Podcasts about action jcpoa

pWotD Episode 2575: Ebrahim Raisi Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of a popular Wikipedia page every day.With 1,188,373 views on Monday, 20 May 2024 our article of the day is Ebrahim Raisi.Ebrahim Raisolsadati (Persian: ابراهیم رئیس‌الساداتی; 14 December 1960 – 19 May 2024), commonly known as Ebrahim Raisi (Persian: ابراهیم رئیسی [ebɾɒːˈhiːm-e ræʔiːˈsiː] ), was an Iranian politician who served as the eighth president of Iran from 2021 until his death in 2024. A Principlist and a Muslim jurist, he became president after the 2021 election.Raisi began his clerical studies at age 15, but his exact qualification is disputed. Raisi served in several positions in Iran's judicial system, including as Prosecutor of Karaj, Prosecutor of Hamadan and Deputy Prosecutor and Prosecutor of Tehran. Raisi was criticized for his role in the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners; United Nations special rapporteurs and other organizations accused him of crimes against humanity. The U. S. Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned him after Iran shot down an American drone in 2019.He was later Deputy Chief Justice (2004–2014), Attorney General (2014–2016), and Chief Justice (2019–2021). He was Custodian and Chairman of Astan Quds Razavi, a bonyad, from 2016 until 2019. He was a member of Assembly of Experts from South Khorasan Province, being elected for the first time in the 2006 election. He was the son-in-law of Mashhad Friday prayer leader and Grand Imam of Imam Reza shrine, Ahmad Alamolhoda.Raisi ran for president in 2017 as the candidate of the conservative Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces, losing to moderate incumbent president Hassan Rouhani, 57% to 38%. Raisi successfully ran for president a second time in 2021 with 63% of the votes, succeeding Rouhani. According to many observers, the 2021 Iranian presidential election was rigged in favour of Raisi, who was considered an ally of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Considered a hardliner in Iranian politics, Raisi's presidency saw deadlock in negotiations with the U. S. over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and large-scale protests throughout the country in late 2022, triggered by the death of Mahsa Amini on 16 September. During Raisi's term, Iran intensified uranium enrichment, hindered international inspections, and supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. Iran also launched a missile and drone attack on Israel during the Gaza conflict and continued arming proxy groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi movement. Often seen as a frontrunner to succeed Khamenei as Supreme Leader, Raisi died in 2024 following a helicopter crash near Varzaqan.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:44 UTC on Tuesday, 21 May 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Ebrahim Raisi on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Salli Standard.

In this UN Security Council briefing, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, emphasizes the crucial role of diplomacy in effectively resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. She calls upon all parties to renew dialogue and highlights the need for the United States to lift or waive its sanctions as outlined in the plan, extending waivers for trade in oil with the Islamic Republic of Iran. DiCarlo expresses concern over the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran, which exceeds the allowable amount under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The briefing also addresses alleged transfers of ballistic missile parts and unmanned aerial vehicles by Iran, prompting calls for examination by the UN Secretariat. Join us to gain insights into the ongoing challenges and explore ways to promote cooperation and adherence to international resolutions to ensure peace and stability.

