UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs

Arguably the most complicated financial and political aspect of the ongoing tension between the members of the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus, commonly referred to as the “Cyprus Problem,” is the property issue. Since July 20, 1974, around 160,000 Greek-Cypriot refugees have fled to areas south of the United Nations-controlled buffer zone and around 40,000 Turkish-Cypriots have fled north. On August 2, 1975, at the third round of the Vienna talks, an agreement was reached between the two sides for the voluntary regrouping of populations. The agreement made it possible for the Turkish and Greek-Cypriots to live in two geographically separate areas and under their own administrations. Critically, it made no provision regarding existing property rights.

The legal developments concerning the land of the Greek-Cypriot refugees in Turkish-controlled areas over the past 50 years have been subjected to intense political and legal scrutiny at the international level. This scrutiny includes some seminal judgements delivered by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. The same cannot be said for the southern properties the members of the Turkish community left in areas controlled by the Republic of Cyprus following the military operations in 1974. An international legal body is yet to conduct a comprehensive study and issue a ruling on the matter. This Article aims to provide insight into this complicated and politically sensitive issue.

Part I of this Article provides a general overview of the legal framework governing the matter and proceeds with a more detailed examination on the scope of Law 139/1991. Part II considers the overall legal and procedural difficulties the Turkish-Cypriots face in pursuing judicial review proceedings against governmental authorities. Part III entails a more detailed checklist of the problematic areas under international law and examines the potential infringements of the human rights jurisprudence with a special focus on the principles on the right to free movement, respect for home and family life, rights to property and access to court, and discrimination based on residence or race. With the perspective that the identified violations cannot be justified based on an á-la-carte invocation of the “doctrine of necessity,” Part IV of this Article briefly discusses the ethical and legal considerations that should be noted in regard to the custodianship status of a non-Muslim individual over the properties of Muslim pious foundations established with the objective of promoting religious and charitable activities. In conclusion, this Article assesses the statutory amendments adopted in 2010 and comments on whether they have had any practical consequences in the name of improving the legal climate for members of the Turkish community.

Drones have become an increasingly integral part of twenty-first century warfare. This Article examines human rights violations and the supply chain disruptions resulting from drone warfare. Three case studies are analyzed: the Russia/Ukraine war, the Israel/Palestine war, and the Sudanese civil war. Modern warfare tactics can be seen in actions taken by the Houthis in West Yemen in response to the Israel/Palestine war, in which unmanned surface vessels, cruise missiles, unmanned underwater weapons, and drones are being used to stop, damage, and sink ships. Such conflicts result in supply chain disruptions. The Russia/Ukraine war has resulted in significant disruptions to the supply chains for energy, wheat, and oil. In addition, it is a basic tenet of international humanitarian law that innocent civilians should not be targeted, yet fully autonomous robots may not be able to distinguish military targets from civilians. There is an urgent need for intervention. This Article provides five recommendations for how to address human rights violations and supply chain disruptions.

Latin America has arguably been the most affected region by the COVID-19 pandemic, yet there is no academic article or academic publication on institutional regional responses to the pandemic concerning the right to health. Hence, this article aims to fill that scholarship gap by answering the following question: how have regional bodies responded to COVID-19 concerning the right to health in Latin America? It is overall argued and found herein that: (1) there is a regional system on the right to health in pandemics such as COVID-19, about which a human rights-based approach provides a unifying standard; and (2) this system is embedded within the Organization of American States’ three-pillar framework, consisting of the Pan-American Health Organization, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. A human rights-based approach to health, which relies on international human rights law on the right to health, is considered a key component of the conceptual general framework herein. The Article analyzes the COVID-19 related practices of the three above-mentioned bodies. A central part of this Article’s methodology utilizes findings of convergences, synergies, and divergences between those bodies regarding the right to health during pandemics like COVID-19.

This Article discusses the significant legal challenges Palau has faced in two critical areas: customary law and subject matter jurisdiction. The Palauan Constitution uniquely establishes traditional law as equally authoritative to statutes, leading the Supreme Court to struggle with how to identify and apply these fluid traditions. This complexity is intensified by a shifting jurisdictional standard that has swung from a “very liberal” approach to a restrictive “injury-in-fact” requirement and recently back to a nearly unlimited standard. This current era of expansive jurisdiction has forced the Court into the role of a frequent arbiter of internal clan disputes, particularly through declaratory judgments. Consequently, Palau stands at a crossroads, needing to determine whether to maintain this high level of judicial intervention or return to a more restrained approach.

Lithium is a critical mineral for the clean energy transition, most known for its use in lithium-ion batteries, which are deployed in electric vehicles. Consequently, global demand for lithium is booming, expected to triple by 2030. The Lithium Triangle, composed of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, is assuming an essential role in satisfying this demand since it is home to half of the world’s lithium reserves. However, of the three countries, only Chile has successfully transformed most of its reserves into commercially viable resources, making it the second highest lithium producer in the world. Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile have adopted starkly different approaches to governing their lithium industries. Part I will outline Bolivia’s statist approach, their constitution enshrining the state’s ownership of the mineral and its control over its entire productive chain. Part II will outline Argentina’s decentralized, investor-friendly approach under which the provinces own the mineral and liberally grant mining rights to investors who benefit from a myriad of special tax benefits. Part III will outline Chile’s centralized, mixed public-private approach in which the state retains ownership of the mineral while meticulously negotiating and closely supervising the conditions of mining rights extended to two private actors. Part IV will compare the three countries’ approaches and theorize that, in a region characterized by weakened state capacity, Chile’s governance style has empowered it to significantly outpace Bolivia and Argentina in lithium production. Lastly, Part V will address the vulnerabilities of generalizing about the success of the Chilean model, accounting for confounding variables such as the role of indigenous communities, Chile’s favorable geographic conditions, and Chile’s relatively stronger state capacity.