eastern Europe, 24 are from Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are from Western European and other States[3].” Some of the world’s most powerful nations have vocally opposed the court, and although some of this opposition has signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, none of them have ratified it.

These nations in opposition to the ICC include 3 of the members of the permanent Security Council of the United Nations: the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as well as other prominent nuclear states including India and Pakistan. One reasonable argument for this is that many of these nations engage in practices, which may be construed as war crimes. Because of this their leaders wish to avoid signing onto the statute. Another argument put forward by the Americans is that the ICC will compromise the sovereignty of respective nation-states, by superseding their legal jurisdiction and systems and therefore nations ought to abstain from joining. This is a near identical argument to the one put forward by the United States in regards to the International Court of Justice (not to be confused with the ICC).

The largest counter-argument to this rebuff is the fact that within the ICC’s founding document, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to those cases which the respective nation puts forward after its own investigations or the failure thereof. Furthermore, the United Nations Security Council can suggest any case to the ICC, even though the ICC is at arms length from the UN. The United States with its Security Council veto would be able to halt any motion that involved it or its citizens in the ICC. The most important issue, which might come before the court, involving members of the Security Council is the matter of the approval of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques for the CIA by an Executive Order by US President George W. Bush. These tactics have been determined by many in the international community and the NGO Physicians for Human Rights to be forms of torture which fall into the ICC’s jurisdiction under Part II Article 5 Section 1 Subsections b and c: Crimes against humanity and War crimes respectively[4].

This brings us to a discussion of the ICC’s jurisdiction in full. In regards to the ICC’s physical jurisdiction it is situated in The Hague, the Netherlands, although it is capable of sitting “elsewhere, whenever it considers it desirable, as provided in” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[5] through an agreement with the respective state to become a Host State. Furthermore it may relocate to any location in order to try a case and holds field offices in nations, which are involved in cases that the ICC is trying. Article 4 and 5 limit the judicial jurisdiction of the ICC. Article 4 reads as follows:

1.The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

2. The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.

Furthermore the ICC is restricted to specific trials as follows:

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

This jurisdiction is limited by an international legal discrepancy regarding the act of aggression and resolved in the following article:

2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.[6]

Until such a time that the crime of aggression can be agreed upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations as well as the Security Council there won’t be any cases brought before the ICC concerning this international legal issue. Part of the reason for this is that by defining the crime of aggression states would most certainly shackle themselves to a model of international relations, which denied any opportunity for a pre-emptive strike, something extolled in the Bush Doctrine of international relations and a complimentary doctrine to the Powell Doctrine, which espouses a disproportionate use of force in order to end conflict as rapidly as possible. Without this strike against other nations, especially in the case of arms races, pre-emptive attacks would be largely mitigated, which are a critical part of war theory in international relations. Most states that accept war theory, as an integral part of international relations, are unwilling to accept that in the case of their instigating aggression they would be charged. Furthermore aggression can be interpreted in many different ways, blockades, threat of force, and trade embargoes can and have, all been interpreted as forms of aggression.

Another jurisdictional limitation binding the ICC is that of temporal jurisdiction. The ICC may not try a case that occurred prior to The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court coming into effect, 1 July 2002. This limitation is based upon the legal principle of ratione temporis, that the law cannot act ‘backwards’ in time. This quite obviously prevents cases being brought forward ad infinitum from events prior to the law. Furthermore it would be impossible for a law to be broken or a court to rule on that law when the law did not exist during the time of the supposed breach. Also and very importantly the second section of the act reads:

“If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.[7]”

However, the ICC may act on any case that is brought to its attention by member states, even those states that are not party to the ICC but have engaged a Party State of the ICC. This is pursuant to Article 4, Section 2:

“The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.[8]”

The constitution of the ICC itself is made of five bodies: The Assembly of State Parties, The Presidency, The Judicial Divisions, The Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. Each of these bodies serves an important purpose within the machinations of the International Criminal Court.

The Assembly of State Parties is the body of State Parties, who have signed on to and ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. There is one representative from each member state to speak on their behalf to The Assembly of State Parties. The general rule of the ICC is to attempt to achieve consensus on all matters regarding the court. The Assembly of State Parties controls many of the issues involving the ICC’s governance, including:

(b) Provide management oversight to the Presidency, the Prosecutor and the Registrar regarding the administration of the Court;

(d) Consider and decide the budget for the Court;[9]

The Assembly elects the 18 judges of the court as well as the ICC’s President and Vice-Presidents.

The 18 judges are elected along a geographically representative principal, and no two judges from the same nation may hold seats at the same time. These elections along with terms of office and precedence are governed by: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and The Regulations of the Court 26 May 2004 as well as the amendments put into effect 18 December 2007. The judges are, “chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices.[10]” The judges’ terms last 9 years. If for any reason a judge must leave their office, tradition, but not mandate, dictates that another judge is elected to fill their position until the term is finished from the same country.

These 18 judges are divided into three courts, the Pre-Trial Division, the Trial Division and the Appeals Division. Each of these courts is presided over by 6 judges, each headed by either the President or one of the two Vice-Presidents. Each of these courts function according to the following:

2. (a) The judicial functions of the Court shall be carried out in each division by Chambers.

(b) (i) The Appeals Chamber shall be composed of all the judges of the Appeals Division;

(ii) The functions of the Trial Chamber shall be carried out by three judges of the Trial Division;

(iii) The functions of the Pre-Trial Chamber shall be carried out either by three judges of the Pre-Trial Division or by a single judge of that division in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;[11]

The Pre-Trial division deals with issues concerning warrants, admissibility of trials and the administration of initial charges against individuals being laid., the Trial division rules upon the cases after individuals have been brought to trial and the Appeals division deals with any appeals brought before the court after a ruling has been issued.

The Prosecutor or any member involved in a trial may request a judge remove themselves from trial in “any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground.[12]” Any such request must be judged on by an absolute majority of the other judges.

The Office of the Prosecutor conducts both investigations and prosecutions for the ICC. The Prosecutor is the head of the department and is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors. The Office of the Prosecutor is independent from all other branches of the ICC, and “shall not seek or act on instructions from any external source.[13]” The Prosecutor and deputy Prosecutors must be of different nations according to Article 42 Section 2. In regards to the choice of officers an absolute majority on secret ballots in The Assembly of Member States elects the Prosecutor; the Deputy Prosecutors are elected in a similar manner from a list put forward by the Prosecutor to The Assembly of Member States.[14] The President may excuse the Prosecutor or the Deputy Prosecutors from any case if petitioned by them.[15] In regards to disqualification of any of the Deputy Prosecutors or the Prosecutor only the Appeals Chamber shall rule on the matter. This issue is dealt with in Article 42 Section 8:

8. Any question as to the disqualification of the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor shall be decided by the Appeals Chamber.

(a) The person being investigated or prosecuted may at any time request the disqualification of the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor on the grounds set out in this article;

(b) The Prosecutor or the Deputy Prosecutor, as appropriate, shall be entitled to present his or her comments on the matter.

This leaves the Registry. The Registry is the bureaucratic organ of the ICC, it governs the everyday goings on of the court, and is not directly involved in the legal proceedings of the court. The Registry is headed by the Registrar, who is the chief administrator of the ICC and exercises their “functions under the authority of the President of the Court.[16]” The Registrar may request a Deputy Registrar should the need arise. Both the appointment of the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar are decided by a secret ballot of the 18 judges, requiring an absolute majority, and taking into account any suggestion by The Assembly of Member States.[17] The Registrar is also responsible for establishing the Victims and Witness Unit, which “shall provide, in consultation with the Office of the Prosecutor, protective measures and security arrangements, counselling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses.[18]” To assist the Office of the Registrar as well as the offices above mentioned, numerous staff shall be appointed as per the guidance of Article 44.

