magnify
Home Archive for category "EJIL Analysis" (Page 7)

Shamima Begum may be a Bangladeshi Citizen After All

Published on March 14, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

In 2015, Ms Shamima Begum, then a 15-year-old British citizen living in London, travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State. Her fate was unknown until recently when Ms Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. On 19 February 2019, the British Home Office in a letter delivered to Ms Begum’s family, revoked her British citizenship. Now, the 19-year-old wishes to return to the United Kingdom (UK). The aim of this piece is to examine whether Ms Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen as has been claimed by the Home Office, and subsequently contradicted by the Government of Bangladesh.

Article 8(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, to which the UK is a State-party (but not Bangladesh), directs a State, in this case the  UK, to not render a person stateless by depriving him or her of their nationality.

In the UK, Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1981 states that a person may be deprived of his or her citizenship if such ‘deprivation is conducive to the public good’. Furthermore, Section 40(4) of the same Act mandates that an order to deprive a person of his or her citizenship must not make that person stateless. Section 40(4) is basically the domestic reproduction of Article 8(1) of the 1954 Convention. Hence, the Home Office is authorised by law to revoke the citizenship of an individual provided it does not render that individual stateless. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Syria
 

Negotiating Brexit in the Shadow of the Law of Treaties

Published on March 12, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

It is an extraordinary day in British politics today, with the Prime Minister’s ‘enhanced’ Brexit deal to be voted on in Parliament later this evening. The outcome of today’s vote, and the votes that may follow later in the week, is of course anyone’s guess (although the WA will likely be voted down). I have now read through the Attorney-General’s new legal advice on the revised deal and have been following the debate in the House of Commons, and was struck by how remarkably the various issues being debated turned around the customary law of treaties, which operates by default, in the background, unless the UK and EU agree differently. Here are just some – readers are of course invited to discuss any relevant matter in the comments:

(1) What is the legal nature of the Joint Instrument relating to the Withdrawal Agreement, and what are its legal effects? Is it an agreement in the sense of Art. 31(2)(a) VCLT, which defines the ‘context’ of the treaty? Is it something even stronger, an ‘authentic interpretation’ of the WA? Is is also a separate treaty, even though it is not called such, because it is a written agreement between a state and an IO governed by international law, which sets out further obligations that were not in the WA? (The latter is the position of the UK government).

(2) Note in that regard the superb example of constructive ambiguity of the final paragraph of the Instrument, which allows the EU to say, on one hand, that the WA was not reopened or changed as the Instrument simply interprets the WA, and for the UK to argue that meaningful legally binding changes were made to the deal:

Note that this instrument provides, in the sense of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a clear and unambiguous statement by both parties to the Withdrawal Agreement of what they agreed in a number of provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Therefore, it constitutes a document of reference that will have to be made use of if any issue arises in the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. To this effect, it has legal force and a binding character.

(3) Similarly, what is the legal nature and effects of the UK’s Unilateral Declaration? Is it simply an interpretative declaration by the UK, which is of itself incapable of having any direct legal effects, being simply a statement of the UK’s position? Or is it something more, especially because the EU has not objected to it?

(4) There seems to be consensus that the customary rules on denunciation and suspension of treaty obligations have been displaced by the express dedicated provisions of the WA. This seems to apply also for termination or suspension due to material breach. The WA does not allow the UK to exit the backstop unilaterally; it can only suspend obligations arising from it if the EU is shown to be acting in bad faith and this is determined by the arbitral tribunal established by the WA.

(5) However, the UK’s position is that it CAN unilaterally terminate the WA or the backstop Protocol in case of fundamental change of circumstance/rebus sic stantibus. The Attorney General was explicit on the point repeatedly in the Commons. Never has more been at stake, it seems, regarding the interpretation of the rule in Art. 62 VCLT.

We’ll obviously have to wait and see how this will play out, but again it is clear that Brexit is being shaped critically by the background operation of the law of treaties. It is also remarkable how much importance has been given to questions of form, i.e. how crucial it is for many MPs whether a particular obligation is political or legally binding. Readers may also be interested in the Attorney’s new advice; the Attorney’s prior advice on the WA; an opinion by David Anderson QC, Jason Coppel QC, and Sean Aughey; and an opinion by Philippe Sands QC and David Edward QC.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

UK’s Position on the Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals

Published on March 8, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The UK Government decided today to exercise diplomatic protection over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a dual UK-Iranian national imprisoned in Iran (and one of a number of people who have been in such a position over the past few years). In this post I just want to briefly flag a possible evolution in the UK’s legal views on the diplomatic protection of dual nationals by one state of nationality against the other state of nationality. The traditional position was of course that diplomatic protection could not be exercised in such circumstances.

