magnify
Home 2018 April

ICERD and Palestine’s Inter-State Complaint

Published on April 30, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 23 April, The Guardian reported that Palestinian diplomats had filed an inter-state complaint against Israel for breaches of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine:

Palestine is a State whose territory remains under a belligerent colonial occupation. For its part, Israel, the occupying Power, has maintained its colonial occupation over the past fifty years by imposing racist and discriminatory policies against Palestinian citizens.  Confronting this pervasive reality of racism and discrimination is a priority. This cannot wait. It should not. No person or people should be asked to tolerate racism or the violence and injustice it breeds.

The Guardian writes that “the submission is believed to be the first interstate complaint filed under the treaty”. This is true in relation to ICERD, and also the entirety of the UN international human rights treaties; as the OHCHR highlights in its portal on inter-state complaints: “Note: these procedures have never been used.”

The inter-state procedure is not found in every treaty – there is no formal procedure for filing inter-state complaints under CEDAW and its Optional Protocol. The procedure is found in ICCPR, ICESCR, CAT, CMW, CED and Optional Protocols, but it is generally optional and both States have to have recognised the competence of the Committee to receive such communications. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Tags:
Comments Off on ICERD and Palestine’s Inter-State Complaint

Announcements: The Codification of International Law Roundtable; Conference on International Investment Law and NCD Prevention; RfP International Trade and Economic Diplomacy; UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

Published on April 29, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

1. The Codification of International Law: Back to the Future? On Monday 14 May 2018, from 7-9pm at the NYC Bar Association, the United Nations Law Committee of the American Branch of the International Law Association is organizing a round table discussion to mark the 70th anniversary session of the International Law Commission. Speakers include Sean Murphy (ILC); Patricia Galvão Teles (ILC); Hélène Tigroudja (Aix-en-Provence); and Patrick Luna (Permanent Mission of Brazil). The event will be moderated by Kristen Boon (Seton Hall) and is convened by Christiane Ahlborn and Bart Smit Duijzentkunst (ABILA). It is co-sponsored by the NYC Bar Association (International Law and UN Committees), Seton Hall Law School and the ASIL International Organizations Interest Group. Registration and more information is available here.

2. Conference on International Investment Law and NCD Prevention. The Law & NCD Unit of the University of Liverpool is organising a one-and-a-half day conference in London on 10 and 11 May 2018. The conference will explore the relationship between international investment law and policies for preventing non-communicable diseases. The event is free. You can find the draft programme and registration details here.

3. Request for Proposals: Training session and Capacity Building in the Field of International Trade and Economic Diplomacy. The Centre for Trade and Investment Law is inviting proposals from internationally recognised and reputed organisations for a 3-day training and capacity building programme for Indian Government officials working in the field of international trade and economic diplomacy. More details can be found here

4. New Additions to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. The Codification Division of the UN Office of Legal Affairs has added the following lectures to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law website: Judge Angelika Nussberger (ECHR) on “Change and Continuity in International Human Rights Law: The Example of the European Convention of Human Rights” and Judge Linos-Alexander Sicilianos (ECHR) on “The European Court of Human Rights Facing the Security Council: Towards Systemic Harmonization”. The UN Audiovisual Library of International Law provides high quality international law training and research materials to users around the world free of charge.

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
Comments Off on Announcements: The Codification of International Law Roundtable; Conference on International Investment Law and NCD Prevention; RfP International Trade and Economic Diplomacy; UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

Pigs, Positivism, and the Jus ad Bellum

Published on April 27, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Now that the dust from the U.S.–U.K.–French operation against Syria has settled, I want to follow up on something I said when news of it first broke. Like most commentators, I argued that the operation did not satisfy the formal legal doctrine on the use of force. By this I meant that it was inconsistent with the longstanding interpretation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and not justifiable under any of the recognized exceptions. Yet I also contended that the doctrine was not the end of the legal inquiry. Given how the jus ad bellum actually operates, I argued, “the best answer to the question of whether the Syria strikes were lawful is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”

Many international lawyers took issue with that claim, so I want to defend it—and use it to expose what I consider to be a fairly fundamental flaw in how the jus ad bellum is usually analyzed. To do this, I’ll take a detour through one of my all-time favorite law review articles: Hendrik Hartog’s Pigs and Positivism.