After coming to an understanding of the jurisdiction of the court and the constitution of its bodies we must understand the courses and warrants before the court. These cases and warrants involve four African states: Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Sudan; specifically regarding Darfur.

Uganda has citizens before the court who are members of The Lord’s Resistance Army, this case was suggested by the Ugandan government, a State Party. Members of this group have been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Lord’s Resistance Army has stated that they will end violence against the government if the Ugandan government withdraws its suggestion for a trial before the ICC. The Ugandan government has entertained the idea of instituting a national tribunal that would meet international standards to try the accused instead. The members accused are: Joseph Kony (Fugitive), Vincent Otti (believed to be deceased as of 2007), Raska Lukwiya (Deceased 12 August 2006), Okhot Odiambo (Fugitive), Dominic Ongwen (Fugitive). These individuals have been accused under Articles 7 and 8 of The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Democratic Republic of the Congo has four former members of government who have been accused before the ICC due to the events of March 2004. These individuals are: Thomas Lubanga (in ICC custody, trial began 26^th January 2009), Germain Katanga (in ICC custody, trial began 24^th November 2009), Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (in ICC custody, trial began 24^th November 2009) and Bosco Ntaganda (Fugitive).

Central African Republic has one former member of government, Jean-Pierre Bemba. After his arrest warrant was signed Bemba was found in Brussels the following day. Bemba, a former Vice-President of the Central African Republic, was transferred to ICC custody on the 3^rd of July 2008. His trial begins on the 27^th of April 2010. His trial is in regards to both War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.

Sudan, unlike the other states concerned had citizens suggested to the ICC by the UN Security Council. These accusations are in regards specifically to the conflict in Darfur. The citizens accused before the ICC are: Ahmed Haroun (Fugitive), Ali Kushayb (Fugitive), Omar al-Bashir (Fugitive) and Bahr Idriss Abu Garda who unlike any other in the courts history is appearing before the court voluntarily. His confirmation of charges hearing began 12^th of October 2009.

These individuals will be tried before the court to the fullest extent of its power, which includes:

1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:

(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or

(b) Aterm of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.

2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:

(a) Afine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

(b) Aforfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.[19]

Following a ruling, the charged may appeal the courts decision as per Articles 81, 82, 83 and 84. In regards to the victims of these crimes a Trust is established by the court which may pay out compensation for the damages done as per Article 79 of The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court has yet to demonstrate that it, as an international judicial body, has teeth. Despite this the ICC has already apprehended and proceeded with trial on 5 of the 12 individuals who still have active warrants on them. Only a resolution to the trials currently before the ICC will determine whether this court has will be able to live up to its mandate “to guarantee lasting respect for international justice.[20]” This is a large expectation of a body that does not have a majority of the world’s population signed onto it, and 5 of the world’s nuclear states refusing to sign on or ratify The Rome Statute. If the ICC is to survive as a respected body, it will require the sanction and support of the world’s Great Powers, otherwise, the ICC like many international institutions before it will risk becoming outdated, ineffectual and under utilized in some of the major issues of the 21^st Century.

This follows reports by Russian newspapers on December 14th, 2009 that Nauru was seeking $50 million in Russian financial aid for projects on the small, one island country which had once relied heavily on the export of the islands increasingly depleted phosphate reserves mined from fossilized bird droppings.

“We have now established relations with the worlds largest nation [Russia] and the worlds smallest nation [The Nauru Republic]” claimed the Foreign Affairs Minister of Abkhazia Sergei Shamba who has in the past sought the formal recognition of other states in the neighbouring Middle East and Latin America but has been “hampered by mighty forces”, chiefly the United States and European Union.

However Temur Iakobashvili, the Georgian Minister for Reintegration (a cabinet post created to deal with the issues involving Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the two break-away regions of Georgia) has said that Russia has merely ‘bought’ the recognition of Abkhazia by foreign states.

