Monday, August 14, 2017


How the debate works:
I have made a proposal for a UN resolution that shall be debated on. In order to participate write in the comments your argument explaining whether or not it could work. Make sure to list out all flaws.
Purpose: To encourage MEDCs (more economically developed countries) to take a percentage of refugees every year 
What the resolution shall entail:
  • the percentage of refugees meant to be taken in varies on the member states' GDP
  • the states must provide refugees with suitable resources in order to live
  • UNHCR frequent checks to make sure no human rights violations are committed in said country
  • an established vetting system that can be altered to a certain extent, used by all member nations who adopt the resolution
  • the distribution of refugees from LEDCs(low economically developed countries) to MEDCs

*Remember I am simply providing my opinion and encourage you to do so as well in the comments. I am open to feedback as well and hope you provide it by commenting below. Thanks for reading!

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Brief Summary: ICJ Advisory Opinions

What is the International Court of Justice?
The International Court of Justice or ICJ for short is a branch of the United Nations and contains exactly 15 judges elected by the General Assembly.

The 2 functions:

  • deals with disputes between states
  • gives advisory opinions

The ICJ in the Hague
Image Source

Advisory Opinions

  • are opinions regarding international law
  • are essentially answers to questions asked by the UN General Assembly, international agencies, or branches
  • Advisory opinions are made by the majority of the judges in the court

The Importance of Advisory Opinions:
Advisory Opinions to me, play a significant role in international law as these opinions are answers that allow us to better understand the subject. Using both logic and reason, the judges are able to come up with the answers to pressing questions that arise, thus, avoiding confusion and issues regarding or relating to international law

*Remember, I am still learning and if my opinion, analysis, arguments, or anything at all could be improved in any way let me know! Also, keep in mind that  I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  


Monday, July 3, 2017

The United Nations Impact on the World

What is the UN?
The UN short for the United Nations, is an intergovernmental organization established during the year 1945, and is the predecessor of the former League of Nations. With a current 193 member states, the UN's primary purpose is to "promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order." (Wikipedia)

The UN's official website where it posts a detailed overview of its creation:
New York UN Headquarters
Image Source

How does the UN help those in need?

 The UN:
  •   establishes peacekeeping operations
  •   attempts to alleviate rural poverty
  •   alleviates hunger
  •   promotes human rights
  •   aids refugees
  •   aids those affected by natural disasters
  •   provides food for the needy 
  •  much more are listed on this link

OPINION: The UN's Impact 
I personally believe that the UN in terms of humanitarian assistance is one of the most exceptional organizations out there. The UN has a tendency to resolve some conflicts and when it is necessary carries out peacekeeping operations. As listed above the UN clearly has many efforts for the betterment of humanity. However, numerous complex issues still remain today since the UN's creation. Sovereignty plays a big role on this as member states being independent and self-ruling, still have the ability to do what they believe is just, regardless of the UN's discrepancy. This is what hinders further action on some issues. Veto power also has an effect on resolutions being passed as there is the possibility that a resolution could drastically help numerous people and if it is not implemented, the issue remains unsolved. You can read more on veto power on my other post here:

Keep in mind that I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  

MLA Citations

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Donald Trump, the Paris Accord, & International Law.

What is the Paris Accord?
In brief, the Climate Accord is known as a framework or agreement intended to reduce climate change and global warming by having member states in the UN establish goals for dealing with the issue, gradually reaching them, and reporting frequent reports to the UN.

Donald's Decision
Donald Trump around a month ago, had made the executive decision of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Change Accord. This significant decision left many around the world in shock as it shows the president's possible disregard and lack of care for the environment.

Opinion: How the President's Decision impact international law
 “Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. " Those were the words which rattled many world leaders who were active participants in the agreement. Mr. Trump's quote can be interpreted in a variety of ways. However, judging from the President's word choice, I believe the president intends to no longer fulfill his requirements for the Paris Accord. If this is what he is getting at and really will " cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord" immediately, then this has a tremendous effect on international law and the decision may result in many consequences. The Paris Agreement clearly displays the withdrawal process. It states that "At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary". The U.S had been subject to the Agreement starting from the year 2016, and yet Mr. Trump attempts to " cease all implementation" this year. Since the Agreement outlines that a Party can only withdraw 3 years later, Trump has in a way, breached international law. It is also outlined that the agreement is indeed binding, "[b]ut it contains non-binding elements," for instance, "in its text—indicated by" using words such as “should”; words that aren't necessarily demanding a State to do something (Lawfare). I believe that Mr. Trump had made the wrong decision when deciding to withdraw from the accord. Not only may it possibly lead to international relations issues, but it also is a significant decision which can have a dramatic effect on the world as a whole, mostly because the United States emits a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.


"Full Text of Trump's Speech – 'Draconian' Paris Accord Dumped." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 June 2017. Web. 28 June 2017. <>.

"Paris Agreement." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 June 2017. Web. 28 June 2017.      --------       ----   -------------------------<>.

