Home Archive for category "States and Statehood"

The Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis, the Right to be Free from Economic Coercion, and the Greek Election

Published on September 16, 2015        Author: 

People gathered at the ‘NO’ rally ahead of the Greek Referendum in early July.

The Greek sovereign debt crisis has occasioned much discussion on a number of issues that are of interest to international lawyers, in particular after the 25th of January 2015, when the left-wing SYRIZA party (Greek acronym of the full name, literally the ‘Coalition of the Radical Left’), having won the election by some considerable margin, formed a government whose strategy was to challenge Greece’s creditors over the much despised (in Greece, that is) Greek bailout programme. These issues include: the question of the odiousness of Greek debt (and whether it can be repudiated; interestingly the UN GA passed a Resolution on 11 September 2015 regarding the ‘basic principles on sovereign debt restructuring processes’, during the vote for which the caretaker government of Greece opted to abstain), the issue of German reparations and of the compulsory war loan of 1942, as well as the issue of economic coercion into a new bailout agreement (commented on here) which Greece accepted in July and August 2015 (and which led to the splintering of the governing party and to fresh elections scheduled for September).

In this post, just ahead of the snap election that has been called for 20 September 2015, I will briefly discuss the bailout programme between 2010 and 2014 and explain the arguments on the basis of which it was challenged by the SYRIZA-led government (section I). Then I will describe the negotiation which led to the new agreement, which has been seen (in many circles at least) as an attempt at regime change in Greece (section II). Finally, I will argue that this episode does not constitute unlawful economic coercion, as there is no right of a State to be free from economic coercion in international law (section III). That subject I treat in much more detail in a paper written for the project led by Dan Joyner and Marco Roscini on the ‘Fundamental Rights of States’. The paper is now available on SSRN and will appear, along with other relevant papers, in a special issue of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law.  Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Palestine v. Israel: 1:0? Palestine, Israel and FIFA: What Are the Laws of the Game? Part II

Published on June 25, 2015        Author: 

This is Part II of a two-part post. See Part I here.

Suspension of membership

A second category of FIFA membership issues related to international law relates to possible suspension of membership. Under Art. 14 FIFA Statute, it is the FIFA Congress that is responsible for suspending a member association, such suspension requiring a three-quarter majority of the Members present and eligible to vote. In case of a positive vote on such suspension, other FIFA member associations may for the duration of the suspension no longer entertain sporting contacts with the suspended member.

Although not constituting a suspension in the technical sense, it is worth noting that after World War II even after the German Football Association (DFB) had been refounded, it took until 1950 that its full FIFA membership rights were reinstated at the 1950 Bruxelles FIFA congress.

The first time suspension from FIFA stricto senso came up was in the 1950s vis-à-vis South Africa after a FIFA emergency committee had found in 1955 that the South African Football Association (SAFA), representing only white minority football clubs, did not constitute a national association within the meaning of relevant FIFA rules. It thereby somewhat foreshadowed the practice of the Credentials Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which, as is well-known, ever since 1974 had considered that representatives of the white minority regime in South Africa could not represent South Africa for United Nations purposes. On 26 September 1961, at the annual FIFA conference, the South African football association was then formally suspended from FIFA, which suspension was however lifted in January 1963, albeit only for a short time. Soon thereafter, namely in 1964, and given the increased representation from African and Asian soccer associations within FIFA, the suspension of South Africa’s football association’s membership was re-imposed before South Africa was then, in 1976, formally expelled from FIFA. Finally, the South African association was re-admitted in July 1992 in the wake of the fundamental political changes then taking place in South Africa. This demonstrates how the policy of FIFA and its member associations was, if not influenced, by then at least parallel to, the concurrent development of modern international law related to the prohibition of racial discrimination.

Yet another development leading to the suspension of a national football association occurred during the Yugoslav crisis after the Security Council had, acting under Chapter VII, adopted resolution 757 (1992), and had thereby “[d]ecide[d] that all States shall (…) [t]ake the necessary steps to prevent the participation in sporting events on their territory of persons or groups representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)” (see para. 8 lit. b) of the text) Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Palestine v. Israel: 1:0? Palestine, Israel and FIFA: What Are the Laws of the Game? Part I

Published on June 24, 2015        Author: 

On 12 June 1015, the FIFA Executive Committee appointed former South African government minister Tokyo Sexwale to lead a monitoring committee to oversee issues related to the development of football in Palestine, and alleged interferences, by Israel, with such development. This committee was established on the basis of the decision by the 65th FIFA Congress in May 2015 after the Palestine Football Association had withdrawn its proposal to have the Israel Football Association suspended from FIFA. While this development has largely been overshadowed by the recent developments concerning alleged instances of corruption involving FIFA officials, and the ensuing announcement by the current FIFA’s President, Sepp Blatter, to resign from his position, it sheds light on the international law underpinnings of decisions made by FIFA when it comes to the status of contested territories in which a given national soccer association is based. What is more, it demonstrates how, over the years, the practice of FIFA has changed in light of developments of international law and what impact international law has when it comes to the current dispute FIFA is confronted with.