Eight years after six world powers struck the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to temporarily block Iran's nuclear program in return for the removal of heavy economic sanctions, the United States and the Islamic Republic appear to be on the verge of adopting yet another arrangement aimed at resolving the same dispute. Neither time nor the two sides stood still during the interim years, during which the administration of former US President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and Tehran countered by stockpiling enriched uranium and interfering with International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring of its facilities. How viable is this reported substitute of an “understanding” rather than an agreement, that would freeze the existing status of Iranian nuclear development rather than dismantle it? And would such a deal garner necessary domestic support after final disclosure of the official details? Panel: - Host: Jonathan Hessen. - Amir Oren, Editor at Large, Host of Watchmen Talk and Powers in Play. - Dr. Olli Heinonen, Former International Atomic Energy Agency Deputy Director General and a Distinguished Fellow, Stimson Center, Washington, D.C. - Brig. Gen. (Res.) Mark Kimmitt, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Political/Military Affairs. Articles on the topic: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/iran-unveils-first-hypersonic-ballistic-missile/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/israel-threatens-iran-strike/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/israel-prepares-for-conflict-with-iran/ You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Europa Stands: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/82926/ TV7 Powers in Play: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/84954/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, March 3rd, 2023. Club Membership Plug: Ladies and gentleman, it’s never been a better time to become a club member at CrossPolitic. This year, CrossPolitic will be dropping exclusive content into our club portal for club members ONLY. Some of this content will include a Bible study series with Pastor Toby, a special with New Saint Andrew’s President, Ben Merkle, our backstage content, and our conference talks! You can grab a club membership for 10 bucks per month… that’s two cups of coffee. So again, head on over to fightlaughfeast.com to get signed up today! That’s fightlaughfeast.com. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2023/03/02/is-iran-less-than-two-weeks-away-from-having-a-nuclear-bomb-n2620152 Could Iran Make a Nuclear Bomb in Less Than Two Weeks? After it was reported this week that Iran had more than 18 times the amount of enriched uranium it was allowed to have under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Biden administration claimed Iran would need less than two weeks in order to finalize enrichment to produce the material needed for a nuclear bomb. https://twitter.com/i/status/1 630679650249654273 - Play Video Calling Iran's nuclear progress "remarkable," Defense Under Secretary for Policy Colin Kahl told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that "it would take about twelve days" for Iran "to produce one bomb's worth of fissile material." Recent evaluations by the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has managed to enrich some of its uranium stockpiles to 84 percent, just shy of the 90 percent enrichment needed for fissile material in a nuclear bomb. Kahl, as with everyone else in the Biden administration, sought to place blame for Iran's nuclear progress on the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA — blame the mainstream media quickly repeated — but the 2015 nuclear deal was flawed and mostly served as a massive payday for the murderous regime. What's more, the Biden administration has wasted years trying to negotiate a new deal with Iran, while Biden's own State Department has admitted Iran played the United States by using lengthy and unserious negotiations to continue ramping up its nuclear efforts as it feigned good faith efforts. While President Biden and his administration were apparently content to continue pursuing diplomacy despite Iran using negotiations for its latest kabuki theater production, Israel is taking the threat more seriously and calling for international deterrents to Iran's nuclear ambitions. To that end, Israel's "Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Council chief Tzachi Hanegbi are set to fly out early next week to Washington for talks on progress made in Iran's nuclear program," the Jerusalem Post reports. The situation is even more concerning given the deepening ties between Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, and the fact that the United States' reaction to all this is being decided by Joe Biden — who has bungled multiple international incidents and hasn't shown himself able to present the United States as a powerful deterrent to bad actors on the world stage. https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/03/02/discover-to-track-gun-purchases/ Discover Card to Begin Tracking Gun Purchases in April Beginning in April 2023, Discover will become the first credit card issuer to track gun purchases made by their cardholders. On September 11, 2022, Breitbart News noted that Visa caved to pressure from gun control groups and New York Democrats, agreeing to flag gun and ammo purchases via a new sales categorization. The Associated Press observed that Mastercard and other major credit cards also agreed to flag gun sales. On March 2, 2023, the Independent Journal Review (IJR) reported that Discover will be first among credit card companies to track gun sales, inasmuch as the company will begin doing so in April. IJR explained, “Anyone using a Discover card to make a purchase in a gun store will have that purchase tracked, beginning in April.” There are over 55 million Discover cards in usage, so a lot of information on gun purchases can be gathered via that one company. Reuters pointed out Discover Financial Services was ahead of Visa and Mastercard in February 2023, noting that Discover would “allow its network to track purchases at gun retailers come April, making it the first among its peers to publicly give a date for moving ahead with the initiative, which is aimed at helping authorities probe gun-related crimes.” Discover told Reuters, “We remain focused on continuing to protect and support lawful purchases on our network while protecting the privacy of cardholders.” The code for tracking gun purchases was approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in September 2022, and an ISO representative indicated, “The decision to use the new merchant category code is eventually left up to the users in the industry.” https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-spends-nearly-100-million-house-migrants-hotels-after-out-state-busing?intcmp=tw_fnc NYC spends nearly $100 million to house migrants in hotels after out-of-state busing New York City’s public hospital system will spend more than $90 million to house migrants at hotels in the Big Apple through the spring, local reports found. The ​​New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, which operates public hospitals and clinics in the city, is tasked with overseeing housing for the influx of illegal immigrants. The group’s CEO, Mitchell Katz, has approved spending millions on four hotels to house the migrants in Manhattan, the New York Post reported. Katz approved $40 million to go to the four-star hotel Row NYC near Times Square, another $28 million to the four-star Stewart Hotel near Madison Square Garden, $20 million to the three-star hotel the Watson in Hell’s Kitchen and another $5.8 million to the two-star Wolcott Hotel near the Empire State Building, the Post and online publication The City reported this month. All in, the cost for housing the migrants through the spring of this year sits at $93.8 million. At least 47,600 migrants have inundated the city since last year, including when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began sending buses of migrants to the city in August amid the ongoing border crisis. There are a total of seven "Humanitarian Response and Relief Centers" in the city, including the four hotels, housing at the Wingate by Wyndham Hotel in Long Island City, one at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and another at the Holiday Inn in the Financial District. "Since the beginning of this humanitarian crisis, New York City has mounted a multi-agency response to ensure we are meeting our moral obligations and providing compassionate, comprehensive care to those arriving in our city," a spokesperson for Mayor Eric Adams told The City, "and NYC Health + Hospitals has been key in that response from the start." The housing plans have come with a series of issues, including Row NYC found to throw out nearly a ton of food each day, according to a hotel whistleblower who previously spoke to the Post. While late last month, a group of migrants who were staying at the Watson Hotel in Midtown Manhattan refused to leave the hotel – and even protested by sleeping in the streets – after city officials said they would be housed at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Adams even slept at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal on the coldest night of the year earlier this month in an effort to fend off criticism that the facilities were lackluster. The mayor has meanwhile pleaded with the White House for more assistance from the government as the migrant population grows "I have a Republican governor dumping on my city," Adams said last month. "I have a Democratic governor dumping on my city. That is where the national government should have stepped in and said, ‘Wait a minute, let's coordinate this effort.’" Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis had also bused migrants to New York City and Chicago as the migrant crisis swelled in Denver and other areas, but announced a halt to the busing program last month after outcry from Adams and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Smart Pricing Table: Do you own a business and write a lot of proposals? If so, you should check out SmartPricingTable.com. Smart Pricing Table allows you to create quick and accurate proposals; and it's loaded with features like recurring fees, quantities and line item upsells. When your prospect is ready, they can e-sign and you're off to the races. Visit SmartPricingTable.com and mention Cross Politic to get 25% off your first 2 months https://www.boundingintosports.com/2023/02/christian-high-school-withdraws-from-state-tournament-instead-of-facing-team-with-transgender-player/ Christian High School Withdraws From State Tournament Instead Of Facing Team With Transgender Player A girls’ high school basketball team in Vermont made a big decision last week when they opted out of playing in their biggest game of the year. The institution, Mid-Vermont Christian School forfeited their first-round state tournament game against Long Trail because the team didn’t believe it was fair to play against a transgender athlete. They explained that their decision not to compete was based on concerns for player safety and fairness. Vermont state law permits transgender females to play in girls’ sporting leagues and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. “We believe playing against an opponent with a biological male jeopardizes the fairness of the game and the safety of our players,” a statement from MVCS head of school Vicky Fogg said. “Allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports sets a bad precedent for the future of women’s sports in general.” The state acknowledged the school’s decision and thus, their self-elimination from the postseason proceedings. Vermont’s policy regarding transgender athletes has led to other controversies recently. In October, a middle school soccer coach from Randolph Union High School was suspended after he allegedly ‘misgendered’ a trans student. This action came in the course of him defending his daughter, who said she was uncomfortable with the individual being in the girls’ locker room. Also that month, administrators at the school banned members of the girls’ volleyball team after they also objected to sharing it with a fellow student who is biologically male. That situation lit a fire of controversy surrounding the Randolph school, which lies in a community with a population of fewer than 5,000 people. There were several verbal taunts exchanged, some even leading to threats of violence. Randolph Union High School draws national controversy over decision regarding transgender student...