magnify
Home 2019 July

Protecting the Environment in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Are We There Yet?

Published on July 16, 2019        Author:  and

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The International Law Commission (ILC) during its current 71st session has provisionally adopted, on first reading, the Draft principles on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. The first-reading text had taken five years to prepare, under the successive leaderships of Special Rapporteurs Ms. Marie G. Jacobsson (2013 – 2016), and Ms Marja Letho (2017-2019). The last report of Special Rapporteur Letho (2019) completed the work on this topic, focusing in particular on the question of environmental stresses related to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). This blog post deals first with certain general issues as to the scope and form of the draft principles, and then discusses whether the draft principles are sufficiently responsive in the context of NIACs.

Scope and methodology of the topic

With respect to the ratione temporis of the draft principles, the ILC employed a temporal approach by drafting provisions structured according to three phases of an armed conflict: before (preventive measures, but also principles of a more general nature of relevance to all three temporal phases), during (the conduct of an armed conflict) or after (post-conflict measures in relation to environmental damage) an armed conflict. The rationale of the topic was to address the law of armed conflict but also other areas of international law. The scope of the topic (peacetime and wartime obligations) inevitably influenced the outcome, which led the ILC to adopt “principles” at a more general level of abstraction, albeit with different normative values, from recommendations to fully binding rules. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Armed Conflict, Use of Force
 

The Ituri Conundrum: Qualifying Conflicts between an Occupying Power and an Autonomous Non-State Actor

Published on July 15, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Last week, Trial Chamber VI of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued the long-awaited judgment in the Ntaganda case. The judges found the defendant guilty on all 18 counts, including the ICC’s first ever conviction for sexual slavery. Although the Chamber is yet to resolve matters related to sentencing and reparations, the decision marks an important milestone in the proceedings, which began with an arrest warrant issued back in August 2006 (Mr Ntaganda surrendered himself to the ICC in March 2013).

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the case as well as with some of the controversies surrounding its progress. In brief, Bosco Ntaganda was the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), the armed wing of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC). The UPC/FPLC was one of the armed groups involved in the so-called Ituri conflict, which took place between 1999 and 2003 in the Ituri region in the north-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Before the ICC, Mr Ntaganda was charged with 13 counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity, all allegedly committed in Ituri between 2002 and 2003.

The judgment, which fills over 500 pages, no doubt deserves careful scrutiny before any general pronouncements can be made as to its overall quality and rigour. Instead of analysing the judgment as a whole, this post focuses on a narrow question related to the Chamber’s legal qualification of the conflict in Ituri at the material time (discussed in paras 699–730 of the judgment). In particular, I am going to look at how international humanitarian law (IHL) qualifies conflicts between an occupying power and an autonomous non-State actor. The analysis builds on my research into complex conflict situations, which was published as part of my recent book on Internationalized Armed Conflicts in International Law (OUP 2018, especially chapter 3).

The situation in Ituri between 2002 and 2003 was notoriously convoluted, Read the rest of this entry…

 

Why Arbitrate Business and Human Rights Disputes? Public Consultation Period Open for the Draft Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

Published on July 12, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

In June 2019, the Draft Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration (hereafter, “Draft BHR Arbitration Rules”) was released for global online public consultation, with the consultation period set to end by 25 August 2019.  Judge Bruno Simma chairs the global Drafting Team that has collaborated in developing the draft rules, since the Drafting Team started its work in January 2018 with the support of the City of the Hague.  (Drafting Team Members and Working Group Members all listed here.) The final version of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration will be published on 10 December 2019.  Before the release of the Draft BHR Arbitration Rules, the Working Group had produced a 2017 concept paper on business and human rights arbitration.  This was followed by the creation and first meetings of the Drafting Team in January 2018; the Drafting Team’s production of its Elements for Consideration in Draft Rules, Model Clauses, and Other Aspects of the Arbitral Process in time for the November 2018 Online Consultation Procedure; the April 2019 meetings of the Drafting Team and the June 2019 publication of the Summary of the Sounding Board Consultationsup to the June 2019 release of the Draft BHR Arbitration Rules.  

