By Martin Wyss. The number of migrants opting for voluntary departure from the Netherlands to their countries of origin with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is growing.  Under the IOM Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programme from the Netherlands, 538 migrants were assisted in the month of June, compared to 429 migrants assisted in May. In the first half of the year, over 2,500 migrants departed under the same programme, or a 100 percent increase compared to the first six months of 2015, when 1,288 departed voluntarily from the Netherlands with IOM assistance. The main countries of origin for the period January-June 2016 were Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo, Mongolia, Serbia and Ukraine.  Voluntary return is a core activity of IOM in the Netherlands. Through the Assisted voluntary Return Programme (AVRR), IOM offers vital assistance to migrants who decide to leave voluntarily from the Netherlands to return to their country of origin. To be able to provide the needed assistance to migrants before, during and after their journey, IOM Netherlands works closely with partners in the Netherlands and with the worldwide network of IOM offices in over 100 countries.  Globally, in 2015 IOM assisted close to 70,000 migrants worldwide under the IOM Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programmes. This was the largest number of voluntary returns registered in the past decades. The current migration trends seem to indicate that returns could increase in the years to come – not only in the number of migrants in need of assistance, but also in the complexity of the process. IOM emphasizes the importance of voluntary return policies that must guarantee the dignity and well-being of migrants, as well as offer practical reintegration support to returning migrants.  About IOM The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the global lead agency on migration and works closely with governments, NGOs and intergovernmental partners. With 165 member states and more than 9,000 staff members IOM is dedicated to promoting human and orderly migration for the benefit of all.  IOM NL AVRR statistics and information http://www.iom-nederland.nl/nl/vrijwillig-vertrek/cijfers-vrijwillige-terugkeer. IOM Global AVRR statistics and information http://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/our_work/DMM/AVRR/AVRR_2015_Key_Highlights.pdf About the author: Martin Wyss is IOM International Organization  for Migration’s Chief of Mission in the Netherlands. For more information: contact Martin Wyss at mwyss@iom.int  

Top British talent Nicholas Collon becomes principal conductor of The Hague Philharmonic (Residentie) Orchestra   Nicholas Collon will make his official debut as principal conductor of The Hague Philharmonic (Residentie) orchestra in October. At just 33, this British innovator will be the youngest principal conductor in The Netherlands. Nicholas Collon has created an international frenzy with the Aurora Orchestra, which he founded in 2005 and of which he is the principal conductor. Creativity, the highest of quality, a wide-ranging artistic scope and an innovative approach to his audiences are among his key characteristics. The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra is therefore proud to have been able to secure the services of this young and energetic innovator, winner of the Critics’ Circle Award for Exceptional Talent in 2012, as its principal conductor. Collon succeeds in meshing modern repertoire with masterpieces from the classical and romantic traditions in a way that few others can. As well as conducting standard concerts,  he will also be getting involved in some special projects run by The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra, such as Symphonic Junction in Paard van Troje.

Sven Arne Tepl, artistic director of The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra, says “Nicholas is one of the highest profile young conductors of the day. Of course, this has a lot to do with his enormous versatility and depth as far as repertoire and style are concerned, but it’s mostly also about his immediate way of making music. The intense connection he forges with the musicians at his concerts can be sensed in the farthest corners of the auditorium, so our audiences will also feel intimately involved.” Collon makes his official debut as principal conductor in October – on Tuesday 25 October in the Concertgebouw and on Friday 28 October in the Zuiderstrandtheater. He has picked his own programmes for these concerts. In Amsterdam, he will conduct The Hague Philharmonic Orchestra in Tchaikovsky’s Overture Romeo and Juliet, Ravel’s G major Piano Concerto (with soloist Hannes Minnaar) and a selection from Prokofiev’s Suite Romeo and Juliet. In The Hague, he will conduct Walton’s Cello Concerto (with top cellist Alisa Weilerstein), Brahms’s Symphony no. 3 and Berlioz’s Scène d’amour from Roméo et Juliette. For information: Residentie Orkest, Nicholas Collon

