UK Election Notes - Supporting the European Court of Human Rights
The populist tone of the 2015 election campaign, particularly with respect to Europe, will have done little to challenge misconceptions about the ECtHR’s relationship with UK law. A more informed and less sensationalist debate is needed. #GE2015   #humanrights  

Gone are the days when the new government, empowered by a strong popular mandate, could start working the day after the vote. Welcome to Europe, Britain.

At a time when national power is more difficult to wield effectively than ever and leadership requires partnership, the British obsession with wondering whether it would be better off in or out of Europe is a dangerous self-indulgence that undermines its international influence. 

The risks to Britain’s position in Europe and, therefore, to its international influence are inescapable in the next parliament, irrespective of who wins the election. Either David Cameron will undertake two years of intense negotiation and then seek a resolution in 2017 through an in-out referendum. Or Miliband will seek to put off the fateful decision as far as possible into the future, while the Conservatives become more Euroskeptic. Either way, the UK is about to enter a period of great uncertainty about its European future. 

King Salman’s reshuffle of the order of succession has placed his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdel-Aziz Al Saud, as third in line to the throne of Saudi Arabia, after the interior minister and crown prince. While it is hardly unusual in the Middle East for a ruler to make his son a successor, it is only the second time this has happened in Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed has been closely associated with the airstrikes in Yemen and, in the immediate term, the move could presage an even harder line against Iran. 

The next British government will face one of the most challenging periods in British foreign policy since the aftermath of 9/11 and will have constrained resources with which to do so. British politicians will need to take time from their daunting economic dossier to address five critical external challenges to British prosperity and security. And they are...

Xenia Wickett: Britain's global influence is a three-legged stool. The first leg is military and intelligence cooperation, the second is membership in the European Union, and the third is soft power, diplomatic wisdom and partnership. Cuts to the military budget mean the first leg is weakening, while Britain’s possible exit from the E.U. means the second is weakening — and stools do not stand on one leg.

Doubts about China’s geopolitical intentions, territorial disputes in the East and South China seas, separatist pressures in Southeast Asia, and the threats of terrorism and piracy all pose substantive risks to the stability of the wider region. Britain’s ability to counter these risks is very limited, and is further constrained by a declining defence budget and a general lack of engagement with these issues. Closer partnership with Japan would enable the UK to enhance regional stability cost-effectively, while maintaining its foreign policy profile among countries that have often looked to Britain for active leadership in regional affairs.

The crisis in Sinai looks far from being over. This is despite waves of security sweeps and military campaigns, including "cleansing" the border with the Gaza Strip, coercively removing more than 1,165 families and destroying more than 800 homes.

The main result of these policies has been to turn a limited security problem related to logistical support of various Palestinian groups in Gaza, into a local insurgency which has steadily grown in scale, and which has significantly altered its purpose to bring in a complex regional dimension.

As a result, the Sinai crisis is likely to endure as long as the military's policies do not change.