|
Current Volume |
|
Volume 13 - Issue 1 (2009 - 2010)
|
|
Written by Bo James Howell
|
|
This article
discusses the relationship between state protectionism and the global market,
and how this relationship impacts antitrust law through trade policy. In order to contain this relatively deep
topic, this article focuses on monopoly power, as opposed to anticompetitive
agreements. Focusing on monopoly power,
this article discusses this relationship and effect in the context of current antitrust
disputes, primarily in the United States
and Europe. Through
these examples, this article intends to address the current trends in antitrust
law and caution against states moving towards more protectionist trade and antitrust
policies. Although, as a matter of trade policy, most
states are concerned about the competitiveness of global economic markets, over
regulation through antitrust law can result in higher prices and less economic
benefits. Such economic consequences would be devastating
in today's global recession. To avoid further
exacerbating the current global recession, states must understand the connection
between trade policy and antitrust law as it exists in two forms.
First,
state-economic-protectionist policies reduce global competitiveness and
economic benefit; in fact, such policies are the ultimate anticompetitive
action. States that champion domestic
firms are pursuing anticompetitive policies on a global level. In fact, one can argue that state economies
themselves are the global market. Thus,
state-level protectionism influences the efficiency of the global market; I
refer to this as the "state protectionist effect."
Second,
the global market structure influences state competition laws. The global market's current structure will
force states to make trade policy decisions, which in turn alter the state's
antitrust laws. There are two ways in
which state trade policy may later affect antitrust laws: (a) the state may
create, amend, or repeal certain antitrust laws in order to protect or promote
local firms; or (b) the state may alter its enforcement of its current
antitrust laws. Thus, the global market structure impacts the
composition or enforcement of state antitrust laws, which I refer to as the
"global market effect."
In
sum, there is a circular relationship between the state protectionist and global
market effects. In one instance a state
affects the global market structure by promoting domestic firms. In another instance, a separate state reacts
to the change in global market structure by altering its antitrust laws or
enforcement. The net result of such
behavior is a spiraling crisis in which states continually discriminate against
foreign firms, which ultimately crashes the global market.
This article discusses
the influence of the global economy on antitrust laws: in good times, antitrust
laws and regulation generally function to prevent anticompetitive actions by
domestic and foreign firms, because there is enough growth to satisfy the trade
policies of most states. But in bad
times, antitrust laws and regulations take on protectionist characteristics as states
seek to maintain economic viability by supporting domestic firms. For example, a state which enters into a
local recession may act in a protectionist manner, which influences the global
market. As a result of that state's
anticompetitive actions, other states react to the global market change, and
the net result is a global recession.
In order to
facilitate the discussion of this relationship between state protectionism and
the global market, this article proceeds in the following three-part approach. Part I outlines the relationship by providing
a brief overview of antitrust law from the United
States and the international community. Next, Part II provides historic and current
examples of this relationship. Finally,
Part III discusses the economic costs of this relationship.
|
|
|
Volume 13 - Issue 1 (2009 - 2010)
|
|
Written by Mark Cantora
|
"[T]he Jews . . .
came back again and fell upon those of Gaza and slew of them about
a thousand. But as those of Gaza stoutly resisted them,
and would not yield for either their want of anything, nor for the great
multitude that were slain (for they would rather suffer any hardship whatever,
than come under the power of their enemies) . . . ."
"I don't think there has ever
been a time in the history of warfare, when any army has made more efforts to
reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing
today in Gaza."
Gaza has
been embroiled in countless conflicts over thousands of years. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been
continuous for over a century, alternating between occasional periods of tense
calm and far more frequent periods of violence and war At the end of December 2008, after years of
Israeli attacks targeting Gaza-based members of Hamas and Hamas attacks
targeting Israel's
military and civilian population, the Israeli military entered Gaza for a
large scale operation aimed at removing Hamas as a threat to Israel. First as speculation, and then as a fact admitted
by Israel, it
was shown that Israel used
white phosphorus as a part of its operations in Gaza.
White phosphorus is a chemical that
was first produced in 1669. It has been used for numerous purposes since
at least the early 20th century, White phosphorus's dual nature, as both a
tactically useful and relatively safe obscurant and illuminant, and as a deadly
and destructive incendiary, has made it a controversial substance.
including as an anti-personnel weapon, an incendiary, a smoke-producing
obscurant, and a light-producing illuminant.
The Hamas organization in Gaza and
numerous non-governmental organizations (NGO's) and media outlets have
announced their conclusion that Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was a
war crime in violation of multiple international humanitarian laws aimed at
reducing human suffering and civilian casualties. The Israeli government and military have
adamantly insisted that Israel's use
of white phosphorus was wholly consistent with international humanitarian law.
