magnify
Home 2019 April (Page 3)

A Neo-Colonial Court for Weak States? Not Quite. Making Sense of the International Criminal Court’s Afghanistan Decision

Published on April 13, 2019        Author: 

The International Criminal Court (ICC)’s involvement in Afghanistan has received a great deal of attention ever since the Prosecutor announced she would seek to initiate an investigation in November 2017. Rightly or wrongly, what made this inquiry so contentious was not the suffering of millions of Afghan people, but rather the alleged war crimes of a few dozen American nationals. Judging by most of the commentary, analysts worried primarily about one question: would the ICC be able to hold to account powerful states and their citizens?

Yesterday’s decision does not inspire confidence in that regard. Pre-Trial Chamber II unanimously agreed that an investigation into crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed on the territory of Afghanistan was not in the ‘interests of justice’. This came as a surprise, to put it mildly. Against the backdrop of the ICC’s evolving institutional dynamics, this post will argue that, while the Afghanistan decision should not be viewed simply as a capitulation to great power interests, it foreshadows a reckoning with various assumptions that have guided the Prosecutor’s work and civil society support for the Court since 2003.

Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on A Neo-Colonial Court for Weak States? Not Quite. Making Sense of the International Criminal Court’s Afghanistan Decision

The WTO Panel Ruling on the National Security Exception: Has the Panel ‘Cut’ the Baby in Half?

Published on April 12, 2019        Author: 

Recently, media attention has been captured by the unravelling trade war between the declining western hegemon and the rising eastern mega-power with other discussions, such as the reform of the WTO dispute settlement system, reflecting the points of the growing divergence between the two.

Against this backdrop, the  Russia – Traffic in Transit (DS 512) dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation would not have attracted attention if not for one tiny detail: the Russian Federation invoked the national security exception contained in Art. XXI of the GATT. Pandora’s Box has been opened. The WTO panel found itself in a tricky situation. Amidst the severe crisis, which threatens the very existence of the WTO dispute settlement system, the panel entered murky legal terrain – adjudication of the trade measures related to national security. The national security clause had never been interpreted before – for good reason.

This post is an attempt to briefly reflect upon the panel’s ruling on the contentious issue of the national security exception. I begin by outlining the historical context of the recent transit dispute. The post then summarizes the legal claims brought by Ukraine and the justifications raised by the Russian Federation. Subsequently, the findings of the panel are discussed. The conclusion delves into the potential implications of the present decision.

In a number of the ongoing trade disputes, the parties have expressed their desire to rely upon the national security exception. The present ruling will be likely celebrated by the WTO Members that have brought legal claims against the additional steel and aluminium tariffs imposed by the United States (Section 232 tariffs). In a nutshell, if the panel’s ruling is not appealed, especially in the part pertinent to the objective review of the subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of Article XXI, then the United States national security justification in those disputes would not stand the scrutiny.

It appears, though, that the panel’s findings do not shed much light on how to resolve the unfolding trade conflict between Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. (DS526, DS567 and DS576) The tension between these countries has a more political flavour and is not easily regarded a mere protectionism under the guise of national security. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on The WTO Panel Ruling on the National Security Exception: Has the Panel ‘Cut’ the Baby in Half?

Julian Assange arrested in London; Omar al-Bashir being deposed

Published on April 11, 2019        Author: 

Busy day today – Ecuador has expelled Julian Assange from its embassy in London, revoking the diplomatic asylum it had given him previously (without basis in international law vis-a-vis the UK). Assange was arrested by British police. More consequentially, the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, appears to be in the process of being deposed by the Sudanese military, after escalating street protests against his 30-year rule. He may end up before the ICC, or not.

We will have more coverage in the coming days. For our previous posts dealing with various aspects of Assange’s situation, see here. For our previous coverage of Bashir, see here.

Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 
Tags: ,
Comments Off on Julian Assange arrested in London; Omar al-Bashir being deposed

Humanitarian Assistance and Security Council Sanctions: Different Approaches to International Humanitarian Law

Published on April 11, 2019        Author: 

Under the sanctions regimes established by its resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) can currently impose sanctions on those who obstruct the delivery of humanitarian assistance in eight non-international armed conflict situations. This imposition of sanctions stems from the UNSC’s responsibility to maintain peace, security, and stability. Yet, its approach to humanitarian law (IHL) in these eight regimes has been inconsistent. In most of its current sanction regimes, the UNSC arguably has moved beyond the IHL applicable to humanitarian assistance, with the consequence that it can now sanction obstructions, which are broader than those which would constitute a violation of IHL. This post examines what this means for sanctions investigators and for the enhanced protection of civilians. 