As described in the Draft BHR Arbitration Rules:

“The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration provide a set of procedures for the arbitration of disputes related to the impact of business activities on human rights.  The Hague Rules are based on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, with modifications needed to address certain issues likely to arise in business and human rights disputes.  As with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the scope of the Hague Rules is not limited by the type of claimant(s) or respondent(s) or the type of subject-matter of the dispute and extends to any disputes that the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to resolve by arbitration under the Hague Rules.  Parties could thus include business entities, individuals, labor unions and organizations, States and State entities and civil society organizations. Equally, the Hague Rules purposefully do not define the terms “business”, “human rights”, or “business and human rights.” For the purposes of the Hague Rules, such terms should be thus understood at least as broadly as the meaning such terms have under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. However, in the vast majority of cases, no definition of these terms should be necessary at all.

Like the UNCITRAL Rules, the Hague Rules do not address the modalities by which the parties to the arbitration may consent to it nor the content of that consent, which are matters for the parties. Consent remains the cornerstone of business and human rights arbitration, as with all arbitration, and it can be established before a dispute arises, e.g. in contractual clauses, or after a dispute arises, e.g. in a submission agreement (compromis). Model Clauses may provide potential parties with options for expressing their consent to arbitration. In addition, like the UNCITRAL Rules, the Hague Rules do not address enforcement of arbitral awards made under these Rules, which are governed by national law and various treaty obligations, including in most cases the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. While these Rules have been conceived as a uniform set of rules, we acknowledge that the parties remain entitled to exercise their discretion in opting out of certain provisions that do not respond to their specific needs as arising out the dispute at issue. Certain other Model Clauses are being developed in this respect.” (Emphasis added.)

I have served in the Drafting Team under Judge Simma’s leadership since January 2018. My colleagues Martin Doe, Steve Ratner, and Katerina Yiannibas have helpfully crystallized elsewhere several of the main points of innovation contained in the Draft Rules, such as:

“1. provisions on facilitating settlement and mediation, and emphasizing the complementarity of arbitration to such procedures as the OECD National Contact Points system (Articles 1(6), 17(3), 42, and 51)

2. provisions to address the inequality of arms which may arise in such disputes (inter alia, Articles 5(2), 20(4), 24, 27(2), and 27(4));

3. the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration as the default appointing authority, given its intergovernmental nature and experience in business and human rights disputes (Article 6);

4. procedures for multiparty claims and joinder by third parties (Article 17-bis);

5. a procedure for the early dismissal of claims manifestly without merit, developed on the basis of similar procedures in the ICSID, SIAC, SCC, and HKIAC Rules (as well as the proposed new ICSID Rules) (Article 23-bis);

6. provisions making the arbitral tribunal’s power over interim measures more robust, and at the same time more flexible (Article 26);

7. an emergency arbitrator mechanism elaborated on the basis of the ICC and SCC Rules (Article 26-bis);

8. specialized evidentiary procedures drawn up on the basis, inter alia, of the IBA Rules and Rules of the International Criminal Court, among others (Articles 27, 28, and 30(3));

9. measures to protect the identity of parties, counsel, and witnesses where such protections are warranted by the circumstances of the case, while ensuring due process is maintained for all parties (Articles 17(5), 28(3), and 37(5));

10. provisions on transparency and third-party participation (Articles 24-bis and 33-38);

11. tailored provisions on remedies in the business and human rights context (Article 40);

12. rules on applicable law that enhance flexibility and party autonomy (Article 41);

13. rules to protect the public interest in the case of confidential settlements (Article 42(1));

14. nuanced rules in respect of costs and deposits that encourage the tribunal to sensitive to the interests of access to justice (Articles 46-49);

15. an expedited arbitration procedure for small claims (Article 52); and

16. a Code of Conduct that reflects the highest standards for independence and impartiality in international dispute resolution (Annex).”