-Play Video 0:00-2:56 While the policy regarding transgender athletes varies on the state level in high school, it has a uniform policy at the next level. Current NCAA rules state that transgender women are allowed to participate in women’s sports after undergoing one year of testosterone suppression. During an April 2021 survey in the United States, 17 percent of male respondents and 24 percent of female respondents strongly supported allowing transgender girls to compete against other female athletes at the high school level.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, March 3rd, 2023. Club Membership Plug: Ladies and gentleman, it’s never been a better time to become a club member at CrossPolitic. This year, CrossPolitic will be dropping exclusive content into our club portal for club members ONLY. Some of this content will include a Bible study series with Pastor Toby, a special with New Saint Andrew’s President, Ben Merkle, our backstage content, and our conference talks! You can grab a club membership for 10 bucks per month… that’s two cups of coffee. So again, head on over to fightlaughfeast.com to get signed up today! That’s fightlaughfeast.com. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2023/03/02/is-iran-less-than-two-weeks-away-from-having-a-nuclear-bomb-n2620152 Could Iran Make a Nuclear Bomb in Less Than Two Weeks? After it was reported this week that Iran had more than 18 times the amount of enriched uranium it was allowed to have under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Biden administration claimed Iran would need less than two weeks in order to finalize enrichment to produce the material needed for a nuclear bomb. https://twitter.com/i/status/1 630679650249654273 - Play Video Calling Iran's nuclear progress "remarkable," Defense Under Secretary for Policy Colin Kahl told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that "it would take about twelve days" for Iran "to produce one bomb's worth of fissile material." Recent evaluations by the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has managed to enrich some of its uranium stockpiles to 84 percent, just shy of the 90 percent enrichment needed for fissile material in a nuclear bomb. Kahl, as with everyone else in the Biden administration, sought to place blame for Iran's nuclear progress on the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA — blame the mainstream media quickly repeated — but the 2015 nuclear deal was flawed and mostly served as a massive payday for the murderous regime. What's more, the Biden administration has wasted years trying to negotiate a new deal with Iran, while Biden's own State Department has admitted Iran played the United States by using lengthy and unserious negotiations to continue ramping up its nuclear efforts as it feigned good faith efforts. While President Biden and his administration were apparently content to continue pursuing diplomacy despite Iran using negotiations for its latest kabuki theater production, Israel is taking the threat more seriously and calling for international deterrents to Iran's nuclear ambitions. To that end, Israel's "Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Council chief Tzachi Hanegbi are set to fly out early next week to Washington for talks on progress made in Iran's nuclear program," the Jerusalem Post reports. The situation is even more concerning given the deepening ties between Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, and the fact that the United States' reaction to all this is being decided by Joe Biden — who has bungled multiple international incidents and hasn't shown himself able to present the United States as a powerful deterrent to bad actors on the world stage. https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/03/02/discover-to-track-gun-purchases/ Discover Card to Begin Tracking Gun Purchases in April Beginning in April 2023, Discover will become the first credit card issuer to track gun purchases made by their cardholders. On September 11, 2022, Breitbart News noted that Visa caved to pressure from gun control groups and New York Democrats, agreeing to flag gun and ammo purchases via a new sales categorization. The Associated Press observed that Mastercard and other major credit cards also agreed to flag gun sales. On March 2, 2023, the Independent Journal Review (IJR) reported that Discover will be first among credit card companies to track gun sales, inasmuch as the company will begin doing so in April. IJR explained, “Anyone using a Discover card to make a purchase in a gun store will have that purchase tracked, beginning in April.” There are over 55 million Discover cards in usage, so a lot of information on gun purchases can be gathered via that one company. Reuters pointed out Discover Financial Services was ahead of Visa and Mastercard in February 2023, noting that Discover would “allow its network to track purchases at gun retailers come April, making it the first among its peers to publicly give a date for moving ahead with the initiative, which is aimed at helping authorities probe gun-related crimes.” Discover told Reuters, “We remain focused on continuing to protect and support lawful purchases on our network while protecting the privacy of cardholders.” The code for tracking gun purchases was approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in September 2022, and an ISO representative indicated, “The decision to use the new merchant category code is eventually left up to the users in the industry.” https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-spends-nearly-100-million-house-migrants-hotels-after-out-state-busing?intcmp=tw_fnc NYC spends nearly $100 million to house migrants in hotels after out-of-state busing New York City’s public hospital system will spend more than $90 million to house migrants at hotels in the Big Apple through the spring, local reports found. The ​​New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, which operates public hospitals and clinics in the city, is tasked with overseeing housing for the influx of illegal immigrants. The group’s CEO, Mitchell Katz, has approved spending millions on four hotels to house the migrants in Manhattan, the New York Post reported. Katz approved $40 million to go to the four-star hotel Row NYC near Times Square, another $28 million to the four-star Stewart Hotel near Madison Square Garden, $20 million to the three-star hotel the Watson in Hell’s Kitchen and another $5.8 million to the two-star Wolcott Hotel near the Empire State Building, the Post and online publication The City reported this month. All in, the cost for housing the migrants through the spring of this year sits at $93.8 million. At least 47,600 migrants have inundated the city since last year, including when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began sending buses of migrants to the city in August amid the ongoing border crisis. There are a total of seven "Humanitarian Response and Relief Centers" in the city, including the four hotels, housing at the Wingate by Wyndham Hotel in Long Island City, one at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and another at the Holiday Inn in the Financial District. "Since the beginning of this humanitarian crisis, New York City has mounted a multi-agency response to ensure we are meeting our moral obligations and providing compassionate, comprehensive care to those arriving in our city," a spokesperson for Mayor Eric Adams told The City, "and NYC Health + Hospitals has been key in that response from the start." The housing plans have come with a series of issues, including Row NYC found to throw out nearly a ton of food each day, according to a hotel whistleblower who previously spoke to the Post. While late last month, a group of migrants who were staying at the Watson Hotel in Midtown Manhattan refused to leave the hotel – and even protested by sleeping in the streets – after city officials said they would be housed at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Adams even slept at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal on the coldest night of the year earlier this month in an effort to fend off criticism that the facilities were lackluster. The mayor has meanwhile pleaded with the White House for more assistance from the government as the migrant population grows "I have a Republican governor dumping on my city," Adams said last month. "I have a Democratic governor dumping on my city. That is where the national government should have stepped in and said, ‘Wait a minute, let's coordinate this effort.’" Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis had also bused migrants to New York City and Chicago as the migrant crisis swelled in Denver and other areas, but announced a halt to the busing program last month after outcry from Adams and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Smart Pricing Table: Do you own a business and write a lot of proposals? If so, you should check out SmartPricingTable.com. Smart Pricing Table allows you to create quick and accurate proposals; and it's loaded with features like recurring fees, quantities and line item upsells. When your prospect is ready, they can e-sign and you're off to the races. Visit SmartPricingTable.com and mention Cross Politic to get 25% off your first 2 months https://www.boundingintosports.com/2023/02/christian-high-school-withdraws-from-state-tournament-instead-of-facing-team-with-transgender-player/ Christian High School Withdraws From State Tournament Instead Of Facing Team With Transgender Player A girls’ high school basketball team in Vermont made a big decision last week when they opted out of playing in their biggest game of the year. The institution, Mid-Vermont Christian School forfeited their first-round state tournament game against Long Trail because the team didn’t believe it was fair to play against a transgender athlete. They explained that their decision not to compete was based on concerns for player safety and fairness. Vermont state law permits transgender females to play in girls’ sporting leagues and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. “We believe playing against an opponent with a biological male jeopardizes the fairness of the game and the safety of our players,” a statement from MVCS head of school Vicky Fogg said. “Allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports sets a bad precedent for the future of women’s sports in general.” The state acknowledged the school’s decision and thus, their self-elimination from the postseason proceedings. Vermont’s policy regarding transgender athletes has led to other controversies recently. In October, a middle school soccer coach from Randolph Union High School was suspended after he allegedly ‘misgendered’ a trans student. This action came in the course of him defending his daughter, who said she was uncomfortable with the individual being in the girls’ locker room. Also that month, administrators at the school banned members of the girls’ volleyball team after they also objected to sharing it with a fellow student who is biologically male. That situation lit a fire of controversy surrounding the Randolph school, which lies in a community with a population of fewer than 5,000 people. There were several verbal taunts exchanged, some even leading to threats of violence. Randolph Union High School draws national controversy over decision regarding transgender student...-Play Video 0:00-2:56 While the policy regarding transgender athletes varies on the state level in high school, it has a uniform policy at the next level. Current NCAA rules state that transgender women are allowed to participate in women’s sports after undergoing one year of testosterone suppression. During an April 2021 survey in the United States, 17 percent of male respondents and 24 percent of female respondents strongly supported allowing transgender girls to compete against other female athletes at the high school level.

Please join us for discussion on political protests in Israel over the government's plans to reform the judiciary. Other topics include ongoing Israeli-US defense cooperation and the joint Juniper Oak multi-sector military exercise, potential Israeli-Saudi ties, Iran's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War and chances it will resume negotiations to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal with world powers. Co-Hosts: 1. Amb. Danny Ayalon, Israel's Former Ambassador to the United States and Deputy Foreign Minister & Lecturer at NYU. 2. Col. (Res.) Dr. Eran Lerman, Israel's Former Deputy National Security Adviser, Vice President of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and Lecturer at Shalem College in Jerusalem. You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Europa Stands: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/82926/ TV7 Powers in Play: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/84954/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

As the world's attention turns to Iran, grave human rights abuses, and those protesting against this regime, One Decision looks at the negotiations regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - or the hotly contested Iran deal. Morgan Ortagus who spent years in the Trump administration after serving as an intelligence analyst explains the administration's reasoning behind President Trump's abrupt cancellation of a deal that placed restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions' relief. Vali Nasr, leading Iranian-American academic at Johns Hopkins University, goes back to what the deal was and wasn't - and what could happen next. As always Sir Richard Dearlove joins, and makes a key prediction about the coming end to the current Iran regime.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we take a deep dive into the Islamic Republic of Iran. What are Iran's regional and internal ambitions? What is the political history of Iran and how does this explain its actions and intentions? Do human rights exist in Iran? Should the U.S. resurrect the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? Richard Goldberg is a Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Rich joins to answer and reflect on these questions. Rich has extensive experience on Iran and the boarder Middle East region from his time working on Capitol Hill as well as at the White House National Security Council. This episode is the series finale of our summer series, “Breaking Chains: Fighting the New Global Repressors.” Thank you to those who joined us throughout the summer to dive into some of the most pressing human rights issues facing our world. The Fault Lines team is taking a break in September but we look forward to more hard-hitting episodes - with a new look - in October! Until then! Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Suzanne talks with former National Intelligence Manager for Iran (NIM-I) at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Norm Roule on the impact of a potential deal to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran.  

Jonathan and Yair delve deeply into the nuclear agreement with Iran, exploring the history of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), its flaws and how its renewal may affect Israel and the Middle East. You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

Featured speakers: Ambassador Patrick Theros, Dr. David Pollock, Dr. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, and Dr. Banafseh Keynoush. Synopsis: As the Middle East awaits the outcome of the Vienna talks on reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1, Gulf states and other powers in the Middle East engage in multi-party consultations on the future of the region. All are preparing for a new geopolitical stage to be set when, or if, Iran rejoins the regional economy and any changed stipulations of a new JCPOA. Should these talks succeed, Iran will likely seek to maintain (or even grow) its influence in the region, while enhancing its trade and economic relations. Various GCC states have anticipated this shift in the geopolitical conditions by opening talks with Tehran. In late 2021, the UAE's national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, visited Tehran while the Saudis and Iranians have had an ongoing direct dialogue for a year in Baghdad. The United States has played a role in improving cross-regional talks as well. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently visited Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, UAE, and Israel. Blinken sequentially met with the foreign ministers of the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Israel in Tel Aviv, and leaders of Iraq, UAE, Jordan, and Egypt met in Aqaba a day before. The war in Ukraine has also introduced new possibilities for improved regional relations, as it disrupts energy, trade, and economies in general. Should these JCPOA talks prove unsuccessful, however, the Gulf states may be more hesitant to continue their de-escalation efforts with Iran. Growing normalization with Israel could also impact some GCC relations with Iran, regardless of whether a new JCPOA is agreed or not. The UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain signed normalization agreements with Israel in 2020 and 2021, and other Arab countries have seemingly warmed to the idea of opening channels of communication as well. Ongoing proxy conflicts between Iran, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, especially in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, have left the geopolitics of the region in an even more complicated position, with a strong potential for change in historic alignments and rivalry in the region. Whether the new JCPOA is signed or not, the Gulf states will see a direct impact on the geopolitics of the region, with the balance of power potentially shifting, and creating a potential for increased conflict. How will the new geopolitical scene impact seemingly strong bilateral Gulf ties? Will it create new relationships? How do the GCC states see their relationships with Israel and Iran playing out? Will the U.S. continue to play the major security role in the Gulf in a post-JCPOA situation? How do other international parties see the situation evolving?

