Selection of Iraqi judges for the Arab Investment Court
The Arab League announced today, Monday, that the Arab Investment Court aims to settle disputes arising from the implementation of the unified agreement for the investment of Arab capital in Arab countries, indicating that the court consists of judges from 13 countries, including Iraq.
The Arab League said in a statement received by the Iraqi News Agency (INA): that "The Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, received today, Monday the judges of the Arab Investment Court on the occasion of the issuance of the decision of the Economic and Social Council to appoint them as members of the court's body."
The official spokesman for the Secretary-General, Jamal Rushdi, confirmed according to the statement that "Aboul Gheit received the judges so that they can take the regular oath before starting their work in the court and holding the general assembly."
He added, "The purpose of establishing this court is to settle disputes arising from the implementation of the Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in Arab Countries. This agreement, which entered into force in 1981, aims to enhance comprehensive Arab development and Arab economic integration, provide a suitable atmosphere for Arab-Arab investment, and facilitate the free movement of funds within Arab countries while protecting it with guarantees against non-commercial risks."
According to the statement, the court's body was formed in its new session, which begins its term in February for a period of 3 years, from 24 judges from 13 countries: Egypt, Mauritania, Yemen, Qatar, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain, Sultanate of Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.
The spokesman added that "Aboul Gheit was keen to listen to the judges, exchange talks with them, and inform them of the challenges facing the Arab region at various levels."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
an hour ago
- Shafaq News
US Embassy to Shafaq News: President Trump committed to Americans safety
Shafaq News/ US President Donald Trump is committed to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad, a spokesperson for the US Embassy in Baghdad said in an exclusive statement to Shafaq News Agency on Wednesday. 'In keeping with that commitment, we are constantly assessing the appropriate personnel posture at all our embassies. Based on our latest analysis, we decided to reduce the footprint of our Mission in Iraq,' the spokesperson added. This came following an announcement from the embassy about a reduction in its staff in Iraq, confirming that the decision is part of broader regional measures aimed at ensuring the safety of American personnel. 'These steps concern the American diplomatic presence in several countries in the region, not Iraq alone,' A senior Iraqi government official told Shafaq News, adding that 'There are no security indicators on the Iraqi side that justify an evacuation.' The official reiterated that all available intelligence and security briefings point to increasing stability and internal security in Iraq. 'All Arab and foreign diplomatic missions operating in Iraq enjoy full freedom of movement, safe working conditions, and operational effectiveness across the country—not only in the capital, Baghdad,' the official noted.
Shafaq News
an hour ago
- Shafaq News
Trump warns nations over UN two-state talks
Shafaq News/ The US President Donald Trump's administration has warned foreign governments not to attend a UN conference scheduled next week in New York on the Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, Reuters reported on Wednesday. According to a diplomatic cable dated June 10, the US stated that countries taking positions 'against Israel' would be seen as acting contrary to American foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences. The message also made clear that Washington opposes any unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. The US State Department has not commented publicly on the report. On Tuesday, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Bloomberg that he does not believe establishing a Palestinian state remains a goal of US foreign policy. The State Department later said Huckabee was expressing a personal view, while the White House referred to previous comments by President Trump expressing skepticism about the two-state model. In an earlier statement, Trump had suggested the US should consider taking control of Gaza, a remark that drew widespread condemnation from human rights organizations, Arab states, the Palestinian Authority, and the UN. The White House also cited Trump's 2024 campaign comments in which he said, 'I'm no longer sure the two-state solution can work.' The two-state solution envisions the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, based largely on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. It has formed the basis of decades of international diplomacy. As of June 2025, more than 147 of the 193 United Nations member states have formally recognized the State of Palestine—approximately 75% of the international community. Recognition has surged in the past year, with countries including Mexico, Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, and Spain joining the list. Earlier recognitions include Sweden (2014), Vatican, and most countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. At the same time, many countries continue to support the two-state solution as a framework for peace, even without formal recognition of Palestine. This includes the US, EU members, the UK, Canada, Australia, China, India, and the G7 nations, all of which have reiterated their commitment to a negotiated two-state outcome. The UN conference scheduled for June 2025 aims to reaffirm international support for this framework amid growing concerns over unilateral actions and deepening divisions. Meanwhile, Israel's current government, backed by a parliamentary majority, officially opposes the creation of a Palestinian state—a position solidified by a 2024 Knesset vote.
