magnify
Home Archive for category "Human Rights"

Geoff Corn and Guglielmo Verdirame take part in Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict

Published on September 19, 2014        Author: 

This week guglielmo-verdirame_0 Professors Geoff Corn (left, South Texas College of Law)j-corn and Guglielmo Verdirame (right, Kings College London & barrister at 20 Essex Street) contributed pieces in the joint blog series arising out of the Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict held in Oxford this past July.

Geoff Corn’s piece, “Squaring the Circle: The Intersection of Battlefield Regulation and Criminal Responsibility”, was posted at Lawfare at the start of this week. In this thoughtful pose, Geoff says:

“I sought to highlight what I believe are several evidentiary and institutional complexities associated with subjecting commanders and other operational decision-makers to criminal accountability for battle-command judgments – complexities that will become more significant as cases focus increasingly on complex operational decision-making, particularly in relation to targeting.”

He raises a number of important issues relating to the feasibility of international criminal prosecutions to produce credible accountability decisions in relation to battlefield decision-making. One question he addresses, which is particularly novel but really important is this:

“[A] complicated aspect of criminal prosecution based on alleged unlawful targeting decisions is the relationship between LOAC/IHL presumptions and criminal burdens of proof. The presumption of innocence an axiomatic component of any fundamentally fair trial, and imposes on the prosecution the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. However, several LOAC/IHL targeting rules are based on presumptions which, when applied in the criminal context, arguably shift the burden of production to the defense.”

At the the end of the week, Guglielmo’s piece, “Taming War through Law – A Philosophical & Legal Perspective” , was posted on InterCross (the blog of the ICRC. Guglielmo begins his post in this way:

“The relationship between theory and practice in international law eludes easy explanations. In the history of international law there are examples of ideas shaping practice. But at times the phenomenon of international law – with its complex mix of state practice, adjudication and politics – finds directions not foreseen by any theory.

The application of human rights law to armed conflict may be a case in point. It emerged over the last two decades from the decisions of international and domestic courts without being preceded by a reflection – by jurists, policy-makers or others – on how human rights could contribute to regulating armed conflict. Can this development be accommodated within the system of international law or does it in some way challenge its architecture?”

His post then examines the work of Kant, Grotius and Hobbes, together with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the UK courts, in his survey of the question whether human rights law should apply to armed conflicts.

 

Print Friendly
 

The Grand Chamber Judgment in Hassan v UK

Published on September 16, 2014        Author: 

The eagerly-awaited Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Hassan v UK has now been released, and its importance for anyone interested in extraterritoriality, detention and the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) cannot be overstated. For the first time in its history, the Court has explicitly offered its view on the interaction between IHL and IHRL and the operation of the Convention, particularly the right to liberty, in the context of an international armed conflict.

A good overview of the facts of the case and the Court’s judgment can be found here, and they will not be repeated in this post. Instead, I want to offer some initial thoughts on the Court’s reasoning with regard to Article 5 ECHR and, more specifically, its approach to treaty interpretation.

The question before the Grand Chamber was whether the internment of the applicant’s brother, which appeared to conform with the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, could be considered consistent with Article 5 ECHR, notwithstanding the absence of any derogation by the UK. At a very general level, the Court effectively had two options here. On the one hand, it could have followed the path it appeared to be laying in its previous case-law, particularly in Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda, and hold that, where jurisdiction exists and where no lawful derogation has been made, the State remains bound to honour its obligations under the ECHR as ordinarily interpreted. Had the Court taken this approach, the Contracting States may eventually have conceded defeat and begun derogating in extra-territorial contexts. (Incidentally, the Court continued to avoid explicitly engaging with the permissibility of extra-territorial derogations.) Instead, the Court adopted the alternative approach, interpreting the ECHR so as to leave room for the broader powers that States have under IHL. Thus, it effectively read into Article 5(1) ECHR an extra permissible ground for detention where consistent with the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and it read down the requirement of habeas corpus in Article 5(4) to allow for the administrative forms of review under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Let’s begin with a few, in my view, positive points about the Court’s approach here. First, and perhaps most importantly, the Court rejected the UK’s principal argument that IHL as the lex specialis precluded jurisdiction arising under Article 1 ECHR (para 77). To have followed this would effectively have been to displace the entire Convention where IHL applies. Instead, the Court adopted a more nuanced, case-by-case approach which looks at the specific right at issue. This enables the Court to retain its oversight function by assessing the legality of the actions of Contracting Parties through the prism of IHL.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Human Rights Council Panel Discussion on Privacy in the Digital Age

Published on September 15, 2014        Author: 

Last Friday I had the privilege of moderating the panel discussion on the right to privacy in the digital age at the 27th regular session of the Human Rights Council. The video of the panel discussion is available here, and a press release summarizing some of the statements here. OHCHR will be producing a more detailed report on the discussion in due course.

It was a very interesting event, which benefited from four great panelists – Catalina Botero, the special rapporteur on the freedom of expression in the Inter-American system; Sarah Cleveland, professor at Columbia Law School; Yves Nissim, deputy chief of corporate social responsibility at Orange Telecom; and Carly Nyst, legal director of Privacy International. The discussion was lively and interactive, and also benefited from many comments from the floor by states and various NGOs. (Incidentally Dapo will also be moderating a HRC panel discussion next week on drones and counter-terrorism, also with an excellent cast of participants).

There was broad endorsement, from states as well as from the panelists, of the High Commissioner’s important report on the right to privacy in the digital age, with some disagreement on specific issues. The comments from the floor were quite varied in terms of topic, but two big themes were the application of the ICCPR to extraterritorial surveillance (on which see more here), and the quantity and quality of oversight and accountability mechanisms. The panelists and NGOs also called for the establishment of a new special rapporteur on the right to privacy.

The right to privacy in the digital age and the High Commissioner’s report will next be considered by the UN General Assembly at its forthcoming session next month.

Print Friendly
 
Tags:

Developing the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: A View of the Harmonization Project

Published on September 12, 2014        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post is part of the joint series of posts hosted by EJIL:Talk!, Lawfare and Intercross (blog of the International Committee of the Red Cross) and arising out of the Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict held in Oxford this summer.

This post is a response to Professor Sarah Cleveland’s post on the Columbia-based Harmonization Project that Professor Cleveland and Sir Daniel Bethlehem are leading. That project explores the potential for applying the law of international armed conflict (IAC) in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), as a means of developing the law applicable in the latter. The conclusion of the project is that the large majority of the rules applicable in IACs can be transplanted into NIACs without amendment and that this should be done by States either multilaterally or via unilateral declarations.

A detailed, rule-by-rule consideration of the degree to which parity between the law of IAC and NIAC is practicable is a very useful endeavour. Indeed, historically this has been the method by which the law of NIAC has developed. It is clear why this should have been the case. When the first international humanitarian law (IHL) treaties were adopted in the mid-nineteenth century, international law was still, by and large, a law governing inter-State relations. Matters that did not directly engage such relations, including NIACs, were thus generally excluded. Customary rules did of course develop to govern certain NIACs, such as the doctrine of belligerency, but these often applied only where another, non-party State was affected by the conflict.

As international law expanded to include the regulation of purely intra-State matters (reflected in human rights instruments, as well as the Genocide Convention, adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War), this basis for marginalising NIACs began to fall away. Rules traditionally applicable only in IACs could now move over into NIACs. And indeed this is what has happened: common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II were based on the law of IAC. This is also true of the customary rules recognised by the ICTY and ICRC.

It is therefore only natural that we should look to the law of IAC in developing the law of NIAC. This post, however, will offer some words of caution in adopting this method of humanising NIACs. In particular, it will be argued that both general and specific arguments militate against this supposedly self-evident means by which to develop the law of NIAC.

General Concerns

The Harmonization Project declares its goal as being to build upon current obligations in NIACs—it is limited to IHL and does not seek to make a claim regarding the relationship between IHL and human rights law. However, it seems to me that one cannot avoid such questions when considering proposals for developing the law of NIAC. Indeed, if one’s goal is further to humanise NIACs (as the Harmonization Project’s seems to be) then one must tread carefully in proposing the extension of IHL in toto to NIACs. As David Kretzmer has shown, far from increasing protections, this method could in fact undermine existing protections. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Joint Blog Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Ken Watkin on the Overlap between IHL and IHLR: Part II

Published on September 11, 2014        Author: 

BOG_Ken WatkinThe latest post in the joint blog series we are hosting with Lawfare and Intercross is Part II of Brigadier General (Rtd) Ken Watkin QC’s piece on “The Overlap between IHL and IHRL”. The piece  is posted on Intercross, where you can also find Part I. Ken Watkin was the senior legal adviser in the Canadian Armed Forces and, also  a former Stockton Professor of International Law at the US Naval War College. The joint series arises out of the 2nd annual Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict, which took place in Oxford in July.

Ken begins his latest post in this way:

Last week, I described  the “exclusionary” approaches to the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international law human rights law (IHRL), which assume that one body of law will apply to the exclusion of the other. I also described how the approaches taken by the United States and Canada differ from those taken by European nations, the latter approach being influenced, in large part, by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the widely and often loudly debated exclusionary approaches do not actually represent how the law is being applied, particularly in a North American context. The reality of contemporary conflict is that both normative frameworks often need to be relied on concurrently. The application of human rights based norms occurs less through consideration of IHRL treaty law obligations than by operation of customary law obligations (both IHRL and IHL), the application of domestic law, or as a matter of policy. There is increasing recognition that Common Article 3 and Article 75 of Additional Protocol I apply as a matter of customary international law to international operations. Article 75 was clearly influenced by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As then Professor Christopher Greenwood noted, the relationship between IHL and human rights law “is expressed in the adoption of major human rights principles in Article 75 AP I” [Christopher Greenwood, “Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law”, in Dieter Fleck, ed., The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2nd ed., 2008), 74, Rule 254.] Significantly, these human rights norms must be applied regardless of the geographic location of the armed conflict, thereby avoiding the intractable debate regarding the extra-territorial application of IHRL treaty law.

Read the rest on Intercross!

Print Friendly
 

Scottish Independence and EU Membership: Part I

Published on September 10, 2014        Author: 

Introduction

As the campaigns for and against Scottish independence move into their final rounds of sparring before the vote on 18 September, the question of Scottish membership of the European Union (EU) sits (relatively) quietly in the background. And no wonder: a question which involves the interaction between the complexities of international, EU and domestic law, as well as the vagaries of international politics is a headache for which the average voter has little appetite, and nuanced discussion of which is unlikely to win many votes. Nonetheless, the question of Scottish EU membership is of considerable practical importance if a ‘Yes’ vote is returned and raises very interesting legal issues. (For previous posts on this blog raising some of those issues, see here, here and here).

Due to the complexity (and controversial nature) of the issues involved, my analysis will be split into two posts. This first post sets out the broad position of the campaigns, explores the relationship between international law and EU law, and considers whether there is any merit in the view that an independent Scotland would become a member of the EU automatically (the ‘automatic succession’ argument). It is argued that the automatic succession argument is unpersuasive even as a matter of EU law. The second post will consider the arguments concerning the correct legal basis in the European Treaties for negotiated EU membership, as well as some of the problems involved in the negotiations, the consequences if they fail, and how such issues might come to be considered by the Court of Justice.

The position of those campaigning against Scottish independence is that if Scotland becomes independent, it would not be an EU member state, and would have to reapply to join, possibly languishing at the back of a queue of other applicant states.

The separatist position has been a somewhat movable feast. At one point, the Scottish Government suggested that an independent Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU and some eminent commentators, such as Aidan O’Neill QC, have also sought to defend that outcome (see here). However, the Scottish Government has now disavowed that position, and the White Paper recognises that EU membership would need to be negotiated after all (as does O’Neill, see: here). Nevertheless, it seeks to make the case that such negotiation would be seamless and therefore the risks of not being welcomed with open arms are small. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Transnational Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict: Ken Watkin on the Overlap between IHL and IHRL

Published on September 6, 2014        Author: 

BOG_Ken WatkinThe latest post in the joint blog series on International Law and Armed Conflict was posted yesterday on Intercross (the blog of the ICRC). The post is by Brigadier Gen (Rtd) Ken Watkin QC, former Judge Advocate General (i.e the head legal adviser) in the Canadian Armed Forces and former Stockton Professor of International Law at the United States Naval War College. Ken’s post is on the overlap between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. He starts by saying that:

