magnify
Home Archive for category "EJIL Article Discussion"

A Path towards the Moral Sophistication of International Law? Some Remarks on Miles Jackson’s “Complicity in International Law”

Published on April 13, 2017        Author: 

This post is part of our book discussion on Miles Jackson’s “Complicity in International Law“.

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this mini-symposium on Miles Jackson’s monograph on the notion of complicity in international law. The book is a further testament to the growing importance of questions of ‘shared responsibility’ in international law, ie the harmful cooperation of several actors.

In his elegantly written book, Miles Jackson makes several important contributions. In particular, he has brought a comparative approach to questions of complicity in international law. Whereas most existing books on complicity focus either on state responsibility or international criminal law, Jackson aims to transcend this boundary and develop an overarching framework for complicity in international law. While Jackson is of course mindful of the structural differences between the two areas, his comparative approach nonetheless calls for some further discussion.

A second most original aspect of the book is its move beyond an inter-state focus in its treatment of state complicity. Jackson analyses if and to what extent international law imposes state responsibility for complicity with non-state actors. In this latter regard, he convincingly argues against an approach based on attribution. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
Tags:
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on A Path towards the Moral Sophistication of International Law? Some Remarks on Miles Jackson’s “Complicity in International Law”

International Law in the Asian Century: Conclusion to Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! Mini-Symposium

Published on January 19, 2017        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post is the final part of a symposium being run by EJIL:Talk! and Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. We thank all of those who have contributed to  this symposium.

An academic learns most through errors and omissions. Far better to be criticized in text than footnoted in passing — both, of course, are preferable to being ignored. I am therefore enormously grateful that such esteemed scholars and practitioners were willing to take part in this joint Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! symposium and offer their responses to arguments put forward in my article for the current issue of EJIL, giving me and other readers refinements and additions that will enrich the larger conversation of which this symposium is a part.

The six commentators raise many issues, which I will address under three broad headings of power, history, and method. Each also brings to their paper a certain optimism or pessimism about what the future may hold, something to which I will return at the end.

1      Power

Judge Xue Hanqin puts at the forefront an argument about which I may have been too delicate. Asian states are not wary of delegating sovereignty because they are “ambivalent” about international law, she writes, but “because they do not believe that international law as … advocated and practiced would protect their fundamental rights and interests.” Similarly, regional integration is not primarily a matter of law, but of policy. The relative absence of regional institutions in Asia is not simply due to diversity and the other factors highlighted in the article; rather, it is attributable to geopolitical divisions within the region and in its various relations with other great powers.

This echoes a point made by Professor Eyal Benvenisti, who proposes that regional cooperation may be driven by external pressure as much as internal cohesion. The presence of an outside rival, for example, can encourage greater integration as the Soviet Union did for Europe and the United States did for Latin America. No such rival drove regional integration in Asia, though at the sub-regional level ASEAN has clearly been shaped by the ten member states’ relations with larger countries in East and South Asia as well as by their own identification as Southeast Asian. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on International Law in the Asian Century: Conclusion to Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! Mini-Symposium

Asian States’ Participation in International Adjudication: Comments

Published on January 18, 2017        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post forms part of a symposium being run by EJIL:Talk! and Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Starting on Monday, the two blogs are publishing a number of posts discussing the article, and we thank all of those who have contributed to  this symposium.

Asia is a vast region and encompasses more States and a larger population than any other region in the world. Asia also presents historical, linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity, as well as wide-ranging stages of political evolution and economic development. Asia indeed defies an easy definition. It is therefore difficult to speak, in a general term, of Asia with respect to any subject. International law and institutions are no exception. There is a wide variation in Asian States’ engagement with international law and institutions. For example, many States in East Asia are actively participate in various international regimes and attach great importance to international cooperation. On the other hand, some Asian States still adhere to the unrealistic, outdated notion of sovereignty and refuse to engage with other States. It should also be pointed out that Asian States’ attitudes towards international law and institutions are not static but evolving. In this comment, I will confine myself to Asian States’ participation in international adjudication, which may be considered one of the most revealing yardsticks to measure their attitudes toward international law and institutions.

Much has been said about the Asian States’ passivity towards international law and institutions. Various explanations have been given for such reticence, ranging from the Asian culture and tradition which prefer virtue and harmony to law and adjudication to the prevailing distrust of the law and institutions which were essentially a product of the Western civilization (and thus perceived to be biased in favour of the West) and in whose creation and developments Asian states did not play significant roles.