Different Approaches of the UNSC with Respect to Imposing Sanctions on Obstructions to Humanitarian Assistance

The UNSC imposes sanctions in order to respond to threats to peace, security and stability. In the eight sanctions regimes discussed in this post, impediments to peace, security and stability explicitly or implicitly include obstructions to the delivery and distribution of humanitarian assistance and access obstructions.

Yet, the UNSC takes two different approaches when it imposes sanctions on obstructions to humanitarian assistance. In the first approach,  which is taken with respect to Libya and Sudan, there is no stand-alone criterion (the basis for listing by the UNSC or for being sanctioned) on humanitarian assistance, and humanitarian assistance and access obstructions may be considered under other listing criteria relating to violations of human rights or IHL. In these cases, Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Humanitarian Assistance and Security Council Sanctions: Different Approaches to International Humanitarian Law

The Hole in the Doughnut – The OTP Strategic Plans and Self-Regulatory Actions in International Criminal Law

Published on April 10, 2019        Author:  and

The past months have been turbulent at the ICC. The shower of critiques seems to have obscured that, although it is already April 2019, the OTP has not yet published its 2019-2021 Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is the main document through which the OTP publicizes its strategy and policies (see Regulation 14 of the Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor). The goal of the Strategic Plan is to provide ‘transparency and clarity’ on the OTP work, making its actions predictable and allowing others to ‘plan their actions taking into consideration the Office’s work’ (para. 11, 2009-2012 Strategic Plan).

The first Strategic Plan was published in 2006 and, since then, three more came out (2009-2012, 2012-2015, and 2016-2018). In October 2018, the ASP Committee on Budget and Finance reported that it had been informed by the OTP that ‘the Strategic Plan for 2019-2021 is about to be finalized, after the completion of an internal consultation process within the OTP’ (para. 58) and that a draft would be circulated in November 2018 among relevant stakeholders. In December of the same year, the ASP stressed that it is expecting the Strategic Plan for 2019-2021 to be published at the end of the first quarter of 2019. Five months later and at the end of the first quarter, here we are, with no public Strategic Plan in sight. The Court may be facing another turbulence soon.

The Prosecutor has broad discretionary powers to select situations and cases, and enjoys great administrative independence. With the exception of budget approval and management oversight by the ASP (art. 112(b) and (d) of the Statute), other ICC organs cannot limit nor direct the actions of the OTP, and the Prosecutor has full authority over the administration of the OTP and of its resources. However, as per arts. 4 and 34 of the Statute, the Prosecutor is still a public official, and the OTP is still an organ of an international organization. Their freedom to administrate their resources and actions is therefore limited to their institutional functions and roles. 

Dworkin described discretion as a doughnut hole: it does not exist except as an open surrounded by a restrictive belt Read the rest of this entry…

 
Tags: ,

The Reviewability of the Security Exception in GATT Article XXI in Russia – Traffic in Transit: Implications for South China Sea Investment Disputes in GATT Article XXI-type Clauses in ASEAN Regional Investment Treaties

Published on April 9, 2019        Author: 

The landmark WTO Panel Report on security exceptions in GATT Article XXI came out Friday last week in Russia – Traffic in Transit.  I have written extensively about necessity and national emergency clauses in the past – particularly to reject the position of the supposed wholesale unreviewability of these clauses in the Schmittian sense (on GATT Article XXI exceptions here and here, and on GATT Article XX exceptions, here and here).  The significant valence to this decision, in my view, does not just lie with the Panel’s reasoning (especially as to what they considered to be “objectively” determinable) and its broader implications for the current configuration of the world trading system in this era of increased Trump-driven trade wars.  The greater impact of this decision’s rejection of unreviewability, I submit, will be to enable arbitral tribunals to review security defenses of States anchored on international investment treaties that have purposely grafted GATT Article XXI language.

This phenomenon may be particularly acute for the regional investment treaties of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). (For the detailed analysis of these clauses, see my previous published work here.)  Attempts by any ASEAN nations (such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Viet Nam, in particular) to impose, in the present or in the future, certain regulatory measures against China-funded development projects or activities of Chinese firms who are increasingly expanding their footprint (from either dredging activities and the creation of artificial islands from dredged and pulverized coral reefs; to tourism; logistics, construction, as well as energy operations in the South China Sea) could, ordinarily, be justified under the GATT Article XXI-type clause of Article 17 (Security Exceptions) in the 2010 ASEAN-China Investment Agreement.  With the declared reviewability of GATT Article XXI in Russia – Traffic in Transit, however, ASEAN Member States should expect that these measures could be challenged (and likely reviewed by arbitral tribunals) in investor-State dispute settlement proceedings permitted under Article 14 of the same 2010 ASEAN-China Investment Agreement.  This is just one illustration of the kind of deep ripple effects that the reviewability of GATT Article XXI-type security exceptions could have across many investment treaties that have kept replicating this clause (and particularly why I have generally, in my own expert work for ASEAN, cautioned against wholesale grafting of trade norms into the regional investment treaties, without setting an explicit treaty provision either rejecting or permitting the justiciability or reviewability of these provisions).  Transposing trade law so unstintingly into investment law creates its own set of unexpected consequences.  Notwithstanding regime differences with world trade law, investor-State arbitral tribunals may find it hard to ignore the authoritativeness of the Russia – Traffic in Transit Panel Report’s finding of reviewability of GATT Article XXI security exceptions.

This post will first give a brief summary of the Panel’s reasoning on reviewability of GATT Article XXI in Russia – Traffic in Transit, anticipating some of the consequences for ongoing trade wars of the United States, the EU, and Russia that depend on the unreviewability of the security exceptions clause in GATT Article XXI. (We expect extensive commentary on this landmark decision from several quarters, and this post certainly does not intend to be the last word on the full elaboration of reasons on all issues in this case.) The remaining part of this post focuses on GATT Article XXI-type security exceptions clauses in the ASEAN regional investment treaties, and how the reviewability of these clauses could potentially impact the investment and development dimension in the South China Sea disputes.

Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on The Reviewability of the Security Exception in GATT Article XXI in Russia – Traffic in Transit: Implications for South China Sea Investment Disputes in GATT Article XXI-type Clauses in ASEAN Regional Investment Treaties

Germany and its Involvement in the US Drone Programme before German Administrative Courts

Published on April 8, 2019        Author: 

On 19th March 2019, the German Higher Administrative Court for North Rhine-Westphalia rendered a highly interesting and important judgment. It addresses no less than the compatibility of US drone strikes in Yemen with international law, the role of domestic courts with regard to international law, and the scope – and limits – of judicial review in foreign affairs.

The case was brought by Yemeni claimants against Germany for its alleged involvement in the US drone programme. While Germany neither publicly supports nor actively participates in the US drone programme, it is nearly undisputed that the US Air Base in Ramstein, Germany, plays a vital role therein (see here). The Court held that, first, Germany is constitutionally obliged to ascertain that the US drone strikes conducted via Ramstein are compatible with international law. Secondly, in case the government finds the US practice to be legally contentious, German authorities have to take efforts in order to ensure that international law is complied with.

The full reasoning of the decision is not yet available in writing, but the press release (see here for an unofficial English translation) and the transcript of the oral pronouncement of the decision (see here) allow for some preliminary remarks. (Note that the Higher Administrative Court on the same day rendered a second judgment that concerned US drone strikes, albeit in Somalia (see here). This contribution, however, focuses on the “Yemen case”.)

The Facts

In 2012, Salem bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni imam known for openly criticising Al Qaeda was invited to deliver a sermon at the local mosque of Khashamir, Yemen, where he attended a family wedding. In that course he was approached by three members of Al Qaeda requesting a meeting. Salem asked his relative, and local police officer, Waleed to accompany him. Shortly after the meeting commenced, US drones fired a series of four Hellfire rockets on the group killing both Salem and Waleed bin Ali Jaber as well as the three Al Qaeda members.