Our panelists discussed the Biden administration's ongoing negotiations to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) following the Trump administration's 2018 withdrawal, and the role of other actors in the negotiation process, including Russia and Israel.

On COI #283, Kyle Anzalone and Connor Freeman cover the latest news on Iran and the dwindling chances of the U.S. returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Connor breaks down two major Israeli attacks inside Iran including the assassination of a senior IRGC colonel and a drone attack on an Iranian military facility. Tel Aviv is also claiming they have evidence showing Tehran had possession of IAEA documents almost two decades ago which allowed them to engage in a cover up of their supposed nuclear weapons program. Although the existence of such a program in Iran has never been proven. These tensions are rapidly escalating as the IAEA is becoming more politicized and hyping the phony Iran nuclear weapons threat along with U.S. officials. At this point, there is virtually no substantive support in Congress for diplomacy except for Republican Senator Rand Paul. The top Iran envoy recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “all options are on the table.” President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a return to the JCPOA, has arguably brought the U.S. closer to war with Iran than any previous president. Biden's administration has announced new sanctions on Iran, signaled closer cooperation with Israel, and pirated yet another Iranian tanker, brazenly stealing its oil. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify iHeart Radio Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 20% off our CBD

On COI #283, Kyle Anzalone and Connor Freeman cover the latest news on Iran and the dwindling chances of the U.S. returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Connor breaks down two major Israeli attacks inside Iran including the assassination of a senior IRGC colonel and a drone attack on an Iranian military facility. Tel Aviv is also claiming they have evidence showing Tehran had possession of IAEA documents almost two decades ago which allowed them to engage in a cover up of their supposed nuclear weapons program. Although the existence of such a program in Iran has never been proven. These tensions are rapidly escalating as the IAEA is becoming more politicized and hyping the phony Iran nuclear weapons threat along with U.S. officials. At this point, there is virtually no substantive support in Congress for diplomacy except for Republican Senator Rand Paul. The top Iran envoy recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “all options are on the table.” President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a return to the JCPOA, has arguably brought the U.S. closer to war with Iran than any previous president. Biden's administration has announced new sanctions on Iran, signaled closer cooperation with Israel, and pirated yet another Iranian tanker, brazenly stealing its oil.

Earlier this week, on March 27 and 28th, the Negev desert in Israel saw a summit of foreign ministers from six countries. Along with Israel's foreign minister Yair Lapid and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also in attendance were the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Morocco and Bahrain. Hailed as a ‘historic summit' by Israel, the meeting is widely seen as an attempt to present a unified front against Iran. But why this summit now, and what are its implications in the context of the ongoing Ukraine war, and the negotiations over a possible resurrection of the Iran deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Guest: Stanly Johny, International Affairs Editor, The Hindu Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu Edited by Ranjani Srinivasan

This episode examines the ongoing international negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme, the implications of a potential nuclear agreement for security in the Middle East and Iran's regional policies, and the likely future Middle East role of the United States and European powers. Dr.Tobias Borck, Research Fellow for Middle East Security Studies, and Darya Dolzikova, Research Fellow in Proliferation and Nuclear Policy programme, discuss with Dr Neil Melvin, Director, International Security Studies at RUSI, the efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to regulate Tehran's nuclear programme. The relationship between Iran's nuclear activities and its regional security engagements is examined, together with a consideration of the possible future regional engagement by the United States and European states.

Here's your weekly selection of highlights from the Round-Up broadcast-----Ukrainian President Zelensky says that World War III may have already started.----President Joe Biden is talking tough, telling Beijing that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to -back-fill- them. ----The Russian state propaganda about President Putin's invasion of Ukraine that he's ordered the deaths of civilians, including women and children, claims to be an effort to remove neo-Nazis from Ukraine.----Russian lawmakers are demanding that the U.S. must return Alaska to them as part of reparations that will be required.----Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says the U.S. may need to be put in its place for sharing disgusting Russia-phobia.----The Chinese Communist Party announced this week it will increase the budget for the People's Liberation Army by 7.1-.----On March 12th about 100 self-described witches gathered at an indoor facility to call upon supernatural entities, and presumably the forces of darkness, to strengthen Russian President Putin and to help him in his invasion of Ukraine.----At least one friend of a suspect accused of setting fires inside a church and synagogue alleged the purported perpetrator had been worshiping Satan.----The Biden administration is close to announcing a new agreement to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -JCPOA- that is not only weaker, but puts Russia in charge.----Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives are reportedly planning to publicly urge President Biden to ban oil drilling on federal lands amid record gas prices.

Here's your weekly selection of highlights from the Round-Up broadcast-----Ukrainian President Zelensky says that World War III may have already started.----President Joe Biden is talking tough, telling Beijing that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to -back-fill- them. ----The Russian state propaganda about President Putin's invasion of Ukraine that he's ordered the deaths of civilians, including women and children, claims to be an effort to remove neo-Nazis from Ukraine.----Russian lawmakers are demanding that the U.S. must return Alaska to them as part of reparations that will be required.----Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says the U.S. may need to be put in its place for sharing disgusting Russia-phobia.----The Chinese Communist Party announced this week it will increase the budget for the People's Liberation Army by 7.1-.----On March 12th about 100 self-described witches gathered at an indoor facility to call upon supernatural entities, and presumably the forces of darkness, to strengthen Russian President Putin and to help him in his invasion of Ukraine.----At least one friend of a suspect accused of setting fires inside a church and synagogue alleged the purported perpetrator had been worshiping Satan.----The Biden administration is close to announcing a new agreement to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -JCPOA- that is not only weaker, but puts Russia in charge.----Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives are reportedly planning to publicly urge President Biden to ban oil drilling on federal lands amid record gas prices.