At least in terms of the number of disputes submitted to international adjudication and their political and legal context, it would be difficult to characterize the attitude of Asian States toward international law and adjudication as positive. For example, there had been only three cases involving Asian states that had been referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice during its entire period of activities (S.S. Wimbledon, 1923; Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China and Belgium, 1928; Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory, 1932). The picture was not much different in the subsequent early period of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during which many Asian States obtained independence mostly from the Western colonial powers. Iran was the first Asian State to appear before the ICJ in 1952 in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case but Iran was taken to the Court by the United Kingdom. The Court eventually found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Then India was the next Asian State to appear before the Court in the case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory in 1955. However, India was also taken to the Court by Portugal. In 1959, Cambodia instituted the proceedings against Thailand in the Temple of Preah Vihear case, and that was the first case involving the two Asian States before the ICJ. Subsequently in the 1970s, India and Pakistan were involved in the two cases before the Court (Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO (India v. Pakistan), 1972; Case concerning Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India), 1973). In the 1980s, Iran was involved in two disputes with the United States before the ICJ. However, those instances were rather exceptions than the rules (US Dipolmatic and Consular Staff in Teheran (USA v. Iran), 1980; Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. USA), 1989-1996 (discontinuance)).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Clarity and Ambivalence: Asia and International Law

Published on January 17, 2017        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post forms part of a symposium being run by EJIL:Talk! and Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Starting yesterday, the two blogs are publishing a number of posts discussing the article, and we thank all of those who have contributed to  this symposium.

One of the important developments in international law in the past few decades has been the increased understanding of approaches to it that do not arise from Western industrialised states. The work of scholars such as Anthony Angie, Lauri Mälksoo, Sundhya Pahuja, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, and others have been important in this regard. Therefore, the article by Simon Chesterman on ‘Asia’s Ambivalence about International Law and International Institutions: Past, Present and Future’ in the EJIL  is a timely engagement with an important aspect of this understanding.

Simon establishes the main issues very well and clearly. A combination of colonialism, treaty-making, recognition and armed conflict is shown to have created an ambivalence by key Asian states towards international law and international institutions. He offers a helpful and nuanced analysis without creating a false dichotomy between ‘Western’ and ‘Asian’ views. It is a pity that his article must have been finalised before 25 June 2016 when the Presidents of Russia and China adopted a common Declaration on the Promotion of International Law. This Declaration has been seen as being a rejection of a view that these two states have a problematic relationship with international law and an assertion of an approach based on state sovereignty and non-intervention, as well showing broader differences on the international constitutional order: see here.

My main hesitation about this valuable article is the definition of ‘Asia’. Simon defines it as being ‘the 53 members of the Asia-Pacific Group at the UN’. However, he ignores the Pacific members (such as Fiji and Papua New Guinea) of this grouping and the Middle Eastern members (such as Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia), which together comprise nearly 45% of this group. This calls into question some of his reliance on figures and tables about Asia-Pacific participation in international institutions. For example, in the Pacific sub-region, some of the reluctance to ratify treaties and engage in international institutions may be due to their own institutional and human capacity. It would also have been interesting to learn more about the approaches of Singapore and Malaysia, which are economic powers in the region, and have appeared to take a very formalist approach to international law. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Clarity and Ambivalence: Asia and International Law

Will the Asian Vision of International Law become Dominant in 2017?

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post forms part of a symposium being run by EJIL:Talk! and Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Starting today, the two blogs are publishing a number of posts discussing the article, and we thank all of those who have contributed to  this symposium.

Professor Chesterman explores the reasons for the relative under-participation and under-representation of Asian states as a group (what he refers to as Asia) in international lawmaking and in international institutions. Chesterman acknowledges the difficulty in referring to Asia as a group, due to the diversity of the continent. “Indeed,” he adds, “the very concept of ‘Asia’ derives from a term used in Ancient Greece rather than any indigenous political or historic roots.” Diversity is not only cultural or political, but also grounded in different interests, especially given the “great power interests of China, India and Japan” and perhaps also Russia, another crucial Asian player.

Chesterman notes as perhaps another factor for Asian skepticism of international law the previous negative experiences with international law that was used to justify colonial rule and to impose or victors’ justice and Western standards. It is an interesting and ultimately indeterminable question whether it is the history of Western dominated international law that continues to undermine the legitimacy of international law and institutions and suppress regional cooperation in Asia. Perhaps of greater weight are the internally-inflicted refutations and violations of international law by some Asian states in their dealings with other Asian states, which began with Japan’s invasions and occupations before and during World War II and continued by others in different parts of this vast and varied continent, and which are still festering. But arguably of more immediate concern are the contemporary challenges, both from the outside – the perception of Western capture of international law and its use, as Lauri Mälksoo notes, “as an hegemonic tool of the West,” and, again, by Asian countries challenging each other’s vision of international law.

