magnify
Home Archive for category "EJIL Analysis"

Stepping Up the Pace of Ratifications of the ICC Amendments on the Crime of Aggression : Where do we stand now?

Published on May 1, 2013        Author: 

President Khama of Botswana (right), Dr Athaliah Molokomme, Attorney General of Botswana (left), Mr Khama, Minister of Defence of Botswana (centre).

In the summer of 2010, the Assembly of States Parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, meeting in Kampala, Uganda, adopted amendments to the ICC Statute which define the crime of aggression and provide for the jurisdiction of the ICC over aggression. Under those amendments, the ICC will only be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once 30 States have ratified or accepted the amendments. Furthermore, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over aggression until 1 January 2017. The amendment provides that there will also be the need for a further decision of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC Statute to activate the jurisdiction of the Court over aggression. Unlike the Rome Statute of the ICC, ratifications of the Kampala amendments seemed to be going slowly with only 3 states (Liechtenstein, Samoa and Trinidad & Tobago) ratifying the amendments by the end of 2012. However, the pace of ratifications seems set to pick up in 2013. Luxembourg ratified the aggression amendment in January and Estonia did the same in March. In addition, two states - Germany and Botswana - have now completed their domestic processes for ratification and at least one other (Uruguay) is well on the way. The German parliament adopted its Act of Ratification of the Kampala Amendments at the end of February and should deposit its instrument of ratification soon. On April 15, the President of Botswana signed Botswana’s instrument of ratification of the Kampala amendment at a workshop held in Botswana that I was speaking at. He signed the instrument of ratification at a dramatic opening session of a workshop held for African governments on ratification and implementation of the crime of aggression. [On a personal note, I had never seen an instrument of ratification being signed before and I still have not as I arrived at the workshop after the opening session! The workshop was organized by the Government of Liechtenstein and the Global Institute for the Prevention of the Crime of Aggression which has a great website that contains many resources on the crime of aggression.] On April 10, one house of the Uruguayan Parliament (the Chamber of Deputies) approved the bill on ratification of the Kampala Amendments unanimously and the bill is set to go to Uruguayan Senate in the coming weeks (see this report by the Parliamentarians for Global Action).

For the court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over aggression by the beginning of 2017, there will actually need to be 30 ratifications by the beginning of 2016 as the amendments only take effect for each State party one year after the instrument of ratification is deposited. There seems to be a possibility that this number will be reached but that is not so clear. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

Conference Announcements: ‘Interpetation and International Law’

Published on May 1, 2013        Author: 

Abstract submissions are sought for a conference on ‘Interpretation and International Law’, to be held at the University of Cambridge on 27 August 2013. The deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to 8 May 2013. Abstracts, along with a resume, can be submitted via cambridgeinterpretation {at} gmail(.)com. For more information, visit here.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

Does Use of Chemical Weapons Justify Intervention in Syria?

Published on April 27, 2013        Author: 

Over the last few days, various media outlets have reported that the US, UK and other countries believe that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict (see BBC report). Apparently, there is not yet conclusive evidence of this and the US and others are investigating the matter. However, US President Obama has stated that use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer.”

“Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed, to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law.

“All of us, not just the United States, but around the world, have to recognise how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” he said

So, the question is whether, as a matter of international law, the use of chemical weapons would justify intervention in Syria. Military intervention in Syria either directly (by the armed forces of other States) or indirectly (by providing arms to the Syrian opposition) would, in principle, be contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The issue is whether there are any arguments that may be used to get round the prohibition of the use of force in that provision. In previous posts I have considered the legality of arming the opposition in Syria  (and also here) and after examining the different arguments that may be used, concluded that none of them has a strong basis in international law. It does not seem to me that the use of chemical weapons changes the position as a matter of international law.