In 1996, the columnist Thomas Friedman said that no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. Unfortunately, that theory, known as the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, hasn't aged well. Indeed, economics and trade may still matter in many parts of the world, but when it comes to analyzing the situation in Ukraine and understanding Vladimir Putin's motives, the Western playbook may not be of much use anymore. In this episode of In Search of Green Marbles, G3 speaks with Weiss's deputy CIO, Mike Edwards, to learn how he's analyzing this very tense situation that has the world, and the financial markets in particular, on edge.Resources:Nord Stream 2Germany's former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to join Gazprom board Trump Administration lifts sanctions on aluminum giant RusalThe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a GlanceDisclosures:This podcast and associated content (collectively, the “Post”) are provided to you by Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers LLC (“Weiss”). The views expressed in the Post are for informational purposes only and are subject to change without notice. Information in this Post has been developed internally and is based on market conditions as of the date of the recording from sources believed to be reliable. Nothing in this Post should be construed as investment, legal, tax, or other advice and should not be viewed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. You should consult your own advisers regarding business, legal, tax, or other matters concerning investments. Weiss has no control over information at any external site hyperlinked in this Post. Weiss makes no representation concerning and is not responsible for the quality, content, nature, or reliability of any hyperlinked site and has included hyperlinks only as a convenience. The inclusion of any external hyperlink does not imply any endorsement, investigation, verification, or ongoing monitoring by Weiss of any information in any hyperlinked site. In no event shall Weiss be responsible for your use of a hyperlinked site. This is not intended to be an offer or solicitation of any security. Please visit www.gweiss.com to review related disclosures and learn more about Weiss.

Jonathan and Yair discuss Iran's aspirations in the Middle East. and how revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal could help the Islamic Republic achieve its malign goals. You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

On the latest episode of Patterson Perspectives, Suryakiran Nallapati and Camden Hanley spoke with Dr Trita Parsi, an expert on US-Iran relations, about the Iran nuclear deal. In the wake of President Trump's unilateral withdrawal from Iran's nuclear deal in 2018, the Biden administration and European powers are engaged in intense diplomatic negotiations with Iran to revive the deal Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). . The negotiations between Iran and the Western powers are in the final stages, with the global community anxiously waiting to know which way the deal will go. 

Originally published 27 January 2022. In the first episode of 'Mind the Gulf', hosts Darya Dolzikova and Tobias Borck introduce the series and speak with Professor Nasser Hadian from the University of Tehran about Iranian views on regional security and the nuclear question. The podcast starts with Darya outlining the trajectory of international diplomacy around the Iranian nuclear programme and providing a quick backgrounder on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the ongoing negotiations in Vienna. Tobias then gives a brief overview of how the often tense relations between Iran and other states in the Gulf and the wider Middle East have shaped regional security for the past half century. Later in the episode, Professor Hadian outlines Iran's key concerns, its relationship with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, and the interaction between Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear programme, as well as offering his thoughts on the future of the JCPOA.  The podcast is part of RUSI's Iran in the Global Security Context project.

It's crunch time for negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal. That deal, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), curtailed Iran's nuclear program in exchange for substantial sanctions relief. In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement. Four years later, Iran is closer than ever to being able to develop a nuclear weapon. While President Biden came to office vowing to rejoin the deal, months of sustained indirect talks in Vienna this year have made only slow headway. There is a real danger that talks collapse, Iran's nuclear development continues and the U.S. faces a hard choice between accepting Iran as a nuclear threshold state – able to build a bomb even if not yet having done so – or trying to stop that happening, which could mean military strikes on Iran. This week on Hold Your Fire!, Richard Atwood and Naz Modirzadeh are joined by Crisis Group's Iran Project Director Ali Vaez. They discuss the current state of negotiations in Vienna, impediments to the U.S. and Iran getting back to compliance with the deal, and strategic calculations in Tehran and Washington, as well as in Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East. They talk about where Iran's nuclear program stands and what options exist if talks collapse. They also discuss what a potential military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could look like and what risks it might entail. Ali also lays out how the parties could yet salvage the deal in a way that gives them enough of what they need even if not all of what they want. For more information, explore Crisis Group's analysis on our Iran regional page. Make sure to look out for our report coming out on Monday, ‘The Iran Nuclear Deal at Six: Now or Never'. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The United States' National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan visited Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, hoping to devise a common strategy on the Iran nuclear deal. Israel firmly opposes any international effort to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that resulted in Tehran agreeing to curb its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. As negotiators prepare for a new round of talks with Iran in Vienna, Israel is pushing the US to represent its interests at the table. So, will the US and Israel decide the fate of the Iran nuclear deal? Guests: Borzou Daragahi International Correspondent for The Independent Scott Lucas Professor of International Politics at Birmingham University Neri Zilber Journalist and Adjunct Fellow at Washington Institute

Iran and world powers resumed talks aiming to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. Following the Iranian elections in June, a new negotiating team is representing the Islamic republic in the Vienna talks. So what are their top demands? And are they realistic? In an exclusive interview, Iran's deputy foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, talks to Al Jazeera.

The U.S. has held six rounds of indirect talks with Iran about reviving the flawed 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump Administration withdrew from in 2018. Although the Biden Administration seeks to re-enter the agreement, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and then follow up with another agreement to “lengthen and strengthen” […]

The U.S. has held six rounds of indirect talks with Iran about reviving the flawed 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump Administration withdrew from in 2018. Although the Biden Administration seeks to re-enter the agreement, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and then follow up with another agreement to “lengthen and strengthen” its weak and time-limited restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, Iran has balked and is dragging its feet on returning to negotiations. Join us as a panel of experts explain why the United States should not settle for a risky return to the JCPOA, which rewarded Iran with disproportionate economic benefits in exchange for weak, temporary, and easily reversible restrictions on key aspects of its nuclear program and no restrictions whatsoever on its ballistic missile program, the most likely Iranian platform for delivering a nuclear weapon. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Islamic Republic of Iran represents one of the greatest challenges in the Middle East and beyond for the Biden administration. As the United States approaches the prospect of a seventh round of negotiations in Vienna over the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), what are the chances for success? Is the agreement still viable? If not, is a broader framework realistic? And if negotiations don't succeed, what are the options for the United States to manage Iran's putative nuclear aspirations and its regional ambitions?Want to listen to Carnegie Connects live? Visit our website to sign up for invitations.

