Editorial #1 Time to seize the promise of the U.S .- India nuclear deal
Context
The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, signed over a decade ago, was hailed as a transformative agreement that could redefine the bilateral relationship and strengthen strategic, energy, and economic cooperation. However, despite its initial promise, significant challenges have hindered the full realization of its potential.
Introduction
The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, finalized in 2008 after three years of legislative hurdles, was seen as a watershed moment in bilateral relations. It marked a departure from the estranged ties of the Cold War era and initiated a new phase of strategic partnership. However, 16 years later, many of its ambitious goals remain unmet, necessitating renewed efforts to address the existing roadblocks.
Key Highlights of the Deal
- Strategic Cooperation
- Marked a shift in U.S.-India relations, overcoming the legacy of Cold War estrangement.
- Strengthened defense ties, enabling broader cooperation in areas such as military exercises, technology transfer, and crisis management.
- Energy Security and Environmental Goals
- Envisioned enhancing India’s civil nuclear capacity through U.S. technology and equipment.
- Aimed at reducing India’s dependence on fossil fuels and addressing environmental concerns.
- Economic Aspirations
- Projected job creation in both countries.
- Expected to bolster Indian industry by generating affordable electricity.
Challenges and Roadblocks
- Regulatory Barriers
- Initial restrictions under the U.S. “Entity List” limited the participation of Indian entities in civil nuclear cooperation.
- Despite progress, concerns over technology diversion to adversaries and misalignment of export control systems persist.
- Liability Concerns
- Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (2010): India’s Act diverged from international norms by placing liability on suppliers rather than operators, creating a significant deterrent for U.S. companies.
- Efforts to mitigate liability through insurance schemes by Indian public sector entities have not reassured U.S. suppliers like GE and Westinghouse.
- Cost and Technology Issues
- Civil nuclear technology has advanced since the deal’s signing, raising expectations for state-of-the-art solutions.
- Concerns over affordability and cost overruns have discouraged Indian stakeholders from fully embracing U.S. technology.
- Geopolitical Competition
- Russia has emerged as a major partner in India’s civil nuclear expansion, leveraging government-owned entities and sovereign immunity to address liability concerns.
- Russian participation underscores the need for the U.S. to enhance its engagement and competitiveness in India’s nuclear sector.
Recent Developments
- Reassessment of the Entity List
- The Biden administration has reviewed the remaining Indian entities on the U.S. “Entity List” and determined that they no longer pose significant security risks.
- Jake Sullivan’s Announcement
- U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently stated that regulatory barriers to nuclear cooperation are being addressed.
The Way Forward
- Resolving Liability Issues
- The U.S. and India must collaboratively address liability concerns, possibly through amendments to India’s legislation or innovative insurance frameworks.
- Promoting Technological Competitiveness
- U.S. companies need to offer advanced, cost-effective technology to compete with other global players, especially Russia.
- Addressing Cost Overruns
- Learning from past experiences, both countries must ensure cost-effective project execution to make nuclear energy affordable for Indian consumers.
- Strengthening Bilateral Engagement
- Regular dialogue between governments and industry stakeholders is crucial to resolve regulatory and financial challenges.
Conclusion
The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal has immense untapped potential to bolster energy security, strengthen bilateral ties, and promote sustainable development. However, realizing its full promise requires overcoming challenges related to liability, technology, and costs. With renewed commitment from both sides, this landmark agreement can still serve as a cornerstone of the U.S.-India strategic partnership, delivering long-term benefits to both nations.
Editorial #2 Trump 2.0 as disruptor of the global legal order U.S.
Introduction
Donald Trump’s second term as President of the United States heralds a potential era of profound disruptions in the global legal order. With renewed control over both the Senate and the House, Mr. Trump is likely to push forward his policies more effectively, continuing his approach as a disruptor of multilateralism and international norms. This development poses significant challenges to the international legal framework established post-World War II.
The U.S. and Its Complex Relationship with International Law
- Foundational Role
- The U.S. has played a pivotal role in shaping international law, establishing key institutions and frameworks across domains such as climate change, space law, human rights, and trade.
- American influence has been instrumental in aligning international norms with its strategic and economic interests.
- Policy of Exceptionalism
- The U.S. has often pursued a policy of exceptionalism, asserting its distinct status and refusing to adhere to the norms binding other nations.
- It has faced criticism for undermining the very principles and institutions it helped create, expecting compliance from others while disregarding them itself.
Trump 1.0: A Radical Shift in Approach
- Sovereigntist View
- Trump’s first term was marked by a sovereigntist approach, emphasizing “America First” and perceiving multilateral treaties as constraints on U.S. sovereignty.
- This perspective led to a preference for bilateralism over multilateralism, an unusual stance for an incumbent global superpower.
- Key Actions Undermining International Commitments
- Withdrawal from Agreements: Exit from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, a nuclear treaty with Russia, and the Iran nuclear deal.
- Challenges to Trade Regimes: Imposition of tariffs and protectionist measures, even against allies, and blocking appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body, rendering it dysfunctional.
- Disengagement from Institutions: Withdrawal from UNESCO, attempted exit from the WHO, and threats to leave the WTO.
Trump 2.0: A Renewed Onslaught
- Weakening Multilateral Institutions
- A second Trump administration could accelerate the erosion of multilateral institutions’ normative authority.
- Rejoining institutions like the WHO and the Paris Agreement under Biden may be reversed, reinforcing unilateralism.
- Unilateral Trade Policies
- Proposed tariff hikes, including a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, reflect a continued disregard for WTO rules.
- Hopes for reviving the WTO’s Appellate Body or pursuing trade reforms favorable to the Global South appear bleak.
- Aggressive Territorial Ambitions
- Trump’s proposals to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal, or include Canada as the 51st U.S. state, echo 18th- and 19th-century expansionism.
- Such ambitions risk undermining post-UN Charter norms, including the prohibition of force and the principle of self-determination, potentially emboldening revisionist states like China and Russia.
- Interference in Domestic Affairs of Allies
- Statements by Trump allies, including Elon Musk, regarding internal politics of allied nations such as the U.K. and Germany, reflect a disregard for the principle of non-intervention under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.
Impact on the International Legal Order
- Challenges to Norms and Institutions
- The weakening of multilateralism under Trump’s leadership could undermine decades of progress in building a rules-based international order.
- Actions violating international norms may embolden other nations to follow suit, leading to a fragmented and less predictable global system.
- Role of Other Nations
- Countries must collaborate to safeguard the international legal order, leveraging transnational legal processes to mitigate disruptions.
- Building coalitions and strengthening multilateralism will be crucial to counterbalance unilateralism and preserve global stability.
Conclusion
While Donald Trump’s first term witnessed significant disruptions to international law, his second term could bring deeper challenges, especially with enhanced legislative support. The global community must act decisively to protect the integrity of international norms and institutions. Cooperation, resilience, and adherence to multilateralism will be essential in preserving the global legal order amidst the challenges posed by a potential Trump 2.0 era.
