A prize has been established by the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL) and Cambridge University Press for the best essay submitted on any topic in any field of international economic law. The competition is open to all current undergraduate and graduate students and those who have graduated no earlier than five years before the submission deadline. Members of the SIEL Executive Council may not submit entries. The essay may not have been previously published.

 The prize consists of £200, as well as £300 of Cambridge University Press book vouchers and a three year subscription to the World Trade Review. The winning essay will be submitted to the World Trade Review for publication. The deadline for submission is 30 September 2010. For terms and conditions please see www.sielnet.org/essayprize

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has announced that it is seeking to appoint 6 new Law Clerks for its judges. The additional clerks will make it possible for each judge to have a full time law clerk. The decision by the General Assembly to allocate extra resources to the Court is welcome as the list of cases before the Court continues to grow (see our earlier posts on recent cases here , here, here and here). Until now, ICJ Judges have had to share clerks and have also had the benefit of year long interns which have been paid for by law schools around the world under the Court’s univerity traineeship programme. My own law school at Oxford recently joined this latter programme and now provides one intern to the Court. 

The announcement on the ICJ’s website regarding the new positions says that:

Under the supervision of the judge to whom he or she will be specifically assigned, the Law Clerk will provide such judge with legal research and related assistance with regard to cases pending before the Court. The Law Clerk may also be required to provide legal assistance and support to a judge ad hoc participating in a particular case. In coordination with his or her judge, the Law Clerk may also from time to time be called upon to perform some specific legal tasks for the Registry.

The new positions are at P2 level and will be made for a fixed term of 2 years with the possibility of renewal.

Readers will probably know by now that the ICC Appeals Chamber handed down a decision on February 3 reversing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s 2009 decision not to issue a warrant of arrest for Sudanese President Bashir with respect to the charge of genocide in Darfur. The Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) issued an arrest warrant with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity but held that the Prosecutor had failed to satisfy the standard in Art. 58(1) of the Rome Statute that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that genocide had been committed.  The PTC held that  ”if the existence of a . . . genocidal intent is only one of several reasonable conclusions available on the materials provided by the Prosecution, the Prosecution Application in relation to genocide must be rejected as the evidentiary standard provided for in article 58 of the Statute would not have been met.” As Marko commented  here on EJIL:Talk! at the time, the decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber on this issue was highly problematic as it did not in fact apply a reasonable grounds to believe test but seemed to require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Appeals Chamber agrees and held that

“In the view of the Appeals Chamber, requiring that the existence of genocidal intent must be the only reasonable conclusion amounts to requiring the Prosecutor to disprove any other reasonable conclusions and to eliminate any reasonable doubt. If the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is the existence of genocidal intent, then it cannot be said that such a finding establishes merely “reasonable grounds to believe”. Rather, it establishes genocidal intent “beyond reasonable doubt”.” (para. 33)

However, the Appeals Chamber did not itself reinstate the genocide charge, but, rather, remanded the matter to the PTC to make a new decision applying the correct standard. 

This is all well and good.  However, I wonder why the Appeals Chamber did not decide to take up the elephant in the room regarding the arrest warrant for Bashir – the issue of whether as a serving head of State he is entitled to immnity from arrest and whether the Court is entitled to order his arrest in the first place.  This is an issue that we have discussed at length here on EJIL:Talk! (see here, here, here and here). Its a matter that has exercised African States and led to a call by the Assembly of Heads of States of the African Union for African States not to cooperate with the ICC with respect to the arrest of  Bashir case.  The length of time taken by the Appeals Chamber to issue a decision in this matter suggested that it was considering a weighty issue (see the excellent post by Prof. Bill Schabas on his blog regarding the time taken by the Appeals Chamber). In the end it came up with a rather brief decision saying what was obvious to most knowlegable observers (though to be fair not obvious to the majority of the PTC). So why that lenghty delay?

(more…)

Much of the debate in the UK regarding the Iraq war has centred on the legality of the use of force. There was much public debate on the issue in the lead up to the war in 2003 and sustained interest in it since. The appearance before the UK inquiry, this past week, of Tony Blair and of the main UK government legal advisers involved in considering the legal position has revived this debate (see Marko’s posts here and here). What last week’s proceedings have also demonstrated is that international law played a significant role in the internal deliberations of the UK government and had a role in shaping policy. In short international law mattered! In this post, I do not intend to discuss the substance of whether the legal position ultimately taken by the UK Attorney General was correct. Many (Marko included) have demonstrated the flaws in it. What I wish to consider are the ways in which international law mattered in policy formation and why did it matter to the relevant policy makers in the UK.

The first evidence to support to the claim that international law mattered in the process is that there was much discussion within government of whether the use of force would be legal or not and discussion of the conditions under which the use of force would be legal. Much of the relevant internal documents can now be found on the Inquiry’s website by scrolling to the bottom of the page for 26 January. As would be expected, the legal advisers at the Foreign Office (FCO) and the Attorney General devoted much time and paper to advising on the legality of the war. However, what is perhaps more important here is the relevant policy makers also devoted much time and attention to the question of legality of the conflict. The then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, debated this question both with his own legal advisers and with the Attorney General. Marko has discussed some of this correspondence  between Jack Straw and Michael Wood (the FCO Legal Adviser) in his earlier post. Readers can view the correspondence and record of meetings between Straw and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith here and here. Perhaps more important is the discussion of the legal question by the Prime Minister. In his own evidence before the Iraq Inquiry, Tony Blair spent quite some time dealing with the legal question.

Of course, the fact that the legal issue was discussed does not by itself indicate that the legality of the war under international law was regarded as important by policy makers. However, what is significant is not just that the matter was discussed but that senior policy makers engaged with it seriously. As it happens the two political figures in the UK that had primary responsibility for shaping the Iraq policy in 2002 were lawyers – Tony Blair and Jack Straw. Perhaps this made it easier and more natural for them to engage with the law. Jack Straw in a letter of 6 Feb. 2003 spent 6 pages on the interpretation and significance of Res. 1441. In all probability he drafted this letter himself since we know that his legal advisers took a different from the view expressed in this letter.  Not only did senior policy makers engage with international law seriously, they regarded it as a matter of importance. In his appearance before the Inquiry, Tony Blair stated that: 

 There was then the legal question, which was very important, because Peter [Lord Goldsmith] had drawn my attention to that. [p. 99 Transcript of Blair Evidence]

(more…)

Last week, Belgium initiated proceedings in the ICJ against Swizterland in a dispute raising issues of private international law and of the relationship between public international law and private international law. The dispute concerns:

“the interpretation and application of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters . . ., and the application of the rules of general international law that govern the exercise of State authority, in particular in the judicial domain, [and relating to] the decision by Swiss courts not to recognize a decision by Belgian courts and not to stay proceedings later initiated in Switzerland on the subject of the same dispute”. [See Press Release here]

The dispute arises out of the parallel proceedings pursued in Belgium and Switzerland by the main shareholders of the former Belgian airline – Sabena (which is now in bankruptcy). Those shareholders included the Belgian State (as well as companies owned by Belgium) and the Swiss airline formerly known as Swissair. After proceedings were brought in the Belgian courts by the Belgian shareholders against the Swiss shareholders, the latter in turn brought proceedings in the Swiss Courts. Belgium asserts that

“the Swiss courts, including in particular the Federal Supreme Court, have however refused to recognize the future Belgian decisions on the civil liability of the Swiss shareholders or to stay their proceedings pending the outcome of the Belgian proceedings. According to Belgium, these refusals violate various provisions of the Lugano Convention and ‘the rules of general international law that govern the exercise of State authority, in particular in the judicial domain’.” [See Press Release here]

It is rare for the court to have to deal with a case that raises issues of private international law but this has happened before – in the case concerning the Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden) (1958). What appears to be particularly interesting about the present case is that it raises issues about the impact of public international law on private international law. This is because Belgium argues that Swiss Courts are under an obligation to stay proceedings brought in that country not only as a result of the Lugano Convention but also because this result is dictated by the rules of general international law relating to jurisdiction. According to Belgium, the failure by Switzerland to stay the proceedings is a breach of ”the rule of general international law that all State authority, especially in the judicial domain, must be exercised reasonably.” 

