Law & Paneir

Sovereignty of a country is the most important requirement of an existence of that country. If there is a threat to the independence of the country, it cannot be tolerated for any other reason. The people need to be united and support the measures taken by the relevant authorities to quell the threat without any fears and indifference of the opinions on that issue. Sadly in Lahad Datu’s incident some never see this as a national threat issue where the sovereignty of our beloved country has been questioned by foreign terrorists. They try to ‘hijack’ the real issue for their own political mileages. This is totally unacceptable. National security cannot be compromised for any reason. We have the duty to defense our country’s border. The falls of some members of security forces to shield our country’s independence cannot be disparaged like in case of Lahad Datu intrusion.   They need to be label as ‘unsung heroes’ of our country. The use of Security Offences (special Measures)

SOVEREIGNTY of a country is the most important requirement for the existence of that country. A threat to the country's independence cannot be tolerated. The people must be united and support the measures taken by the authorities to quell the threat. Sadly, some have failed to see the Lahad Datu incident as a national threat where the sovereignty of our country was being questioned by the armed intruders. They tried to stake a claim on a state that was never theirs in the first place. This is totally unacceptable. National security cannot be compromised for any reason. We have a duty to defend our country's borders. The death of some members of the security forces in protecting our country's independence cannot be disparaged. They are the unsung heroes. The use of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and the creation of the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom) are to prevent these intruders from further terrorising our people in Sab

By Ashley J. Tellis   During the 1990s the United States and its allies enjoyed a much sought-after period of prosperity and tranquility following the end of the Cold War. In hindsight, however, it is now apparent that Al Qaeda, a fiercely anti-American global terrorist network, was taking root in over sixty countries during this period, culminating in the devastating September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.  The Bush administration, which had entered office determined to secure U.S. primacy amid the emergence of major power centers in Asia, such as China, soon found itself forced to confront a worldwide Islamist insurgency.  This study analyzes the relevance of terrorist groups as substatal actors in international politics, their influence on deeper dynamics of the international system, and the challenges facing the United States posed by transnational terrorist organizations.  It argues that international terrorism, although currently salient, does not

By Nick Bisley EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter examines the current status and possible evolution of Asian efforts to develop cooperative multilateral approaches to regional security. Main Argument Asian states participate in a complex array of multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral mechanisms to advance their security interests. Despite the recent growth in multilateral processes, most states still focus the majority of their bureaucratic and fiscal resources on bilateral and unilateral military approaches. Asia’s current political and strategic circumstances preclude the possibility of applying a strongly institutionalized European approach to the construction of a regional security architecture. Palpable mistrust among the major powers and divergent views as to the nature and character of the key threats the region faces block efforts to make any meaningful change to regional security policy. Policy Implications The most significant barriers to the creat

By Sheldon Simon Most Southeast Asians believe that their security is best maintained by engaging the great powers in multilateral endeavors such as the ASEAN post-ministerial conferences, ASEAN+3, and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).  While directed toward keeping China and the United States involved in assuring the region’s security, ASEAN also welcomes participation by India and Japan in these initiatives.  Neither ASEAN nor the ARF, however, have been willing to tackle the core security issues facing the region— be they external support for insurgencies, refugee flows, or disputes over sovereignty. Inclusive memberships in both organizations and the ASEAN consensus principle work against their effectiveness.  But although ASEAN cannot solve Southeast Asia’s challenges alone, it can still try to control the agenda in its dealings with external powers.  Thus, it may be able to enlist the great powers in Southeast Asian concerns, or at

By  Ian Storey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This article assesses the impact and effectiveness of regional and national initiatives to improve sea lane security in Southeast Asia. Main Arguments Though piracy and sea robbery have always posed a threat to international trade, since September 11, 2001, the specter of maritime terrorism has refocused attention on the problem of maritime crime. Despite a recent drop in pirate attacks, violence at sea remains a problem in Southeast Asia, where a number of political, geographic, and economic factors make the region’s seas a particularly opportune space for sea-borne criminals. Cooperative efforts to address maritime violence in the region have met with real but qualified success. Though competing priorities and sovereignty concerns have inhibited the full participation of regional states in cooperative security programs, the perceived threat of unilateral involvement by the United States has served as a catalyst for improved coope

Bilateralism Whether or not the Asia-Pacific becomes a zone of cooperation depends on the new strategic system that eventually replaces the current arrangement. Some commentators predicted that as a consequence of the end of the Cold War, multilateral arrangements would, before long, replace traditional bilateral approaches to security. The US, it was thought, would lose interest in providing security for its traditional allies, and Asian states would conclude that bilateral alliances no longer met their interests for they failed to allow for pragmatic approaches for dealing with new security concerns. 37 This has not been the case. Instead, the Clinton administration has moved to strengthen its key bilateral security arrangements, while acknowledging that multilateral security dialogue also plays an important role. The efficacy of a multilateral approach to security issues is dependent on solid bilateral foundations. Even if the regional security order in the twenty-f

By the look of it, the country is in for another attack of killer jurisprudence. During the last televised episode, the Supreme Court nominee was Robert Bork and the controversy concerned his idea that judges should adhere to the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution and the original intention of the people who wrote and ratified it. This time the nominee is Clarence Thomas, and many of the same people who condemned Bork`s legal theories as outside the mainstream are attacking Thomas` jurisprudence in similar terms. The curious thing is that Thomas`ideas are just about the diametrical opposite of Bork`s. Thomas` ``natural law`` philosophy holds that people were given by their Creator certain inalienable rights. If that sounds familiar, it is because it is a paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was far from the first natural-law theorist but was certainly one of the most eloquent. At the other end of Ang