This comes as Sergei Bagapsh, who was re-elected president of Abkhazia on December 12th, 2009 in an election which Georgia had labeled an “immoral comedy” announces his plans to visit Turkey soon claiming the need for Abkhazia to reach out to members of the Abkhaz diaspora, many of whom reside within the Turkish Republic. Bagapsh is also seeking  legislative reforms which would permit Abkhazians living outside of Abkhazia to vote in general elections.

Bagapsh has claimed that the normalization of relations between Abkhazia and Georgia is unlikely saying ” we can only negotiate with a Georgian president who accepts the independence of Abkhazia”.

The Road to Abkhaz Independence.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia both broke away from Georgian sovereignty in the early 1990’s via civil wars which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of Georgia.

In August 2008 Georgia launched a military assault on the South Ossetia region following increasing tensions with the Georgian government which triggered a five day Russian invasion into Georgia which devastated the country leaving 228 Georgian civilians dead or missing.

Russian forces now control the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who are both highly dependent on the Russian Federation for economic support and security. The Parliament of Georgia passed a resolution on August 28th, 2008 declaring the two regions “Russian-occupied territories”.

Nauru, a member of the United Nations since 1999 joins Russia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as the only four countries to officially recognize the independence of Abkhazia from Georgia, however it has yet to join these three states in the recognition of South Ossetian independence as well. Nauru is also one of the 63 countries to officially recognize the February 2008 independence of Kosovo from Serbia despite objections from Moscow.

Chile’s membership into the OECD will be formalized in January of 2010 with a signing between the current President of Chile; Michelle Bachelet and the Secretary-General of the OECD José Gurria who added in his statement on the Tuesday of December 15th, 2009 that the accession of Chile into the OECD “is a great contribution in our drive to expand our global reach and to transform the organization into a more plural and inclusive institution that will play an increasingly important role in the global economic architecture”

Many reformations needed to be made within Chilean legislation in order for the Republic to join the OECD. Particularly in areas regarding the exchange of tax information, legal responsibility in bribery cases and corporate governance with the final pending legislation for OECD admittance, which regarded the international exchange of tax information, having passed the Chilean Congress mere weeks ago.

The admission of Chile into the OECD will likely follow the electoral victory of Sebastian Pinera who if elected President in the run-off election set for January 17th, 2010 will be the first right-wing government to lead Chile since the infamous military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Bachelet has claimed that the membership of Chile into the OECD shows that the South American nation has been internationally regarded as having a solid economic management. All of this comes as Chilean Finance Minister Andres Velasco is set to present the final economic review of Chile before the OECD later this week.

Slovakia was the last country to be admitted into the OECD in 2000 however talks regarding the membership of Chile as well as Estonia, Israel, Slovenia and Russia in the OECD began back in 2007. However Chile remains the only one of these five applicants to be granted membership into this well-known economic organization of 30 nations.

What is the Treaty of Lisbon?

Signed in the Portugese city of Lisbon on December 13th, 2007 the Treaty of Lisbon looks to reform the functioning of the European Union in multiple ways which include the creation of a new post known as the High Representative of Foreign Affairs to present to the international community a unified position on EU policy. Additionally, a shift is sought from a unanimous requirement as is currently needed to pass decisions in the EU, towards more of a majority system.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights would also become legally binding should the Treaty of Lisbon be enacted.

Perhaps the most well-known  reformation proposed by the Treaty of Lisbon however is the creation of a President of the European Council who would serve a term of two and a half years.

Support in the Irish Republic.

It was only 16 months ago that the Republic of Ireland, the only country in the 27 member European Union to hold a referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, voted the Treaty down in a 47% yes - 53% no nation-wide vote.

