Between sovereign states, good fences don’t necessarily make for good neighbours

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced this week that he intends to expedite the construction of his country’s contentious security barrier. Right, you’re probably thinking, that’s old news. Israel has been building the wall in the West Bank for eight years now. That’s not the barrier I’m referring to though. I’m talking about the proposed 266-km fence which Israel plans to start building in the coming weeks along its border with Egypt. Its primary purpose, according to Israeli government sources: to keep out African asylum-seekers .[1]

There are currently around 25,000 African asylum-seekers in Israel, predominantly from the war-torn countries of Sudan and Eritrea, with hundreds more arriving monthly. They began arriving in significant numbers around the year 2000, with massive increases beginning in 2005 as the Egyptian government found itself unable to cope with the tens of thousands of refugees residing on its territory and initiated harsh and often violent crackdowns. Israel, as the only Western country with a land border with an African state, was an attractive option for many given its proximity, strong economy, government-sponsored education, and rule of law. Israel, with an already-delicate demographic balance, has been thoroughly overwhelmed by the number of claimants coming into the country (more, relative to its population, than virtually any other Western country), and is undertaking major reforms to its (previously non-existent) asylum system. To date, a miniscule…

Continue reading this entry ➔

A League of Their Own

In recent years China’s prominence on the world stage has grown rapidly. With consistently high GDP growth, a swelling middle class, and high-profile international events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics or the Expo 2010 in Shanghai, many recognize China as an emerging superpower. But this growth has not been consistent across all fronts, and in some respects China lags far behind other world powers. Recent events have made one area in particular stand out in this regard: oil spills.

On July 16^th in the Chinese port city of Dalian, the explosion of two oil pipelines caused thousands of barrels of oil to begin gushing into the sea. The slick has since expanded to cover hundreds of square kilometres of water and spread upwards of 90km down the coast. The spill – and China’s cack-handed response – is clearly modelled after the U.S.’s ongoing gulf coast saga – but it’s a pale imitation. Unlike the American spill, there seems to be no threat of the oil being carried to other nations’ coasts. Yet even Australia has managed to pull off a massive spill affecting its neighbours. If China wants to get into the oil spill big leagues, they’ll have to find a way to go international.

But while the international oil spill scene is characterised by intense competition, there is a notable lack of corresponding cooperation. It’s…

Continue reading this entry ➔

International Competition Regime: New Game. New Rules?

In a recent judgment given by the Australian Federal Court, Singapore Airlines Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ([2009] FCAFC 136 (2 October 2009)), once again the tension between increasingly globalised commercial practices on the one hand and domestic antitrust laws on the other is becoming evident. The Australian Court was required to decide whether the alleged unlawful price fixing which took place in the international markets – outside of the physical boundaries of Australia – violated Australian antitrust laws, and if so, whether the parties could be prosecuted by Australian authorities.

The Australian Court decided that international anti-competitive activity which takes place wholly outside of Australia may still influence the Australian market, and thus Australian law may possibly apply. It should be noted that this approach is by no means unique or new, as other domestic antitrust authorities are empowered by law to prosecute international anti-competitive activity.[1] But when examining the above-mentioned tension between the two conflicting forces, domestic regulation and an international problem, a more complex picture is revealed.

On the one hand, it is true that due to the lack of an international governing body or antitrust prosecution authority, the Australian authorities do not have much choice but to try and regulate international anti-competitive activity which affects Australian markets.  On the other hand, such an approach is not without…

Continue reading this entry ➔