Membership in FIFA

During its early years, the FIFA Statute had simply provided that the organization consisted of “the Associations recognized by FIFA as the Associations controlling Association Football in their respective countries, provided that only one Association be recognized in each country” (see FIFA Handbook, 1st ed. 1927, p. 15; see also H. Homburg, FIFA and the ‘Chinese question’ 1954 – 1980: an Exercise of Statutes, Historical Social Research 2006, p. 69 et seq. (71)). Since 1937, FIFA had however already admitted “associations in a colony or dominion” which could then opt for directly joining FIFA whenever the “national football association of the mother country” [sic!] had signaled its consent (ibid., p. 71), thus being implicit evidence of the limited international personality of such dependent territories at the time. In the same vein, the FIFA 1937 Statutes had also provided that “[f]or countries placed under the protectorate of another country, the same principles as for dominions for colonies will be in force.” (ibid.).

As of today, Membership in FIFA is governed by its ‘Regulations Governing the Admission of Associations to FIFA’, Principle 1 of which currently provides that “[a]ny association that is seeking admission to FIFA must put forward an application that contains detailed information on its organisation, its sporting infrastructure and its territory”. Accordingly, each and every membership organization must provide data on the underlying scope ratione loci of its sphere of activities, which in case of territories, the status of which under international law is subject to dispute, might prove difficult. At the same time, Principle 3, para. 1, lit. a) thereof, dealing with the ‘Contents of application’, provides, apart from formalities, that any application for membership must include “[d]ocuments that show that the applicant represents a country in accordance with article 10 of the FIFA Statutes.” Art. 10 FIFA Statutes in turn, dealing with the admission of nationals soccer associations to FIFA, provides in its para. 1 that “[s]ubject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one Association shall be recognised in each Country”. For historical reasons, para 5 then provides that “[e]ach of the four British Associations [i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland] is recognised as a separate Member of FIFA”, which thereby by the same token e contrario shows that these regions would otherwise not qualify as ‘countries’ for FIFA purposes. What is more is that Art. 10 para. 6 FIA Statute further provides that “[a]n Association in a region which has not yet gained independence may, with the authorisation of the Association in the Country on which it is dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA.” It is in light of these statutory provisions that football associations from ‘territories’ as divergent as Aruba, the British Virgin Islands, ‘Chinese Taipei’, Hong Kong, the Faroe Islands, as well as New Caledonia, are as of today all members of FIFA, the lack of statehood of the respective underlying ‘territory’ notwithstanding. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Palestine v. Israel: 1:0? Palestine, Israel and FIFA: What Are the Laws of the Game? Part I

The Jus ad Bellum and the Airstrikes in Yemen: Double Standards for Decamping Presidents?

Published on April 30, 2015        Author: 

A democratically elected president has lost control of his country and fears for his safety. He flees and seeks refuge in a more powerful neighbouring State. He writes a letter as the legitimate President, inviting his host State to take military action against the insurgents who have forced him into exile. The host State does so. Will such a situation meet with condemnation or support from the international community? Does it depend on whether the President’s name is Yanukovych or Hadi, and the intervening State is Russia or Saudi Arabia?

Russia’s Sputnik news agency has been quick the draw the parallels between the Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2014 (the jus ad bellum aspects of which have previously been discussed on this blog, including by myself – see here, here and here) and the continuing Saudi-led intervention in Yemen in 2015, seeking to highlight the divergent reaction to two seemingly very similar situations to skewer alleged Western hypocrisy. In contrast, the US State Department’s spokesperson, Marie Harf, denied the parallels between the two cases when quizzed about the issue at a press briefing:

QUESTION: … People have been asking why is it that the president, the Yemeni president, who fled from his capital, remains legitimate in your eyes.

HARF: Well, I think —

QUESTION: Whereas, like another president who fled. (Laughter.) […]

. . .

HARF: It’s completely different.

QUESTION: My question is the same. The similarities between the two cases are striking.

HARF: In that there aren’t many? […]

QUESTION: There are a lot, I think, but anyways —

HARF:Okay. We can agree to disagree.

