Greenpeacemagazine\\ Spring/Summer 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of Amnesty International, on How to Make Corporations (Including Google) Do the Right Thing
ISSUE 23 MICHAELMAS TERM 2018 OXFORD UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR CORPORATE REPUTATION The Big Interview Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of Amnesty International, on how to make corporations (including Google) do the right thing Marketplaces on the dark web Country reputations Keeping it real How trust works in the land of the fake How perceptions of a nation’s firms From craft beer to crowdfunding, why are affected by terrorist atrocities, authenticity means such different Viewpoint – does being good pay? what influences the level of impact, things to different people Perspectives from sustainable and the buffering effect of investing and CSR research promotion strategies News and appointments COMMENT WHAT’S THE MOTIVATION? climate change – particularly given the is not going to get any easier, but the cost recent 12-year warning from the United of being seen not to try are getting higher. Nations. That threat is already creating some interesting “bedfellows”. In this AUTHENTICALLY YOURS issue Andrew Parry of Hermes Investment The current focus on authenticity in Management (see p4), explains how business promises much: to enable Hermes is trying to put sustainability and consumers to access goods that reflect Google (“Don’t be evil”) and parent good governance on the agenda of public their values; even to embed pro- company Alphabet (“Do the right thing”) companies, with the added benefit that it social motivations into businesses and are having some difficulty convincing their can pay to do the right thing. economies. Trust academics to spoil it staff of their good intentions. Earlier this all: on p10 the winner of our latest Best year the corporation ditched Maven, an AI Both were attendees at our Activist Published Paper award, Justin Frake, project to aid the targeting of US military Congress in August, which sought to examines the inexact processes behind drones, in the face of an employee revolt. -
Download the Transcript Here
What Could Possibly Go Right? Hosted by Vicki Robin for Post Carbon Institute Learn more and listen to all episodes: https://bit.ly/pci-wcpgrseries Episode 22 with Kumi Naidoo Kumi Naidoo Human Rights & Environmental Justice Activist kuminaidoo.net Transcript Kumi Naidoo If we don't connect and we don't find the intersections between our different struggles, we are not going to be able to move forward. Vicki Robin Hi, Vicki Robin here, host of "What Could Possibly Go Right?", a project of the Post Carbon Institute. We interview cultural scouts to help us see more clearly so that we can act more courageously in these crazy times. I'm so pleased to introduce you to our guest today, Kumi Naidoo. He is a new friend of mine and I think that he'll be a new friend of yours. His biography starts with anti-apartheid protests in his native South Africa at 15 years old, and runs through many organizations and projects, most recently as International Executive Director of Greenpeace International, and Secretary General of Amnesty International. As of June 2020, Kumi has served as the first Global Ambassador for Africans Rising for Justice, Peace and Dignity. So for over forty years, Kumi has been a voice among many for social, economic and environmental justice. From his humble township upbringing in South Africa to his work as an anti-apartheid activist to his leadership of international NGOs, Kumi has remained rooted in Martin Luther King's creative maladjustment principles, refusing to normalize inequality and devoting himself to economic justice. -
Rainbow Warrior Case
1 Rainbow Warrior Case Rainbow Warrior (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE) France-New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal. 30 April 1990 (Jiménez de Aréchaga, Chairman; Sir Kenneth Keith and Professor Bredin, Members) SUMMARY: The facts: - In July 1985 a team of French agents sabotaged and sank the Rainbow Warrior, a vessel belonging to Greenpeace International, while it lay in harbour in New Zealand. One member of the crew was killed. Two of the agents, Major Mafart and Captain Prieur, were subsequently arrested in New Zealand and, having pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and criminal damage, were sentenced by a New Zealand court to ten years' imprisonment.1 A dispute arose between France, which demanded the release of the two agents, and New Zealand, which claimed compensation for the incident. New Zealand also complained that France was threatening to disrupt New Zealand trade with the European Communities unless the two agents were released. The two countries requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to mediate and to propose a solution in the form of a ruling, which both Parties agreed in advance to accept. The Secretary-General's ruling, which was given in 1986, required France to pay US $7 million to New Zealand and to undertake not to take certain defined measures injurious to New Zealand trade with the European Communities.2 The ruling also provided that Major Mafart and Captain Prieur were to be released into French custody but were to spend the next three years on an isolated French military base in the Pacific. The two States concluded an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters on 9 July 1986 ("the First Agreement"),3 which provided for the implementation of the ruling. -