Memri
4 hours ago
- Memri
The Philippines Position In The South China Sea; There Cannot Be Dialogue When China Habitually Peddles Lies
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) recently concluded its annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.[1] The Shangri-La Dialogue is widely regarded as the premier defense summit for the Indo-Pacific region. With representatives from 47 countries in attendance, the forum provides a platform for defense ministers, military leaders, and senior officials to discuss regional security challenges. Philippine Secretary of Defense Gilberto Teodoro was among the keynote speakers of the event. In his address, Teodoro outlined the Philippines' position on three key issues: the evolving role and limitations of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations; the Philippine's position amid the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry; and the reasons why the Philippines' acts the way it does amid China's illegal territorial grab in the South China Sea. During the International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue 2025, which took place on May 30-June 1, 2025 in Singapore, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. responded to questions raised by Chinese delegates concerning maritime tensions in the region. He said that the questions were in fact "disguised" propaganda and he highlighted the increasing gap between China's statements and its actions in the West Philippine Sea. Video footage of the session was posted to Facebook by the Philippine Department of National Defense on June 2, 2025. (See MEMRI TV clip No. 12063, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. At Shangri-La Conference: The Gap Between China's Words And Actions In The West Philippine Sea Is Growing, June 2, 2025) The State Of Multilateral Institutions For the past 80 years, the rules-based international order upheld by the United Nations and other multilateral institutions has fostered global stability that allowed nations to thrive in relative peace. In Asia, it paved the way for the post-war recovery and economic success of Japan, South Korea, and those in Southeast Asia. But the world is changing. Global interconnectedness – through migration, trade, and security alliances – has never been greater. The war in Ukraine, for example, has driven up energy and commodity prices across Asia. The conflict between Israel and certain terrorist groups in the Arab world has disrupted supply chains around the world. Furthermore, tensions in strategic chokepoints like the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and the South China Sea send ripples through global trade. In today's world, events in one region inevitably have consequences far beyond their borders. Amid recent conflicts and disputes, multilateral institutions have faced increased stress in maintaining peace and security. The mechanisms which were once effective in blocking acts of aggression and in restoring order are no longer as effective as they used to be. This is attributed to gridlocks in decision making, the failure to promote dialogue among disputing parties and the snail's pace by which reforms adapting to change are carried out. Legal and normative gaps are widening in the resolution of territorial disputes, in cybersecurity breaches, in protecting underwater infrastructure, in regulating artificial intelligence, and in the proliferation of lethal autonomous weapons – just to name a few. Under the current system, the inability of multilateral institutions to arrive at peaceful resolutions has become the norm, rather than the exception. This underscores the need for reforms that reflect today's realities. To this, Secretary Teodoro offers three recommendations: -First, enhance inter-regional security cooperation. This can be done by increasing dialogue among regional blocks such as the EU, ASEAN, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on shared security concerns. -Second, establish a revised legal framework, grounded on the rule of law, that is fit-for-purpose for the issues that face us today. Such a legal framework is to be jointly and cooperatively enforced by member countries. -Third, the inordinate veto privilege of powerful countries must be curtailed since its exercise is often a hindrance to the interest of the world at large. The Philippines advocates greater representation of smaller states, particularly in the UN Security Council. The Philippines commits to advocate constructive solutions if and when it is elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2027-2028. In the end, there is no alternative for the rules-based-order to maintain peace, security, and the continued prosperity of the world. We must improve the framework we already have. The Proxy War China sent no top defense officials to the Shangri-La Dialogue.[2] Instead, the Chinese delegation was led by representatives from the National Defense University. Its mission was to inject Chinese propaganda messages into the forum. One of them asked the Philippine Defense Secretary why the Philippines is allowing itself to be a proxy of America amid the U.S.-China "cold war." Secretary Teodoro emphasized that while the U.S.-China rivalry is raging, it must not be made the overarching narrative of all conflicts. Doing so unfairly portrays the legitimate actions of states like the Philippines as being done at the behest of stronger powers. It undermines the agency of smaller states. Secretary Teodoro also reiterated that the Philippine's actions in the South China Sea are not a function of the U.S.