By Namira Salim, Founder and Chairperson, Space Trust. As Mr. Donald Trump stands as the Republican nominee, long time democrat and women’s rights champion, Mrs. Hillary Clinton will face a challenge unlike she, nor any politician, has faced before.‎ However, facing and overcoming adversity is inherent in Mrs. Clinton’s DNA.  She, like so many women before her and undoubtedly those to come, is hard-wired to buck what has been deemed ‘tradition’ and to break trends and barriers; be these related to ethnicity, creed or gender. In this new age of space exploration, which we call the advent of the ‘Commercialization of Space’ Mrs. Clinton’s efforts are timely; they ensure that the next generation of world ‎leaders and especially, women leaders, are given equal and ample opportunity to succeed. However, since I was born in Pakistan, I have no partisan bias in the U.S. voting process. Yet, despite my nation being a developing one, with its own burden of geopolitical crises in recent history, it remains the first Muslim nation in the world to have democratically elected the First Female Prime Minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto in 1988. And so today we see a paradigm shift – a U.N. Secretary General campaign is currently spearheaded by talented women candidates such as Ms. ‎Natalia Gherman‎,  former ‎Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, and Ms. Irina Bokova, Director General UNESCO originally from Bulgaria; we have long looked to the stewardship of Ms. Angela Merkel, German Chancellor and Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Inspired by such women leaders, I have ventured to break down ‘man-made barriers’, having become the First Pakistani to have undertaken pioneering Peace expeditions to the North Pole in 2007 and South Pole in 2008, ‎as well as the first Asian to Skydive (tandem) over Mount Everest in 2008 and next, to become the first Pakistani to go to Space as Founder Astronaut of Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, the first private Space-line in the world. My dream of ‘breaking orbits’ is one shared by many. And it is worth remembering that politics was not always Mrs. Clinton’s choice of career. As a young girl, she too dreamt of becoming an astronaut and in fact, even wrote to NASA regarding her ambition.  In her 2003 Memoir ‘Living History’, Mrs. Clinton quoted NASA’s response as the following – ‘We are not accepting girls as astronauts.’  While today, ‘Gender Equality and Women Empowerment’ is regarded as a fundamental human right under the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals and remains a necessity for a peaceful and prosperous world, this was not always the status quo. To date, 59 women have flown in space, out of a total of 536 space travelers. Russia’s Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in Space in 1963, less than two years after‎ fellow Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.  While Mrs. Clinton’s dreams of space flight were stifled then by the societal restrictions of the period, there were many who championed women’s rights before her to help secure all of our future ambitions, in arenas Mrs. Clinton would come to be known for championing.‎ Victoria Woodhull, for example, was also an activist, politician and author, much like Mrs. Clinton and was arguably, the first woman to run for the Presidency of the United States. A free thinker, Ms. Victoria Woodhull created ‘Claflin’s Weekly,’ a radical publication, in 1870 alongside her sister. The journal gave them a soapbox to stand on, a platform to express their ideas on social reform, including women’s suffrage. The journal was also and controversially, the first to publish an English translation of Karl Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto.’‎ No doubt a strong supporter of women’s rights, Ms. Woodhull, who had already broken the ‘rules’ by becoming the first woman stockbroker, later established the Equal Rights Party, and shortly thereafter, became the first female candidate in history to seek the United States Presidency on the political group’s ticket. No matter the result, Ms. Woodhull stands as a pioneer; a ‘Founder’ of an ideology that has driven American society to astronomical heights.  She would eventually live long enough to see women be given the right to vote in 1920. And today, her efforts have had a trickle down effect the world over, where we see a diverse array of women vying for prestigious roles in unprecedented competitions.‎ ‎ As a Founder Astronaut of Virgin Galactic, which will also make me the first (future) South Asian Space Tourist, I have pursued dreams that would have been unthinkable for women less than a generation ago; I trust my story has inspired women internationally and I hope to continue to encourage the Space generation of women leaders to reach for the stars.

I am particularly sensitive to those regions where women and girls continue to be victims of discrimination and violence; where hope is an invaluable commodity and too often, in short supply. Perhaps, female leadership with an ample dose of sensitivity is the answer?  Can the first female President of the United States and the first female Secretary General of the United Nations work hand in hand to accomplish such humanity, for example?

