On January 4, 2020, the official Twitter account of the former US President Trump threatens to target Iran’s cultural heritage sites conditioned on any Iranian retaliation on US military forces then stationed in the Middle East. The immediate context was that the US-led drone strike had killed Iran’s Major General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq (Baghdad) only two days prior. This study critically analyzes whether “Tweets” uploaded to President Trump’s Twitter account could reasonably be construed as a type of harm against international law instruments and framework on the safeguarding of cultural heritage. This paper provides a brief contextual overview of President Trump’s Tweets; traces the historical destruction of cultural property during conflicts and discusses the preservation of heritage; delineates international laws and assesses whether President Trump and the US might be legally bound to refrain from threats to destroy cultural property; and examines the increasing role of social media in the evolution of the idea of diplomacy.

This paper aims to examine the progressive development process of the ASEAN under the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. As of 2022, the ASEAN Member States have a total population of 622 million people and a combined GDP of USD 3.2 trillion. The ASEAN’s main focus is integration by connectivity which has been facilitated by “the ASEAN Way.” The ASEAN connectivity was upgraded into a single community through the ASEAN Vision 2020 comprehensively formalized by the Bali Concord II in 2003. The ASEAN has been geographically expanding towards Northeast Asia (ASEN+3) and then Oceania with India (ASEAN+6). It was also connected to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which is the biggest mega FTA in the contemporary world. With the Vision 2025, furthermore, the ASEAN Community reset its direction to sustainable development goals which are the main objective to attain for the Association under the Master Plan 2025.

The War on Terror launched by the US against Islamic terrorist groups persisted through the Bush-Obama-Trump administrations for nearly 20 years before President Biden completely withdrew the US forces from Afghanistan by the end of August 2021. These military interventions are noticeable examples of American unilateralism in the Middle East. The War on Terror has been severely criticized by the global community as military actions without just cause and lacking grounds under international law. This research aims to critically evaluate the War on Terror in terms of legal and political theories of war now that twenty years of American unilateralism in the Middle East is over. In this article, the author examines other underlying reasons for, and the outcomes of, the war against terrorist groups. He will also suggest peaceful means to fundamentally resolve the Middle East conflict with a view to preventing war in other world regions.

The 2020 US Presidential election is now over. After listening to the essence of Mr. Biden’s inauguration speech, “America is Back!,” people around the world are cautiously expecting the revival of multilateralism. This research is to tackle a fundamental question of: “Is America Back to Multilateralism?,” by focusing on the US’s China trade policy under the Biden presidency. This essay consists of five parts including Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will review the development of postwar multilateralism which constructed the rulebased trade governance. Part three will analyze the challenge and crisis of contemporary multilateralism under former President Trump and the possibility of its resurrection under Biden administration. The author will review the origin and evolution of the US-China trade war. Part four will look into the possibility of reconstructing multilateral world for sustainable development. Part five will conclude the essay predicting the US’s China trade policy under the Biden administration.

Lawyers express their opinions mainly by writing. In particular, legal scholars are obliged to write scholarly papers and publish them. A good lawyer also includes being a good writer. However, it is not easy for young lawyers or law students to write a good, scholarly paper. To be a good writer, they should possess discipline. Nonetheless, there are a few practical guidelines for young lawyers or law students to refer to when they begin writing scholarly articles. The primary purpose of this research is to present the core guidelines of scholarly legal writing-what to consider and what to avoid - for beginners; following the author’s experience of editing globally recognized journals in international law as well as writing and publishing scholarly papers at leading academic law magazines in the world. This research paper contains the meaning of good scholarly legal paper, topic and title, research methodology, writing, referencing, research ethics and publication.

Tensions are high between Korea and Japan as a result of Japan’s export restrictions on three essential semiconductor materials exported to Korea and the removal of South Korea from their White List of countries. The Abe Administration announced that these measures were necessary to “ensure non-proliferation of weapons-related materials.” However, it is widely suspected that these measures were adopted as a retaliation against the Korean Supreme Court’s decision recognizing compensation for the forced labor victims during the Japanese occupation period. The Korean government filed a complaint concerning these measures at the WTO DSB for resolution under international law. In this research, the authors will critically analyze Japan’s export restrictions under international law to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. This paper will tackle the relevant issues under the WTO/GATT regulations and the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement to address the issue of who violated international law.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles are an unprecedented threat to the security of the United States, which has never been attacked by weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang’s provocations irritated President Trump and led him to openly consider military attacks against North Korea. The possibility of armed conflict between the United States and North Korea increased as both sides exchanged aggressive rhetoric. Military attacks against North Korea are virtually impossible in a legal as well as a practical sense. They will bring only disaster to all involved, including the US. The best way to resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue is to rehabilitate the multilateral channel for dialogue and then begin talks. What if President Trump, however, implemented military options against North Korea because of the nuclear weapons development? The focus of this essay is to explore whether Trump can adopt military options against North Korea and if so, what legal and political considerations he must take.

The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2270 against North Korea’s fourth nuclear test on January 6, 2016, and its subsequent rocket launch. This resolution contains tougher sanction measures than any others adopted in the past, but is not expected to effectively stop North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. This essay analyzes the critical loophole of the rule of law in global society regarding nuclear proliferation systems as well as regional governance. It further suggests legal and policy options to resolve this nuclear dilemma. The parties concerned are asked to alter the status quo of hostile co-existence and instead revert to the spirit of the Geneva Agreed Framework.

“The rise of China” is a critical issue of the twenty-first century’s world politics. China is leading the new bipolar system in the post-Cold War period with the US. As the American dominance in East Asia became weaker, the old containment could not be fully implemented anymore. As a result, a new comprehensive strategic initiative covering the whole Pacific coastal States is being adopted. The outcome of this transformation is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was reached on October 5, 2015. This article aims to analyze the newly arisen TPP as a post-Cold War strategic alliance of East Asia. The TPP is a mega regional trade agreement. Its predictable legal setting is thus indispensable for the peaceful coordination of competition between both sides. The TPP could be a firm ground for the stability of this region, sharing the vision of cooperation, not confrontation in the future.

Although relationships among the former belligerent parties of the Korean War have changed drastically over the decades, the parties still remain under the armistice system because the Korean War is not over legally. The primary purpose of this research is to analyze questions related to the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in the Korean War from an international legal perspective. As a new topic, this is intended to be a precautionary examination of an issue that could haunt the eventual process of peacemaking on the Korean peninsula. The main text of this article consists of three parts. The first examines whether the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s entering the Yalu River was self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The second part covers various legal questions relating to armed hostilities in the Korean War under international law. The third part discusses the legal questions around an armistice negotiation.

On January 21, 2011, the Korean navy commandos rescued the twenty-one crewmen abducted and detained by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. The pirates captured alive were brought to Korea for trial and the prosecutor’s office of Pusan sentenced the leader of the Somali pirate group to life-imprisonment. The other four pirates received imprisonment terms from 12 to 15 years. Regardless of these domestic legal punishments, this rescue operation has raised a few critical international legal questions. The primary objective of this paper is to answer these questions. This research analyzes the international legal characteristics of the Korean Navy’s rescue operation. Then, a few case-studies of military rescue operation are carried out in order to justify the Korean Navy’s rescue operation. The Korean Navy’s rescue operation may be regarded as an act of forcible self-help and realization of existing international legal right.

The Proliferation Security Initiative was launched in 2003 by the Bush administration right after the So San incident. Its primary purpose is to interdict the spread of WMD and their delivery systems. Due to the provocative and challenging characteristics of the Initiative, which are inconsistent with conventional international law, there are some objections against the Initiative. This paper answers the highly topical questions regarding the Initiative in three parts. The first part addresses the origin and development of the Initiative. The second part critically analyzes the background of the Initiative such as the neoconservative ideology of the Bush administration and its world strategy, international terrorism, and the U.S. arms industry. The third part scrutinizes questions concerning the preemptive use of force for self-defense and the interdiction of foreign vessels on the territorial and high seas. The Initiative is also examined from a viewpoint of customary international law.