In this post, I do not aim to provide an authoritative commentary on the Draft Rules (which is exactly what our global online consultation procedure is for).  Rather, and notwithstanding the explicit caveat drawn by the Drafting Team above on leaving the modalities and content of consent to arbitration to the parties, I instead offer my personal observations to examine the essence of main criticisms (see public comments of the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment here as well as a few questions and comments I received at Harvard Law School in April 2019), directed against having the BHR Arbitration Rules in the first place: 1) whether companies and human rights victims would even consent to arbitration; and 2) if they do consent, whether one should view that consent with skepticism as to the authenticity of arbitration as a mode of access to justice for human rights victims.  The gist of my argument is this: while the BHR Arbitration Rules will never purport to be the exclusively prescribed mechanism for human rights victims of transnational business conduct and neither does it presume to displace State-based judicial or non-judicial remedies, against the realities of a continuing limited universe of legally binding human rights recourse against the impacts of private transnational activities, we cannot afford to close off the arbitral option either. As human rights practitioners well know, no single dispute resolution mechanism for human rights disputes against transnational business is perfect, and even recent national court victories in Lungowe v. Vedanta (as spearheaded by my BHR Drafting Team colleague Richard Meeran of Leigh Day) depend on the jurisdictional openness of a State’s judicial system to transnational tort claims.  The question, in my view, thus has to be reframed away from “why international arbitration?“, to “why not also international arbitration?“.

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Deep Seabed Mining in the Area: is international investment law relevant?

Published on July 10, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The last decade has seen a renewed interest in the commercial exploitation of deep seabed minerals located beyond national jurisdiction. However, the respective responsibilities of deep sea miners and of their sponsoring states in this process have not been clarified fully. This short piece argues that international investment law is part of the legal framework applicable to the relationship between the deep sea miner and the state sponsoring it. More specifically, it attempts to demonstrate that deep sea mining operations can constitute a foreign-owned investment within the territory of a host state. Thus, when accepting to sponsor deep sea mining activities, states need to be mindful of the additional disciplines imposed by international investment law. 

The seabed beyond national jurisdiction (named as the “Area” by UNCLOS) is known to contain valuable mineral resources including copper, nickel, zinc and rare earth metals which have become particularly valuable because of recent technological innovations. The International Seabed Authority has awarded twenty-nine exploration contracts to a variety of state and private corporate bodies for vast zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Foreign capital has become increasingly involved in this economic activity. Thus, Nauru Ocean Resources, a Nauruan entity which was granted an exploration contract in 2011, is a subsidiary of the Australian corporation Deepgreen Mineral Corp. UK Seabed Mineral Resources is a subsidiary of the well-known Lockheed Martin. However these activities are controversial and there exist glaring gaps in the scientific knowledge of the ecosystems where deep sea mining is supposed to take place. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Sovereignty has “Rock-all” to do with it… or has it? What’s at stake in the recent diplomatic spat between Scotland and Ireland?

Published on July 8, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Rockall, the tiny, remote, rocky outcrop in the northeast Atlantic – a ghostly peak of an extinct volcano – has periodically appeared in the news at the centre of a longstanding dispute between the UK and Ireland (as well as, more peripherally, Denmark (Faroe Islands) and Iceland too). This dispute has rarely flared up publicly over recent years, as it has largely been subsumed as part of ongoing, unresolved negotiations surrounding extended continental shelf claims of the four states concerned. However, earlier this month, the Scottish government threatened enforcement action against Irish vessels which it claimed were illegally fishing within Scottish territorial waters surrounding Rockall. Ireland immediately responded to this threat by denying Scotland’s right to take any such action. It seemingly based its position on (i) a rejection of UK sovereignty over the islet and, (ii) the argument that such sovereignty (even if it existed) over uninhabited ‘rocks’ like Rockall was irrelevant for the UK’s claimed maritime entitlement. Although any enforcement action has yet to take place, the underlying diplomatic feud appears not to be going away any time soon. Indeed, following a meeting on Friday 28 June between the Irish Prime Minister (the Taoiseach) and Scottish First Minister, there has been an agreement to intensify discussions in light of the diplomatic impasse.

The Scottish position is perhaps explicable in a pre-Brexit (and pro-independence) political climate, where sovereign rights over natural resources will play a critical part – a theme I briefly return to at the end of this post. However, Ireland’s counterargument appears to be built on a misapprehension of the applicable law, both over territory and associated maritime rights. The real issue would appear to lie in the permissibility of fishing – including potentially acquired customary rights to do so – in the context of EU Common Fisheries Policy rules. In this short post I want to clarify the legal position on sovereignty and associated maritime rights, before turning to the arguably more complicated issue of fishing rights specifically. Before doing so, for those not already familiar, a brief introduction to Rockall is necessary. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: CfP German Yearbook of International Law; Rosalyn Higgins Prize

