Protesters in front of the White House, dressed in red with black hoods over their heads holding a sign that reads: "Free the Uighurs". Another protester to the right holds a sign that reads "Shut down Guantanamo"
Activists protest in front of the White House against Chinese treatment of the Uyghur population. | Photo: Daniel Lobo via flickr | CC BY 2.0

The Xinjiang Police Files and the Visit of the UN High Commissioner: Will This Open Up New Opportunities?

The treatment of the Uyghur population  by the CCP has been an ongoing concern for the last 5 years. Over this time information has leaked from government and security sources which indicates that grave human rights violations and potentially even crimes against humanity have been committed. The UN High Commissioner has recently visited China and the Xinjiang region and in this context the newest significant trove of information was released, showing once more the human rights abuses. Yet it is unlikely that any multilateral action will be taken, outside of diplomatic efforts. As there are few avenues to address these human rights violations in international law, the more diplomatic approach that can be seen in the visit of the High Commissioner should be supported.


Image shows the Second Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907.
The core of the law of neutrality was established in the Hague Convention of 1907 | Photo: CC BY 3.0

Assistance to Ukraine: Moving away from the neutrality paradigm

The Ukrainian government has requested other states to provide military material, which Germany and other states have acted on. Russia asserts that states making such deliveries are involving themselves in the conflict and would regard such deliveries as military targets and treat them accordingly. Targeting vessels carrying such deliveries is using force against the state sending these materials, which is not allowed unless a state becomes a party to the conflict. Consequently, it is important to determine when a state is no longer neutral and what the difference is between not being neutral and becoming a party to the conflict.


Zersplitterter Marmor
Der Angriff auf die Ukraine ist ein offener Bruch des Völkerrechts und eine machtpolitische Aggression gegen die bestehende Weltordnung. | Photo: Tom Barret auf Unsplash

Frieden am Ende? Die Eskalation im Russland-Ukraine-Konflikt und die Rolle der Friedenspolitik

Russland hat den Krieg begonnen. Der Angriff auf die Ukraine und die Anerkennung der „Volksrepubliken“ Donezk und Luhansk sind ein offener Bruch des Völkerrechts und eine machtpolitische Aggression gegen die bestehende Weltordnung. Die unmittelbaren Opfer sind die Menschen in der Ukraine. Die Kritik und Erbitterung des Westens ist groß. Ebenso die Enttäuschung über das Scheitern der eigenen Deeskalationsbemühungen. Ist mit dem Frieden auch die Friedens- und Sicherheitspolitik am Ende? Und mehr noch: War der Kurs der Vergangenheit, auf Diplomatie, Ausgleich und gemeinsame Sicherheit zu setzen verkehrt, wie jetzt von vielen behauptet wird?