This prompted Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: UN Audiovisual Library of International Law; International Society for Military Law and the Law of War Seminar; Ghent University Vacancy; CfP Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law; JuWiss CfS The Lisbon Treaty 10 Years On; Workshop on International Economic Law in the Era of Distributed Ledger Technology; Martens Summer School on International Law; Trump Administration and International Law Event

Published on April 7, 2019        Author: 

1. New Addition to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. The Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs recently added the following lecture to the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law (AVL) website: Mr. Luis Alfonso García-Corrochano Moyano on “Unilateral Acts of States” (in Spanish). The Audiovisual Library is also available as a podcast, which can be accessed through the preinstalled applications in Apple or Google devices, through Soundcloud or through the podcast application of your preference by searching “Audiovisual Library of International Law”. The UN Audiovisual Library of International Law provides high quality international law training and research materials to users around the world free of charge.

2. International Society for Military Law and the Law of War Seminar. The International Society for Military Law and the Law of War (ISMLLW) will organise its XII Seminar for Legal Advisors of the Armed Forces from 18 – 21 June 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland. This edition of the Seminar is co-organized with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), with the support of the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS), the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and the Swiss Group of the ISMLLW. The central theme of the Seminar is ‘The Law of Armed Non-State Actors 70 Years after the Geneva Conventions’. To mark this celebratory year of the Geneva Conventions, the Seminar will take place at Maison de la paix in Geneva and visits to the ‘Palais des Nations’ and the Museum of the International Committee of the Red Cross will be part of the programme. The Seminar is intended for military legal advisors holding the ranks of captain to colonel and civilian experts with comparable civilian rank. Registrations are open until 1 May 2019. For further information on programme and practical arrangements, see here.

3. Ghent University Vacancy. Ghent University is hiring a new (junior or senior) professor to strengthen the Ghent Rolin Jaequemyns International Law Institute and the Department of European, Public and International Law as of 1 October 2019. Candidates should hold a PhD degree and have at least two years of postdoctoral experience on 1 October 2019. In addition, candidates must have a proven track record of conducting research on law of the sea. Applications are due by 23 April. Further information on the vacancy is available here Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
Comments Off on Announcements: UN Audiovisual Library of International Law; International Society for Military Law and the Law of War Seminar; Ghent University Vacancy; CfP Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law; JuWiss CfS The Lisbon Treaty 10 Years On; Workshop on International Economic Law in the Era of Distributed Ledger Technology; Martens Summer School on International Law; Trump Administration and International Law Event

Lack of Consistency and Coherence in the Interpretation of Legal Issues

Published on April 5, 2019        Author: , and

Editors’ Note:  This is the last post in our ongoing series of posts (see introduction here, first post on costs here, second post on duration of proceedings here, third post on the diversity deficit in investment arbitration here, fourth post on the impartiality and independence of arbitrators here, fifth post on an empirical assessment of ISDS here) , sixth post on incorrectness of ISDS decisions here) authored by individual members of the Academic Forum of the UNCITRAL Working Group III (UN WG III) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, in parallel with the ongoing UN WG III sessions taking place this week in New York.  The series features summaries of more detailed concept papers prepared by various working groups of the Academic Forum.  This post summarizes a more detailed concept paper prepared by members of Academic Forum Working Group 3.

This post is the product of the work of the UNCITRAL Academic Forum’s (own) “Working Group 3” whose focus is on the lack of consistency and coherence in the interpretation of legal issues. Lack of consistency has been identified in UNCITRAL Working Group III (WGIII)as one of the concerns with regard to the current system of investor State dispute resolution.

In the view of WGIII, the most glaring cases of unjustifiable inconsistency are cases “where the same investment treaty standard or same rule of customary international law was interpreted differently in the absence of justifiable ground for the distinction” (UN Doc No A/CN.9/935 (14 May 2018), para. 21). Other apparent inconsistencies may be wholly justifiable, where tribunals are interpreting similar, but materially different treaty texts – or interpreting the same treaty in relation to materially different facts. Usually, however, inconsistencies in the case-law fall somewhere between these poles. Indeed, there may be problematic inconsistencies where tribunals make too much of formal differences in treaty texts, where different interpretations may nevertheless prove materially unjustifiable. Not every difference in drafting across thousands of investment treaties necessarily signals a divergent meaning.