This blog post is a tentative exploration of the issues raised by a comparison of the two cases. Are there clear standards for identifying the government of a State, for the purpose of determining who can validly consent to military action on the State’s behalf, or are these standards malleable enough that powerful States can produce whatever legal outcome they want? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: Government, Use of Force

The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion

Published on April 20, 2015        Author: 

The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory OpinionI’m happy to report that OUP have now published a collection of essays edited by Sir Michael Wood and myself on The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Michael and I are especially happy with the cover, which is gloomy in a very nice way. Our intro to the book is available here, while a smattering of draft chapters is also freely available on SSRN.

Here are the blurb and the ToC:

This volume is an edited collection of essays on various aspects of the 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The main theme of the book is the interplay between law and politics regarding Kosovo’s independence generally and the advisory opinion specifically. How and why did the Court become the battleground in which Kosovo’s independence was to be fought out (or not)? How and why did political arguments in favour of Kosovo’s independence (e.g. that Kosovo was a unique, sui generis case which set no precedent for other secessionist territories) change in the formal, legal setting of advisory proceedings before the Court? How and why did states supporting either Kosovo or Serbia choose to frame their arguments? How did the Court perceive them? What did the Court want to achieve, and did it succeed in doing so? And how was the opinion received, and what broader implications did it have so far? These are the questions that the book hopes to shed some light on. To do so, the editors assembled a stellar cast of contributors, many of whom acted as counsel or advisors in the case, as well a number of eminent scholars of politics and international relations whose pieces further enrich the book and give it an interdisciplinary angle. The book thus tells the story of the case, places it within its broader political context, and so attempts to advance our understanding of how such cases are initiated, litigated and decided, and what broader purposes they may or may not serve.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly

Mauritius v. UK: Chagos Marine Protected Area Unlawful

Published on April 17, 2015        Author: 

On 1 April 2010, the UK declared the world’s largest Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos Archipelago. The Archipelago is one of 14 remaining British overseas territories, administered by the UK as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). In contrast to other British overseas territories such as the Falklands/Malvinas and Gibraltar, BIOT is not on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. There is currently no permanent local population because the UK cleared the archipelago of the Chagossians between 1968 and 1973.

Mauritius and the UK both claim sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The largest island of the Chagos Archipelago – Diego Garcia – has since the late 1960s housed the most important US military base in the Indian Ocean. The UK leased the island for defense purposes to the US in 1966, prior to Mauritian independence in 1968. The 50-year lease of Diego Garcia is due to be renewed in 2016.

In the Matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. UK), a tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) issued its award on 18 March 2015. The tribunal found that the UK’s declaration of the MPA disregarded Mauritius’ rights, rendering the MPA unlawful. The award raises the prospect that the renewal of the lease in 2016 will require the UK to meaningfully consult Mauritius.

Mauritius made four submissions to the tribunal:

First: The UK was not entitled to declare a MPA because it was not a coastal state under UNCLOS (the ‘sovereignty claim’, according to the UK)

Second: The UK was prevented from unilaterally declaring the MPA due to Mauritius’ rights as a coastal state under UNCLOS

Third: The UK may not take any steps to prevent the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf from making recommendations to Mauritius in respect of any full submission to the Commission that Mauritius may make

Fourth: The UK’s declaration of the MPA was incompatible with substantive and procedural obligations under UNCLOS

The jurisdictional part of the award is centered on whether the four submissions concern the ‘interpretation or application of UNCLOS’ under Article 288 UNCLOS. This blog entry concentrates on the merits as regards the Fourth Submission. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Mauritius v. UK: Chagos Marine Protected Area Unlawful

The UK House of Commons calls for Palestine to be recognised as a State.

Published on October 14, 2014        Author: 

Yesterday, the UK House of Commons overwhelmingly adopted a resolution, by 274 votes to 12, which stated that “this House believes that the government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel”, which was amended to include the words “as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”. This resolution (or motion) is not binding on the government whose official policy is that it “reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace”. Government ministers did not vote on the motion in accordance with a long—standing procedural policy that they do not vote on motions introduced by backbenchers (members of Parliament who do not hold ministerial office), and a number of pro—Israeli MPs were absent from the debate, as well as much of the Conservative Party.

The House of Commons debate recalls that in the UN General Assembly when it adopted Resolution 67/19 ((29 November 2012) which “accord[ed] to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations”. The voting for this resolution was 138—9, 41 abstentions (including the UK). The implications of that resolution were discussed in this blog, eg, here, here, and here.

The House of Commons vote is essentially symbolic rather than determinative, and the BBC has reported that a former Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who supports a two—State solution in the Israel—Palestine conflict stated during the debate:

“Symbolism sometimes has a purpose, it sometimes has a role, but I have to say you do not recognise a state which has not yet got the fundamental ingredients that a state requires if it’s going to carry out its international functions and therefore, at the very least, I would respectfully suggest this motion is premature.”