The main argument that could be used to justify intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used would be humanitarian intervention. However, to my knowledge, the United States has never relied on this as a legal basis for intervention (I would be grateful for clarification if I am wrong on this). More importantly, most States reject the view that international law permits States to use force in other States for humanitarian reasons. Perhaps views on this are changing – for example it is not clear whether French and Arab support for arming the Syrian opposition are based on a humanitarian intervention type argument. Perhaps a use of chemical weapons might change the views of others such that we see the law changing. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Self Defence, Syria, Use of Force
 

Bolivia Institutes Proceedings Against Chile Before the ICJ

Published on April 25, 2013        Author: 

After a lull of almost a year and a half, the ICJ got a new case – yesterday Bolivia instituted proceedings against Chile with regard to Chille’s alleged obligation to negotiate with Bolivia a fully sovereign acess to the Pacific Ocean for the latter. The Court’s press release is here, and the application here. Seems like a rather unorthodox case – any comments by readers on whether there have been other cases in which the main claim by the applicant is that the respondent has a duty to negotiate with it are welcome.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, International Court of Justice
 

Conference Announcements: BIICL/SLS conference on Sanctions & Embargoes’; CJICL 2nd Annual Conference

Published on April 21, 2013        Author: 

1) On 29 April, the Society of Legal Scholars international law section and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law are holding their 22nd annual joint conference on the subject of ‘Sanctions and Embargoes: International Law and Contemporary Practice’. Bringing together experts from both academia and practice, the conference will provide both an overview of recent developments in sanctions by the UN, regional organizations and individual States,and an analysis of the problems that they have engendered. Panels will examine the contemporary practice of the various actors, and the legality (or otherwise) of their activities. Issues considered will include the human rights of persons targeted, and the mechanisms established to challenge listing; as well as the rights of third States and their nationals.  Further details (including and list of speakers and instructions how to register can be found at the conference website.

2) On 18-19 May 2013, the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL) will hold its Second Annual Conference under the theme “Legal Tradition in a Diverse World”. Highlights include a keynote address by Judge Yusuf (ICJ); a keynote debate between Prof Alain Pellet (Paris Ouest) and Prof James Crawford (Cambridge), moderated by Prof Catherine Redgwell (UCL); a guest lecture by Prof Patrick Glenn (McGill); a conference dinner address by Prof Philippe Sands (UCL); and more than 50 presentations in over a dozen panels.
For registration and the full conference programme, visit the conference website. Places are limited and filling up quickly, so make sure to register soon.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

CERD and Hate Speech

Published on April 19, 2013        Author: 

An important case on hate speech was recently decided by the CERD Committee, TBB v. Germany, dealing with the intersection or conflict between the prohibition of racial discrimination and the freedom of expression (thanks to Marty Lederman for the pointer). The case concerned an interview given by a Mr Sarrazin in a journal that contained derogatory and offensive statements against the Turkish population in Germany; the statements were however given in the context of at least a superficially reasoned discussion dealing mainly with the economy. The TBB, a Turkish association in Germany, wanted Mr Sarrazin to be prosecuted for hate speech; the German prosecutors refused to do so, finding that while some of S’s statements were offensive, a prosecution would under the circumstances run afoul of the freedom of expression.

Article 4 CERD explicitly requires states parties to ‘declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred’; however when doing so they must give ‘due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ including the freedom of expression. The Convention itself thus even at the purely textual level creates a potential conflict between the duty to incriminate hate speech and the freedom of expression, without providing much guidance as to how this conflict can be resolved. Text aside, the same set of issues is of course raised under other human rights treaties, such as the ECHR and the ICCPR, or in the domestic context.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Freedom of Expression, Prohibition of Discrimination
 

Discussion of David Kretzmer’s “The inherent right to self-defence and proportionality in jus ad bellum”

Published on April 16, 2013        Author: 

Over the next week or so we shall be hosting a discussion of Professor David Kretzmer’s latest article “The inherent right to self-defence and proportionality in jus ad bellum” which has just been published in the first issue of volume 24 of the European Journal of International Law.  The discussion will be started by Dr Noam Lubell (University of Essex), and then be continued by Dr Gina Heathcote (SOAS, University of London), Thomas Lieflander (St Hugh’s College, Oxford), Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell (Notre Dame), and culminate in comments by Professor Kretzmer himself.

