Though the Egyptian civilization is approximately 7,000 years old, it may still be considered a young nation in terms of human rights appreciation. It is a country beginning a drastic transition, and among the elements of Egyptian life starting to change is a new found hope for an enshrinement of basic human rights that have previously never been made available for the majority of the Egyptian population. It is my contention that the Egyptian people’s reaction to the consistent and flagrant human rights abuses of the Mubarak regime was the catalyst that started the revolution of 2011. I will further discuss the transitional nature of the human rights awakening in Egypt by comparing their current metamorphosis to that of the somewhat recently transitioned nations of the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tunisia. Human rights violations are oftentimes unusually severe in countries going through a time of political, economic and social transition. Improving human rights standards and practices in transitional societies should be considered important for the good of the entire region and my paper attempts to direct the discussion of how a transitional human rights regime can become positively entrenched in the psyche of the newly awakened nation and region. Egypt now stands at a precipice where it must decide for itself if it wants to become a modern nation where rights for all are protected or if it will fall in line with the often abysmal human rights expectations of other nations in the region. With the disappointing experiences of the Mubarak regime still alive in the minds of the Egyptian people, my paper argues that we can remain cautiously optimistic that in the future, human rights will be more greatly respected than in the past. I argue that with the proper attention and support from the international community the growing pains of a free Egypt will be minimal while the rewards can be colossal.
Palestine took the bull by the horns when the Arab Spring began. But instead of a quest for democracy spearheaded by a protesting populace, Palestine pursues the statist objective of being recognized as a state. Palestine has, for a while now, sought to become a member of the United Nations, and thereby officially being recognized as a state in the international community. What better time than in the thick of the revolutionary changes in the Arab World, for Palestine to push for its recognition with renewed vigour?
International law lacks the coherence that domestic law has. There is no world parliament, and judicial decisions, albeit binding, are not always respected. States seem to largely enjoy the discretion to shape international law according to their volition. Yet, quite paradoxically, and albeit not confined by any outer restraints, states feel inherently limited in their actions.
The present article would like to trace these inherent limits of international law. In order to do this, the article will use a paradigm that constitutes the awarding platform for all other human rights: the right to self-determination.
The article will examine the restrictions imposed to self-determination quests, comparing in the realms of the Arab spring, the stance of the international community towards Libya and Syria. Activist in the first case, more passive in the second, the recoil of the international community in assisting people to achieve their quests for internal self-determination is a direct consequence of international law’s inherent limits. Tracing them, the article will then focus on the practical implications these limits’ cognizance has for international law and international thematic constitutionalism.
The international community has reached an impasse. The violence committed by Syrian President Assad’s government against opposition forces, who have been calling for democratic reform, regime change, and expanded rights, has necessitated a response from the international community. This article explores various ways the international community could respond to the crisis in Syria and the consequences of each approach. It compares the current calamity in Syria to the crisis in Libya and examines the international community’s response to the violence perpetrated by Qaddafi’s regime. It further analyzes reports, primarily from the UN and news sources, about the ongoing predicament in Syria. The article concludes that the international community should proceed with achieving a ceasefire via dialogue but must begin by conveying newly imposed sanctions that affect the Sunni merchant class and thus threaten Assad’s grip on power to make that dialogue more effective. World leaders should also identify a Syrian leader who could replace Assad, who must be removed from power because of the crimes against humanity that have been committed by his regime. Western states must accept that they will have to engage peacekeeping forces in the region to aid the transition of power in Syria.