Ha’aretz, one of the leading Israeli newspapers, in its report on the vote, noted that Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, decided not to give interviews in advance of the vote, in an attempt to ensure that because there was no official acknowledgment by Israel, this would undercut its importance.

The symbolism of this motion, however, goes beyond the vote and beyond the Chamber of the House of Commons. It might well reverberate in international circles, and Ha’aretz has also reported that the UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, while restating that the vote would not alter the government’s view on recognition, that the issues raised by this debate should not be ignored:

“Separate from the narrow question of recognition, I am concerned in the long run about the shift in public opinion in the U.K. and beyond towards Israel,” [says Gould.] “Israel lost support after this summer’s conflict, and after the series of announcements on settlements. This Parliamentary vote is a sign of the way the wind is blowing, and will continue to blow without any progress towards peace.”

Print Friendly

Disentangling the Knots: A Comment on Ambos’ ‘Palestine, ‘Non-Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction’

Published on May 27, 2014        Author: 

2014.05.25.Valentina PhotoValentina Azarov (pictured left) is Lecturer in Human Rights and International Law, Al-Quds Bard College, Al-Quds University, Palestine. Chantal Meloni2014.05.22.FotoTessera2 (pictured right) is Adjunct Professor of International Criminal Law, University of Milan, Italy and Alexander von Humboldt fellow, Humboldt University of Berlin.

In a recent post on ‘Palestine, non-Member Observer Status and ICC Jurisdiction’, Kai Ambos raises important points that require, in our view, some basic clarifications. While many of these arguments have been made previously by eminent experts and practitioners, they have become particularly relevant with the recent accessions by Palestine to 20 international treaties (see here and here) including some of the most important international human rights and humanitarian law instruments, as well as a letter dated 8 May 2014 addressed to President Abbas by 17 human rights groups calling for Palestine to seek access to the ICC.

Arguably the most critical issue raised by Ambos concerns the 2009 Declaration lodged by the Palestinian government pursuant to Article 12(3) of the International Criminal Court Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC. Ambos claims that this Declaration is void because, in his view UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 (2012), which granted “non-member observer state status” to Palestine does not possess retroactive effect. However, as explained below, a GA resolution is not constitutive, nor even declarative of the existence of a ‘State’, since, strictly speaking, formal recognition is a state act (Crawford 2006, 27-28). It merely provides further indication of Palestine’s treatment as a ‘State’ by international actors. In fact, as will be argued, the ICC could have exercised its jurisdiction over Palestine on the basis of the 2009 Declaration, even prior to the UN GA Res 67/19.

Validity and ‘Retroactivity’ of the 2009 Declaration 

At the outset, Ambos claims that the 2009 Declaration was “not validly lodged,” citing a November 2013 Report on Preliminary Examination Activities by the ICC Prosecutor’s Office (OTP). However, there are conspicuous differences in the language used by the ICC Prosecutor in this report and in its decision of 3 April 2012 not to open an investigation. The official 2012 decision does not hold that the declaration was not validly lodged. Rather, in that ‘decision not to decide’ (see Dapo Akande), the Prosecutor stated that the ‘Office could in the future consider allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations or eventually the Assembly of States Parties resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment of article 12.’  The 2013 report quoted by Ambos is a communication of the office’s activities that clearly carries less weight than an official decision. It is not meant to have dispositive value but is merely part of the OTP’s regular reporting duties: “In order to promote transparency of the preliminary examination process the Office aims to issue regular reports on its activities and provides reasoned responses for its decisions either to proceed or not proceed with investigations” (par. 13).

As pointed out elsewhere, there are well-grounded reasons to believe that the Prosecutor’s 2012 decision was wrong.   Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Disentangling the Knots: A Comment on Ambos’ ‘Palestine, ‘Non-Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction’
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Ukraine v. Russian Federation in Light of Ilaşcu: Two Short Points

Crimea after Cyprus v. Turkey: Just Satisfaction for Unlawful Annexation?

Published on May 19, 2014        Author: 

On 13 March 2014 Ukraine lodged an inter-state application under Article 33 of the European Convention against the Russian Federation. Philip Leach has addressed in this forum the likely implications, suggesting that the occupation of Crimea will present a situation for the European Court similar to that in Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia.

The other decided case of the European Court that writers are speculating may be relevant to Ukraine is Cyprus v. Turkey. The Court’s just satisfaction judgment in Cyprus v. Turkey, adopted on 12 May 2014, is the first ever to award just satisfaction in an inter-State case under the Convention. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and Judge Vučinić declared the judgment “the most important contribution to peace in Europe in the history of the European Court of Human Rights.”

What is important about Cyprus v. Turkey? And how, if at all, might Ukraine use the just satisfaction judgment to advance its own application against Russia?

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly