magnify
Home 2017 January (Page 3)

Will the Asian Vision of International Law become Dominant in 2017?

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post forms part of a symposium being run by EJIL:Talk! and Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Starting today, the two blogs are publishing a number of posts discussing the article, and we thank all of those who have contributed to  this symposium.

Professor Chesterman explores the reasons for the relative under-participation and under-representation of Asian states as a group (what he refers to as Asia) in international lawmaking and in international institutions. Chesterman acknowledges the difficulty in referring to Asia as a group, due to the diversity of the continent. “Indeed,” he adds, “the very concept of ‘Asia’ derives from a term used in Ancient Greece rather than any indigenous political or historic roots.” Diversity is not only cultural or political, but also grounded in different interests, especially given the “great power interests of China, India and Japan” and perhaps also Russia, another crucial Asian player.

Chesterman notes as perhaps another factor for Asian skepticism of international law the previous negative experiences with international law that was used to justify colonial rule and to impose or victors’ justice and Western standards. It is an interesting and ultimately indeterminable question whether it is the history of Western dominated international law that continues to undermine the legitimacy of international law and institutions and suppress regional cooperation in Asia. Perhaps of greater weight are the internally-inflicted refutations and violations of international law by some Asian states in their dealings with other Asian states, which began with Japan’s invasions and occupations before and during World War II and continued by others in different parts of this vast and varied continent, and which are still festering. But arguably of more immediate concern are the contemporary challenges, both from the outside – the perception of Western capture of international law and its use, as Lauri Mälksoo notes, “as an hegemonic tool of the West,” and, again, by Asian countries challenging each other’s vision of international law.

Chesterman is aware of the need to have some common grounds to spark regional cooperation. Often the commonality would be an outside rival, such as the Soviet Union for Western Europe, or the US for Latin America. Asia has had the West as a formidable outside rival whose “divide and rule” strategy cleverly exploited the great disparities among Asian states which left little room for collective resistance. Another common ground that could spark regional cooperation has been internal, such as the shared need to bind future majorities to human rights standards, epitomized by the European move to secure regional protection of human rights. Most Asian states thought they could suppress domestic challenges without the aid of international institutions.

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Introduction to Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! mini-symposium

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

A decade after moving from New York to Singapore, I began work on this article in the hope of understanding what seemed to me a paradox. Well into the much-vaunted “Asian century”, the states of this region arguably benefit most from the security and economic dividends of a world ordered by international law and institutions — and yet those same states are the least likely to subscribe to such norms or participate in the bodies they create. Regionally, there is no counterpart to the continent-wide organizations in Europe, Africa, or the Americas; individually, Asian states are most reluctant to sign onto most international regimes and underrepresented in the entities that govern them.

The article opens with a brief history of Asia’s engagement with international law. The focus is on three aspects that continue to have resonance today and contribute to the wariness of international law and institutions. First and foremost is the experience of colonialism by India and many other countries across the continent: for centuries international law helped justify foreign rule, later establishing arbitrary standards of “civilization” that were required in order to gain meaningful independence. Secondly, and more specific to China, the unequal treaties of the nineteenth century and the failure to recognize the Communist government in Beijing for much of the twentieth encouraged a perception that international law is primarily an instrument of political power. Thirdly, and of particular relevance to Japan, the trials that followed the Second World War left a legacy of suspicion that international criminal law only deals selectively with alleged misconduct — leaving unresolved many of the larger political challenges of that conflict, with ongoing ramifications today.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that some Asian states take the position that international law is of questionable legitimacy, can be used for instrumental purposes, and is necessarily selective in its application. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Joint Symposium with Opinio Juris: Simon Chesterman’s ‘Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures’

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

This week we will be jointly hosting a symposium with Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Chesterman is Dean of the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. He is also Editor of the Asian Journal of International Law and Secretary-General of the Asian Society of International Law.

Today, both blogs will feature an opening post by Simon Chesterman. We will then host a post by Eyal Benvenisti, which will be followed by a post on Opinio Juris by Tony Anghie. On Tuesday, EJIL:Talk! will feature a contribution by Robert McCorquodale and Opinio Juris will feature B.S. Chimni‘s thoughts. This will be followed on Wednesday with articles by Judge Jin-Hyun Paik (EJIL:Talk!) and Judge Xue Hanqin (Opinio Juris). Finally, on Thursday, Simon Chesterman’s closing remarks will feature on both blogs.

We thank all of those who have contributed to this fascinating symposium.

 

Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict

Published on January 15, 2017        Author: 

The questions whether, when and how international human rights law applies to the activities of armed forces during armed conflict have been the subject of much discussion and litigation in the past couple of decades. It is now clear “that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict . . .” (International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Wall in Palestine (2004), para. 106).

