magnify
Home 2016 October

Launch of Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict

Published on October 31, 2016        Author: 

In many, if not most, armed conflicts, far more deaths occur as a result of the humanitarian crisis created by the conflict rather than from hostilities or the use of force (see this useful study, at p. 842). In addition to those who die as a result of a lack of food, water, access to medical care or adequate sanitation, untold suffering is caused in conflicts across the globe to millions of other civilians. However, in many recent conflicts humanitarian actors have faced serious challenges in delivering much-needed relief supplies and services to civilians in need. The United Nations Secretary-General, in his recent reports to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians, has identified improving access for humanitarian operation as one of the five “core challenges” to enhancing the protection of civilians in armed conflict (see eg S/2012/376 (paras. 57-63); S/2015/453 (para. 7). In a November 2013 report to the Security Council [S/2013/689, para. 80], the Secretary General called for further analysis of the issue of arbitrary withholding of consent to humanitarian operations and the consequences thereof. He instructed the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to engage with a range of actors to examine the relevant rules and options for guidance in this area. OCHA commissioned the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict and the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Future Generations (both of which I co-direct) to carry out this exercise. We engaged in a series of expert consultations which took place in Oxford, in addition to informal discussions in Geneva and New York with officials from a number of international agencies and NGOs, with the aim of providing a restatement of the international law rules.

This process has resulted in the production of the Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operation in Situations of Armed Conflict (which is available here). It was a pleasure to launch the Oxford Guidance at UN Headquarters in New York last week, and also in Washington DC. In his May 2016 report [S/2016/447, para. 34] report to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians, the Secretary General stated that:

“The forthcoming Oxford guidance on the law relating to humanitarian relief operations in situations of armed conflict, which the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs commissioned on my request, should enhance understanding of such a legal framework and inform policies to improve humanitarian access.”

This point was reiterated in the Foreword to the Guidance by the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs who stated that:

“The present Guidance will assist a variety of actors concerned with humanitarian relief operations, including parties to armed conflict, other states, international and non-governmental organizations seeking to provide humanitarian assistance, the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and other relevant bodies, legal practitioners, scholars and the media.”

Read the rest of this entry…

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Launch of Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict

A Note on Civility from the Editor in Chief

Published on October 30, 2016        Author: 

As Editor in Chief of EJIL I also hold overall responsibility for EJIL Talk and EJIL Live — all part of the EJIL Community. I want to post a reminder about our policies in all EJIL publishing vehicles: EJIL, EJIL Talk! and EJIL Live. We welcome robust and critical analysis and comment — including the slaughtering of Holy Cows. We welcome both the harsh and the whimsical. But it has always been the policy of EJIL that we endeavor to maintain a tone that does not offend good taste and that in interpersonal exchanges — in our debates in EJIL and in comments on EJIL Talk — disagreements are expressed in a non disagreeable manner.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on A Note on Civility from the Editor in Chief

Announcements: CfS UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence; Chatham House Meeting on the relationship between IHRL and IHL

Published on October 30, 2016        Author: 

UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Call for Submissions, Volume 6, Issue 1 (Spring 2017). The UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence is a law journal run by postgraduate students of the UCL Faculty of Laws. The Journal appears twice a year and will be available open access. All submissions are assessed through double blind peer review. The Editorial Board is pleased to call for submissions for the first issue of 2017. The Board welcomes papers covering all areas of law and jurisprudence. We accept articles of between 8,000-12,000 words, case notes of 6,000-8,000 words and book reviews of 1,000-2,000 words. All submissions must comply with the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA). Contributions that have already been published or that are under consideration for publication in other journals will not be considered. The deadline for submissions is 21 November 2016. Manuscripts must be uploaded via the submissions section on our website. For further information and guidelines for authors please visit our website. For any queries, please e-mail the academic editors.

Chatham House Meeting on the Relationship between IHRL and IHL. The International Law Programme at Chatham House is hosting a meeting which will provide practical guidance on the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This meeting will coincide with the launch of the ‘Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights in Armed Conflict’. For details about the event and to enquire about registering see here. For further information about the book see here.

