magnify
Home Archive for category "International Organisations"

On Reforming the World and Reforming Character

Published on January 10, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Guy Fiti Sinclair’s To Reform the World was, for me, one of the books of the year when it came out in 2017. It is a model of legal scholarship, and does two things very well that are oh so difficult to bring together. First, Sinclair is an excellent lawyer – he knows the law, he knows what to focus on and what to ignore, and what is more, he is interested in the law, both its doctrinal detail and its political role; sadly, this interest in the law is not always present with people interested in the politics of law. Second, and related, he brings out this political role with verve and cogency. The work is scholarship of the highest order, a credit to its author and to those who trained him. I find, in all honesty, little to comment sensibly on; this is one of those books (few as they are) which I wish I had written myself. One can of course always ask questions: why focus on the World Bank and not, say, UNHCR? Why not include the work of an organization that proclaims to exist outside and beyond the law, like the OSCE? Could the same type analysis be applied to an interest organization like, say, the International Olive Council? Those questions can always be asked – the world of international organizations counts at least 300 varieties, and we tend to look at some of them a lot more than at others. It is almost a disgrace, for instance, that not more is known about a hugely important global governance institution such as the International Organization for Migration, responsible for establishing border management practices across the world and even for running migrant processing centers on behalf of member states, but steadfastly ignored in the legal literature.

But it would be churlish to go down this path. Instead, I want to address an element that usually stays a little under the radar and to which I cannot attach a proper label. It has something to do though with the political role of legal academics. Sinclair, without advertising it and (blissfully) without posturing, adheres broadly to the critical school. He may not be a card-carrying crit, but his work is sensitive to and inspired by critical givens (the indeterminacy thesis, the oscillation of law between apology and utopia, the notion that law typically serves as a vehicle for someone’s political project, that sort of thing). There is a Foucauldian flavor to the work and Sinclair clearly has taken the critical revolution to heart. And the book is all the better for it; indeed, it would have been impossible to write To Reform the World without something of a critical mindset.

The obvious follow-up question then is, however, what next? If the law cannot be trusted to do what we have always been taught to expect from it, if it carries institutional biases and tends to favour some at the expense of others, then what are international lawyers to do? Some have been happy to just continue to point to biases and the role of the ideology of international law – the equivalent of Voltaire’s retreat into his garden. Others have pointed to the emancipatory potential latent in international law; and yet others have put forward the idea that international lawyers or decision-makers more generally have a role to play in ensuring that the negative effects of international law are mitigated, aiming to complement the sterile structures of the law with calls on individuals to operate with a minimum of common decency. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

To Reform the World: International Organizations and the Making of Modern States – An Introduction

Published on January 9, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

How have international organizations been able to expand their governance powers so significantly over the past century? What has been the role of international law in making this extraordinary expansion of powers seem possible and legitimate? And what does this tell us about international law itself?

My book, To Reform the World: International Organizations and the Making of Modern States (Oxford University Press, 2017), explores these questions by examining the expansion of legal powers exercised by international organizations through informal processes of discourse, practice, and (re)interpretation (‘IO expansion’ for short), rather than by the formal amendment of an organization’s constituent instrument. The book argues that IO expansion has been imagined, understood, and carried out as necessary to a process of making and remaking modern states, based on a broadly Western model. It also argues that international law plays a central, protean role in that process. It would be overly simplistic, therefore, to contend that IO expansion has resulted only in a loss of sovereignty by states. To the contrary, my argument is that IO expansion is intimately bound up with the creation of states, the construction of state powers, and the very constitution of modern statehood.

The book develops these arguments through detailed accounts of three episodes of IO expansion. The first involves the beginnings of technical assistance in the International Labour Organization (ILO) in the interwar period. The second concerns the emergence of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping in the two decades following World War II. And the third encompasses the World Bank’s ‘turn to governance’, which reached a high point in the 1990s. By examining three very different international organizations, spanning different periods in the 20th century, the book is able to identify broad themes in how international law has evolved and works in the world.

The research that led to the book began from the commonplace observation that international organizations have become some of the most significant actors in global governance. Today, hundreds of these entities, both regional and global in scope, intervene in myriad areas of activity, including international peace and security, social and economic development, trade and finance, and environmental protection. The powers exercised by international organizations now impact directly and indirectly on the lives of millions of people around the world. Some of these activities involve relatively mundane (though far-reaching) matters of international standard-setting and coordination, while others are more spectacular, including military, financial, and other forms of intervention. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Announcement: Book Discussion on Guy Fiti Sinclair’s “To Reform the World”

Published on January 9, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The blog is happy to announce that over the next week, we will host a discussion of Guy Fiti Sinclair’s book, To Reform the World: International Organizations and the Making of Modern States. Guy Fiti Sinclair  is a Senior Lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington Law School. His principal area of research and teaching is public international law, with a focus on international organisations law, the history and theory of international law, and international economic law. 