In its 2006 Articles on Diplomatic Protection, the ILC adopted a more flexible rule, which relied on a test of predominant nationality. Article 7 ADP thus provides that ‘A State of nationality may not exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a person against a State of which that person is also a national unless the nationality of the former State is predominant, both at the date of injury and at the date of the official presentation of the claim.’ In the ILC’s view this more flexible rule was one of customary international law, a position embraced by some states but not others (see, e.g., here for an enthusiastic endorsement of the rule by Norway on behalf of Scandinavian states, and a more skeptical position of Japan).

The UK’s position on Article 7 has been as follows (A/CN.4/561/Add.1, p. 7):

Draft article 7 sets out a general rule of international law that a State will not support the claim of a dual national against another State of nationality. The Government of the United Kingdom will not normally take up the claim of a national if the respondent State is the State of second nationality. However, exceptionally, the Government may take up the claim of a person against another State of nationality where the respondent State has, in the circumstances leading to the injury, treated that person as a British national. However, we consider that the test for “predominant nationality” included in draft article 7 requires further clarification.

Now, obviously, it is not easy to argue that Iran has treated Zaghari-Ratcliffe as a British national – in fact Iran rejects the other nationality of its dual nationals, treating them formally as Iranians only, even if clearly many of them are being detained precisely because of their dual nationality. So it seems more likely that Foreign Office is now endorsing more expressly the predominant nationality rule that it was not very keen on when the ILC ADP were being discussed.

In that regard, I would like to flag for readers an opinion that John Dugard, who was the ILC special rapporteur on diplomatic protection, and barristers Tatyana Eatwell and Alison Macdonald have written for Redress on Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s situation, arguing precisely that the UK could exercise diplomatic protection over on the basis that her British nationality was predominant, and explaining how the predominance test was satisfied on the facts. It seems quite possible, if not likely, that the UK government’s views now substantially align with the legal and factual analysis in the Dugard/Eatwell/Macdonald opinion, which is well worth a read.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

Non-Precluded Measures Clause: Substance or Procedure? A comment on Certain Iranian Assets

Published on March 6, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 13 February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the US to Iran’s claims in the Certain Iranian Assets case. The dispute involves the exercise of jurisdiction over Iran by US courts and the seizure of assets of Iranian state-owned companies to satisfy those court’s judgments. According to Iran, these actions are in breach of the US obligations under the 1955 Iran-US Treaty of Amity. The background to the case and the Court’s recent decision have been analysed elsewhere (see, eg, here). In this post, I want to comment on one specific element of the Court’s reasoning: its decision in relation to the US objection based on Article XX(1) of the Treaty of Amity.

Article XX(1) states, in relevant part, that:

The present treaty shall not preclude the application of measures …

(c) regulating the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war, or traffic in other materials carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment; and

(d) necessary to fulfil the obligations of a High Contracting Party for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to protect its essential security interests.

The US argued that the function of this provision was to exclude certain matters from the substantive scope of the Treaty, with the consequence that they fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction which is limited, under Article XXI, to disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Treaty. The Court rejected the US preliminary objection and decided, as it had done on previous occasions, that the provision in question constituted a ‘defence on the merits’ (para 47). This seems to be the right approach: Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Non-Precluded Measures Clause: Substance or Procedure? A comment on Certain Iranian Assets

Back to Square One or a New Blueprint has been Found for the ‘Refugee’ Definition?

Published on March 5, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This post is part of the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law symposium on The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees: The Twin Peaks?

Our search for a new blueprint (or searching for a way to find a new blueprint) for the ‘refugee’ definition started already in 2016, at “The Migration Conference” in Vienna, through a comparison regarding the definition of refugee and more importantly its implementation in Brazil, Italy and Turkey. Afterwards, “The Movement of People Conference” in Hamburg in September 2016 opened the floor (at least) in academia to compare the definitions of refugee and its implementation in different parts of the world, which was not a new problem, but still had no solution at the time. Representatives from both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. the European Union (EU), USA, Latin America, United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey came together to understand why all the implementations differ from each other, despite the fact that they are all States parties to the 1951 Geneva Convention and have derived their domestic definitions of refugee from it.

The results showed that this was due to the fact that there are different rationales behind the forced human mobility to various destination countries. For instance, while Latin America has dealt with hundreds of thousands of displaced people coming from Colombia and Northern Triangle of Central America among many other reasons also as climate refugees, EU Member States and Turkey still deal mostly with mass human mobility from Syria and the Middle East in general, because of the armed conflicts happening there. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Back to Square One or a New Blueprint has been Found for the ‘Refugee’ Definition?

Governance and the UN Global Compact on Migration: Just another Soft Law Cooperation Framework or a New Legal Regime governing International Migration?

Published on March 4, 2019        Author:  and
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This post is part of the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law symposium on The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees: The Twin Peaks?

Does the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) fulfill the criteria of a legal regime for international migration or is it just another soft law cooperation framework amidst many? If the GCM is merely a cooperation framework, then what is its contribution to international migration law (IML)? Is it limited to institutional questions, including the quality of follow-up, monitoring and review? What does it mean to ascribe the GCM a “governance capacity”? Does “governance”, as a counter concept to government, feature at the same time as an antidote to anarchy, so that the GCM could be fashioned as the complement to the “missing regime” of IML?

To resolve the ambiguity over the GCM’s governance ambition means for one to reply to the question posed by Aleinikoff in 2007, i.e. to what extent the GCM provides for the long-sought after “architecture” to govern the “substance” of IML. To respond to the challenge secondly means to uncover to what extent the GCM has overcome the “anarchy” underlying the fragmented state of IML, also called the “piecemeal approach” (Opeskin et al. 2012). This approach allowed States in the Global North to keep national sovereignty over territory and borders untouched by design, but also for few exceptions of multilateral cooperation on service providers in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and regional schemes on free movement of persons. However, the “management” of population flows from sending countries has led to uncertain outcomes for the protection of migrants’ rights, while rendering their entitlements an often-neglected legal category in international law.

In this post, we will provide a first appraisal of whether the GCM has governance potential – a capacity which may move it beyond the mere “international cooperation framework”, designed by GCM drafters. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags: ,

“We are tidying up”: The Global Compact on Migration and its Interaction with International Human Rights Law

Published on March 1, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This post is part of the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law symposium on The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees: The Twin Peaks?

“We are not talking about anything new […] Rather we are tidying up” – said El Salvador’s Representative before the vote at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the adoption of the Global Compact on Migration (GCM), also known as the Marrakech Compact (GA/12113). Other similar declarations joined the chorus of States in three clear directions: 1) the Compact is not legally binding; 2) the Compact does not create any new international obligations in the form of new customary rules; and 3) the Compact reaffirms States’ sovereignty.

Be that as it may, one cannot but agree with Maria Gavouneli that the GCM, at this stage, will not have a huge impact on the existing legal framework applicable to the mass movements of individuals. However, it is possible to move the critique one step forward looking at some contents of the GCM that might have some normative effects on the sources of international law governing the management of migration.

The GCM and its Legal Nature

As Anne Peters put it on this blog, the GCM is part of the borderless category of international soft law instruments, as States’ will clearly excludes the legal bindingness of its objectives and actions. However, it is no mystery that soft law instruments might have, under certain conditions, normative effects. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Tit-for-Tat-for-Tit: The Indian and Pakistani Airstrikes and the Jus ad Bellum

Published on February 28, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Over the past few days there has been a flurry of confusing reports regarding military confrontations between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir region. It appears that in the early hours of 26 February Indian air force MiG-20s carried out air strikes in Pakistani territory in the small city of Balakot in response to a suicide bombing in Indian controlled Kashmir on 14 February which took the lives of over 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers and for which Pakistani based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) claimed responsibility. India claimed that it hit a JeM militant training camp during the strikes with a significant number of militant casualties, while Pakistan claimed that the Indian aircraft retreated after being confronted by the Pakistan Air Force, dropping four or five bombs in open field as they left across the border and which resulted in no causalities. While there have been several border skirmishes between the two states since they gained independence from Britain in 1947, this is the first time Indian military aircraft have carried out strikes across the ‘line of control’ since the war between them in 1971 which led to the creation of Bangladesh.

The following day Pakistan claimed to have carried out air strikes on ‘open ground’ within Indian territory, while India claimed that a military installation had been targeted. During an ensuing confrontation, Pakistan shot down an Indian Air Force MiG-21 jet which fell within Pakistani territory and led to the capture of the pilot. India has also claimed to have shot down a Pakistani fighter jet which had fallen on to the Pakistani side of the LoC. The US, EU, Russia and China have all called for restraint.

While clearly a dangerous development between two nuclear-armed states, with various accounts of underlying political motives for the clashes, and with shelling continuing across the LoC between them at the time of writing, it is, however, the legal justifications – or, rather, lack of – by both states for their strikes that will be the focus here.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

SCOTUS Decision in Jam et al v. International Finance Corporation (IFC) Denies Absolute Immunity to IFC…With Caveats

Published on February 28, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s Note: In view of this landmark SCOTUS decision yesterday, this post is a brief deviation from our ongoing Symposium for the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law on the UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees: The Twin Peaks?.  We immediately continue with the Symposium after this post.

When it rains, it somehow pours. February 2019 ended up being such a landmark month for international law adjudication.  A day after the International Court of Justice released its landmark Chagos Advisory Opinion (finely discussed by Marko Milanovic here), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued its 27 February 2019 decision in Jam et al. v. International Finance Corporation, (586 U.S. ___ 2019).  The decision squarely rejects the defense of absolute immunity invoked by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) through the United States’ International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of 1945, with respect to a damages suit for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract filed in 2015 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, by a group of farmers and fishermen in India (with assistance from the NGO EarthRights), concerning the IFC’s inadequate supervision of the environmental and social action plan over its US$450 million loan to construct a coal-fired power plant in the state of Gujarat.  The damages suit invokes the IFC’s own internal audit through the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), admitting that the IFC did not adequately supervise the environmental and social action plan for the project.  

Last week, I wrote about the evidence from Inspection Panel’s body of investigation reports in about 131 cases thus far, showing ongoing gaps between the World Bank’s articulated commitments to Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement, with its actual operational practices in environmental and social action compliance methods that deliberately refuse to internalize the actual international human rights, environmental, climate change, and labor obligations of States in the Bank’s lending operations for development projects. In this respect, the SCOTUS decision is of landmark impact, because it opens the door for US courts to potentially determine the nature of the IFC’s legal responsibilities beyond the lines of accountability internally designed at the World Bank through the independent Inspection Panel or the compliance auditing process at the CAO.  Whether or not the suits will prosper on the merits, of course, is another matter altogether, noting how business and human rights litigation strategies have evolved in the United States after SCOTUS decisions in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC.  

There are also caveats to the decision itself, as carefully penned by SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts.  When one goes through the Court’s reasoning, the Court also signaled that “restrictive immunity hardly means unlimited exposure to suit for international organizations.” 

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Legislating by Compacts? – The Legal Nature of the Global Compacts

Published on February 28, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This post is part of the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law symposium on The UN Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees: The Twin Peaks?

It is not usual to have UN documents splashed across the first pages of the world, exciting animadversion among politicians not known for their respect or knowledge of international law and heated exchanges on the social media; governments (well: one!) collapsing over them; or even having actors read through each word of them on national television. The Global Compact for Refugees (GCR) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) were stars long before they were formally approved by the 73rd UN General Assembly. With the final text decided a month earlier, the GCR was approved on 17 December 2018 as part of an omnibus resolution on the work of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and with an overwhelming majority (181/2/3): only Hungary and the US voted against, with the Dominican Republic, Eritrea and Libya abstaining. After a highly publicized and politicized gathering in Marrakesh (10-11 December 2018), the GCM was approved by the General Assembly on 19 December 2018 with a less impressive majority (152/5/12): The Czech Republic, Israel and Poland joined the nay-sayers and a dozen others, among which five Member States of the European Union (EU) and Switzerland abstained, the last embarrassingly enough being with Mexico one of the co-convenors of the intergovernmental process leading to its adoption. Both Global Compacts are the product of a political commitment, reflected in the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants adopted by the UN General Assembly on 19 September 2016, and they constitute the latest acts in a process of rethinking the norms and procedures governing the management of human mobility. Both Compacts proclaim themselves as non-legally binding, the result of a wide cooperative effort among governments and between governments and civil society. The discussion on their legal nature could surely have stopped here. And yet it goes on – even in this blog. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Legislating by Compacts? – The Legal Nature of the Global Compacts