A Look at the New European Parliament Page 1 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE (INTA)
THE NEW EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT KEY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION 31 JULY 2019 INTRODUCTION After several marathon sessions, the European Council agreed on the line-up for the EU “top jobs” on 2 July 2019. The deal, which notably saw German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU, EPP) surprisingly designated as the next European Commission (EC) President, meant that the European Parliament (EP) could proceed with the election of its own leadership on 3 July. The EPP and Renew Europe (formerly ALDE) groups, in line with the agreement, did not present candidates for the EP President. As such, the vote pitted the S&D’s David-Maria Sassoli (IT) against two former Spitzenkandidaten – Ska Keller (DE) of the Greens and Jan Zahradil (CZ) of the ACRE/ECR, alongside placeholder candidate Sira Rego (ES) of GUE. Sassoli was elected President for the first half of the 2019 – 2024 mandate, while the EPP (presumably EPP Spitzenkandidat Manfred Weber) would take the reins from January 2022. The vote was largely seen as a formality and a demonstration of the three largest Groups’ capacity to govern. However, Zahradil received almost 100 votes (more than the total votes of the ECR group), and Keller received almost twice as many votes as there are Greens/EFA MEPs. This forced a second round in which Sassoli was narrowly elected with just 11 more than the necessary simple majority. Close to 12% of MEPs did not cast a ballot. MEPs also elected 14 Vice-Presidents (VPs): Mairead McGuinness (EPP, IE), Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D, PT), Rainer Wieland (EPP, DE), Katarina Barley (S&D, DE), Othmar Karas (EPP, AT), Ewa Kopacz (EPP, PL), Klara Dobrev (S&D, HU), Dita Charanzová (RE, CZ), Nicola Beer (RE, DE), Lívia Járóka (EPP, HU) and Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, FI) were elected in the first ballot, while Marcel Kolaja (Greens/EFA, CZ), Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, EL) and Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI, IT) needed the second round. -
Who's Holding Us Back?
Who’s holding us back? How carbon-intensive industry is preventing effective climate legislation Executive Summary November 2011 Foreword by Kumi Naidoo © GREENPEACE/MATTHIAS WÜTHRICH © GREENPEACE/MATTHIAS But while their actions may be invisible, their outcomes are anything but. Collectively they spend the equivalent of the GDP of entire nations, to block progress on climate legislation, and ensure that fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies continue to give unfair advantages to dirty energy, above the safe, clean renewable energy future the public demands. This report shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that a handful of carbon-intensive companies who stand to benefit from inaction have been holding us back, and the politicians who choose to act on their behalf. In this report, we document the tricks of the trade that polluting corporations use to pull the strings of our politicians and mislead the public. We expose the web of influence that sees these companies pit our leaders and For two weeks in December, the next climate entire countries against each other to hold back action on the climate. summit (COP17) will converge in my hometown of Durban in South Africa, where negotiators There is however, a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Despite the massive odds against it, renewable energy from 194 countries will meet to grapple with the has doubled in growth each year over the past decade. greatest challenge of our times: climate change. It employs more than 2 million people worldwide, and in the US already provides more jobs than coal. Despite the global economic crisis, investment in renewable In the past year alone, we have seen a dramatic increase in energy hit a record $243 billion in 2010, and is expected extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change. -
On the Existence of a Customary Rule Granting Functional Immunity to State Officials and Its Exceptions: Back to Square One
FRULLI FOR PUBLICATION(DO NOT DELETE) 7/9/2016 11:09 PM ON THE EXISTENCE OF A CUSTOMARY RULE GRANTING FUNCTIONAL IMMUNITY TO STATE OFFICIALS AND ITS EXCEPTIONS: BACK TO SQUARE ONE MICAELA FRULLI* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: BACK TO SQUARE ONE ................................................... 479 I. IS THERE A GENERAL CUSTOMARY RULE GRANTING FUNCTIONAL IMMUNITY TO ALL STATE OFFICIALS? ................ 481 A. Controversial Cases .............................................................................. 482 B. Visiting Armed Forces ......................................................................... 485 C. Consular Agents ................................................................................... 487 D. High-Ranking State Officials ............................................................... 490 E. Some Tentative Conclusions ................................................................ 493 II. THE RATIONALE OF FUNCTIONAL IMMUNITY RULES ....................... 496 III. CAN WE TALK ABOUT AN EXCEPTION FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES? .................................................................................................. 498 CONLUSION: A FEW THOUGHTS ON A MORE GENERAL LEVEL ........... 500 INTRODUCTION: BACK TO SQUARE ONE About ten years ago, I decided to study both the functional immunity of state officials from foreign jurisdiction and its exceptions in depth. I operated from a basic assumption commonly made in public international law manuals: there exists a general customary rule granting all state officials -
Europe's Evolving Deterrence Discourse
EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE EDITED BY AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory February 2021 EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE EDITED BY AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory King's College London Science Applications International Corporation February 2021 EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE | 1 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-09-0 LCCN-2020922986 LLNL-TR-815694 TPG-60099 2 | AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Contents About the Contributors 2 Preface Brad Roberts 7 Introduction Amelia Morgan and Heather Williams 8 The (Incomplete) Return of Deterrence Michael Rühle 13 The German Debate: The Bundestag and Nuclear Deterrence Pia Fuhrhop 27 The Dutch Debate: Activism vs. Pragmatism Michal Onderco 39 French Perspectives on Disarmament and Deterrence Emmanuelle Maitre 51 Nuclear Deterrence and Arms Control: A NATO Perspective Jessica Cox and Joseph Dobbs 66 Defining the Needed Balance of Deterrence and Arms Control in Europe Anna Péczeli 74 Restoring the Balancing Act: Disarmament and Deterrence in the New Era Łukasz Kulesa 93 Rethinking the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Strategic Stability Andrea Gilli and Mauro Gilli 105 Artificial Intelligence and Deterrence: A View from Europe Laura Siddi 121 A Practitioner’s Perspective: Modern Deterrence and the U.S.–U.K. -
Global Goals Open Letter
EMBARGOED UNTIL 00.01 GMT, 30 January Historic alliance of 2,020 campaigners unite to issue an open letter demanding world leaders tackle the emergency facing people and planet Signatories include world-leading activists and campaigners from Dr. Jane Goodall DBE and Malala Yousafzai, to leaders of movements including Patrisse Cullors, Black Lives Matter; Dr Obiageli Ezekwesili, Bring Back Our Girls; Tarana Burke, Me Too and Alexandria Villaseñor, Fridays For Future. LONDON, 30 JANUARY 2020: In a dramatic act of global unity, 2000 campaigners and public figures from over 140 countries are backing an open letter signed by 20 world-leading activists. The letter declares a state of “emergency” for people and planet. It comes one week on from UN Secretary- General António Guterres calling on the international community to make the 2020s the “decade of action” and 2020 the “year of urgency”. Ranging from ages 10-94, the 20 leading gender, climate, environmental, equality, justice and human rights campaigners authoring the letter are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Malala Yousafzai and Nadia Murad; founder of the Me Too movement Tarana Burke; co-founder of Black Lives Matters Patrisse Cullors; anti-apartheid campaigner Andrew Mlangeni; co-founder of Bring Back our Girls Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili; environmental campaigners Dr. Jane Goodall DBE and Yann Arthus-Bertrand; social Justice and human rights campaigners Emi Mahmoud, Kumi Naidoo, Kennedy Odede, Sophie Cruz and Raull Santiago; youth climate activists Melati Wijsen and Alexandria Villaseñor; gender equality campaigners Lydia Cacho, Jaha Dukureh, Dr. Alaa Murabit and Trisha Shetty; and disability rights advocate Edward Ndopu. Campaigners want to see political leadership at key moments this year including COP26, the Gavi replenishment, Generation Equality Forums in Mexico and France, the UN General Assembly, and a landmark biodiversity conference in China. -
8 Social Movements for Climate Justice During the Decline of Global
8 Social Movements for Climate Justice during the Decline of Global Governance From International NGOs to Local Communities Patrick Bond Abstract With political foresight, this Ernst Strüngmann Forum considered “how differences in framing environmental problems are driven by differences in normative and theoretical positions, as well as ways in which more inclusive framings might enable more soci- etally relevant and impactful research and more concerted action/practice.” When this exercise began, the British electorate’s rejection of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States appeared inconceivable. Indeed, both the mid-2015 G7 summit and December 2015 Paris climate conference left the impression that a viable global governance arrangement had been accomplished, and that irrevocable steps toward economic decarbonization were being taken that would potentially save the planet from catastrophic climate change. In opposition to this elite consensus, an international nongovernmental organization (INGO), Friends of the Earth International, along with many “climate justice” movement components, con- demned these two crucial instances of global climate governance. The climate justice opposition, however, had no impact whatsoever because the die appeared to have been cast for world climate policy, leaving intact several dangerous features of the Paris strategy: no legally binding responsibilities or accountability mechanisms; inadequate stated aspirations for lowering global temperatures; no liabilities for past greenhouse gas emissions; renewed opportunities to game the emissions-reduction system through state-subsidized carbon trading and offsets, soon moving from the European Union and North America to the emerging markets led by China; and neglect of emissions from military, maritime, and aviation sources. -