The change in Irish public opinion is likely due to the legally binding garuntees made by the European Union that the Treaty of Lisbon will not impede on Irish sovereignty in the areas of taxation, military neutrality, and abortion rights which were all highly contested issues brought forward in Ireland during the first referendum.

The current economic situation in Europe has likely been a motivator for this change of consensus, ias has the endorsement and support of the Treaty by all major political parties in the Irish Republic, except Sinn Fein.

The second referendum was held on October 2nd and the results announced the following day with the “no” side only winning 33% of the vote this time while the “yes” side recieved a definitive victory claiming 67% of the vote.

Opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon.

However, two countries within the European Union, the Czech Republic and Poland, have not yet ratified the Treaty of Lisbon. The parliaments of both these nations have already approved the Treaty, and Lech Kaczynski, President of Poland, is expected to ratify the treaty shortly. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic has refused to sign the treaty until his country’s constitutional courts have ruled on the documents validity, an investigation sparked by claims from members of the Czech senate that it violates Czech law.

Opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon isn’t just present in the Czech Republic however. The national election scheduled 8 months from now will likely see Conservative David Cameron take control of government. Cameron, said on the subject, that “if the treaty is not in force when the election is held, and if we are elected then we will hold a referendum on it.” Most polls indicate that a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon in the United Kingdom would fail to pass.

Member of Parliament, Paul Dewar (NDP) commented simply that the proposed legislation is a “first start.”

“If they’re going to put forward something that’s going to help Canadians who are hard hit, we would be irresponsible not to seriously consider and support that,” continued Dewer, speaking of a potential confidence vote.

The new legislation would cost roughly $900 million and would result in an additional 5-20 weeks of additional benefits based on how long an individual has been employed and paying in to the EI fund.

Human Resources Minister, Diane Finley said, “we believe that this is the right thing to do and that it is both fair and responsible. It would help Canadians who have worked hard and paid EI premiums for many years and who now find themselves in need of a hand up.”

NDP leader Jack Layton said that he’d leave negotiations up to the current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Some analysts say that this new EI package is an attempt by the Conservative party to appease opposition parties with a potential confidence vote occurring as early as Friday.

Negative option rebilling, the simple concept of which is a “free trial” which places you on a subscription list if you do not cancel, has been considered a quasi-legitimate business practice in some industries for decades. Companies in areas such as mail order book clubs or the new mail order DVDs are good examples.

A California company called “Family Products” marketed alleged “get rich quick scams,” such as the “John Beck Free and Clear Real Estate System” was targeted by the FTC for making “bogus claims through DVDs and infomercials” about the effectiveness of their product. Family Products allegedly duped over 600,000 Americans out of $300 million.

The traditional concept of negative option rebilling has effectively been outlawed in Canada, but remains a viable business plan in much of the rest of the world.

Operation Short Change, as the movement is called, was announced between the FTC and the Justice Department yesterday and includes dozens of cases brought forward in at least 13 states.

A quick Google search demonstrates to reporters that “weight loss” is another niche heavily effected by negative option rebilling. With products like “Nature’s Colon Cleanse” (do not order from this site — at least, not without reading the terms) which appears to sell little more than the concept of doing a “cleanse” offering “limited” free trials to customers in exchange for adding them to their rebill list. Some of these companies provide proper customer support to allow users to cancel, but the majority do not.

Attorney General of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, told the Associated Press that he has received a huge upswing of complaints regarding these scams. “In the down economy, the scam artists crawl out from under rocks. If they want money up-front, then they’re up to no good.”

The industry giant will add $30 billion of aid from the US and $9.5 billion from Canada to the $20 billion it received in January of 2009. In exchange the US government will now own 60% of the company, the Canadian government will hold 12.5%, and the United Auto Workers Union will receive 17.5% of the shares. This leaves only 10% for the previous stockholders, who will probably be forced out of the picture by the restructuring. The governments will sell off their portion of the shares over the next several years.