Pigs and Positivism

Hartog’s article is not about international law. It uses the 19th century practice of keeping pigs in New York City as a case study for thinking about law and legal analysis. Here is the background: pigs were once an ordinary and integral part of life in New York City. People ate the pigs, and the pigs ate the waste that lined city streets. But pigs were “mean, dangerous, and uncontrollable beasts” (p. 902). In 1819, after various efforts to legislate against them had failed, a court determined, in a case called People v. Harriett, that loose pigs in public streets were a public nuisance and, for that reason, prohibited. The decision established that “[t]o keep pigs on municipal streets was to commit a crime” (p. 920). Read the rest of this entry…

 
Tags:

The Security Council and Climate Change – Too Hot to Handle?

Published on April 26, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Introduction

The Security Council, the only body of the United Nations that can adopt binding coercive measures, has so far been reluctant to train its sight at climate change. As the consequences of climate change become ever more severe, an important question is therefore whether the Security Council will address the security implications of climate change.

Article 24 of the UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council’s classic domain has been interstate armed conflict. Starting in the early 90s, the Council began to show a greater willingness to prescribe measures also in internal situations of humanitarian emergency, thereby articulating a new approach to what constitutes a threat to international peace and security (clearly described in Presidential Statement S/23500, 31 January 1992).

The purpose of this post is to examine whether we can expect a similar evolution when it comes to climate change. In doing so, we must distinguish between three different ways in which the Council can address climate change.

First, the Council can address climate change as part of its general response to conflict situations. Ongoing hostilities in Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and Syria were all catalyzed by extraordinary droughts, storms and extreme flooding, which caused economic and political turmoil and instability. Yet, all these conflicts are recurring items on the Security Council’s agenda. Seen this way, the Council has already shown its aptitude to deal with the immediate security implications of climate change as part of its conflict management agenda.

Second, the Council can proscribe targeted measures to prevent climate change as an independent driver of conflict. This is arguably very different than merely tackling the violent effects of climate change without addressing climate directly. Third, the Council can address security implications of climate change occurring outside of conflict. This is an especially acute problem for most of the so-called Small Island Developing States (SIDS), whose very existence are threatened by sea-level rise, hurricanes and dwindling natural resources. Their remote geographical location and small populations suggest that the situation in those states could gradually deteriorate without causing much conflict or international instability.

The focus of the remainder of the post will be on the Council’s ability to address climate change directly, both as an independent driver of or unrelated to conflict. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Bringing Psychological Civilian Harm to the Forefront: Incidental Civilian Fear as Trauma in the Case of Recurrent Attacks

Published on April 25, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Last month’s ballistic missiles’ barrage undertaken by the Yemen-based Houthi rebels against Saudi Arabia comes to be added to the almost 100 missiles that have been fired against the Kingdom since past November. With these missile attacks spreading fear (see also here the Jordanian condemnation of the attacks and the stress put on the terrorization of the civilians), they bring to the forefront the question of how recurrent attacks can impact on the affected civilians’ psychological health and whether such impact can have a legal significance for the legality of the undertaken force. The question of incidental civilian fear, namely the fear incurred to civilians absent any prior intentions from the attacker’s part, has been pertinent in the past in instances where aerial attacks have caused psychiatric disorders like PTSD to the affected civilians  (see here for the trauma incurred to Israeli civilians as a result of the Gaza rocket attacks and here for the PTSD suffered due to the U.S. drones policy), but has not been addressed so far systematically by courts. 

The importance of taking into account incidental civilian fear amounting to trauma as a legal consideration is highlighted by studies (see also here, here, here and here) which have shown how trauma symptoms emerging from exposure to warfare can persist long after hostilities end. These studies have also demonstrated how the more the attacks augment in number and frequency, the more likely it is for the affected civilians to be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. Translated in the proportionality balance terms the laws of war endorse, this means that the more serious the incurred harm, the higher the chances for the attack to be unlawful. 