Belgium has requested that the case be heard by a Chamber of the Court rather than by the full Court. This case is the third to be initated in the ICJ in 2009. Interestingly, the first was also brought by Belgium (against Senegal) [see EJIL:Talk! commentary on that case here, here and here]. The second case brought by Honduras against Brazil has not been entered on the Court’s general list of cases (see EJIL:Talk! commentary here)

Today marks the first year anniversary of EJIL:Talk! A year ago we kicked off with an EJIL Debate between Robert Howse and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann on “Human Rights, International Economic Law and Constitutional Justice”. One year on we continue that debate about constitutional discourse in international law with an indepth discussion, starting tomorrow, (see details) of Dunoff & Trachtman (ed.) Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance (Cambridge, 2009). (more…)

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention has become the most widely ratified treaty after the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (which have 194 States Parties). There are now 193 States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, meaning it has more parties than to the Charter of the United Nations (which has 192). Only the United States and Somalia are not party to the Convention. Two Optional Protocols additional to the Convention were adopted in 2000. One on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the other on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

In addition to specific rights the Convention lays down the basic principle that:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration

As readers will probably know, there will be a United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December (see conference website here). Participation in the conference is open to parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as Observer States, organizations within the United Nations System and observer organizations admitted by the Conference of the Parties. A Danish newspaper has recently reported (see here) that Sudanese President Bashir has been invited to attend the conference:

[Danish Prime Minister] Lars Løkke Rasmussen has invited world leaders to [the] climate meeting, including one subject to an ICC arrest warrant.  . . . World leaders from 191 countries received the official invitation from Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen yesterday to attend the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) this December.

. . . one of those invited is Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is currently subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Thomas Winkler, head of the Foreign Ministry’s legal department, said that as the climate conference is a UN event, Denmark is obliged to invite all heads of government without exception.

‘But at the same time we would point out that Denmark is also obliged to comply with the Security Council’s resolution regarding Darfur,’ Winkler said to Berlingske.dk.

The security council resolution states that Sudan, like all countries, must cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and Denmark would be obliged to honour the ICC arrest warrant should al-Bashir arrive in the country.

The issue of President Bashir’s immunity has been discussed extensively on this blog (see here, here,  here, here, and here). I have argued on the blog and in the Journal of International Criminal Justice that the effect of the Security Council referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC is that Sudan is to be treated as if it were a party to the ICC Statute and is thus bound by Article 27 of the ICC Statute which removes immunity.

However, I am not sure that the Danish Legal Adviser is right that Denmark would be bound to honour the ICC Arrest Warrant. The reason for this is Article IV, Section II of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946), which provides:

“SECTION 11. Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during the journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

(a) Immunity from personal arrest or detention  . . .”

It seems to me that there is good argument to be made that this obligation prevails over any other inconsistent obligation as a result of Article 103 of the UN Charter. Although the UN Immunities Convention is a treaty, it is a treaty that elaborates on Article 105 of the UN Charter. That article provides that:

“(2) Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

(3) The General Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or may propose conventions to the Members of the United Nations for this purpose.”

In short, the obligation to accord immunity is a Charter obligation. As such it would prevail over any inconsistent obligations. Even if the Security Council were to explicitly provide that Bashir should be arrested at the conference, that would be contrary to the Charter.

As Marko reported in an earlier post, an Italian Court has convicted 23 American agents (including the former head of the CIA in Milan) and 2 Italian intelligence agents for their part in the abduction and rendition of a muslim cleric Abu Omar. Abu Omar was taken from the streets of Milan to Egypt where he claimed to have been tortured. It was alleged that this act of “extraordinary rendition”  was carried out by a team of CIA agents with the collaboration of Italian intelligence agency (for media report, see here, here, here and here). This case is of interest because it appears to be the first conviction of government agents alleged to be involved in the extraordinary rendition programme. It is also of interest because what we have is a conviction by the courts of one country of persons who are officials or agents of another government. The case therefore raises issues as to the immunity which State officials are entitled to, under international law, from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign States. Why is it that in this case Italy was able to exercise criminal jurisdiction over US agents? Or has the Italian court acted contrary to international law in proceeding with the case and not according immunity to the US officials agents. There are at least three types of immunity at issue here. First of all, the case raises issue as to the scope of diplomatic immunity. Secondly, the case raises issues as to the scope of consular immunity and highlights how this type of immunity differs from diplomatic immunity. The third type of immunity at issue is the immunity ratione materiae which all those who act on behalf of a foreign government are entitled to. This doctrine provides immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction to a person where the act they have performed is essentially the act of a foreign government. Here the immunity attaches to the act itself and not so much to the official with the effect that this immunity is also available to former officials.

Issues relating to the first two types of immunity arise because some of the American defendants were US diplomatic and consular agents in Italy. It has been reported that three Americans were acquitted on grounds of diplomatic immunity. Presumably, those granted diplomatic immunity by the Italian court were members of the diplomatic staff of the US mission to Italy, which simply means they are members of staff with diplomatic rank (Art. 1 (d) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961). It would not be unusual for intelligence agents to be granted such status and the head of the CIA in Italy was one of those granted immunity in the case. However, it is also reported that the Italian Court convicted at least one person (Sabrina de Sousa) who was a US consular officer at the time of the rendition. I do not know whether the US claimed diplomatic immunity in case of those for whom immunity was granted. However, the US government did not claim consular immunity in the case of Sabrina de Sousa who then sued the US State Department in an attempt to force the US government to make such a claim (see the report in the New York Times and here for her court claim).  Although this might appear to be contradictory, there are differences in the relevant provisions of the two Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Immunity  which might justify the difference. Both conventions provide for immunity for diplomatic agents and consular officers. Art. 43(1) of the Consular Convention provides for immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving State “in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.” Art. 39(2) of the Diplomatic Convention provides that former diplomatic agents will continue to be immune even after they leave office, ”with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission.” It is much easier to argue that acts (even acts which may be illegal) come within the exercise of a person’s function as a member of a mission than it is to argue that acts come within the exercise of consular functions. Art. 3 of the Diplomatic Convention provides a broad definition of the functions of a diplomatic mission. These functions include: representing the interests of the sending state within the receiving state and negotiating with the government of the receiving State. Since the purpose of immunity is preclude a court from making a determination whether an act is lawful or not, it cannot be a limitation to the immunity with respect to these functions to say that they cannot extend to unlawful conduct. However, Art. 5 of the Consular Convention provides a much more specific and narrow definition of consular functions. It is difficult to argue that arranging for the abduction of a person would be an exercise of consular functions. The question here is not that such acts are unlawful but rather that they just don’t fall within the ordinary understanding of the scope of consular functions as defined in Article 5. (more…)

UPDATE: Since I wrote this piece it has been announced that the rival Honduran leaders have reached agreement to resolve the crisis relating to the Presidency (see BBC report here). It is not clear what impact this will have on the ICJ case discussed below.

The  new “government” of Honduras has instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Brazil which has given refuge in its embassy in Honduras to “former” Honduran President José Manuel Zelaya (see ICJ Press Release). According to the Application submitted to the Court yesterday by the Honduran Ambassador in the Netherlands:

the “dispute between the Republic of Honduras and the Federative Republic of Brazil relates to legal questions concerning diplomatic relations and associated with the principle of non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, a principle incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations”.
In particular, the document indicates that “[Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales and] an indeterminate number of Honduran citizens”, who have been taking refuge in the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras since 21 September 2009, “are using [its] premises . . . as a platform for political propaganda and thereby threatening the peace and internal public order of Honduras, at a time when the Honduran Government is making preparations for the presidential elections which are due to take place on 29 November 2009″. It is stated that “[t]he Brazilian diplomatic staff stationed in Tegucigalpa are allowing Mr. Zelaya and his group to use the facilities, services, infrastructure and other resources in order to evade justice in Honduras”.

According to the document submitted by Honduras:

the primary purpose of this Application is to secure a declaration that Brazil has breached its obligations under Article 2 (7) of the Charter and those under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

and Honduras

requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Brazil does not have the right to allow the premises of its Mission in Tegucigalpa to be used to promote manifestly illegal activities by Honduran citizens who have been staying within it for some time now and that it shall cease to do so.

There is no indication in the press release about the grounds on which Honduras claims that the Court has jurisdiction to consider the case. While Honduras has made a declaration under Art. 36(2) of the ICJ Statute recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, Brazil has not. However, both States are parties to the Pact of Bogotá  1948(The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, see here). Under,  Art. 31 of that treaty, parties accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. 

The majority of the international community and international institutions such as the UN and the OAS appear to have taken the view that removal of President Zelaya was not only unconstitutional under domestic law but also illegal as a matter of international law. In previous EJIL:Talk! posts (here and here) Brad Roth has discusssed the international reaction to the Honduran crisis and argued that the response has the potential to effect (an ill advised) shift in foundational norms governing the relationship between international and domestic legal authority. Although the ICJ proceedings instituted by the new authorities in Honduras are not framed in these terms, the case may mean that the ICJ gets to pronounce on whether the new “government” is actually the government. In fact, it may well be that it is the ICJ that has the definitive say as a matter of international law on who is the legitimate government in Honduras! (more…)