It is possible to address the perennial debate about the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) from a number of perspectives. In these posts, I would like to set out some of the issues that deserve close attention. First, there is the strategic theoretical conflict that continues to play out between the advocates of exclusionary applications of IHL and IHRL. This is a conflict that is firmly grounded in different views emanating from each side of the Atlantic. Secondly, there are the different perspectives brought to this issue based on the unique North American (in this context the United States and Canada) and European legal systems, as well as differing geographic and experiential factors. Thirdly, there is the ongoing reliance on customary international law, domestic law and policy to assist in resolving what appears on its surface to be an intractable theoretical impasse. Finally, notwithstanding the exclusionary debate the reality is that military forces are applying both IHL and IHRL norms during contemporary operations, although approaches that seek to uniquely apply one legal framework over the other will continue present operational challenges.

The requirement to consider human rights during contemporary military operations arises in a number of ways. Often it occurs in the context of the use of force, particularly when military forces interface with civilians who are not direct participants in hostilities. Operations can involve the detention of insurgents, terrorists, and persons providing indirect support to organized armed groups; the quelling of civil disorder and unrest; and the arrest of members of criminal organizations taking advantage of the general disorder often associated with armed conflict. These situations can arise during inter-State conflict (i.e. occupation), as well as comprise a significant component of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. 

The full post is available on Intercross here

Print Friendly
 

Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict : A Blog Series

Published on September 1, 2014        Author: 

In the middle of July, a group of academics and government lawyers gathered for two days at Oxford University to discuss issues related to current challenges pertaining to armed conflict and the applicable law. Participants came from both sides of the north Atlantic (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and continental Europe), and from Israel, to share views on a variety of topics.

The interplay between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) was an issue that permeated the two day workshop, with an emphasis on the implications of recent court decisions. That discussion flowed into a conversation about accountability for violations of IHL, including an exploration of what the obligations are and how they are implemented. Given that many States are scaling down direct foreign military operations, the first day finished with a discussion on what partnered operations and security cooperation looks like, and how different bodies of law apply to these operations.

Issues relating to non-international armed conflicts, and again the overlapping areas of IHL and IHRL, were addressed on the second day, including whether and how rules applicable in international armed conflicts (IACs) could apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), and a determination of when a NIAC ends and when IHL stops applying.

Some of those who attended the workshop are now participating in a series of blog posts focussing on specific topics that were addressed during the workshop. Three blogs, Intercross, EJIL:Talk!, and Lawfare, are coordinating the series, and will host the posts, outlined below. Each blog post supports the author’s perspective, and not necessarily that of anyone else at the workshop, or any of the institutions represented.

Schedule of blog posts:

  • Bobby Chesney, IHL and the End of Conflict, September 3rd on Lawfare
  • Ken Watkin, Overlap of IHL and IHRL: A North American Perspective, Part I, September 5th on Intercross
  • Sarah Cleveland, Harmonizing Standards in Armed Conflict, September 8th on EJIL:Talk!
  • Ken Watkin, Overlap of IHL and IHRL: A North American Perspective, Part II, September 10th on Intercross
  • Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne, Developing the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict: A view on the Harmonization Project, September 12th on EJIL:Talk!
  • Geoff Corn, Squaring the Circle: The Intersection of Battlefield Regulation and Criminal Responsibility, September 15th on Lawfare
  • Guglielmo Verdirame, September 17th on Intercross

The event was organized and sponsored by the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Future Generations, the International Committee of the Red Cross Delegations for the United States and Canada and for the United Kingdom and Ireland, the South Texas College of Law, and the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas.

Print Friendly
 

The ECtHR’s Largest Ever Award for Just Satisfaction Rendered in the Yukos Case

Published on August 15, 2014        Author: 

mccarthy

Dr Conor McCarthy is a barrister at Monckton Chambers, London and formerly fellow of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

On 31 July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in the just satisfaction phase of proceedings in Yukos v. Russia. In its judgment the Court made its largest ever award of compensation, ordering Russia to pay in the region of € 1.9 billion to the shareholders of the company at the time of its liquidation. In 2012, the Court had found Russia to be in violation of the rights to a fair hearing and the protection of property under the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol 1. The Court’s compensation decision follows on from the recent final awards of three arbitral tribunals, constituted under the Energy Charter Treaty, which found that the Russian Federation had taken measures with the effect equivalent to an expropriation of Claimants’ investments in Yukos, contrary to Article 13 (1) of the treaty. These final awards were issued on 18 July 2014. Russia was ordered to pay almost $ 50 billion in compensation in these proceedings. Claims arising from the circumstances surrounding Yukos liquidation have also been taken before the ICC International Court of Arbitration as well as in national courts in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands as well as, of course, in Russia itself. This post focuses on the ECtHR’s decision, with some reflections on its significance.