At the same time, the emergence of trauma as a result of such attacks is not meant to serve as a veto but as a vetting parameter for the continuation of the operations. The idea is not for such trauma-related fear to be a ground altogether for the cessation of any military operations or for their ban. Rather such fear can constitute the basis for an operational adjustment to such a degree that temporary gaps between each attack or alterations in the operational mode (i.e. flight altitude or order of targeting pre-selected targets so that two targets in close vicinity are not targeted immediately one after the other) will lessen the attacks’ impact on the civilians’ psyche, permitting the latter to take respites and not leading to a situation where the trauma symptoms will be accumulated, evolving into a psychiatric disorder. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Armed Conflict, Use of Force
 
Tags:
Comments Off on Bringing Psychological Civilian Harm to the Forefront: Incidental Civilian Fear as Trauma in the Case of Recurrent Attacks

Environmental Rights and the Legal Personality of the Amazon Region

Published on April 24, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

There are two recent, noteworthy developments on environmental rights in Latin America. First, an Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), requested by Colombia. Second, a judgment rendered by Colombia’s Supreme Court, interpreting its international obligations.

The IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion

On 15 November 2017, the IACtHR issued Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, responding to Colombia’s request to clarify the meaning of “jurisdiction” in article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Colombia suggested that a State has “functional jurisdiction” in areas that are environmentally protected by a treaty to which that State is a party (e.g. the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region, the “Cartagena Convention”). Colombia also asked if State actions that seriously damage the marine environment – constituting the livelihood of island and coastal inhabitants of another State – are compatible with rights to life and human integrity.

The IACtHR did not limit its Opinion to the marine environment or the Cartagena Convention. It confirmed the relation between environmental protection and the realisation of “other human rights” (paras. 35, 47). It held that the right to a healthy environment is established in Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol and, as such, is included in the economic, social and cultural rights protected by Article 26 ACHR (paras. 56- 57; in the recent Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, the IACtHR established a violation of article 26 ACHR for the first time in relation to the right to freedom of association). Apart from references to the environment in indigenous cases, throughthe right to life and the concept of “dignified life” (vida digna)(Case Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa Vs. Paraguay), the IACtHR never before addressed environmental rights directly. Read the rest of this entry…

 

What lies beneath? The turn to values in international criminal legal discourse

Published on April 23, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On the 9th of April, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court submitted a request for a ruling by the Pre-Trial Chamber on whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction over the deportation of Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh. This development may impact how the ICC approaches its territorial jurisdiction in future, and raises interesting questions over the legal nature of the crime of deportation. However, the submission also gives rise to questions of a more theoretical nature that relate to the normative basis of international crimes, or more specifically, the acts that constitute them. The Prosecutor’s submission on jurisdiction over deportation into Bangladesh highlights an emerging trend in international criminal law towards identifying and surfacing the individual values or rights underlying international crimes. This coincides with a broader debate on the legal goods protected by these crimes, and invites us to consider the implications of this trend for the communicative function of the law.

Part of the Prosecutor’s submission on jurisdiction in Bangladesh addresses the distinction between the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: CfA ITLOS/Nippon Foundation 2018/2019; IHL Research Fellow Vacancies; Analysing the Western Sahara Campaign Case; Sufficient Gravity before the International Criminal Court Conference; UN Audiovisual Library of International Law; CfP Taking Stock of Global Constitutionalism;

Published on April 22, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

1. Call for Applications: ITLOS/Nippon Foundation 2018/2019. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is currently seeking applications for the 2018-2019 edition of its capacity-building and training programme on dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is a nine-month programme starting in July 2018, which takes place at the seat of the Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany. The application deadline for this year’s programme is 30 April 2018. The Tribunal is looking for up to 7 junior to mid-level government officials or researchers (including doctoral researchers) between the ages of 25 and 40 dealing with ocean affairs or sea-related matters. Participants’ costs, including travel, accommodation, medical insurance and a monthly subsistence allowance are covered by the Nippon Foundation. For detailed information about the programme and how to apply, see here, or contact the programme coordinator at training {at} itlos(.)org

2. Customary IHL: Research Fellow – International Humanitarian Law (Two Positions Available). In the framework of the co-operation between the ICRC and the British Red Cross to update the practice collection of the ICRC’s study on customary international humanitarian law (IHL), the ICRC and the British Red Cross seek to recruit for two Research Fellow positions in the customary IHL research team based in Cambridge/UK. To apply, and for details about the position, please visit the British Red Cross website. For further information, please see here and here. Closing date for applications is Sunday 29 April 2018.  Interviews will take place during the week commencing 21 May 2018. 