Chesterman is aware of the need to have some common grounds to spark regional cooperation. Often the commonality would be an outside rival, such as the Soviet Union for Western Europe, or the US for Latin America. Asia has had the West as a formidable outside rival whose “divide and rule” strategy cleverly exploited the great disparities among Asian states which left little room for collective resistance. Another common ground that could spark regional cooperation has been internal, such as the shared need to bind future majorities to human rights standards, epitomized by the European move to secure regional protection of human rights. Most Asian states thought they could suppress domestic challenges without the aid of international institutions.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Introduction to Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! mini-symposium

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

A decade after moving from New York to Singapore, I began work on this article in the hope of understanding what seemed to me a paradox. Well into the much-vaunted “Asian century”, the states of this region arguably benefit most from the security and economic dividends of a world ordered by international law and institutions — and yet those same states are the least likely to subscribe to such norms or participate in the bodies they create. Regionally, there is no counterpart to the continent-wide organizations in Europe, Africa, or the Americas; individually, Asian states are most reluctant to sign onto most international regimes and underrepresented in the entities that govern them.

The article opens with a brief history of Asia’s engagement with international law. The focus is on three aspects that continue to have resonance today and contribute to the wariness of international law and institutions. First and foremost is the experience of colonialism by India and many other countries across the continent: for centuries international law helped justify foreign rule, later establishing arbitrary standards of “civilization” that were required in order to gain meaningful independence. Secondly, and more specific to China, the unequal treaties of the nineteenth century and the failure to recognize the Communist government in Beijing for much of the twentieth encouraged a perception that international law is primarily an instrument of political power. Thirdly, and of particular relevance to Japan, the trials that followed the Second World War left a legacy of suspicion that international criminal law only deals selectively with alleged misconduct — leaving unresolved many of the larger political challenges of that conflict, with ongoing ramifications today.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that some Asian states take the position that international law is of questionable legitimacy, can be used for instrumental purposes, and is necessarily selective in its application. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Joint Symposium with Opinio Juris: Simon Chesterman’s ‘Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures’

Published on January 16, 2017        Author: 

This week we will be jointly hosting a symposium with Opinio Juris in relation to Simon Chesterman’s article “Asia’s Ambivalence About International Law & Institutions: Past, Present, and Futures“, which is available here in draft form, the final version appearing later this month in EJIL. Chesterman is Dean of the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. He is also Editor of the Asian Journal of International Law and Secretary-General of the Asian Society of International Law.

Today, both blogs will feature an opening post by Simon Chesterman. We will then host a post by Eyal Benvenisti, which will be followed by a post on Opinio Juris by Tony Anghie. On Tuesday, EJIL:Talk! will feature a contribution by Robert McCorquodale and Opinio Juris will feature B.S. Chimni‘s thoughts. This will be followed on Wednesday with articles by Judge Jin-Hyun Paik (EJIL:Talk!) and Judge Xue Hanqin (Opinio Juris). Finally, on Thursday, Simon Chesterman’s closing remarks will feature on both blogs.

We thank all of those who have contributed to this fascinating symposium.

Print Friendly
 

EJIL:Talk! Article Discussion: Reply to Tams, Kufuor and de Wet

Our heartfelt thanks to the editors of EJIL:Talk! for convening an online symposium to discuss our recently-published EJIL article, Backlash against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences. We are also grateful to Kofi Kufuor, Christian Tams, and Erika de Wet for their thoughtful comments. We hope that our study will convince other scholars to, as Tams suggests, “take [] lesser-known courts seriously,” especially those operating in developing country contexts. In this brief reply, we respond to several points made by the three distinguished commentators and situate our article’s findings in a wider perspective.

Our article ends with a discussion of whether governmental efforts to sanction or reform the three sub-regional courts succeeded or failed. Erika de Wet explains that the SADC story did not actually end with the adoption of the new Tribunal protocol. She provides helpful additional information about why Zimbabwe felt targeted by the Tribunal, and she convincingly argues that the attempt by civil society groups to challenge the new protocol before the African Union’s human rights institutions was a strategic misstep.

