In recent weeks, the world held its breath. Tensions between North Korea and the United States reached a climax. The threat of war hovers over the world, a war which could destroy the post-1990’s world order; world peace now hangs in the balance. Nobody can accurately predict what would be the cause of a nuclear war nowadays, or how many people would die. One thing is sure; nuclear weapons possess a genocidal character – they can wipe out whole nations.
The international community can undertake temporary measures such as economic and political sanctions. However, it will not solve the problem rather postpone them. We also need to be aware that with threats carried through social media such as Twitter, we cannot achieve peace in the Korean peninsula, let alone promote fraternity between nations in the region.
The role of the United Nations is crucial here. Many times in the history, the intergovernmental organisation has prevented conflicts by ensuring dialogue between feuding sites. These actions are carried out in impartial manners helped save our planet in the Cold War era. The pivotal question is how we, the international community, want to resolve the Korean conflict from now onwards.
Even if the international community cannot maintain a united front towards the North Korea today, we can agree, that if in 50 years the peninsula is clear from the nuclear weapon, it will be the best for the global peace and the future of our children.
A united Korea should also be the UN everlasting target to be achieved. We have an example of a successful reintegration of the two German states, East Germany and Wester Germany. Obviously, it the current circumstances, 70 years after the partition, the plan sounds almost absurd. However, a confederation or federation of two Korean states shall we take as granted. Every form of integration of the two Korean states will reduce the tension and prevent war. The integration needs to be based on shared understanding and trust. Instead of menacing the leader of North Korea, we need to talk to him.
First of all, a 4+2+1 group needs to be established; a formal working group of China, Japan, Russia, the United States (4), Korean states (2) and under the auspices of the United Nations (1). The UN could organise this high-level dialogue under its patronage. Only through dialogue, we can solve problems, a monologue conducted in Twitter is going nowhere. The United Nations could successfully mediate the conflict, provide programs which focus on integration and prepare a ‘’Roadmap Korea2050’’. The integration can be provided on a small scale at the beginning. The United Nations can promote openness of Korea giving China as an example. The leaders of the North Korea must be assured nobody will attack them if they respect the terms of an agreement.
The united Korea regardless the political form will require a withdrawal of American troops from South Korea. A deal of resigning of the nuclear weapon against the withdrawal of American soldiers sounds very far from today’s reality. Yet it is not impossible; we do not know who will be the next resident of the White House. North Korea must change, and the process can be achieved through integration at regional and international level. We need to speak with the North Korea and seek to understand their points of view. If China could transform remarkably over the last 27 years since the beginning of the Open Door Policy, North Korea may follow suit. Korea2050 a confederal state consisted of two countries – north and south with separate armies (100,000 soldiers each), budgets but with a common parliament with an equal number of seats for both regions. With no nuclear weapon and no foreign troops. I believe it can happen.
Ukraine is divided into many dimensions. One part of the country seceded and joined Russian Federation (with its strong support); and two separatist regions declared independence (not recognised by anyone, even Russia). Ukraine is divided by languages – half of the population speaks Russian, half Ukrainian on a daily basis. Even if the spread of Russian language is decreasing (also due to the detachment of Crimea and Donbas region), the language plays a significant role in the country. There are still places in Ukraine, although Continue reading Integration for Ukraine
Brexit has shaken our confidence in the European Union; the talks about the reforms are on the top of Juncker’s, Schulz’s and Tusk’s agendas. In which direction should the European project move? Due to the ghost of Brexit, the reform process is a race against the clock. If the UK performs better in the long run (it is always easier to solve problems in small countries, let alone international organisations) and Europe Continue reading A political or economic union for the EU?
The new European Army announced by J-C Juncker last year is a project which has generated lots of debate. The project being still only under discussions will be beyond doubt very to implement. The key issue is a potential relationship between European Army and NATO. The European Army should be a new structure, which regroups some units of the EU Member States. Continue reading Could EU army threaten NATO?
The principle of national treatment stands alongside with most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN), one of the most significant pillars of the World Trade Organization. It is included in the Art III of GATT and prohibits any discrimination for foreign products, as compared to similar domestic goods. The aim of the commitment is therefore to grant the best possible treatment in relation to these products and to prevent any form of protectionism — measures that differentiate domestic and imported goods. Continue reading Principle of National Treatment
As regard to the criteria of Border Tax the Appellate Body in the EC-Asbestos case hold that competitive relationship is highly relevant and both necessary and sufficient for determination of likeness standard under Art III:4 and therefore regulatory purposes are irrelevant. National treatment principle can be applicable only with respect to ‘like products’ being in a close competitive relationship in the marketplace. Consequently, protectionist measures can be possibly applied only with the purpose of affecting the significant situation in the market of such products. The Appellate Body stated as following: