2008 Latin American Treaty - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : 2008 Latin American Treaty Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2011 Question 1 Essay 2008 Latin American Treaty Introduction Cybersecurity is the most recent and most distinctive national security matter to capture the twenty-first century.  Cyber warfare makes use of computer technologies as an offensive or defensive weapon to be utilized in international relations. A treaty is a form of consensus that is drawn between countries that is binding at the international law level. It has been noted that there are instances in which international organizations are parties to treaties. There are numerous terms used interchangeably for treaties; protocol or convention or exchange of letters or covenant. An agreement is only deemed as a treaty when it binds the countries that form it at an international law level (Bundock, 2007). According to Article 2(a) of the Vienna Convention with regard to Law of Treaties; treaty refers an international agreement that is concluded between various States and is governed by the use of international laws and is in written form. Treaties may be enacted in relation to one, two or more instruments which are based on a given designation. There are a number of agreements that may be excluded from it, for instance the agreements between states. Also, Article 3 in light of Treaties state that agreements are not made use of by VCLT and are duly not affected by it. For the proper enforcement of treaties depositories are required to be made with the United Nations. The depositories are needed so as to facilitate particular types of information to each and every interested party who deposit with the United Nations. The Secretary General who oversees the depository of a number of multilateral treaties that provides the information through the issuing of depositary notifications. The depositary notifications are made available to the interested parties by email or by hardcopy and are concerned with the following; signatures which are affixed to treaties, deposit of notifications that are required for succession, the opening of treaties to be available for signatures, deposits for; approval, instruments of ratification, binding instruments, acceptance, communications; which deal with objection to reservations, withdrawal of objections and withdrawal of objections, terminations and denunciations. The entry and conclusions into treaties are stipulated in different articles. For instance the capacity to wind up treaties are found in article 2(1)(c); 6 & 7, the entry into the treaty is found in article 24, the consent to be tied by a given treaty are found in article 11, the creation of a treaty are found in article 77. The treaty declarations and reservations are defined in article 2(1)(d), the acceptance of objections to particular reservations are formulated in article 20, reservation formulations are seen in pp 124-125, impermissible severability and reservations are found in article 19(c). However, there are instances in which treaties are not valid. The instances in which treaties are not valid are the following; in the event of the violation of internal laws that impact on the competence of treaties, in the event of conflicts with peremptory norms with regard to general international laws, in the event of consent inducement via corruption, fraudulent, coercion or corruption and errors that may arise due to given situations or facts. Body i) Should Argentina legislate to prohibit and, prosecute anyone who engages in cyber attacks against an entity that is outside of its territorial jurisdiction Argentina should legislate the prohibition and prosecution of a person who takes part in cyber attacks and who is based outside it. This is because attacks on its neighbors may pose a threat to them. Attacks on neighbors may result in an unstable environment which hinders any form of economic growth, fluctuations in currencies and thus overall safety issues. It has been reported that Latin American countries have grumbled with domestic terrorism sources for a very long time. In light of this, international terrorist associations have made Latin America a form of battleground used in the advancement of their causes. The 1992 bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the bombing of the Argentine-Jewish center in 1994 are the best known examples. The recent terrorist attacks in Indonesia, Bali and Mombasa in 2002 show that area in the world and hence no form of target surpasses strategic interest of any form of international terrorist organizations. The aforementioned threats and the negative impact of terrorism on social and economic development has seen a great number of countries in the Carribean and across the Americas support international coalitions put up against terrorism. It has also been noted that the triborder area (TBA) in which Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil are located is characterized as a form of regional hub for Hamas and Hizballah fundraising activities. It has also been made use of for drug trafficking and arms trafficking, currency and document fraud, money laundering contraband smuggling, and the production and movement of goods that have been pirated. The three countries have thus taken cooperative and determined action in 2002 to look into and disrupt illegitimate financial activities. ii) Is the Latin American Treaty on the Suppression of Cyber Attacks currently in force and is the instrument of ratification by Brazil valid? The Latin American Treaty of 2008 is not currently in force since it only has eight signatories. Article 12 of the Latin American Treaty states that the Treaty will only take effect when ratified by ten states. Brazil has ratified the treaty on conditions that it is exempted from abiding by Articles 2 and 3 on persons employed by various transnational corporations and who have been accused of cyber attacks against different foreign corporations. The treaty’s article 2 requires parties to stop cyber attacks lobbied against entities that are situated without their territorial jurisdiction. Article 2 of the treaty stipulates that each member state has an obligation of either prosecuting or extraditing a given person who is suspected to have committed cyber attacks. Brazil’s ratification should not be valid since it goes against the core function of the treaty which is to ultimately foster international security and a number of other missions. Among the missions is to stop cybercrime since it is a huge threat to democracy, rule of law and human rights which should be treated as top priority. Brazil’s ratification based on its exemptions ultimately does not adhere to missions and thus is repugnant to the core function of the treaty and it does not appreciate that cybercrime is a reality which is dangerous and represents real threat to a number of states that base their technology on infrastructures that are destroyed or even paralyzed. Brazil also does not appreciate that all the states may be compromised in the face of this particular danger. It is therefore vital that efficient reaction and protection to the system may be required to be developed at an international level. The provisions of the treaty appreciates that international co-operation is urgently required as cyber criminals most often than not rely on being able to function across borders and thus exploit national law differences. Therefore, lack of co-operation by various member states exposes them to a number of considerable dangers. iii) What are the current or future effects of Chile’s objection on Brazil’s ratification and what are the legal relationships amongst the states that have ratified the treaty, which might soon include Argentina. Chile’s current objection to Brazil will slow down the time required for the treaty to come