Published on July 7, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

1. Call for Papers, Volume 62 (2019) German Yearbook of International Law (GYIL) – Reminder. The GYIL is published annually by the Walther Schücking Institute for International Law at the University of Kiel and contains contributions on topics addressing all aspects of public international law. The Editors are pleased to call for contributions to the “General Articles” section of Volume 62 (2019) of the GYIL. Prior to publication, all manuscripts are independently peer-reviewed by a board of renowned experts. Submissions from all areas of public international law are welcome. The paper should be 10,000-12,500 words, inclusive of footnotes, and conform with the house style of the GYIL (which is available on our website). Submissions, including a brief abstract, statement of affiliation, and confirmation of exclusive submission, should be sent by 1 September 2019 to the Assistant Editor of the GYIL via e-mail: yearbook {at} wsi.uni-kiel(.)de.

2. Rosalyn Higgins Prize – Reminder. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals now invites submissions for the Rosalyn Higgins Prize. In light of her outstanding and inspiring achievements in the field of international dispute settlement, the Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (LPICT) has named a Prize in honour of H.E. Rosalyn Higgins. The Rosalyn Higgins Prize is an annual prize which awards EUR 1.000 of Brill book vouchers and a LPICT subscription to the author of the best article on the law and practice of the International Court of Justice, either solely focusing on the ICJ or with the ICJ as one of the dispute settlement mechanisms under consideration. The winning article will also be published in LPICT and made freely available online to maximize its dissemination. Competition for the Prize is open to all. Submissions will be selected via a double-blind peer review process by a Prize Committee. Submissions should be between 6.500 and 8.000 words in length, not yet published or under review elsewhere. Other submission requirements are the same as for regular LPICT submissions (instructions available here). Submissions now open! Deadline: 31 August 2019. All papers for consideration of the 2019 prize should be sent directly to Pierre Bodeau-Livinec (bodeaulivinec {at} gmail(.)com ) and Freya Baetens (freya.baetens {at} jus.uio(.)no), LPICT Co-Editors-in-Chief. The winner(s) will be announced in September 2019.

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 

Has the ECtHR in Mammadov 46(4) opened the door to findings of  ‘bad faith’ in trials?

Published on July 4, 2019        Author:  and

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

In the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan  (Mammadov 46(4)) examined under Article 46(4) infringement proceedings, the Grand Chamber found that Azerbaijan had failed to comply with the Court’s original judgment in Ilgar Mammadov (Mammadov No.1) by refusing to release political activist Ilgar Mammadov, who was arrested on politically motivated charges (in violation of a right to liberty and security under Articles 5 and the  prohibition to restrict rights for purposes other than those prescribed by the Convention under Article 18 of the Convention).

This case is not only novel in being the first to be considered under infringement proceedings (see blogs by Başak Çali and Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou), but is also highly significant for the Court’s approach to the implications of politically motivated proceedings.  Until now the Court has been reluctant to clarify its position on whether trials and convictions can be explicitly held to be in ‘bad faith’ under Article 18 of the Convention. We argue in this blog that the Grand Chamber in this case (relating to Mr Mammadov’s arrest and pre-trial detention), went substantially further than the Chamber in the second case of the same applicant, Mammadov No. 2 (relating to his trial and conviction), and has paved the way for the Court to finally open the door to the applicability of Article 18 to a right to fair trial under Article 6, or risk incoherence. 

The Court’s approach so far to Article 18

Article 18 of the Convention provides that ‘The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.’ There is debate about whether the wording of the provision limits its applicability to ‘restricted’ rights under Articles 5 and 8-11 of the Convention (see below). Read the rest of this entry…

 

Canada Avoids Indigenous Reconciliation and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Published on July 3, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

If you believe that Canada is a country filled with self-effacing and polite people, you may miss the genocidal violence within its borders. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis have always known that the Government of Canada along with the Canadian provincial governments have deliberately implemented and enabled the continuous annihilation of Indigenous peoples. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found in its report, released earlier this month, that Indigenous women were 12 times more likely to be killed or to disappear than other women in Canada. The report concluded that this violence is the result of historical and ongoing race-based genocide against Indigenous peoples.