GM has promised that in this time all operations will continue to run, including warranty coverage, services, manufacturing and customer service. All employees and suppliers will continue to be paid, and the pension plans for the workers are in no danger.

However, they have stated that 9 plants will be closed and 3 more will be mothballed for the time being. Only 4 brands will survive with the new company - Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. The sale of Hummer has already been finalized and Saturn is expected to come soon as well. The downsizing will cut the workforce employed by the company by more than a third.

The impact on markets can been seen clearly, as shareholders try to sell before they are wiped out completely. One year ago the stocks were work almost $20 a piece. The shares fell as low as $1.07, but rebounded to $2.65 after the bankruptcy filings were made.

As GM moves through bankruptcy court, it is uncertain if the company will even survive the amount of restructuring that needs to be done. If it does, that does not necessarily mean that it will ever be the industry heavyweight it once was. If GM takes its time through court, it may push many of its suppliers over the edge and crumble the entire industry.

In the United States there are two kinds of bankruptcy that a company can file for - chapter 7 and chapter 11 under the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 7 consists of selling off company assets to cover debts and closing the entire operation down whilst chapter 11 allows for a massive restructuring under the control of the courts.

GM is the second of the Detroit three to be pushed into considering Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the past month. They have already approved the closure of the Pontiac brand, which will cost upwards of $2 billion USD to complete. Chrysler filed on April 30th which resulted in the European automaker Fiat taking a 20% share in the company. Fiat has plans to reorganize Chrysler into a company that can compete in the smaller car market that exists in North America today.
After a major restructuring earlier in the year, Ford is still floating under its’ own steam, having not accepted any money from the massive bail-out earlier this year.

GM’s board of directors meets soon to decide whether it is worth keeping the company alive, although the return on selling the company off is likely to be minimal in the current economic crisis.

Along with issues concerning climate change, energy and sustainability, the environment and international peace and security the Canada - EU Summit is set to center around the subjects of the International Financial Crisis and economic partnership between Canada and the 27-member European Union.

Significant commercial seal hunts along with population culls of local seal populations take place in Canada, Greenland, Namibia, Norway, Russia, as well as Sweden and Finland who are member nations of the EU.

Support for the Ban

This EU legislation follows intensive lobbying from various animal welfare groups who have long lobbyed against commercial seal hunts the largest of which taking place off the east coast of Canada which kills roughly 300,000 seals annually.

Labour MEP, Arlene McCarthy, who helped to draft the legislation claims that “the vast majority of people across Europe are horrified by the cruel clubbing to death of seals” adding “this law will finally put an end to the cruel cull of nearly 300,000 seals a year” while Rebecca Aldworth of the Canadian Branch of the Humane Society International called “this is a historic moment in the campaign to stop commercial seal hunts around the world” .

This legislation requires the agreement of EU ministers still before it can take effect, and looks to be implemented before the 2010 hunting season begins.

Seal products are already banned in Belgium and Holland while Canadian seal products have been banned in the United States since 1972.

Opposition to the Ban

Both Canada and Norway have previously stated that they will challenge the ban at the World Trade Organization (WTO) while a delegation from the Canadian Inuit administrative region of Nunavut attempted to persuade Members of the European Parliament not to back the ban.

Despite exemptions in the legislation which protect the continued import of seal products from the traditional hunts of Canadian and Greenland Inuit communities the delegation from Nunavut pointed out that similar exemptions didn’t stop “the market collapse, hardship and the suicides” which followed the 1983 ban on white coat and blue back seal pelts.

Meanwhile the Canadian province of Newfoundland & Labrador’s Minister of Fisheries, Tom Hedderson claims that the vote was far from a surprise but nevertheless a bad move adding that at least 6,000 people in his province earn at least half of their livelihood from the annual seal hunt.

The Canadian seal hunt is the largest in the world which, as previously mentioned, kills roughly 300,000 harp seals a year and exports an estimated $2.5 million dollars worth of seal products to the European Union alone, while most of its seal hunts products are sold in Russia and Asia claims Hedderson.