However, what has been less clear is when those protections apply, especially when the state concerned is acting outside its territory, and how human rights law is to be applied in armed conflict. With regard to the latter question, one of the key issues is the relationship between human rights law, as it applies in conflict, and international humanitarian law as the law specifically designed for application in conflict. In the literature, and even in the case law, most attention has focussed on the when question (the question of applicability of human rights law) rather than the how question (the method and mode of application of human rights law). However, given that it is undoubtedly the case that there are circumstances when human rights law applies in armed conflict, even extraterritorially, the focus on the former set of questions, has led to an unfortunate lack of guidance as to how to apply (and to think about the application) of human rights law in situations of conflict.

Towards the end of last year, Oxford University Press published the Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights in Law Armed Conflict (Murray, Akande, Garraway, Hampson, Lubell & Wilmhurst), a book that arises out of a project carried out by Chatham House under the leadership of Elizabeth Wilmhurst. The aim of this book is to provide guidance not only on when human rights law applies in situations of conflict, but, more importantly, on how it is to be applied.  As the Introduction to the book sets out, “The book is concerned primarily with giving guidance to the armed forces for the conduct and preparation of military operations.” (p. 2) However, it should be of assistance to all those who have to think about the application of human rights law in conflict – government officials, lawyers appearing before courts, members of non-governmental organizations and judges.

The book is divided into two parts. The first part (Chapters 1-4) provides an overview of human rights law, when it applies extraterritorially (ch. 3) and its relationship to the law of armed conflict (ch. 4). The second part (Chapters 5-17) provides detailed guidance on how human rights law applies to a range of issues that arise in armed conflict, eg the conduct of hostilities and targeting (ch. 5); weapons (ch. 7); prisoners of war and internment (ch. 8); occupation (ch. 10); and cyber operations (ch. 15). Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: New additions to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

Published on January 15, 2017        Author: 

New additions to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. The Codification Division of the UN Office of Legal Affairs has added new lectures to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law website, which provides high quality international law training and research materials to users around the world free of charge. The latest lectures were given by Professor Alain Pellet on “The Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties” in English and French.

Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 
Comments Off on Announcements: New additions to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

Initial Thoughts on the UK Attorney General’s Self-Defence Speech

Published on January 13, 2017        Author: 

This is part of a series of posts discussing the UK Attorney General’s speech on the Modern Law of Self-Defence. See also the other posts in the series by Monica Hakimi and Marko Milanovic.

It’s a pleasure to be able to contribute to this EJIL:Talk! discussion of the speech this week by the UK Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC MP, on “The Modern Law of Self-Defence”. There are two elements of the speech that strike me as especially notable, and on which I’d like to give my initial thoughts here: the invocation of the so-called ‘unwilling or unable’ test and, particularly, the meaning of ‘imminence’ in relation to anticipatory self-defence.

Unwilling or Unable

The explicit acceptance by the UK of the ‘unwilling or unable’ concept, while brief, is a conspicuous feature of the Attorney General’s speech. The speech roots itself in tradition, with nods to the power and weight of history (stretching right back to the 1795 Jay Treaty, as well as, of course, including the obligatory self-back-patting over Britain’s role in the end of the international slave trade). However, there’s no hiding the novelty of the UK’s acceptance of the hugely controversial notion of responding to armed attacks (actual or imminent) even in cases where there is no ‘host state’ involvement whatsoever, simply on the basis of the unwillingness or inability of the state to prevent a non-state actor attack. The US has espoused the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine for years, of course, but the UK has not, at least not explicitly.

Admittedly, the Attorney General’s speech is not the first British invocation of unwilling or unable. In November 2015, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, argued before Parliament that the UK’s action in Syria was justified because “the Assad regime is unwilling and/or unable to take action necessary to prevent ISIL’s continuing attack on Iraq” (as well as making the same assertion, the same week, in a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee). However, these statements by the Prime Minister were the first clear articulations of the British acceptance of an unwilling or unable test, and were expressed very specifically in relation to action taken against ISIS in Syria. To my knowledge, the Attorney General’s speech acts as the first unequivocal confirmation that the UK has adopted unwilling or unable in genere. This is not a surprising fact, of course, but – to my mind – it is not a positive one either.

Put simply, and leaving aside policy, like Kevin Jon Heller (and many others) I remain unconvinced that state practice supports an unwilling or unable test in relation to self-defence actions taken against non-state actors (and, by unavoidable extension, the state(s) on/from which they are operating). The question of whether the law should allow for military action in such circumstances is a different matter: one that I will unapologetically sidestep. As the law stands, though, for my money, it does not. Read the rest of this entry…

 

What Is An Imminent Armed Attack? A Hopefully Helpful Hypo

Published on January 12, 2017        Author: 

Yesterday we had the privilege to publish the speech by the UK Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC MP, setting out some of the UK Government’s views on the law of self-defence. The speech focused in particular on the criteria for assessing the imminence of an armed attack by a non-state actor, and essentially endorsed some of the principles set out in Daniel Bethlehem’s 2012 AJIL article. Thus, the Attorney stated in particular (following a speech by the US State Department Legal Adviser, Brian Egan, at last year’s ASIL meeting) that:

[Bethlehem’] Principle 8 on imminence, as part of the assessment of necessity, is a helpful encapsulation of the modern law in this area.

