Volume 3, Spring 2023, Issue 2

Print versions of this issue are available for purchase at $25 per copy

Please email inquiries@rutgers-ilhr-journal.org with any purchase requests

LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS AND THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

Peer-Reviewed Article

Bryan S. Hance

The development of lethal autonomous weapons systems continues despite growing global opposition. These weapons now have the capability to travel thousands of miles, seek and destroy targets, carry powerful payloads, navigate difficult environments, and communicate with each other to accomplish predetermined missions, all without human intervention. Despite mounting opposition, lethal autonomous weapons systems remain attractive substitutes for their human counterparts as their development costs decrease and their ability to accomplish sophisticated tasks increases. Greater autonomy, however, produces a wider responsibility gap for human rights violations committed abroad. This article therefore examines the extent to which international human rights treaties apply extraterritorially to the targeted harming of individuals and property by lethal autonomous weapons systems. It traces the development of both lethally autonomous weapons and international human rights law and discusses how this technology impacts the jurisdictional analysis. It argues that the use of such weapons will complicate the already difficult inquiry of whether State Parties to international human rights treaties exercise jurisdiction when a killing occurs extraterritorially, and this, in turn, ultimately can undermine the very purposes of these treaties.

TAIWAN IS NOT THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE “ONE CHINA POLICY”

Peer-Reviewed Article

Stephanie Y.S. Hsu

For a long time, the status of Taiwan (Formosa) has been in legal limbo. Both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) governments’ exile of Taiwan since 1949 insist that the sovereignty of Taiwan was restored to China in 1945. Notwithstanding the considerable loss of Chinese territory and people, the Cold War structure enabled the ROC government in exile to retain its seat in the United Nations until 1971, when it was replaced by People’s Republic of China. Such practice has left an impression that the Republic of China is still living in Taiwan, considering that the Constitution imposed by the Republic of China on Taiwan is still in use today. Since 1971, the international community has taken a One-China policy, recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the one and only China in the world, and Taiwan has effectively become an international orphan. The name “Republic of China” is welcomed by Beijing strategically because its very name suggests that Taiwan is part of China. This article looks back into the history which has placed Taiwan at its present dilemma, providing a comparative analysis from an international law perspective to clarify the statehood and identity of both the Republic of China and Taiwan. By identifying and analyzing the historical documents and state practices, this article suggests that the Republic of China and Taiwan are two different entities, and provides a new, and critical, angle of the “One China Policy.” In addition, this article gives an insight into the reason why the “Status Quo” of Taiwan deliberately maintained by the calculating politicians defying international law is detrimental to the peace and security of the region, highlighting the significance of conforming to international law in solving global disputes and conflicts.

A HARD THOUGHT PEACE? THE COLOMBIAN PEACE AGREEMENT, AND DUTIES TO PROSECUTE AND PUNISH UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Student Note

Francis Maxwell

In 2016, the Government of Colombia and the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces-Popular Army (FARC-EP) agreed to end a decades-long internal conflict through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Although it has been praised for its attention to victims’ rights, the CPA has been criticized for including provisions for amnesty and alternate sentencing for perpetrators. This article analyzes whether amnesty and alternative sentencing under the CPA are compliant with international and regional law. The article examines obligations with respect to these two issues under international treaty and customary law, the Rome Statute, and the American Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that the significant criticism as to the CPA’s amnesties and alternative sentencing are misplaced. The CPA exceeds a large majority of its obligations and reveals that a number of the assumptions about the existence of duties to prosecute and punish under international law are premature. Many of these obligations are nascent and developing, and in this way the CPA may itself contribute to this development and provide a model for future resolution of conflict in accordance with international law.