De Wet also mentions efforts to pressure SADC member states “to revoke their previous decisions to abolish the individual complaints procedure.” Like de Wet, we are skeptical that any litigation strategy can reverse this political decision. There is still an open question as to whether other advocacy strategies might change the status quo. A more promising avenue for advocates to pursue includes lobbying SADC member states to reconsider or refrain from ratifying the 2014 Protocol — thereby preventing its entry into force. But blocking the creation of a Tribunal whose jurisdiction is limited to interstate disputes will be far easier than convincing national political leaders to revive a sub-regional court that includes individual access. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL, EJIL Article Discussion
 

Reactions to the Backlash: Trying to Revive the SADC Tribunal through Litigation

Published on August 5, 2016        Author: 

Introduction

In their article ‘Backlash against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences’, Professors Alter, Gathii and Helfer eloquently portrays the political context leading to the rise and demise of the SADC Tribunal, the consequence of which was also the demise of an individual claims procedure for individuals in relation to human rights violations by member States. The life-span of the SADC Tribunal was a mere five years, for even though it was officially suspended in 2012, its functioning was effectively suspended since 2010.

At the time of its suspension, the SADC Tribunal had handed down 19 decisions of which 11 concerned Zimbabwe. Of these decisions eight were related to the Campbell and Others v Zimbabwe (Merits), Case No SADC (T) 2/2007, (8 November 2008)). Two of the three remaining cases involving Zimbabwe also concerned the violation of human rights. In Luke Tembani v Republic of Zimbabwe (Case No SADC (T) 07/2008 (14 August 2009)) the applicant had been denied a fair hearing after the seizure of his mortgaged property, while in Gondo and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe (Case No (SADC) (T) T) 05/2008 (9 December 2010)), the Zimbabwean Government had refused to give effect to court orders of Zimbabwean domestic courts that provided relief for victims of violence and thereby denying their right to a remedy. The final decision concerning Zimbabwe, United People’s Party of Zimbabwe v SADC and Others, Case No SADC (T) 12/2008 (11 June 2012)) related to the exclusion of the United Peoples’ Party of Zimbabwe from the power-sharing process in Zimbabwe that was mandated by the SADC during an Extraordinary Summit in March 2007.

Of the remaining eight cases five concerned internal employment disputes between the SADC and its employees. The remaining three decisions concerned a default judgment against the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for unlawful seizure of property (Bach’s Transport (PTY) LTD v Democratic Republic of Congo Case No SADC (T) 14/2008 (11 June 2010)); a denial of jurisdiction in a case involving deportation from Tanzania due to lack of exhaustion of local remedies (The United Republic of Tanzania v Cimexpan (Mauritius) LTD and Others, Case No SADC (T) 01/2009 (11 June 2010); and a condonation of a late filing of defence by the Government of Lesotho in a case concerning the cancellation and revocation of mineral leases (Swissbourgh Diamond Mines and Others v The Kingdom of Lesotho, Case No. SADC (T) 04/2009 (11 June 2010)). Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL, EJIL Article Discussion
 

The Importance of History in Understanding African Integration

Published on August 5, 2016        Author: 

We live in an era of international courts; since the explosion in international, regional and sub-regional organizations, the world has seen a number of these organizations create judicial organs to clarify treaty law and thus resolve any disputes between the parties to treaties and any disputes between private actors and their governments.

Africa came late to creating regional sub-regional courts – this being explained by the suspicion of domestic judges, and the belief that international relations were the preserve of the executive arm. However it is interesting to note that Africa’s sub-regional courts are the focus of a burgeoning scholarship with a particular stress on how they fit into the matrix of treaties, protocols and domestic politics of the states that have created them. Thus the paper by Alter, Gaathi and Helfer (AGH) – “Backlash against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences” – is a welcome addition to understanding Africa’s transnational judicialism.

However as exposed by AGH not all is plain sailing with attempts by member states of sub-regional organizations to undermine, if not dismember, the judicial organs they have created. The explanation by AGH is thorough; disassembling the intricate moves, legal, organizational and diplomatic, to gut courts in ECOWAS, SADC and the EAC. AGH focus on moves by Gambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya. They seek to explain why Gambia failed, Zimbabwe succeed and Kenya found itself somewhere in between success and failure. AGH provide a very sound analysis and I am of the view that their work carries out important spadework as dissecting the “backlash” against transnational courts is essential for those scholars, activists and policy-makers with an eye on deeper integration in Africa.

However, there is the need for further exploration to enable the understanding of the progress or otherwise, of transnational judicialism. Thus I suggest observers should widen the scope of the analysis set in motion by AGH. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL, EJIL Article Discussion