Guy will open the discussion this morning with an introduction to the text. This will be followed by posts from Jan Klabbers,  Megan Donaldson, Devika Hovell and Edouard Fromageau. Guy will close the symposium with a reply to the discussants.

We are grateful to all of the participants for agreeing to have this discussion here. Readers are invited to join in – comments will of course be open on all posts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Decentralisation of International Crimes: A shift from the central criminal apparatus at the ICC?

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

In her statement to the UN Security Council on November 2018, Fatou Bensouda vowed to search ‘outside of Libya’ for accountability of global actors in the migration context. This is one of the many moves by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in their prosecutorial trajectory towards a more holistic approach. Such an approach widens the accountability net to capture crimes and potentially responsible actors, which would otherwise fall outside the geographical scope of the ICC’s “situations”.

In this post, I argue that this new approach, which has largely passed under the radar, is both desirable and justified. In what follows, I make three propositions. First, the ICC has by far adopted, in practice, a localised approach stressing system criminality. Second, in light of the globalisation of international crimes, this orthodox approach may be obsolete by failing to reflect and assert accountability comprehensively. The proliferation of cross-border transactions and the enhanced risk of transnational harms would require no less than modernising current prosecutorial strategies to properly respond to the changing faces of international crimes. The last proposition suggests that this new approach is justified and imminent out of practicality to fulfil the Court’s mandate.

The Orthodox Approach

Since the first case in Lubanga, it has been the customary practice of the ICC to localise liabilities. This means the Court would ordinarily zoom in on a particular (non-)State structural apparatus of power, and build a case theory upon it. The natural task of the Prosecution would be to identify and re-construct in abstracto the hierarchical structure that sustained the commission of crimes, and to translate it into respective responsibilities of criminal participants in concreto. Terms such as ‘organised apparatus’ and ‘hierarchical criminal network’ are common languages replete in the work of the Prosecution and Chambers. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Global Compact for Migration: to sign or not to sign?

Published on November 21, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (final draft of 13 July 2018) is scheduled for adoption at an intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh in December 2018. But in the run-up to this conference, several states, beginning with the United States already in 2017, now followed by Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and others, have announced that they will  not sign the text. Will refusal to sign be relevant in terms of international law? What is the juridical quality of the Compact, which legal consequences does it have, and which normative “ripples” might it deploy in the future? The controversy over the Compact sheds light on the legitimacy of international law-making processes and on the precarious normative power of international law.

A Brief Glance at the Contents

The Compact consists of four parts. Following the preamble, the first part contains, “Vision and Guiding Principles”. The second part, “Objectives and Commitments” contains 23 objectives, proceeded by a part on “Implementation” and the final section “Follow-up and Review”. The Compact purports to set out “a common understanding, shared responsibilities and unity of purpose regarding migration” (para. 9). The purpose is mainly to secure that migration “works for all” (para. 13).

The Compact’s “guiding principles” are, inter alia, people-centeredness, international cooperation, national sovereignty, rule of law and due process, and sustainable development (para. 15). These are well-established and to a large extent also legally entrenched principles. The 23 “objectives” are partly generally recognised such as saving lives (objective 8), respond to smuggling (objective 9), or eradicate trafficking (objective 10). Some mainly correspond to interests of states of origin (such as promoting transfer of remittances, objective 20), others basically satisfy interests of receiving states (such as facilitating return and readmission (objective 21). In substance, the Compact partly repeats international law as it stands or refers to existing instruments (see notably preamble para. 2), partly contains platitudes, and partly contains novel ideas. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Lost in Space? Gaps in the International Space Object Registration Regime

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

Despite having been operational for over 15 years, the satellites NSS-6 and NSS-7 are missing from the United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space (‘International Register’). Just as we do not accept unregistered cars on our roads, we should not accept unregistered space objects in orbit. Registration ensures that the state responsible for a specific space object can be readily identified, and, if necessary, presented with a claim under the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects.

For this reason, under the international space object registration regime, all space objects must be registered by a state. So which state is shirking their duty to submit NSS-6 and NSS-7 to the International Register?