Sir Daniel’s proposed list of factors was not exhaustive, but included (at Principle 8), the following:

  • The nature and immediacy of the threat;
  • The probability of an attack;
  • Whether the anticipated attack is part of a concerted pattern of continuing armed activity;
  • The likely scale of the attack and the injury, loss or damage likely to result therefrom in the absence of mitigating action; and
  • The likelihood that there will be other opportunities to undertake effective action in self-defense that may be expected to cause less serious collateral injury, loss or damage.

It is my view, and that of the UK Government, that these are the right factors to consider in asking whether or not an armed attack by non-state actors is imminent and the UK Government follows and endorses that approach.

In each exercise of the use of force in self-defence, the UK asks itself the questions that flow from that articulation. Questions like – how certain is it that an attack will come? How soon do we believe that attack could be? What scale of attack is it likely to be? Could this be our last clear opportunity to take action? And crucially – is there anything else we could credibly do to prevent that attack?

I don’t think the Attorney broke any new ground here, nor do I wish to dispute the accuracy or normative desirability of this analysis. But what struck me most about it is the lack of conceptual clarity, in particular the lack of clear delineation between the concepts of imminence, necessity and proportionality and the legal role that these concepts are playing. (I would highly recommend, in that regard, this piece in the AJIL by Dapo and Thomas Liefländer). For example, what is the work that the idea of imminence does here? Is its main purpose to delineate between permissible anticipatory and prohibited preemptive self-defence, which goes around the Article 51 Charter language ‘if an armed attack occurs‘? Or is imminence an aspect of the broader concept of necessity? And can a word such as imminence encompass non-temporal elements? Conceptual clarity matters because without a common understanding of the words we are using we cannot actually properly debate the soundness or desirability of any given approach. Without it, it is hard to even have a conversation.

So here’s a hypo that I hope might be helpful in this regard. Again, the point of the hypo is not to argue for any particular interpretation of self-defence, whether expansive or restrictive. It is only to help us understand how people use particular words, such as imminence, and for what precise purpose.

Dr. Evil is a very capable terrorist, who has decided to attack the United Kingdom, even though he has never done so before. He manages to get his hands on a mid-range cruise missile with a 150 kt thermonuclear warhead, in perfect working order. He places the missile launching system in a building in a Paris suburb, and uploads a video of himself to YouTube showing him arming a very specific firing mechanism. The missile is aimed at London, and will launch in exactly 30 days; there is no off-switch, code or remote signal that can disarm it. Absent forcible intervention in the causal chain, there is complete certainty that the missile will fire in 30 days and that it will destroy a substantial part of London.

Is this armed attack ‘imminent’ in any legally relevant jus ad bellum sense?

Note that this hypo is specifically designed to eliminate most of the real-world uncertainties about armed attacks – the reliability of the intelligence, the likelihood of the attack, not knowing the exact time, location or scale of the attack. In this hypo, we know everything with absolute certainty. And if you have a problem with the non-state actor nature of the attacker, we can easily turn him into a French state agent. Again, the main point here is that a causal chain has been set in motion which, without some further action, as its certain end has the destruction of London. Does this mean that the attack is ‘imminent’? If so, would it be imminent even if the timer was set to 60 days, 120 days, or 10 years? At what point (if any) is there a switch from an anticipatory to a preemptive scenario? When does imminence end, and necessity begins?

 

The UK’s Most Recent Volley on Defensive Force

Published on January 12, 2017        Author: 

The legal position that Attorney General Wright presented yesterday is similar to the one that the United States has advanced in recent years. Here’s what I take to be the core elements of the UK claim:

  • The use of force is sometimes permissible to defend against an imminent attack. For an attack to be imminent, the threat must actually be operational: “It is absolutely not the position of the UK Government that armed force may be used to prevent a threat from materialising in the first place.”
  • The attack’s imminence is part of why defensive force is necessary. But imminence alone does not make it necessary. For defensive force to be necessary, other options for defending against the anticipated attack, including law enforcement options, must be inadequate.
  • Defensive force is permitted against an imminent attack, even if the perpetrators are not state agents. Where non-state actors are involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the attack is being planned in another state that is unable or unwilling to prevent it.