By Nicolas Boeglin. A collective open letter signed by a great number of professors of international law and researchers entitled « A plea against the abusive invocation of self-defence as a response to terrorism » is circulating on the web for a few weeks. Among the signatories, of which there are more than 230 professors and 50 assistants/researchers (see the list available here at July 29, regularly updated by the Centre de Droit International de l´Université Libre de Bruxelles, ULB) , we find distinguished members of international law community as well a younger researchers and assistants. The objective of this collective initiative is to challenge the invocation of the legal argument of self-defence by several States in the context of the so called “war” against ISIL or ISIS. As well known, the United Nations Charter is extremely clear on the unique exception to the prohibition of the use of force since 1945: self-defence (and military operations authorized by Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter). However, since 9/11, interpretations made by United States and its allies have tried to legally support unilateral military operations in the territory of a State without previous consent of its authorities. In a recent note published on the website of the prestigious European Journal of International Law (EJIL), we read that: “Particularly since 9/11, several States have supported a broad reading of the right to use force in self-defence, as allowing them to intervene militarily against terrorists whenever and wherever they may be. A consequence of that conception is that any State could be targeted irrespective of whether that State has ‘sent’ the irregular (in this case terrorist) group to carry out a military action or has been ‘substantially involved’ in such an action” (Note 1). The use of force in self-defence must be exercised in conformity with the conditions laid down in international law, and particularly the UN Charter. On this very particular last point, it must be recalled that France presented to the Security Council a quite surprising draft resolution after Paris attacks of November 13, 2015 (see full text of the « blue version » circulated among delegations) avoiding any reference to the Charter in its operative paragraphs: it is possibly a great “première” of French diplomacy at the United Nations (Note 2). The text of this global call (available here ) in French, English, Portuguese, Spanish and Arabic) considers, among others arguments, that: « Thus, numerous military interventions have been conducted in the name of self-defence, including against Al Qaeda, ISIS or affiliated groups. While some have downplayed these precedents on account of their exceptional nature, there is a serious risk of self-defence becoming an alibi, used systematically to justify the unilateral launching of military operations around the world».   «Without opposing the use of force against terrorist groups as a matter of principle — particularly in the current context of the fight against ISIS — we, international law professors and scholars, consider this invocation of self-defence to be problematic. In fact, international law provides for a range of measures to fight terrorism. Priority should be given to these measures before invoking self-defence ». For the signatories of this collective letter, « …. we consider that terrorism raises above all the challenge of prosecution and trial of individuals who commit acts of terrorism. A variety of legal tools are available in this respect. They relate first and foremost to police and judicial cooperation (chiefly through agencies such as INTERPOL or EUROPOL), aiming both at punishing those responsible for the crimes committed and preventing future occurrence of such crimes. Although there is certainly room for improvement, this cooperation has often proved effective in dismantling networks, thwarting attacks, and arresting the perpetrators of such attacks. By embracing from the outset the « war against terrorism » and « self-defence » paradigms and declaring a state of emergency, there is a serious risk of trivializing, neglecting, or ignoring ordinary peacetime legal processes”. It must be noted that this document is open for signature by international law scholars and researchers around the world until next September 1st. The text recalls a certain number of very clear rules that diplomats and judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, and diplomats in New York know better than anyone, despite the ambiguous interpretations made by some of their colleagues at the Security Council, in particular since the beginning of airstrikes in Syria, without the consent of its authorities (Note 3). This document also refers that: « …, the maintenance of international peace and security rests first and foremost with the Security Council. The Council has qualified international terrorism as a threat to the peace on numerous occasions. Therefore, aside from cases of emergency leaving no time to seize the UN, it must remain the Security Council’s primary responsibility to decide, coordinate and supervise acts of collective security». « Confining the task of the Council to adopting ambiguous resolutions of an essentially diplomatic nature, as was the case with the passing of resolution 2249 (2015) relating to the fight against ISIS, is an unfortunate practice. Instead, the role of the Council must be enhanced in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Charter, thereby ensuring a multilateral approach to security /…/ However, the mere fact that, despite its efforts, a State is unable to put an end to terrorist activities on its territory is insufficient to justify bombing that State’s territory without its consent». «Such an argument finds no support either in existing legal instruments or in the case law of the International Court of Justice. Accepting this argument entails a risk of grave abuse in that military action may henceforth be conducted against the will of a great number of States under the sole pretext that, in the intervening State’s view, they were not sufficiently effective in fighting terrorism». It must be noted that in February 2016, Canada new authorities decided to cease airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. We read on this official note produced by Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) that: “ In accordance with Government of Canada direction, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) ceased airstrike operations in Iraq and Syria on 15 February 2016. From their first sortie on 30 October 2014 to 15 February 2016, the CF-188 Hornets conducted 1378 sorties resulting in 251 airstrikes (246 in Iraq and 5 in Syria), expended 606 munitions and achieved the following effects: 267 ISIL fighting positions, 102 ISIL equipment and vehicles, and, 30 ISIL Improvised Explosive Device (IED) factories and ISIL storage facilities”. In 2015, a Canadian scholar concluded an extremely interesting article on airstrikes in Syria and Iraq in the following terms: “However, there is a further legal hurdle for Canada to overcome. Unless Canada can attribute ISIS´ attacks in Iraq to Syria, then the question becomes whether Canada may lawfully target ISIS, as a nonstate actor in Syria’s sovereign territory, using the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine to prevent ISIS’ extraterritoriality attacks against Iraq. This justification moves significantly away from the Nicaragua, Congo and Israeli Wall cases’ requirement for attribution. There appears to be a lack of consensus on whether opinion juris and state practice have accepted the “unwilling or unable” doctrine as customary international law. There is no escaping the conclusion that Canada’s air strikes on Syria are on shaky, or at least shifting, legal ground ” (Note 4).

  Concerning airstrikes in Syria and Iraq by coalition member States (see for example the detailed report for July 2106 prepared by the NGO Airwars.org), the systematic registry of every single airstrike give a more complete idea on how tasks are shared inside the coalition: illustrative charts realized by Airwars.org clarify the fact that bombs exploding in those two States are mainly dropped from United States aircrafts . In particular, a careful reading of Chart 9 of the before mentioned link (see the column corresponding to July 2016) shows that at July 25st, in Syria 4414 airstrikes from United States have took place in July 2016, while 249 were realized by other coalition members (officially 10 States are part to the coalition in Syria, to which Canada cannot be included anymore concerning airstrikes (nor in Syria, nor in Iraq), and that since February 2016). With regard to civilian harm in Syria caused by airstrikes, a recent report of June 2016 states that: ”This raises concerns that important, corroborating information was either never identified or discounted with little justification, a concern confirmed by a comparison to an investigation by Airwars into one of the strikes involved, which demonstrates that open source data was overlooked. As a result of these apparent shortcomings, it is highly likely that there is a significant amount of information regarding civilian harm and its strategic impact that the United States simply does not know”(p. 55). The signatories of this collective call, whose number increase from day to day, including scholars from different continents and age, conclude reaffirming that: « The international legal order may not be reduced to an interventionist logic similar to that prevailing before the adoption of the United Nations Charter. The purpose of the Charter was to substitute a multilateral system grounded in cooperation and the enhanced role of law and institutions for unilateral military action. It would be tragic if, acting on emotion in the face of terrorism (understandable as this emotion may be), that purpose were lost ». —— About the author: Nicolas Boeglin is professor of International Law, Law Faculty, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).   Note 1: See CORTEN O., « A Plea Against the Abusive Invocation of Self-Defence as a Response to Terrorism”, European Journal of International Law (EJIL Talk), July 14, 2016, available here . Note 2: See ou modest note published in France, BOEGLIN N., «Attentats à Paris : remarques à propos de la résolution 2249 », Actualités du Droit, December 6, 2015, available here . See also, after parliamentary debate in United Kingdom authorizing airstrikes in Syria, BOEGLIN N. «Arguments based on UN resolution 2249 in Prime Minister´s report on airstrikes in Syria: some clarifications needed », Human Rights Investigation, December 4, 2015, available here . Note 3: On the notion of « unwilling or unable » State, justifying, for some diplomats, military operations on its territory without its previous consent, see: CORTEN O., “The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test: Has it Been, and Could it be, Accepted?”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 2016. Absrtract of this article available here . Note 4: See LESPERANCE R.J. , “Canada’s Military Operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the Law of Armed Conflict”, Canadian International Lawyer, Vol. 10 (2015), pp. 51-63, p. 61. Full text of the article available here .