Background

The events underlying the Yukos case occurred in the early 2000s, a period of considerable economic and political upheaval in Russia. Between 2002 and 2003 the Russian authorities investigated the tax affairs of Yukos. This culminated, in April 2004, in the company being assessed as having accumulated huge tax liabilities, in part, according to the findings of the Russians authorities, as a result of Yukos having used impermissible sham companies to evade tax. Yukos was ordered to pay approximately € 1.4 billion in tax arrears for the year 2000, € 1 billion in interest and a further € 0.5 billion in enforcement penalties. In the same month proceedings were initiated against Yukos alleging improperly declared tax liability and seeking the attachment of the company’s assets as security for the claim. A hearing was held at the Moscow City Commercial Court in respect of the tax assessment between 21 and 26 May 2004, with much of the evidence in support of the assessment (running to several tens of thousands of pages) being served on 17 May 2004 and in subsequent days immediately prior to the hearing. The assessment was upheld, with Yukos being found liable to pay well over € 1.3 billion in respect of tax in the year 2000, together with almost € 1 billion in interest and € 0.5 billion in penalties. Subsequently, the penalty imposed on Yukos (approximately € 0.5 billion) was doubled when the tax authorities determined that Yukos had used similar tax arrangements in 2001 to those used in 2000.

Yukos sought to appeal the decision of the Commercial Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Appeal Division of the Moscow City Commercial Court on 29 June 2004. On 30 June 2004, the Appeal Court issued a writ for the enforcement of Yukos’s assessed liabilities, compelling compliance within 5 days. Upon Yukos’s failure to pay the sums within the required period, further penalties of 7 % of the debt were levied. Yukos’s requests to extend the very short deadline for payment were unsuccessful. In the next six months there followed further tax re-assessments for each subsequent year to 2003, including in particular huge assessments to VAT as well as profits taxes, penalties and interest, ultimately totalling some € 24billion. The enforcement of these liabilities was immediate and in the absence of immediate payment in full incurred further surcharges.

Yukos were unable to obtain sufficient liquid funds to meet the liability. In December 2004 the majority of the shares in its largest and most profitable subsidiary, Yuganskneftegaz, (“YNG”), were auctioned to meet its tax liability, rendering insolvency inevitable. Yukos was declared insolvent in August 2006.

The treatment of Yukos by the Russian Federation has resulted in considerable litigation at the international level. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

The ECtHR Finds the US Guilty of Torture – As an Indispensable Third Party?

Published on July 28, 2014        Author: 

The recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in two cases concerning secret detention in Poland are remarkable, not the least because their bold approach in respect of human rights violations committed by a third party, in this case the United States of America. Of course, the US is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and was not a participant in the proceedings. In both cases Poland was found to have violated a number of ECHR provisions, including articles 3 and 5, by hosting a CIA black site and by otherwise participating in the US programme of secret detention and extraordinary renditions.

In paragraph 516 of Al Nashiri v. Poland (Application no. 28761/11, Chamber Judgment of 24 July 2014), the Court concludes:

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the CIA during his detention in Poland at the relevant time amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (…).

The same conclusion appears in paragraph 511 of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (Application no. 7511/13, Chamber Judgment of 24 July 2014). Immediately after the finding on torture by the US, the Court makes its finding in respect of Poland (Al Nashiri para. 517).:

Accordingly, the Polish State, on account of its “acquiescence and connivance” in the HVD Programme must be regarded as responsible for the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention committed on its territory …

One may ask whether the ECtHR through its formulations in paras. 516-517 created a situation where the US was an indispensable third party, to the effect that the finding in respect of the lawfulness of conduct by the US was a prerequisite for a conclusion in relation to Poland, even if the Court obviously did not consider the US participation in the proceedings (or consent to its jurisdiction) to be indispensable.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly