Despite the continued developments and strengthening of international criminal system over the past sixty years, both institutionally and jurisprudentially, it is has remained plagued by various problems and deficiencies.
Collective European foreign policy has for the past twenty years revolved around the theory of “soft power” where strength originates from exporting culture, economic ties, and generally liberal tendencies.
The drone wars rest on the inability of international legal bodies to innovate and to challenge power; it is caution and complacency that allows the international system to be so badly abused.
By 2020, Britain will have an Army at its smallest size since the start of the Napoleonic Wars.
Turkmenistan doesn’t have the same press attention, despite having the 3rd worst press freedom in the world, just below that of Burma and North Korea.
The strategy of the Obama doctrine – covert by nature, engaging and collaborative in public – found its cauldron in Syria and the Arab Spring.
The justice and home affairs council recently announced that it wished to amend the Schengen agreement in order to allow member states greater control of their borders. Add to this a seriously disgruntled European parliament and you know you are in trouble.
With the ever increasing amount of global governance needed to tackle issues from climate change to global trade, who can show leadership when there is no clear global superpower that alone has the weight to influence negotiations?
Now that the Muslim Brotherhood has established itself in Egyptian politics through democratic means, the West finds itself in a position where the phrase ‘be careful what you wish for’ seems entirely apt.
More recently we have seen a movement towards quantitatively analysing the global stock of ecosystems, the flow of services they provide, and what this means for our bank accounts.