 

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Announcements: CfS UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence; Chatham House Meeting on the relationship between IHRL and IHL

Russia’s Supreme Court Rewrites History of the Second World War

Published on October 28, 2016        Author: 

Introduction and Background

On September 1 2016, exactly 77 years since the outbreak of the Second World War, Russia’s Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Perm resident Vladimir Luzgin under Article 354.1 of the Russian Penal Code ­- Rehabilitation of Nazism. Luzgin had the unpleasant distinction of being the first individual prosecuted under the new provision of the code criminalizing:

[1] Denial of facts, established by the judgement of the International Military Tribunal…, [2] approval of the crimes adjudicated by said Tribunal, and [3] dissemination of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, made publicly.

Two months earlier, Luzgin, a 38-years old auto mechanic, was fined 200,000 rubles (roughly €2,800) for reposting on the popular Russian social networking site vkontakte a link to an online article containing numerous assertions in defense of Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries that fought during the Second World War. The basis for Luzgin’s conviction lay in the statement that unlike the nationalists, “the Communists…actively collaborated with Germany in dividing Europe according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,” and “Communists and Germany jointly attacked Poland and started the Second World War on 1 September 1939!”

In this post, we address some of the problematic aspects of this “memory law” and the Supreme Court’s decision with respect to freedom of expression in Russia; the Russian Constitution protects this fundamental right expressly, and through incorporation of international customary norms and rules embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), all of which the Supreme Court eschewed in its ruling. Prior to addressing the decision and its implications however, some words are in order on the drafting history of the law and its putative aims. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Russia’s Unilateral Suspension of the 2013 Agreement on Nuclear Cooperation with the United States

Published on October 27, 2016        Author: 

Amidst the breaking-down of cooperation between the USA and Russia in addressing the war in Syria, the continuation of the Ukrainian crisis and the US charges against Russia for its alleged interference in the American Presidential elections, the sanction tit-for-tat between the two Powers continues. The most recent episode occurred during the first week of October, when the Russian Federation decided to suspend – and in one case terminate – various nuclear-related agreements between itself and the United States of America. Russia’s unilateral decisions raise several questions, notably with regard to the law of treaties; however it is Russia’s justification for suspending the 2013 Agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear and Energy Related Scientific Research and Development (hereafter the ‘2013 Agreement’) that caught my attention and on which I wish to comment. It so happens that the Kremlin justified the suspension as a countermeasure in response to the American sanctions against it.

The 2013 Agreement‘s aim is to provide a stable and reliable framework within which the USA and Russia can cooperate in fields of research and development regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Because of the vague wording of the 2013 Agreement, it is difficult to determine what the exact obligations of the parties are and whether their fulfilment allows more leeway. Under these circumstances, one could consider Russia’s suspension as simply symbolic and another indication of the cooling of relations with the USA. Nevertheless, in a document published by the Russian State, the suspension is claimed to be a countermeasure against the sanctions adopted by the US, implying that Russia views its own action as wrongful. By invoking the magic word ‘countermeasures’, the Russian government is summoning a circumstance precluding wrongfulness. As is well known, in order for Russia to justifiably adopt such measures, the (main) condition that needs to be respected is the commission of a wrongful act by the United States against the Russia Federation. It follows that the legality of Russia’s suspension (or the preclusion of the wrongfulness of that act) would depend – in part – on the legality of the American sanctions that Russia is objecting to.

Russia claims that, as a result of the sanctions against it, the US is responsible for a ‘substantial violation of the terms of the [2013] Agreement’ and specifically Articles IV(3) and X(1). This breach would result from a letter sent in April 2014 by:

‘the US Department of Energy Bureau at the US Embassy in Moscow (…) announcing the suspension of nuclear energy cooperation in connection with the events in Ukraine’ and the subsequent cancellation of ‘bilateral meetings and events related to nuclear energy’.