3. Analysing the Western Sahara Campaign CaseThe Centre for European and International Legal Affairs (CEILA) is hosting a Lunchtime Seminar (12-2pm) on Thursday 3 May 2018 in Room 313, Laws Building, at Queen Mary, University of London (Mile End Campus). The Seminar is dedicated to a discussion of the CJEU’s recent preliminary ruling in the Western Sahara Campaign Case. The event is free and open to all but there is a registration requirement. A sandwich lunch and light refreshments will be provided. Please register here. The Chair is Dr Anne Thies (Reading University), and speakers are Mr Fernando Castillo de La Torre (Principal Legal Advisor, EU Commission), Professor Pål Wrange (Stockholm University) and Dr Mario Mendez (QMUL)

4. Sufficient Gravity before the International Criminal Court Conference. On 11 May 2018, from 2.00 to 6.30 pm, at the Law School of the University of Westminster, Board Room, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2HW, a conference on ‘Sufficient Gravity before the International Criminal Court’ will take place. Please see the flyer here. Attendance is free but previous registration is required here. More information can be found here. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
Comments Off on Announcements: CfA ITLOS/Nippon Foundation 2018/2019; IHL Research Fellow Vacancies; Analysing the Western Sahara Campaign Case; Sufficient Gravity before the International Criminal Court Conference; UN Audiovisual Library of International Law; CfP Taking Stock of Global Constitutionalism;

Prosecuting ‘The Beatles’ before the ICC: A Gateway for the Opening of an Investigation in Syria?

Published on April 19, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Calls have been mounting for Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, two fighters captured by the Syrian Kurds, to be tried in the UK, the US, or at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Kotey and Elsheikh were part of a group of four Islamic State militants known as ‘the Beatles’ (because of their British accents). Although not particularly high ranking within ISIS, the Beatles are infamous for their role in the imprisonment, torture and killing of Western hostages. There is reason to believe that they are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

The purpose of this post is to examine the feasibility and propriety of bringing the Beatles before the ICC for trial. Kotey and Elsheikh have been stripped of their British citizenship so as to stop them from re-entering the UK. The UK defence minister, Tobias Ellwood, is however arguing that Kotey and Elsheikh should be tried by the ICC. Kotey himself affirmed that a trial at the ICC ‘would be the logical solution.’ As of now, the Syrian Kurds do not seem to have received a request for the surrender of the two fighters to the Court.

The Temporal Scope of the ICC’s Personal Jurisdiction Read the rest of this entry…

 
Tags:

The Prosecutor’s Request for a Ruling on the ICC’s Jurisdiction over the Deportation of Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh: A Gender Perspective

Published on April 18, 2018        Author:  and
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 9 April 2018, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor requested a ruling of a pre-trial chamber on the ICC’s jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh.

While Geoff Curfman in his Just Security post has already aptly commented on the Prosecution’s approach, this post seeks to examine the Prosecution’s request from a different angle, namely a gender perspective.

Background: Sexual violence against Rohingya

Documentation efforts in refugee camps in Bangladesh are exposing the grave nature and vast scale of sexual violence perpetrated against Rohingya in Myanmar, forcing many to flee. Human Rights Watch, for example, stated that it “found that Burmese security forces raped and sexually assaulted women and girls […]”. The report of the OHCHR’s Fact-finding Mission on Myanmar declared that there is “ample and corroborated information on brutal gang rapes and other forms of sexual violence against women”. Finally, Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, told the Security Council that every woman or girl she had spoken with during her visit to Rohingya encampments in Bangladesh “ha[d] either endured or witnessed sexual violence”, including seeing women literally being raped to death. Approximately 80% of those forced into Bangladesh since 25 August 2017 are women and children, and while sexual violence has not be limited to women and girls, it is understood they appear to comprise the majority of victims of sexual violence in this context.

Sexual violence and the Prosecution’s Request: Deportation as a blessing in disguise for gender justice Read the rest of this entry…