As the United States and China hurl toward a potential Thucydides Trap, the Chinese government has steadily laid groundwork as a global leader in emerging technologies. Maj. Bret White’s article examines Chinese thought as to that country’s place in the world: a leader in some respects; an outcast in others – but always an innovator.
Next, the article applies this thinking to the interests of China in two critical domains, outer space and cyberspace. By probing China’s vision to reshape the international legal landscape as the world becomes increasingly bipolar, space becomes fuller, and cyberwarfare expands, the article serves as a roadmap for national security practitioners and attorneys working with China.
The rise of ISIS was characterized by unprecedented numbers of Western citizens traveling across the globe to fight for the “caliphate.” Their capture created a humanitarian crisis in the region: what to do with those citizens who were captured by the Iraqi and Syrian governments? European governments, the UK and France in particular, have been less than enthusiastic about repatriating their citizens to face trial at home.
Nicole Molinaro examines the situation of British and French nationals who are currently facing trial or have already been convicted as ISIS foreign fighters in Iraqi courts. She discusses domestic legal and policy regimes established by the UK and France to deal with nationals accused of engaging in terrorism, the ECHR’s substantive protections and whether they are violated, the extraterritorial scope of the ECHR, and proposes an additional basis for European countries expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction: Citizenship.
Molinaro ultimately concludes that the ECHR has jurisdiction over the individuals and that the UK and France violate articles 2 and 3 by refusing to take custody of their citizen foreign fighters.
Tensions between the United States and Russian Federation have spiraled in recent years and the outlook for the bilateral nuclear arms control regime has become ever more grim. Comparisons to the early 1980s Cold War are common.
Now, as then, Washington and Moscow are geopolitical adversaries. A key arms control agreement has been abandoned. Nuclear modernization accelerates. Old nuclear hands warn that the risk of nuclear war is rising. Amid growing unease, practitioners and commenters debate nuclear policy priorities, how the arms control process might resume, and how best to reduce nuclear risks.
Dakota Rudsill’s essay analyzes the comparison of our present moment of nuclear destabilization with the Cold War’s frigid and perilous depths in the early 1980s. It argues that the analogy is not perfect but it is instructive. The Cold War teaches that arms control can come back from oblivion. By focusing on the right priorities—strategic stability in particular—and generating ideas now, a pragmatic slate of actionable stability-enhancing proposals can be ready when the geopolitical currents change and prospects for nuclear arms control recover.
This article provides an analysis of the benefits a Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and its ratification process would have on international norms, order, and the prosperity of all States involved. In a comprehensive call to action, Matsick recommends an insightful four-sided bargain by four of the largest nuclear powers that would suppress strategic fears and argues that this bargain might be more politically feasible than once believed.
The aftermath of the Second World War and the ensuing nuclear arms race that followed in the Cold War has had an array of impacts throughout the globe and on the international system.
Nuclear nonproliferation and non-testing norms were the expected solution to quash many of those same impacts from bleeding into the future. Rob Matsick focuses the reader on myriad recent developments that have put these norms under siege, and the need for a comprehensive treaty on nuclear testing to resolutely affirm and strengthen the existing legal regime.
Malicious cyber activities by foreign states present major challenges to the US government. Foreign governments steal intellectual property, attack election systems, wage influence campaigns, and cripple American companies. One tool brought to bear most recently against these state actors is the criminal indictment.
This article reviews the use of criminal charges as a response to nation-state hacking and proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the utility of those charges as a tool to effectively combat malicious cyber activity.
Finally, the article applies this framework to case studies involving China, Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea and evaluates the use of criminal charges as a component of broader U.S. cyber policy.