-China rivalry. Rather, they are a result of China's overreach in its nine-, ten-, or 11-dash line, which changes according to China's need, which is illegal and has no basis in international law. China's Territorial Grab Another CCP outfit asserted that while Malaysia and Vietnam have disputes with China, both manage their difference through peaceful dialogue, so why couldn't the Philippines do the same? To this, Secretary Teodoro's responded with barbed, elegant clarity. Let me quote him verbatim: "Thank you for the propaganda spiels disguised as questions. First, the comparison between the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. Let us not forget that while we are members of ASEAN, we are [all] sovereign countries, each with their own territorial integrity and sovereignty. And I am sure that if what China is doing to the Philippines is done to Malaysia or to any ASEAN country, you will see a different reaction [from them]. And certainly, as an ASEAN brother, the Philippines will stand up with that ASEAN brother in [their] time of need – in support and in defense of what is international law and UNCLOS. As members of UNCLOS, we are all committed to support it. "On the dialogue with China, unfortunately, in my personal opinion, the fact that the question was asked in the way it was, engenders a deficit of trust in China's words vis-à-vis its actions. "Just look back to 1995 to a place called Mischief Reef.[3] There were a few bamboo structures erected there, and China said that these were temporary havens for fisherfolk. Now you have an artificial military island, heavily militarized. "China says that it has peaceful intentions. Why does it continue to deny the Philippines its rightful provenance under international law and UNCLOS? And as proof of this, we do not stand alone. No country in the world supports the nine dash line claim of China or the idea that waters within this nine dash line are internal waters of China. "Several countries in the world, no less than 50, have joined the Philippines in condemning China's behavior in the South China Sea. None have agreed with China and none has condemned the Philippines for standing up against China in the face of a threat to its territorial integrity and sovereignty for which I thank the members of this chamber right now for your support. "And thus, for dialogue to be effective, it must be coupled with trust. And China has a lot of trust-building to do to be an effective negotiating partner in dispute settlement. We have to call a spade a spade. And that's what we see, and that is the biggest stumbling block to dispute resolution or dialogue with China – that deficit of trust which I think any rational person or any person that is not ideologically biased with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, will agree with me."[4] Chinese Hypocrisy China wants to convey two messages to the world. First, that it indeed possesses sovereign and legal rights over the South China Sea by virtue of its self-conjured non-dash line. Second, that the Philippines is obstructing China from exercising its rights by engaging in legal maneuvers and provocative activities, aided by the United States and other countries that lean toward western doctrine. China cannot have it both ways. It cannot illegally grab the sovereign territories of another nation and also play the victim. It cannot call for dialogue and cooperation when it systematically employs grey-zone tactics like firing laser guns, attacking with water cannons, and illegally boarding Philippine inflatable boats and slashing them with knives. There cannot be dialogue when China habitually peddles lies (e.g., the Mischief Reef narrative)[5] and disinformation (e.g., that the Philippines is acting as a proxy of the United States). There cannot be cooperation when China uses coercion to bully its adversaries into submission. This is the reason why the Philippines acts as it does. It was the lone country, among the many claimants of parts of the South China Sea, with the courage to take China to court and win. It is in the forefront in exposing China's bad behavior. It is leading the way in advocating the rule-based order as a means of settling disputes. Hence, the Philippine's reaction toward China is not one born out of emotion or malevolent intentions. Rather, its reaction is pragmatic with the view of defending its sovereign rights. To sum up, Secretary Teodoro's talk highlighted not only the Philippines' commitment to upholding the rules-based order but also the important role of multilateral institutions in addressing global conflicts. As the world continues to change, it is imperative that multilateral institutions evolve to remain effective. Reform – particularly in enhancing representativeness, adapting legal frameworks to modern realities and fostering meaningful cooperation across regions – is essential to maintaining peace. The Philippines stands ready to contribute to these efforts, anchored in the belief that a stronger, more responsive rules-based order remains the best foundation for lasting peace and shared prosperity. *Andrew J. Masigan is the MEMRI China Media Studies Project Special Advisor. He is a Manila-based economist, businessman, and political columnist for The Philippine Star. Masigan's articles in MEMRI are also published in The Philippine Star.