Hence, the sanctions would have directly ‘affected the areas of cooperation under the Agreement’. In Russia’s view, the continuation of the US sanctions – which includes the violation of the Agreement – ‘requires the adoption of countermeasures in relation to the US’ (all the above quotes are taken from the Russian government decision). In another comment, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that ‘Russia will consider the possibility of reversing its decision to suspend the Agreement when the United States reaffirms its willingness to fully restore compliance with the Agreement’. Read the rest of this entry…

 

12 Years an Asylum Seeker: Failure of States to Deal With Asylum Applications May Breach Applicants’ Right to Respect for Their Private Life

Published on October 26, 2016        Author: 

In its ground-breaking B.A.C. c. Grèce judgment of October 13 2016, the European Court of Human Rights found that Greece violated the right of an asylum seeker to respect for his private life under Article 8 ECHR due to the failure of the Greek authorities to effectively deal with his asylum application. Whilst the facts of the case are outright extraordinary, the overall significance of the case cannot be downplayed. For the first time, the Court accepted that Article 8 ECHR may be breached due to a State’s inactivity in respect of an asylum application.

The applicant, a Turkish national, had been arrested by the Turkish authorities, and after being charged with an offence against the constitutional order on account of his pro-communist and pro-Kurdish convictions, was placed in solitary confinement. Following a 171-days long hunger strike, he was set free. On 15 January 2002, having entered Greece, he applied for asylum, yet the application was dismissed. The applicant brought an appeal against this decision. According to the law in force at the time, decisions upon appeal were made by the Minister for Public Order within a period of 90 days, following an advisory opinion by a ‘Consultative Asylum Committee’. Indeed, the Committee issued an opinion favorable to the applicant on 29 January 2003.

From this date and for a period of 12 years (up until the application before the Court), the Greek state refrained from reaching any decision on the asylum application. The applicant spent these 12 years in Greece as an asylum seeker denied – in accordance with domestic law – the right to vocational education, to obtain a driver’s license, to open a bank account. The Greek authorities, including the Greek police, nonetheless, did not fail to attest on several occasions that the application was pending, thus renewing his asylum applicant’s identification card. In the meantime, the Turkish authorities sought to extradite the applicant to Turkey. Following a legal battle before the Greek courts the extradition request was defeated. One should also add that the applicant’s wife joined him in Greece in 2003 for a period of 9 years, during which a child was born unto the couple. Still, the applicant was deprived of the right to family reunification, and the situation of the couple was only regularised – somewhat – following the issuance of a temporary work permit to the applicant’s wife in 2008. Eventually, she decided to return to Istanbul and the couple divorced. Read the rest of this entry…

 

A Critical Assessment of Colombia’s Advisory Request before the IACtHR – and Why It Should Be Rejected

Published on October 25, 2016        Author: 

On 14 March 2016 Colombia filed an Advisory Opinion request before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The request poses three questions, which can be summarised as follows: The first question asks whether the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) entails extra-territorial obligations for a State when interpreted in light of a “treaty-based environmental protection system to which that State is a party [also],” and if it does, what are its incidences vis-à-vis the elements of state responsibility (attribution and breach).

The second question is a restatement of the first one, but zeroes in on conduct of states that might do “serious damage to the marine environment” and the implications thereof for inhabitants of “the coast and/or islands of another State party” under articles 4(1) (right to life) and 5(1) (personal integrity) ACHR; in other words, the question enquires whether, and if so how, IHRL might serve as vehicle for the extra-territorial application of IEL.

Building upon the ICJ’s environmental law developments in Pulp Mills, a final question enquires whether environmental obligations under articles 4(1) and 5(1) ACHR entail the duty to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIA). Read the rest of this entry…

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on A Critical Assessment of Colombia’s Advisory Request before the IACtHR – and Why It Should Be Rejected

Take the Long View of International Justice

Published on October 24, 2016        Author: 

Last week there was much coverage about South Africa’s intended withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as potential withdrawals by other states, including Burundi. The dominant theme in the media coverage was that this is a “major blow” or “devastating blow” to the ICC. I am hesitant about some of the gladiatorial metaphors. I suggest there are differences between a setback for the International Criminal Law (ICL) project, for human beings, and for the ICC. I also suggest a measured perspective, placing these events within a very long, turbulent, contested tale of human governance.