I have three initial reactions to Wright’s speech. First, I applaud him for articulating an official UK position on this area of international law. The United States has, of course, pushed hard to advance novel legal positions to justify its counterterrorism operations. But other states have repeatedly responded to the U.S. claims and practice with silence, at least publicly. That dynamic undercuts the law’s (perceived or actual) relevance. International law can’t adequately serve its functions if states stop using it to engage with one another and communicate their expectations—and to do so even, perhaps especially, when they disagree. So, I would encourage other states to follow Wright’s lead and be more forthright about their own legal positions on the contours of the right to use defensive force.

Second, I think the devil is very much in the details here—in the application of the UK’s position to concrete cases. Read the rest of this entry…

 

The Modern Law of Self-Defence

Published on January 11, 2017        Author: 

Text of the speech delivered this evening by United Kingdom’s Attorney-General, the Rt Hon. Jeremy Wright QC MP, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London on “The Modern Law of Self-Defence”:

Introduction

Thank you to the International Institute for Strategic Studies for hosting us today.

The Institute’s Mission Statement sets out its aim to promote ‘the development of sound policies that further global peace and security, and maintain civilised international relations.’

For my part, I welcome the opportunity to speak to you on an international question which is one of the most serious any government can face – when is it lawful for a state to use force – always a last resort and only where it is necessary.

Today I want to talk specifically about when it is lawful to use force in self-defence – whether of the UK, or of our allies. And I want to set out, in greater detail than the Government has before, how the UK applies the long-standing rules of international law on self-defence to our need to defend ourselves against new and evolving types of threats from non-state actors.

I don’t need to remind this audience that the UK is a world leader in promoting, defending and shaping international law. In the 19th Century as modern international law was being formed, it was the UK (in 1807) that helped outlaw and end the international slave trade and then slavery itself.[1] It was diplomatic correspondence between the United Kingdom and the United States which followed the Caroline Incident of 1837 that defined the parameters of the concept of imminence, as it was understood at that time and to which I will return.[2] It was the UK, with the US, which agreed to international arbitration as a means for the settlement of international disputes in the Jay Treaty of 1795.[3]  Our commitment to defending and shaping international law is undimmed since then. The UK was a founding member of the League of Nations and the United Nations, as well as an original signatory to the Kellogg-Briand Pact[4], Ottawa Treaty[5] and the Rome Statute.[6] And we are one of the biggest contributors of funding to the International Criminal Court.[7] We are also the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that recognises the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice[8], and we remain one of the largest contributing states to the International Committee of the Red Cross[9], supporting it in its endeavours to promote and strengthen international humanitarian law.

As the latest in a long line of Attorneys General, I follow in a tradition of advocating, celebrating and participating in a rules-based international order. On several occasions in its history, the United Kingdom has subjected itself voluntarily to the jurisdiction of various international tribunals. My predecessors and I have appeared before a variety of international tribunals on behalf of the UK. And while we do not win every point in every case, I believe this personal investment demonstrates the commitment to international law of those who have done my job.

Of course, consistent with our commitment to that rules-based international order, the UK may on occasion decide to withdraw from a particular international agreement. You may have noticed that the British public has asked us to do so recently, with regard to one such set of agreements. The government is acting on that mandate, through the process of withdrawal from the European Union, and is doing so in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union – in other words, in a manner fully compliant with international law. That is the nature of the country we are, and the nature of our commitment to the Rule of Law.

There are few more fundamental rules of international law than the prohibition of the use of force and the right of self-defence, defined in customary international law and codified in important respects in the UN Charter.[10]

The UK should and will only use armed force, and will only act in self-defence, where it is consistent with international law to do so. International law sets the framework for any action taken by Sovereign States overseas, and the UK acts in accordance with it.

Today, I want to spell out how we ensure that we do so. Read the rest of this entry…

 

The UK Attorney-General on the Modern Law of Self-Defence

Published on January 11, 2017        Author: 

Later today, the United Kingdom’s Attorney-General, the Rt Hon. Jeremy Wright QC MP will deliver a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London, on “The Modern Law of Self-Defence”. The speech will be significant as the advert indicates that the Attorney General will “set out the UK’s position on the application of international law on self-defence, in particular the concept of ‘imminence’ in the context of the ongoing and developing threat that we face from non-state-actor terrorist groups.”

As readers will likely know from the Chilcott Inquiry relating to the war in Iraq, as well as developments regarding the UK’s use of force in Libya and Syria, the UK Attorney-General has the ultimate responsibility for advising the government on the legality, under international law, of the use of force. It has also become standard practice since the war in Iraq for a summary of the Attorney-General’s advice to be presented to Parliament before Parliament votes on whether to authorise the use of force (a vote which is now required by constitutional convention).

I am happy to report that the text of the speech will be posted on this blog as soon as the AG has finished delivery of the speech at 6pm UK time. In addition, over the coming days there will be discussion on EJIL:Talk! of the issues raised by the speech, with a number of contributors weighing on the significance of the points made by the AG.  Read the rest of this entry…