Rather than focus on only the glaring cases, we have sought to push further into analyzing the incidents, causes, and varied harms produced by discrete inconsistencies in the ISDS case law. In approaching our task, we have focused on three discrete issues:(1) the obligation to provide full protectionand security (“FPS”); (2) the treaty / contract relationship; and (3) the scope of the most-favoured-nation (“MFN”) clause.  In determining whether there are unjustifiable inconsistencies with respect to these issues, we have explored the following questions: (a) what is the inconsistency?; (b) what is the cause of that inconsistency?; (c) what is the harm being caused by this inconsistency?; and (d) what is the solution for this inconsistency (if one can be identified)?

We have found that a fruitful distinction can be drawn between two kinds of unjustifiable inconsistencies: inconsistent interpretations of basic substantive obligations (e.g. FPS) and inconsistent interpretations of more structural “rules of the game” (e.g. MFN and the treaty / contract issue). The former phenomenon can be problematic, but such inconsistencies are to some extent endemic to any legal system. The life of the law is, everywhere, one of change and development. Moreover, such inconsistencies are relatively manageable. For example, should States worry about inconsistent interpretations of FPS, they can clarify the meaning of such treaty terms through treaty drafting, amendment, and/or joint interpretations. Governments and investors can also, in theory, manage such inconsistencies through private agreement, by contracting for what they consider important.

Unjustifiably inconsistent interpretations of the rules of the game are more problematic, insofar as they create severe uncertainty and unpredictability inthe making of investments and for national regulatory choice. Where there is uncertainty as to whether States and investors can contract around investment treaty rules, efficient private ordering is off the table, leaving price as the best lever to reduce uncertainty. Similarly with MFN, uncertainty about whether such clauses allow importation of substantive treaty rules from treaties with third-parties, procedural rules, or neither, creates severe ex ante uncertainty for all parties about the nature and extent of the regime applicable to the investment. In both cases, uncertainty as to the rules of the game creates harms ex ante and ex post. To the extent that States and investors are aware of these problems, they can lead to bargaining and price inefficiencies in the making of investments. To the extent they are unaware, such inconsistencies can lead to unfair and unjustifiable surprise ex post.

For the purposes of this short blog post, we draw out this distinction by sketching our analyses of inconsistencies in the case law on FPS, treaty / contract, and MFN.  

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Responding to Incorrect ISDS Decision-Making: Policy Options

Published on April 5, 2019        Author: 

Editors’ Note:  This is the latest post in our ongoing series of posts (see introduction here, first post on costs here, second post on duration of proceedings here, third post on the diversity deficit in investment arbitration here, fourth post on the impartiality and independence of arbitrators here, fifth post on an empirical assessment of ISDS here) authored by individual members of the Academic Forum of the UNCITRAL Working Group III (UN WG III) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, in parallel with the ongoing UN WG III sessions taking place this week in New York.  The series features summaries of more detailed concept papers prepared by various working groups of the Academic Forum.  This post summarizes a more detailed concept paper prepared by members of Academic Forum Working Group 4 (members Daniel Behn, Chi Manjiao, Eric De Brabandere, Anna De Luca, Jaemin Lee, Martins Paparinskis, Catharine Titi).

In UNCITRAL Working Group IIIdiscussions, concerns have been raised about the consistency, as well as the correctness, of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) decisions. Consistency and correctness are distinct concepts: inconsistent ISDS decisions can be correct, and consistent ISDS decisions can be incorrect. Developing potential policy responses to incorrect ISDS decision-making first requires an understanding of how achieving correctness requires more than achieving consistency.

Working Group Four of the Academic Forum on ISDS has prepared a report analyzing the “correctness” of ISDS decision-making. That analysis balances two competing considerations. First, the legal reasoning and outcomes of many ISDS decisions have faced significant criticism from a range of actors – including States, organizations, and scholars– which has raised questions of correctness and, more generally, the substantive legitimacy of the ISDS regime. Second, criticism of particular ISDS decisions, even when widespread and intense, does not necessarily establish the incorrectness of those decisions, due to a number of factors, including how investment treaty obligations are drafted (often in open-textured terms) and interpreted (where, under principles of treaty interpretation reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, factors beyond the ordinary meaning of treaty text must be considered). Particularly with respect to disapproval of ISDS decisions by States, such disapproval might, in some instances, reflect State views that the decisions were incorrectly decided, but in other instances might only reflect a perceived need by States to provide clearer policy guidance to ISDS tribunals. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Responding to Incorrect ISDS Decision-Making: Policy Options