Historic perspective on a long-term project

Our lives are short and history is long. The tumults of our times loom correspondingly large to us, but the longer view can put crises in context. For example, many current criticisms of ICL reflect impatience and indignation that a fully-fledged, mature, international rule of law with global compliance has not been built in a few years. But it took centuries to produce current configurations of state governance and rule of law – the idea that human institutions might try to provide a better approximation of justice in human lives. And even after centuries of practice, errors, disasters, lessons and successes, the state law system is very, very far indeed from perfected. ICL itself is one effort to ameliorate to those flaws. We happen to be alive during a significant renovation in a centuries-old system.

My point is: past innovations in human governance took centuries, not months. They involved much contestation. If people see ICL in historical perspective, they will not expect quick fixes or linear progress. ICL entails politically, sociologically, legally and intellectually difficult and contestable changes to entrenched systems. There will be lessons to learn and criticisms to absorb. If it succeeds, it will do so after lurches, setbacks and pushbacks. Comfortingly, on the biggest scale, human governance has been moving in a positive direction for a long time. Read the rest of this entry…

 

International and Domestic Implications of South Africa’s Withdrawal from the ICC

Published on October 24, 2016        Author: 

In the early hours of Friday 21 October 2016, it was revealed that the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had issued official notification of South Africa’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (a copy of the instrument of withdrawal can be seen here). This was received by the UN Secretary-General, starting the prescribed 12-month notice period for withdrawal from the Court (Article 127 of the Rome Statute). This announcement came as a shock to many in the legal community in South Africa and abroad. While the South African government had expressed unhappiness with the Court, and had previously threatened withdrawal, there was no public indication that an official decision to withdraw had been taken, nor had any public consultation taken place on the matter in Parliament or elsewhere.

This decision will have significant implications for the legal landscape in South Africa, and likely also for the position of other African States in the ICC. It is also possible that it will lead to the fundamental weakening of the ICC itself. Here I consider various implications of this sudden announcement, both from the domestic South African and international perspectives. First, I address the status of the instrument of withdrawal in international and domestic law. I then look at the impact of withdrawal for the enforcement of international criminal law in South Africa. Finally, I address some possible consequences for the ICC itself.

Is it Legal?

The first question is whether the notice of withdrawal signed by the Minister is lawful, from the lenses of international and domestic law, given that this was a purely Executive act that was not preceded by any form of public or parliamentary consultation, let alone approval. Similar questions arise in the context of the Brexit ‘Article 50’ debate. While it seems that the instrument of withdrawal is likely sufficient to take effect in international law, it is doubtful that the domestic legal requirements have been adhered to. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: United Nations University Vacancy; CfS Journal of International Criminal Justice; CfS Cambridge International Law Journal; CfP International Network on Transnational Legal and Political Theory

Published on October 23, 2016        Author: 

1. Organizational Unit: UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. The United Nations University (UNU) is searching for an entrepreneurial director for its Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) in Bruges, Belgium. The Institute undertakes solution-oriented, policy-relevant research on the impact of regional integration in policymaking across all levels of political organisation. The Institute will, from October 2017, be working in close partnership with the University of Ghent and the Free University of Brussels. For more information, see here.

2. Journal of International Criminal Justice Call for Submissions. To mark 15 years since the coming into force of the Statute of the ICC on 1 July 2002, the Journal of International Criminal Justice is pleased to announce a forthcoming symposium on The International Criminal Court’s Policies and Strategies’ to be published in July 2017. The Court and its various organs have continually issued a number of documents explaining the Court’s policies on numerous distinct issues as well as its strategies for the future. The Journal’s Editorial Committee believes that the time has come to take a closer and systematic look at these documents, looking at the choices made thus far, the level of transparency and consistency, as well as suggesting avenues to strengthen the overall effectiveness and credibility of ICC investigative and prosecutorial strategies. The Journal calls for submission of abstracts not exceeding 500 words by no later than 15 November 2016. The Editorial Committee will invite a number of contributors to submit full papers of no more than 8000 words (including an abstract and footnotes) by 28 February 2016. For more information about the call, see here or contact the Executive Editor at jicj {at} geneva-academy(.)ch. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Announcements: United Nations University Vacancy; CfS Journal of International Criminal Justice; CfS Cambridge International Law Journal; CfP International Network on Transnational Legal and Political Theory