The head of the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says it's solved its most urgent issue with Iran by striking a deal to continue the surveillance of some of its nuclear facilities. What does this mean for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)agreement? Also in the programme: Emma Raducanu makes tennis history and we hear from Lebanon where despite a new government, the country remains in crisis. ( Picture: Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Mariano Grossi addresses the media after his arrival at the Vienna International Airport. Credit: Alex Halada)

History of US Sanctions Under the JCPOA May Offer Insight to Terms of Renewed JCPOA Participation In this episode, Jonathan Cross, Brittany Crosby-Banyai and Dan Hudson discuss the history of the Iran sanctions program under the Iranian nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”). They also analyze the mechanisms by which sanctions were re-imposed when the US left the agreement. These considerations offer insight as to the categories of sanctions against Iran that the US could lift pursuant to a new nuclear deal. Speakers: Jonathan Cross, Counsel, New York, Brittany Crosby-Banyai, Associate and Dan Hudson, Partner, London

Dr. Rabbi Daniel Gordis examines Israel's relationship with President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump and the Middle East events that shaped those relationships. He explores then Secretary of State John Kerry's attempt at peace during the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the U.S. negotiated Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, Netanyahu's address to … Continue reading Gordis 21 – The Obama and Trump Years →

Julie Varughese, solidarity network coordinator for Black Alliance for Peace, joins us to discuss the chaos in Afghanistan. Video footage shows heartbreaking scenes of Afghans plunging to their deaths as they attempt to hang on to the sides of a US military aircraft leaving the country.Martin Sieff, senior fellow at the American University in Moscow, joins us to discuss how America failed Afghanistan. The chair of the Defense Committee in the British Parliament, Tobias Ellwood, was especially critical, citing bewilderment that after two decades of "high-tech power intervening, (the US) is withdrawing and effectively handing the country back to the people (they) went into defeat."Dr. Jemima Pierre, associate professor of Black studies and anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, joins us to discuss the earthquake in Haiti. The 7.2-magnitude earthquake was more powerful than the 2010 quake, with severe damage in several cities and a death toll of almost 1,300 people to date.Greg Palast, investigative reporter, joins us to discuss his article about Steven Donziger. The article covers the ongoing persecution of Donziger, an attorney who sought justice for Ecuadorian victims of Chevron's toxic illegal oil dumping.Gareth Porter, historian, investigative journalist, author, and policy analyst specializing in US national security, joins us to discuss an article in Responsible Statecraft reporting on the current negotiations in Vienna to salvage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The article's premise is that the US rejoining the JCPOA was a comparatively straightforward task, and it should not have taken this much time or effort to complete the task. Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to talk about Somalia. A Grayzone article accuses the US of "bombing the very terrorists it created." It states further that both the US and British meddling in Somalia transformed the country's al-Shabaab into an extremist group "inflaming the humanitarian crisis that persists throughout the country."Greg Palast, investigative reporter, joins us for a second segment to discuss his article about Afghanistan.

On COI #142, Kyle Anzalone breaks down Biden's Iran policy. Trump took a stark turn from Obama when it came to Tehran. Rather than looking to build on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump tore the deal to shreds and embarked on a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. With the destruction of the deal, US-Iran hostilities nearly erupted into a shooting war. Biden entered office on vows to “restore normalcy” with Iran and significantly reduce tensions. Iran simply wanted to return to 2016, when Biden was Obama's vice president. However, rather than agreeing to revive a deal he previously endorsed, Biden demanded additional concessions, though Iran predictably held firm in response.   Months passed by as the US took other aggressive actions, with Biden holding provocative war games and sending ships and planes to Iran's doorstep. Biden only increased the sanctions and sold pirated Iranian oil, while the US sat idly by as its Middle East accomplice, Tel Aviv, sabotaged Iranian tanker ships and nuclear facilities.    Now, a hardliner has been elected as Iran's president and the US is indicating it will not budge further, retaining most Trump-era sanctions. The nuclear deal appears to be dead, and even if it is saved, Iran's hardliners will have struck a victory regardless. Kyle discusses the US war in Afghanistan as CENTCOM ramps up airstrikes on the Taliban. Gen. McKenize refused to tell the American people if the bombs would stop falling after Biden's declared withdrawal deadline at the end of August. Even as the US continues to strike Taliban targets, Secretary of State Antony Blinken lectured the militant group that there is “no military solution” to the conflict.    Biden and the Iraqi prime minister announced a change to the mission of US troops in Iraq. According to the agreement, American troops will remain in Iraq, but shift to a training only role by the end of the year. Some Shia figures in Iraq welcomed the agreement, however, rockets landed in Iraq's Green Zone in the days after it was signed.  While Biden has brought some troops home from Afghanistan, and promised a mission change in Iraq, he plans to keep all 900 troops deployed to the occupation of northeastern Syria. The Biden administration also announces new sanctions against and an opposition rebel group. Kyle also updates Israel's war against Ben and Jerry's. Tel Aviv has now launched its own “maximum pressure” campaign on the ice cream giant after it said it would halt sales in the occupied West Bank after 2022. The company's decision was backed by its founders and namesakes. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD

On COI #142, Kyle Anzalone breaks down Biden's Iran policy. Trump took a stark turn from Obama when it came to Tehran. Rather than looking to build on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump tore the deal to shreds and embarked on a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. With the destruction of the deal, US-Iran hostilities nearly erupted into a shooting war. Biden entered office on vows to “restore normalcy” with Iran and significantly reduce tensions. Iran simply wanted to return to 2016, when Biden was Obama's vice president. However, rather than agreeing to revive a deal he previously endorsed, Biden demanded additional concessions, though Iran predictably held firm in response.   Months passed by as the US took other aggressive actions, with Biden holding provocative war games and sending ships and planes to Iran's doorstep. Biden only increased the sanctions and sold pirated Iranian oil, while the US sat idly by as its Middle East accomplice, Tel Aviv, sabotaged Iranian tanker ships and nuclear facilities.    Now, a hardliner has been elected as Iran's president and the US is indicating it will not budge further, retaining most Trump-era sanctions. The nuclear deal appears to be dead, and even if it is saved, Iran's hardliners will have struck a victory regardless. Kyle discusses the US war in Afghanistan as CENTCOM ramps up airstrikes on the Taliban. Gen. McKenize refused to tell the American people if the bombs would stop falling after Biden's declared withdrawal deadline at the end of August. Even as the US continues to strike Taliban targets, Secretary of State Antony Blinken lectured the militant group that there is “no military solution” to the conflict.    Biden and the Iraqi prime minister announced a change to the mission of US troops in Iraq. According to the agreement, American troops will remain in Iraq, but shift to a training only role by the end of the year. Some Shia figures in Iraq welcomed the agreement, however, rockets landed in Iraq's Green Zone in the days after it was signed.  While Biden has brought some troops home from Afghanistan, and promised a mission change in Iraq, he plans to keep all 900 troops deployed to the occupation of northeastern Syria. The Biden administration also announces new sanctions against and an opposition rebel group. Kyle also updates Israel's war against Ben and Jerry's. Tel Aviv has now launched its own “maximum pressure” campaign on the ice cream giant after it said it would halt sales in the occupied West Bank after 2022. The company's decision was backed by its founders and namesakes. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD

The US and Iran have held six rounds of indirect talks in Vienna, since April, in an attempt to revive the nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); signed in 2015 by President Obama. Three years later, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the agreement. A final round of negotiations is expected to begin over the next few days, with France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China —other main signatories to the agreement —acting as go-betweens. The leaders of France, Germany and China called on all parties involved to seize ‘the window of opportunity for an agreement'. While some expect a final agreement to be announced on July 14, the sixth-year anniversary of the JCPOA, many obstacles remain. Guests: Sadegh Zibakalam Professor of Political Science, Tehran University Dennis Ross Former Special Assistant to President Obama and Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Joe Cirincione Senior Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Have American, European, and Israeli policymakers learned anything since signing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran nuclear deal? We sat down this week with AJC Jerusalem Director Avital Leibovich, AJC Transatlantic Institute Director Daniel Schwammenthal, and AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson to analyze what the next few months could bring. We were also joined by AJC CEO David Harris for a closing message on Iran. Then, in our closing segment, Shabbat Table Talk, we hear from co-host Manya Brachear Pashman on Kim Kardashian's response to the violence in Israel and co-host Seffi Kogen shares his thoughts on the recent surge in antisemitism. _____ Episode Lineup: (0:40) Avital Leibovich, Daniel Schwammenthal, and Jason Isaacson  (33:41) David Harris (41:25) Manya Brachear Pashman (43:45) Seffi Kogen _____ Show Notes: AJC.org/GlobalForum High Stakes: What's Next for U.S. Policy on Iran? - AJC Advocacy Anywhere

Earlier this month, six world powers reopened negotiations with Iran over the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the United States withdrew in 2018. Washington Institute Director of Research Patrick Clawson, a longtime friend of American Jewish Committee, joins us to discuss the implications of those talks and the threat posed by Iran. Then, AJC Project Interchange Director Nisha Abkarian joins us to share her grandmother's harrowing story of survival during the Armenian Genocide and the significance of President Biden's recognition of the events of 1915. ___ Episode Lineup (0:40) Patrick Clawson  (21:51) Nisha Abkarian (26:00) Manya Brachear Pashman (29:06) Seffi Kogen

Both Iran and the U.S. have incentive to continue negotiations in Vienna toward restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), says Robert Einhorn, in spite of this weekend's attack on  Iran's Natanz nuclear facility and Iran's subsequent move to step up its uranium enrichment process. Show notes and transcript: https://brook.gs/3ab4oad  Follow Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Current is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

Welcome to the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR) Podcast Network! Here we speak with leading experts who are working to anticipate, analyze, and address core systemic risks to security in the 21st Century. Our fifth episode focuses on climate, nuclear, and security dynamics in Iran and Saudi Arabia.  https://videopress.com/v/3Vs7GyIT?preloadContent=metadata Episode 5: with David Michel and Christine Parthemore (April, 2020) Saudi Arabia and Iran are geopolitical rivals that have been at the forefront of global security discourse for the last several years. In this episode, host Dr. Sweta Chakraborty speaks to David Michel, a Senior Research Fellow with the Center for Climate and Security and a Research Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and Christine Parthemore, CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks.  Nuclear developments are a significant security concern in the Middle East and North Africa. This podcast explores the trends unfolding within Iran and Saudi Arabia. With the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an important mechanism intended to unite nations appears to be losing its power to taper back nuclear developments and contribute to global stability. Tehran announced that it is now actively enriching uranium, flouting JCPOA guidelines as European signatories attempt to curb these potentially destabilizing activities. Alongside these measures, the government is building more reactors, one of which is in direct partnership with Moscow.  Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is building a small nuclear research reactor and plans to construct at least two large nuclear energy plants. The United States and China, among others, have proposed partnerships to help launch a Saudi civilian nuclear program. Conversations with the United States have stalled due to disagreements with Riyadh over details of a 123 Agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. At the same time, Iran and Saudi Arabia are struggling with water and environmental security challenges. Both countries are characterized by arid landscapes, low precipitation rates, limited renewable water supplies, unsustainable agricultural practices, and high demographic pressures on natural resources. Climate change projections would exacerbate these issues. According to a MIT study, the unique features that characterize the Persian Gulf, such as its low elevations, shallow waters, and clear skies could result in temperatures that exceed 35℃ over extended periods of time by the end of the century. This would be intolerable for long-term human survival. The episode highlights how the region is navigating these issues. For example, Saudi Arabia is considering using nuclear energy to power desalination plants to meet its growing freshwater demands. CSR's Podcast Network will regularly feature exclusive dialogues with leading security and international affairs experts. Stay tuned for cutting-edge discussions on the world's existential and strategic risks, and the ways in which these challenges are converging.  Subscribe to the CSR Podcast Network's YouTube channel to never miss an episode! Or listen to the audio version on iTunes, and subscribe now to get real-time updates. If you're one of those already subscribed on iTunes, we always welcome your ratings and reviews, as this helps us get the podcast out there to more listeners!

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here