into force since they are only eight members who have already endorsed the treaty. It has been noted that the response of only a number of members will render the treaty “destined to failure” on the account that cyber criminals are able to transcend borders. It also beats the ultimate purpose of the resolution which it to instill cooperation at international level which is the key ingredient for efficient prevention and protection of cybercrime. The future and current efforts that take place at international level should lay emphasis on the repression and prevention of cybercrime through harmonized and adequate provisions outlines in national legislations which should be achieved while respecting the civil liberties of others. The states who endorse the resolution will be bound by its provisions and also enjoy high end cooperation in safety preservation. A safe environment will go a long way in ensuring economic growth is maintained and also attract investors since the economic climate will be investment conducive (Rothwell et al 2011). References Davis, R, Rothwell, D, Kaye,S & Akhtarkhavari, A(2011). International Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives. The Cambridge University Press. Bundock (2007). Shipping Law Handbook, 4th edn, Informa Law, London. Question 2 Is the resolution consistent with Australia’s international law obligations as described and analysed in chapter 12 (pp 604-658). The obligation of the Australian’s law is geared towards dispute resolution and the preservation of humanity. Generally international law governs the relationship between nations and forms an international framework. International laws are the ones that exist between sovereign nations or states. It governs the way nations relate with each other. It provides a systematic framework that is required for international relations (Birnie & Boyle, 2002). The world depends on the international law to deal with vital and difficult issues which require cooperation among nations or states of the world. Such tribulations include; terrorism, the escalating spread of HIV/AIDs, countries growing their nuclear arsenals, the reduction of refugee flow and asylum seekers proliferating into neighboring countries and the mitigation of potential climate change. International law is normally defined as rules which govern the legal relationships amongst states. International law gives a framework of understanding the rights and duties which states have on one another and also on other international actors for instance the United Nations, UN. According to Frank, international law is viewed in light of its potential reach and scope. It lays a toll on more states than one in the bid to sustain humanity. It influences inter State behavior as it is significant in light of its effectiveness to domestic changes within a particular State and operates on intra State basis. The capacity of international law to be able to influence domestic conditions changes from State to State. It is valued in terms of its obligation of the general welfare promotion of everyone in the world or by its order maintenance by the establishment of a robust regime for making sure that security and international peace is maintained. International Laws are thus put in place to ensure the protection and humanity’s general welfare, security and peace in particular. This implies that international laws are more than a system of set rules designed for the maintenance of order or for the encouragement of cooperation. It is channeled towards legal protection of the poor and the putting of restraints on strong people, so as to prevent the oppression of the weak. The laws are publicly put in place and are common knowledge (World Summit Outcome, 2005). The Libyan resolution which was passed by the United Nation’s Security Council that related to the Libyan no fly zone abides by the Australian’s International Law since it was formed based on the preservation of humanity. It is against the failure of Libyan authorities to comply with the resolution since there is an escalation of violence, heavy civilian casualties, the violation of human rights which transcend arbitrary detentions, torture, enforced disappearances and summary executions. It further condemns acts of intimidation and violence committed by Libyan authorities in opposition to journalists, associated personnel, media professionals and and urging authorities to abide by their obligations which are under international humanitarian law as stipulated in resolution 1738 (2006). The resolution further abides to international law since it follows the rule of law. Paragraph 26 of the resolution 1970 (2011) expressed the Councils readiness to consider taking appropriate additional measures, as needed, to support and facilitate the return of a number of humanitarian agencies and as such avail humanitarian and other related help required in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It includes the final the final communiqué of Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, in addition to that it also considers the peace and security communiqué of the African Union’s Security Council of the 10 of March 2011 which was put in place due to Libya’s an ad hoc High Level Committee. It called for the use of a no-fly zone that was required to be put on the military aviation, and the establishment of safe areas in different places that are exposed to shelling which is a precautionary measure which permits the protection of foreign nationals and Libyan people who reside in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The no fly zone was established to ban all flights that fly over Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s airspace so as to facilitate the protection of civilians (World Summit Outcome, 2005). However, the no fly zone does not apply to flights of humanitarian nature for instance flights involved in the facilitation or delivery of assistance such as the supply of medicine, humanitarian workers, food or the evacuation of foreign nationals who are based in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya it also stipulates that the flights must be coordinated by the use of any given mechanisms that are established in the resolution. The no fly zone ban authorizes member States of the Arab League that acts through regional organizations or through arrangements to affect the necessary measures to ensure compliance. That includes the overflight approvals. It also requires that Member States which are taking part in the resolution to report back to the Council in a seven day period and in each and every month after resolution implementation. The resolution further instructs the States to deny permission to aircrafts owned or operated registered by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya companies or nationals or companies that land or take off from their territory unless that given flight has been initially approved in advance by a given Committee, or in the event of emergency landing. The States have also been instructed to deny permission to aircrafts that take off, overfly or land in their territory in the event that they provide reasonable grounds that allow them to believe the aircraft contains items that supply, transfer, export or sale that are prohibited according to the resolution. In a nutshell it demands that Libyan authorities abide by their obligations as stipulated in international law, which include; international humanitarian law, the ensuring that their is an unimpeded passage of the assistance of humanity, refugee law, meet basic needs and the use of measures that protect civilians. References 2005 World Summit Outcome, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/1, 16th September 2005. Boyle, A.E. & Birnie, P.W. (2002). International law and the Environment, 2nd edn, The Oxford University Press. Read More