The National Inquiry was commissioned by the Government of Canada in 2015 to launch a public inquiry into the disproportionate levels of violence against Indigenous women and girls. It was the result of long-standing pressure from grassroots family members and survivors, community organizations and national Indigenous organizations, international human rights organizations, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. It took a tragedy in 2014 to lead to a public inquiry: the body of Tina Fontaine, a 15-year-old girl from the Sagkeeng First Nation, was found in the Red River in Winnipeg, Manitoba wrapped in a duvet weighed down with 25 pounds of rocks; when the main murder suspect was acquitted, people across the country were outraged which generated wide-spread calls for an investigation into why Indigenous girls and women were dying at a high rate.

The report’s conclusion was not new news to anyone who understood Canadian politics. What is noteworthy is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly accepted that Canada has committed and continues to commit genocide. Many citizens and prominent officials in Canada, however, had a visceral reaction against the characterization of the violence as genocidal. It did not match the story that Canadian citizens and government officials tell themselves about Canada as a promoter of international human rights abroad or of what they thought modern genocide looks like.

Never has international law forced Canada to face itself so honestly. Some are arguing that because genocide did not exist as an international crime before the 1948 Geneva Conventions, the colonial violence in Canada’s past may not fall under the gambit of modern international criminal law (here and here) even if they reverberate today. These arguments, however, treat colonialism in Canada as a punctuated historical phenomenon. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Genocide, Indigenous Peoples
 
Tags:

The Limits of the Law: Putting Reparations into Practice

Published on July 2, 2019        Author: , , and

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Reparations have recently been the hot topic from its invocation at the US Congress, the Khashoggi killing to WWII claims by Poland and Greece against Germany. Reparations have a particular legal meaning that intends to acknowledge wrongdoing and remedy as far as possible victims’ harm. Private law notions of restitution heavily imbue the concept. Indeed, the seminal case of Chorzów Factory by the Permanent Court of Justice laid the foundations for reparation in international law which ‘must, as far, as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.’

In the past three decades we have seen an increase in reparation programmes from the German Compensation Scheme for Forced Labour, the UN Claims Commission, domestic reparation programmes such as Peru to jurisprudential strides of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the initial steps by the International Criminal Court. 2020 itself will mark fifteen years since the UN adoption of the Basic Principles for the Right to Remedy and Reparations for Gross Violations of Human Rights and Serious Breaches of International Humanitarian Law that sets the broad international standards for victims and states.

Despite these developments most victims of such violations do not receive reparations. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Misunderstanding of International Aviation Law May be Behind Iran’s Shootdown of the U.S. Global Hawk Drone

Published on July 1, 2019        Author: 

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410

Warning: rtrim() expects parameter 1 to be string, object given in /home/markom52/public_html/ejiltalk.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 2410
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On Thursday, June 20, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) shot down an unarmed U.S. surveillance drone, nearly igniting open conflict between the United States and Iran. The $180 million U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk was struck by an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGCN) surface-to-air missile launched from near Goruk, Iran. With strained relations over new U.S. sanctions against the regime and coming after weeks of drama over evidence suggesting Iran was emplacing limpet mines on commercial oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the incident caused President Trump to order – and then to abruptly cancel – strikes against Iranian military facilities. After first promising quick retaliation, President Trump took a step back, stating, “ have a feeling — I may be wrong and I may be right, but I’m right a lot — I have a feeling that it was a mistake made by somebody that shouldn’t have been doing what they did.”

Apparently, the decision to cancel the counterattack was made because U.S. intelligence assessed that the shootdown was made by a local IRGCN commander and was not sanctioned by the regime in Tehran. Intelligence reports suggest that the Iranian regime was “furious” with the wayward commander’s decision to attack the drone, and the U.S. President deescalated the situation.

The U.S. has suffered decades of Iranian violations of the freedom to transit through and above the oceans near Iran. The IRGCN appears as a matter of policy to selectively harass foreign commercial and naval ships conducting lawful transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and in 2016 it unlawfully detained two U.S. small boats and their crews, which were exercising innocent passage in Iranian territorial seas. Yet the recent shootdown of the U.S. drone likely arose from a lack of understanding of international aviation law and Iran’s rights and responsibilities as a party to the 1944 Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) and the rules promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Read the rest of this entry…