Professor Kretzmer’s article is free to view at the link above.  Please read it and join in the conversation.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

The Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to Cyber Warfare

Published on April 15, 2013        Author: 

Liis Vihul is the Tallinn Manual Project Manager, NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Tallinn, Estonia.

Although scholars began to assess how international law applies in the cyber context during the late 1990s, it was not until the 2007 cyber operations directed at Estonia that the international community became fully sensitised to the subject. For the first time, it became publicly clear that cyber operations are a powerful tool for conveying political or strategic messages by States, non-State groups and individual hackers.  The operations also made the international community aware of how cyber operations could be used to dramatically disrupt life in a country.

The incidents led in part to the establishment of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCD COE), an international military organisation located in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia.  The Centre is a partnership between eleven States.

In late 2009, NATO CCD COE invited a group of twenty international law scholars and operational legal advisers (the International Group of Experts), under the directorship of Professor Michael Schmitt of the United States Naval War College, to conduct a three year research project examining the norms applicable during cyber warfare. The product of this effort is the “Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, published in March by Cambridge University Press.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: Cyber Warfare, EJIL Analysis, International Humanitarian Law, Use of Force
 

What is the Meaning of “Consensus” in International Decision Making?

Published on April 8, 2013        Author: 

On 28 March, the negotiators at the Final UN Diplomatic Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty failed to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty (see BBC report here) by consensus.  A few days later the Arms Trade Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (by a vote of 154 in favour, three against and 23 abstentions – for a really useful account of the negotiations see the Arms Trade Treaty Legal Blog). At the Diplomatic Conference, the rules of procedure required that the treaty be adopted by “consensus”. However, at the end of that conference, Syria, Iran and North Korea objected to the text. According to the bloggers at the ATT Legal Blog there then ensued a discussion of whether the objection by these three States could stand in the way of the adoption of the treaty by consensus, with some States taking the view that acceptance of the text by the overwhelming majority of States was sufficient to establish consensus despite the expressed opposition of three States. However, the President of the Conference ruled that there was no consensus and that the treaty could not be adopted.

The wranglings about the meaning of “consensus” have a broad importance for decision-making with regard to treaties and in other international conferences. Since the 1970s it has become standard practice in many important diplomatic conferences that decisions are taken, where possible, by consensus. Although this procedural device is ubiquitous, as well as being important for the way in which international law is made, the arguments at the ATT conference lay bare the ambiguity that lies at the heart of this concept. There is no consensus on the meaning of “consensus”. The consensus procedure is an important device for achieving broad based agreement on international treaties. It is therefore important to have some clarity on what it means. Lack of clarity on the procedure might well have an adverse impact on the process by which treaties and other international decisions are reached with the result that the substantive outcomes might be less desirable.

The ATT Legal Blog reports that:

“Mexico said that the overwhelming majority of States were in a position to adopt the treaty text. Mexico suggested to proceed to the adoption of the text as there is no established definition of the term “consensus” in the United Nations. Nigeria supported Mexico. Japan also supported Mexico. Costa Rica then supported Mexico’s statement. Chile then supported Mexico’s statement. Colombia “resolutely” supported Mexico. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: Arms Control, EJIL Analysis, Treaty Law, United Nations
 

James Stewart on Perisic

Published on April 7, 2013        Author: 

Readers might be interested in James Stewart’s analysis on OJ (here and here) of the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s Perisic judgment – James is rightly highly critical of the Chamber’s analysis with regard to aiding and abetting liability and specific direction. For my own take on the judgment and an outline of the issues see my earlier post here.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, International Criminal Law, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
 
Tags: