Latest news with #InternationalLawCommission
Al Bawaba
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
Sudan appoints Kamil Idris as new PM after years of leadership vacuum
Published May 19th, 2025 - 06:16 GMT An accomplished academic, Idris has held teaching positions in international law, jurisprudence, and philosophy at institutions including Cairo University, Ohio University, Khartoum University, and Beijing University ALBAWABA- Sudan's Sovereignty Council has appointed veteran diplomat and legal scholar Dr. Kamil Al-Tayeb Idris as the country's new Prime Minister, marking the first such appointment since the resignation of Abdullah Hamdouk in 2021. Also Read Khartoum announces putting out Port Sudan fire The announcement was made by General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, Chairman of the Sovereignty Council, as Sudan grapples with ongoing political turmoil and conflict. ⭕️ رئيس مجلس السيادة يصدر مرسوماً دستورياً يقضي بتعيين د.كامل الطيب إدريس عبدالحفيظ رئيسا لمجلس الوزراء بورتسودان ١٩-٥-٢٠٢٥م — مجلس السيادة الإنتقالي - السودان (@TSC_SUDAN) May 19, 2025 Idris's appointment signals a potential shift toward institutional leadership after years of military-dominated governance and stalled civilian transitions. Dr. Idris brings a distinguished international and academic background to the role. He previously served as Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and as Secretary General of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). He was also a member of the United Nations International Law Commission. An accomplished academic, Idris has held teaching positions in international law, jurisprudence, and philosophy at institutions including Cairo University, Ohio University, Khartoum University, and Beijing University, where he was named an honorary professor of law. His appointment comes at a critical time as Sudan faces not only political fragmentation but also widespread humanitarian and security crises. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
Fox News
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Mexico broke international law with the cartels and Americans suffer the consequences
Over many years, the United States has suffered tremendously from the cross-border impacts of the trafficking of people and drugs by Mexican cartels. From the opioid crisis fueled by fentanyl to broader public safety issues arising from cartel-facilitated crime and violence, American communities have borne the brunt of this transnational scourge. This is sad, but not new. We are used to thinking about this as a domestic problem, but it is also the case that the Mexican government is in violation of international law by allowing harm emanating from its territory to be inflicted on America and her citizens. By allowing so much harm to America and its citizens to emanate from Mexico, the Mexican government is violating international law by failing to rein in the criminal enterprises at the heart of the illegal trafficking. A careful analysis of international legal principles, state responsibility and treaty obligations makes it clear that Mexico is neglecting its duty to prevent harm emanating from its territory (International Law Commission, 2001). At the core of this argument is the principle of state responsibility for acts committed by non-state actors. According to the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, a state may be held accountable if it fails to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm to other states (International Law Commission, 2001). In the case of Mexican cartels, the Mexican government has not exercised due diligence in curtailing the activities of these organizations, despite possessing both the capacity and the obligation to do so (Cassese, 2005). When criminal activities such as drug and human trafficking result in significant harm to American citizens, the principle of due diligence demands that Mexico take concrete actions to mitigate these risks. Ironically, one of the most famous cases of the implementation of this principle occurred on our Northern border in the Trail Smelter arbitration between America and Canada before WWII. Furthermore, international law upholds the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits a state from permitting its territory to be used as a launching pad for activities that cause harm to another state. The seminal Corfu Channel case underscores the duty of states to ensure that their territories do not become conduits for external aggression (International Court of Justice [ICJ], 1949). By allowing Mexican cartels to operate with relative impunity, Mexico is enabling a situation in which its soil becomes a safe haven for criminal elements that directly inflict damage on America and her citizens. In failing to implement and enforce robust security measures, Mexico is abdicating its responsibility to prevent cross-border harm — a breach of the non-intervention principle enshrined in international law. Mexico's international obligations are further illuminated through its participation in several key treaties designed to combat transnational organized crime. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Convention), Mexico has explicitly committed to enacting measures to combat organized criminal groups, drug trafficking, human trafficking and human smuggling (United Nations, 2000). Similarly, treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988) impose legal duties on member states to control and prevent the illicit drug trade (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1988). By inadequately enforcing its domestic laws against cartels and failing to disrupt their transnational networks, Mexico has long violated these international commitments. This shortfall is not a mere administrative oversight; it represents a fundamental failure to uphold the rule of law on an international scale, directly contributing to the crises that plague America's communities. While the cartels are powerful, even de facto governments in some parts of Mexico, this does not absolve Mexico of its responsibilities under international law. The doctrine of due diligence holds that a state must take all reasonable measures, given its capacity, to prevent harm from non-state actors. In this regard, the continued proliferation of cartel activities and their devastating effects on American society indicates that Mexico has not met this minimum standard of care. Rather than viewing these challenges as a justification for inaction, they should serve as a catalyst to work together toward more effective solutions. Moreover, the tangible impact of cartel trafficking and violence on U.S. communities cannot be ignored. The fentanyl epidemic — a crisis largely fueled by precursor chemicals and production methods linked to Mexican cartels — has exacted a staggering human toll (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020) and strained public resources across the United States (Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], 2021). In failing to implement and enforce robust security measures, Mexico is abdicating its responsibility to prevent cross-border harm — a breach of the non-intervention principle enshrined in international law. In addition to the loss of life, the economic and social costs associated with the illicit drug trade underscore the urgent need for action. By allowing its territory to be exploited as a hub for these activities, Mexico not only compromises its own domestic security but also contributes to a broader pattern of transnational harm that violates established norms of international conduct. It is thus clear that the Mexican government is violating international law by failing to control cartel-related activities under well-established principles of state responsibility, the doctrine of due diligence, and the obligations embedded in international treaties to which Mexico herself is a signatory (Palermo Convention, 2000; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961). While challenges remain on the ground, the failure to act decisively against cartels constitutes a breach of both the spirit and the letter of international law, with severe consequences for American citizens. Holding Mexico accountable for these transnational harms is not merely a matter of legal principle — it is an urgent imperative for safeguarding public safety and upholding the integrity of the international legal order.