Satisfaction As a Form of Reparation for Moral Damages Suffered by Investors and Respondent States in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes
Journal of International Dispute Settlement, (2012), pp. 1–38 doi:10.1093/jnlids/idr016 Satisfaction as a Form of Reparation for Moral Damages Suffered by Investors and Respondent States in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes PATRICK DUMBERRY* Downloaded from The question examined in this article is how moral damages should be remediated by arbitral tribunals in the specific context of investor-State arbitration. In other words, is the best remedy satisfaction or monetary compensation? The article first examines the issue of reparation for moral damages under general international law, and specifically the different forms that the remedy of satisfaction may take. Under http://jids.oxfordjournals.org/ international law, monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy for moral damages affecting an individual while satisfaction is the proper means of reparation for such damages caused to a State directly. The article then examines recent investor-State arbitration cases. They also show that monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy for moral damages affecting an individual or a corporation. Two recent cases (Pey Casado v Chile and Lemire v Ukraine) raise the question whether or not a tribunal established under a BIT could remediate moral damages suffered by a foreign investor with satisfaction (in the form of a declaration of wrongfulness) instead of monetary compensation. This issue has never been by guest on January 14, 2012 addressed in the doctrine. In our view, satisfaction is not the proper method of remediation in this context. In two other recent cases (Europe Cement v Turkey and Cementownia v Turkey), Turkey sought an award of monetary compensation for moral damages it allegedly suffered with regards to its ‘reputation and international standing’ as a result of baseless claims filed by the foreign investors. -
100 Years of International Arbitration and Adjudication
100 YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND ADJUDICATION KENNETH KEITH* On 28 August 1913, the Peace Palace in The Hague was opened in the presence of Queen Wilhelmina. Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish American philanthropist who provided the major funding for the building, recorded in his diary that evening that [n]othing he [man] has yet accomplished equals the substitution for war, of judicial decisions founded upon International Law, which is slowly, yet surely, to become the corner stone, so long rejected by the builders, of the grand edifice of Civilization.1 The Peace Palace was built to house the Permanent Court of Arbitration (‘PCA’), which was established by the Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.2 It was said of that body that it ‘is not permanent because it is not composed of permanent judges; it is not accessible because it has to be constituted for each case; it is not a court because it is not composed of judges’.3 Neither did it arbitrate. Rather it was a secretariat with a list of possible arbitrators if states in dispute were willing to agree to use its * Judge, International Court of Justice. Based on addresses given in Wellington on 27 August 2013 and as the Seabrook Chamber Lecture in Melbourne on 4 September 2013 to mark the centennial of the opening of the Peace Palace in The Hague. In delivering the lecture in Melbourne, I recalled my long and valuable connection from the 1960s to members of the Law Faculty in Melbourne, including Sir David Derham, Dr Peter Brett, Sir Zelman Cowen and Sir Kenneth Bailey, who had been Dean in the 1930s. -
Annual Report
Annual Report 09 International Contents 3 Message from the Executive Director 4 Counting Down to Copenhagen Greenpeace is present in 40 countries across Europe, 6 Copenhagen Crime Scene the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Greenpeace 8 Catalysing an Energy [R]evolution International, registered in the 10 Protecting our Forests Netherlands as Stichting Greenpeace Council, is the 12 Defending our Oceans body that coordinates global Greenpeace policy and 14 Campaigning for Greener Agriculture: Ecological Farming strategy. 16 Creating a Toxic-Free Future To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept 18 Green Science donations from governments or corporations but relies on 20 Our Ships contributions from individual supporters and foundation 22 Our Supporters grants. 24 How We Spend our Donated Funds Greenpeace has been campaigning against 26 Message from the Board Chair environmental degradation since 1971 when a small boat 26 Our Board of Directors of volunteers and journalists 28 Organisation Report sailed into Amchitka, an area north of Alaska where the US 29 Financial Report government was conducting underground nuclear tests. 32 Environmental Report This tradition of 'bearing witness' in a non-violent 34 Office Contact Details manner continues today. Published by Greenpeace International Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands t +31 20 718 2000 f +31 20 718 2002 www.greenpeace.org JN 309 : Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled COVER IMAGE: Greenpeace volunteer chlorine-free paper with vegetable based inks protesting at the Houses of Parliament in London to call for a new style of politics in the UK, one capable of rising to meet the challenge For more information please contact of climate change.