Remember, I am still learning and if my opinion, analysis, arguments, or anything at all could be improved in any way let me know! Also, keep in mind that  I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Brief Opinion and Analysis on the ICJ Case: "Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) "

Before reading, know this:
Also known as the Isla Calero, is an island under Costa Rican sovereignty. During the year 2010, an area in Isla Portillo's, specifically the northern part, was disputed as Nicaragua had shown occupation of the area by sending its troops towards the location.

Map of Isla Portillos
(Image src:

Subject of the Dispute:
The dispute mainly "concerns the precise location of the land boundary separating the Los Portillos/Harbor Head Lagoon sandbar from Isla Portillos." In Costa Rica's application to the ICJ, the state mentioned that the "illegal establishment of a military camp by Nicaragua on the beach of Isla Portillos, a territory belonging to Costa Rica" is a pertinent issue that the country wishes to be dealt with through the International Court of Justice. Costa Rica mentions that "Isla Portillos, [is] a territory belonging to Costa Rica, [which was] confirmed by the Court in its Judgment of 16 December 2015".

Costa Rica's Claim
  • Costa Rica still has complete sovereignty over Isla Portillos as the ICJ in a previous case had granted Costa Rica control over the "disputed territory"
  •  Nicaragua had moved its military camp on three separate occasions to three different locations

Nicaragua's Claim
  • Nicaragua did not deny the different locations of the military encampments 
  • Costa Rica had protested that Nicaragua had established their military camp on Costa Rican soil, Nicaragua chose to not move the camp.
  • Nicaragua now states that “the entire stretch of coast abutting the Caribbean Sea between Harbor Head and the river’s mouth” under their sovereign control.

The International Court of Justice
(Image src:

OPINION: What the Court's Ruling Should Be
The ICJ clearly has jurisdiction over the case and therefore is able to produce a decision to resolve the dispute. I personally believe that the ICJ shall state that the Nicaragua had violated Costa Rica's sovereignty by unjustifiably establishing their military camp on Costa Rican soil. The ICJ shall demand that Nicaragua immediately removes its military encampment as it has violated international law. I am in support of the decisions the state of Costa Rica requests to the ICJ and I believe it shall produce the same decisions the Costa Rica has requested.

*I received most of the information for this post using Costa Rica's application to the ICJ

Remember, I am still learning and if my opinion, analysis, arguments, or anything at all could be improved in any way let me know! Also, keep in mind that  I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  

Friday, April 7, 2017

Trump's Newest Exec Order - Current Affairs

Trump's Previous Ban
 - Banned travelers from Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria,  Iraq and Libya
 - Bars refugees from coming into the US for around 120 days

This order had been halted by a judge

Why was it challenged?
It was stated that this ban would hurt the economy, it was unconstitutional and was simply a way of banning Muslims.

"[A] Muslim ban by another name"? - (NY attorney general)
Trump had stated in 2015:  “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 
Opinion: Just by reading this quote, it gives an idea of what Trump's true intentions might be. It is a possibility that he is living up to his own words, however, is going ahead with the proposed 'muslim ban' in a different and almost discreet way.

What makes the new ban any different?
 - The same countries are subjected to this ban except for Iraq
 - The indefinite ban that was placed on Syrian refugees is now removed because of this new ban
 - Green Card holders are no longer affected by this ban

Argument on the ban being unconstitutional
To understand this, we first need to take a look at the US constitution
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If president Trump had made an exec order that regards a certain religion, would that make it unconstitutional? And by establishing a 'Muslim ban' would that mean he is "prohibiting the free exercise" of Islam by not allowing those who practice it in the U.S. I believe so. If you have anything to say on this be sure to write a comment!


Join Our Mailing List

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Opinion, Analysis, Annotations on the ICJ Court Case: "Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)"

"Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)"

Before reading the actual analysis, know this:
The Silala River is a body of water that flows through two sovereign states. It starts as a "spring" in Bolivia and continues to flow to Chile. In brief, the dispute revolves around the fact that Chile believes the river is an international one, whereas Bolivia believes that it is not a river and would not be one if canals had not been built around it. Keep in mind that an "international river" is "a river that flows through or between two or more countries". Now that you understand the background information, here is the actual analysis and evidence.  (I am including screenshots of the application to the ICJ which outlines the details of the case, here is a link: Chile Application)

Subject of the Dispute:

The definition comes from Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses ofInternational Watercourses(1977).

Image of the Silala River

 Chile's Argument:

By stating this, Chile shows that Bolivia's argument is invalid as the river emerging through a spring still makes it a watercourse. However, because "Bolivia claims that waters from the Silala Spring, which crosses their shared border, ... and that Chile has been artificially diverting water", means that Bolivia has never officially recognized this body of water as a "River". The state of Bolivia (as shown in the quote) refers to this as a "Spring". This means that because Bolivia did not recognize the body of water as a river, therefore, the waters cannot 'form' or be emerged through a spring if the body of water itself has always been one. In other words, a "the waters forming" a spring cannot "emerge" from/through a spring.
I predict that a possible argument Bolivia would have would be that since "Chile has been artificially diverting water", it is unfair to call this water source a "river" if it had originally been a spring.

More Information + Source
More information + Source #2
More information + Source #3

Remember, I am still learning and if my opinion, analysis, arguments, or anything at all could be improved in some way let me know! Also, keep in mind that  I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  

Join Our Mailing List