However, there has not been an
objective non-biased systematic analysis of the implicated international
humanitarian laws and their relevance to Israel's use
of white phosphorus in Gaza. Without this type of analysis, any useful
conclusion about the legality of Israel's use
of white phosphorus in Gaza is
problematic. But more importantly, Israel's use
of white phosphorus in Gaza
provides a useful case study of the inadequacy of international humanitarian
law and the consequences of this inadequacy. This article aims to systematically analyze Israel's
adherence to the international humanitarian laws relevant to the use of white
phosphorus in war. Section II lays out a
brief factual background of the properties of white phosphorus, the history of
military uses of white phosphorus, and the history of the recent
Israeli-Palestinian conflict leading up to Israel's
operations in Gaza from
late December 2008 to mid January 2009 (the "Gaza Conflict"). Section III analyzes the international
humanitarian law relevant to Israel's use
of white phosphorus in Gaza. It applies that law to the evidence of Israel's
white phosphorus use during the Gaza Conflict and concludes that Israel made a
realistic and earnest attempt to follow international humanitarian law relevant
to the use of white phosphorus. Section IV sets forth the position that an
international law ban on all uses of white phosphorus munitions is needed. This section will conclude that because the
use of white phosphorus has two major consequences not compatible with
humanitarian morals, a White Phosphorus Convention Conference should be
immediately convened, and a multilateral treaty prohibiting all military uses
of white phosphorus should be drafted.
Simply put, this article concludes that even if a state's military
meticulously adheres to all international humanitarian laws relevant to the
wartime use of white phosphorus, the consequences of this lawful use of white phosphorus are so inconsistent with
humanitarian principles and morals that a White Phosphorus Convention
prohibiting all military uses of white phosphorus should be immediately
adopted. The international community is
open to criticism for its failure to recognize that the currently legal uses of
white phosphorus still have dire consequences, and swift legal action must be
taken to eliminate all military uses of white phosphorus.
|
|
|
Volume 13 - Issue 1 (2009 - 2010)
|
|
Written by Steven Bader
|
|
In November 1992,
1,700 leading scientists issued a warning to humanity that expressed concern
with unchecked human activity and its effect on the planet. The
committee cautioned: "Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth
put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a
sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we
must accept limits to that growth."
This warning
suggests a direct relationship between human population and environmental
degradation. Ironically, population growth and environmental protection are
addressed in two separate areas of international law
and in many ways appear to conflict. Recently, jurists have begun to recognize
this disconnect and have promoted identification of a link between the two. Some in
the international community, known as Neo-Malthusians, have suggested stagnant
population growth will solve many environmental problems faced today. On the
other hand, Anti-Malthusians argue population control is morally wrong, and
technology alone can solve our environmental problems.
Members of the two
most prominent world religions, Christianity and Islam, strongly disagree with
Neo-Malthusian practices. Expression of this discontent often sparks intense political scrutiny in the United
States and
abroad. However, followers of both faiths have been imposed with a duty to
protect the Earth and all of its natural resources. There is
a perception that these two responsibilities, protection of mankind and the
planet, are in direct conflict with one another. This divergence is further
developed in international, domestic and foreign law. Environmental law aims to
reduce pollution, conserve resources, and at the same time, allow human
development. If people cause environmental harm, it would be rational to assume
fewer people would result in fewer problems. And yet laws that restrict population
growth are against Christian and Muslim teachings, and consequently, most law
recognizes and encourages population growth. Can we support population
expansion, and at the same time, environmental protection? How can these
conflicting principles be reconciled?
From an
environmental perspective this conflict is immaterial as neither body of law
adequately addresses consumption, the root of most ecological problems. As a
result, Christians and Muslims must spearhead solutions that address the
connection between population and environment. Accordingly, affluent Christians
and Muslims in the developed world must take a hard look at their own lifestyles,
and accept the fact that unchecked population growth must be countered by
limited consumption.
Part I will
examine the effects of human activity on the Earth. Part II will provide a
discussion of the Neo and Anti Malthusian viewpoints, examples of their
implementation in domestic and foreign law, and examples of where both theories
have fallen short. Part III will provide background information on Christianity
and Islam, and the shortcomings of organized religion to adequately address
environmental concerns. Part IV will discuss sustainable development and the
impact of consumption on the environment. Finally, Part V will encourage
members of both faiths to lead humanity to a solution in domestic laws and
international policy through education, action, and awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
gonzaga_journal_of_international_law_2010_cle_symposium_brochure