Canada is now threatening to launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization while Canadian International Trade Minister Stockwell Day says that the European Union’s legislation must include exemptions for nations like Canada who “follow strict guidelines for humane and sustainable sealing practices”

The seals are not only hunted for their fur but for meat, oil blubber, organs and Omega-3 fatty acid supplements.

The ban does not apply to smaller scale culls mainly for fish stock management in the EU member nations of Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom which falls under “sustainable management of marine resources.”

Neither the state-run journal The New Light of Myanmar nor the Burmese government held any ceremony to commemorate the victims; the one year anniversary of the disaster did not even earn a brief mention.

One year after Cyclone Nargis the humanitarian situation on the Irrawaddy Delta remains dire

Reconstruction has hardly begun in the area while half a million survivors still remain in make-shift shelters, though many of the area’s rice paddies and its water supply remain contaminated with ocean water from the storm’s tidal surges. The tidal surges caused by Nargis were as high as three and a half meters and reached as far inland as 40 kilometers.

While charities and foreign governments have provided roughly $315 million in food aid and emergency assistance for the victims, several international organizations are requesting an additional $690 million over a three year period to assist in the rebuilding of the region and assistance of survivors: amongst them the United Nations, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and the Burmese government.

The military government of Burma was heavily criticized in the days following the arrival of Cyclone Nargis primarily due to its tight restrictions on allowing international relief agencies access to the victims; the Burmese government continues to maintain that only 85,000 people were killed in the cyclone, whereas UN estimates place the number closer to 140,000.

The embargo has taken many forms over the years, restricting travel to the tiny island as well as trade. One law passed in 1963 prohibited companies that did business in Cuba from doing business in the United States. The result of the blockade was decades of Cuban poverty as the economy adjusted from the shock of losing a major trading partner. It also led to the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Cubans to the state of Florida, including more than 10,000 people who left during the Mariel Boatlift in 1980.

The sanctions that are going to be repealed are numerous. All restrictions on remittances and travel by Cuban-Americans will be removed, allowing them to send money to the island for the first time. Certain businesses will be allowed to offer services to Cuba, such as telecommunications firms. These actions come days before the Summit of the Americas, which is expected to call on Mr. Obama to remove all sanctions on Cuba and to restore diplomatic relations with the country.

There are still many other restrictions for the United States Congress to change, including travel for other Americans and opening up trade for the entire business world. Hopefully these new moves push them in the right direction.

The political and economic situation in Somalia is anything but stable. Since 1991 a civil war has been raging as different warlord factions attempt to take control of the country. What’s more, a number of states within Somalia have self-declared themselves as autonomous, yet not independent. There is no government, and as much as 73% of the country is thought to be living on less than $2 US a day. The conflict is now between several Islamist military factions, African Union military troops and clan militias. The condition of the area is dire at best.

It is no wonder, then, that as many as 1,000 men now run in pirate gangs along the coast. Somalia is situated on the Horn of Africa, making it a prime area to attack passing ships. At first the intent was to deter fishing boats from poaching in Somali waters, but as time progressed it became its own lucrative business. It does, however, threaten the stream of humanitarian aid into the region, with as much as 90% of the World Food Programme’s deliveries are moved via ship, which now require a costly military escort. This rise in cost of transporting the food means that there is less to spend on the food itself.

The first reported incident of piracy was April 10, 2005, when a Hong Kong ship was held for ransom and promptly returned upon receipt. One more unsuccessful attack was made that year, and another was completed in 2006. After that the number of piracy incidents exploded, with eight in 2007 and 38 in 2008 not including ships that managed to evade capture. This was due to the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in December 2006.

In 2009 so far there have been 19 ships that have succumbed to the pirates’ invasions. The latest of these attacked happened on April 8, 2009 with the hijacking of the US container vessel Maersk Alabama. The 20 person crew is believed to be safe. Among the cargo was UN aid food for Somalia and Uganda. The ransom request is yet to be issued, but it is thought to be about the same as previous hijackings – about $1 million US.

The pirates currently hold 9 ships captive. The success of the pirates can be directly linked to the fact that once a ransom is paid, they turn over the ships and crew quickly and generally unharmed. It has also been said that the pirates even hire caterers to cook western style dishes such as spaghetti for the captives while they are waiting to be ransomed.

Another aspect of the state of affairs in Somalia has been the existence of thousands of tons of nuclear and toxic waste. European and Asian companies signed contracts with the ruling warlords of the time and had been dumping the waste there for years. In December 2004 a massive tsunami hit the coast, stirring it all into the ocean. This has lead to an increase in respiratory problems in the population and

The current solution to this menace has been the deployment of the Combined Task Force 150, a US initiative that has become the patrol force of the Horn of Africa after 9/11. The task force is composed of many different countries including Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Pakistan, the United States and the United Kingdom, although other nations have participated in the past. It serves as support for Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom. The CTF-150 established the Maritime Security Patrol Area on August 22, 2008 as a special force within the CTF-150 to attempt to combat piracy, especially off the coast of Somalia. They also now perform procedures called “Visit, Board, Search and Seizure”, which aim at further deterring piracy.

The sum of this request can be broken down to $75.8 billion for the Pentagon and more than $7 billion for foreign aid; with $1.8 billion to be spent on Pakistan, $3.6 billion to be spent on the Afghan National Army, and $350 million to be spent on improving security along the U.S.-Mexico border and combating drug gangs.

The funding is intended to help pay for the reduction of U.S. forces present in Iraq to 140,000, and to increase the troop number in Afghanistan to 45,000 in accordance with Mr. Obama’s new Afghan strategy.

In his letter Obama claimed, “the Taliban is resurgent and Al-Qaeda threatens America from its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border,” with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs adding that this extra funding “will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan”.

This supplement would bring the total amount of military spending approved for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2009 to about $150 billion, in comparison to totals of $188 billion in 2008 and $171 billion in 2007.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 the United States Congress has passed 17 separate emergency funding bills totaling approximately $822 billion for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and should this extra funding be approved the cost of these two wars will have reached almost $1 trillion dollars.

Obama’s motion is likely to be passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress with House Republican leader John Boehner suggesting Republicans are likely to support this additional funding as well.

Since the employment rate peaked in October of last year, net job losses have totaled around 357,000, increasing each month — Statistics Canada has said the five-month decline is the most severe since the 1982 recession. Of all industries hit by the crisis, manufacturing is reportedly suffering the heaviest losses, with a 6.8 percent unemployment increase since October alone, the equivalent of 134,000 job cuts. In addition to manufacturing, losses have similarly been reported in finance, insurance, real estate and leasing, construction and natural resources.

Economists had previously, for the most part, predicted full-time job losses of around 50,000 for last month, whilst more fearful estimates pegged the number at around 90,000 — in actuality, 79,500 full-time jobs were lost, with 18,200 part-time positions created in their place. Similar trends have been seen over the past five months across all employment sectors, and only the public sector seems to remain relatively unscathed internationally.

No province is free from the increased unemployment, with British Columbia seeing the largest decline of 23,000 jobs; Alberta suffered 15,000 cuts and Ontario an additional 11,000 — the three provinces have accounted for the steepest drop in employment over the past five months. The natural resource sector was hit badly in recent months, in particular in Alberta where gas, oil and coal extraction play an important part in the economy.

TD Bank economist Grant Bishop predicted that the three-month contraction of jobs totaling 272,000 thus far in 2009 is only a portion of the total losses expected before the end of the year, which Bishop predicts could eventually exceed 520,000. Another school of thought on the issue suggests that though things may progress over the year, the rate at which they are doing so has decelerated.