The two satellites were built by Lockheed Martin Commercial Space Systems (‘Lockheed Martin’), a United States-based corporation, for New Skies International NV (‘New Skies’), a Dutch corporation. Launch services were provided by Arianespace SA (‘Arianespace’), a French corporation. Both launches took place from French territory. Once in orbit, ownership of the satellites was transferred from Lockheed Martin to New Skies. So at least three states are involved – and the question is which of these states should register NSS-6 and NSS-7 (spoiler alert: I think it’s the Netherlands). This episode is used as a case study to illustrate the ambiguities and gaps that exist in the international space object registration regime. I conclude the post by making a proposal which seeks to find a way to close these gaps. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Looking for Middle Ground on the Immunity of Al-Bashir? Take the Third ‘Security Council Route’

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

On 10-14 September, the Appeals Chamber (AC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held hearings in the appeal of Jordan against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) II entitled ‘Decision under article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by Jordan with the request by the Court for the arrest and surrender o[f] Omar Al-Bashir’ of 11 December 2017’. As Talita De Souza Dias aptly showed in her recent post, one of the most debated issues during the hearings was whether the Security Council (SC) can implicitly waive the immunities of non-party States’ high-ranking officials when it refers a situation to the ICC. I agree with Talita’s findings on the permissibility of implicit derogations from immunities but I will argue that it is not Article 27(2) that renders the immunity of Al-Bashir inapplicable at the domestic level. Rather, it is the effect of Article 89 (1) on ‘Surrender of persons to the Court’ that makes his immunity of no avail before a domestic jurisdiction enforcing the ICC arrest warrant. In making this argument, I will propose a variant of the ‘Security Council Route’ that is different from those hitherto recognised in the literature or by the ICC.

Readers will recall that there are two main theories regarding the (in)applicability of immunities in domestic proceedings for arrest and surrender to the ICC of a state official ordinarily entitled to international law immunities. First, there is the theory that there is a customary exception to the immunity of heads of States for ‘proceedings before certain international criminal courts’. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Spectre of Trexit: Proposal to Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Turkey

Published on October 10, 2018        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 1 October 2018, just ten days before the European and World Day against the Death Penalty, the only elected member of parliament of the BBP – a Turkish ultra nationalist party – submitted a draft legislation proposal to Parliament asking for the reintroduction of the death penalty in Turkey. The proposal reintroduces the death penalty for the murder of children and women through sexual means and for killings carried out as part of individual or organised acts of terrorism.

In its justification for the proposal, Burhan Ekinci, the MP in question, highlights the need to restore justice for victims of these hideous crimes, and the need to enhance the trust of the Turkish public in the fairness of the Turkish criminal justice system.  In his proposal, Ekinci argues there is no death penalty in Turkey because of ‘international agreements’ (in quotation marks) and what he labels ‘domestic dynamics’. Ekinci also expresses his disgust for the dishonesty of so-called humanism which, he claims, puts the rights of perpetrators above those of the victims of the most serious crimes. 

This proposal, of course, may not find support in the Turkish Parliament and fade away. Evidence, however, shows that the proposal should not be taken lightly. If it does succeed, it can be Turkey’s Trexit, ending Turkey’s long standing relationship with European institutions.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Palestine Sues the United States in the ICJ re Jerusalem Embassy

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

On Friday Palestine instituted proceedings against the United States of America before the International Court of Justice, claiming that the US violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by moving its embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The application is here, the ICJ’s press release here; this is how the press release summarizes Palestine’s claim:

It is recalled in the Application that, on 6 December 2017, the President of the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the relocation of the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The American Embassy in Jerusalem was then inaugurated on 14 May 2018.

Palestine contends that it flows from the Vienna Convention that the diplomatic mission of a sending State must be established on the territory of the receiving State. According to Palestine, in view of the special status of Jerusalem, “[t]he relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to . . . Jerusalem constitutes a breach of the Vienna Convention”.

As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Applicant invokes Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. It notes that Palestine acceded to the Vienna Convention on 2 April 2014 and to the Optional Protocol on 22 March 2018, whereas the United States of America is a party to both these instruments since 13 November 1972.

In brief, Palestine argues that various articles of the VCDR, especially Article 3 thereof, require that the functions of the diplomatic mission be performed ‘in the receiving state,’ which means that the mission must be established in the receiving state. Jerusalem is not Israeli territory, and therefore moving the embassy there meant that it was not established in the receiving state. Ergo, there was a violation of the VCDR.

This case raises numerous issues, some obvious, some not. There are many objections that the US could raise, and will inevitably raise.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Painful Relations between the Council of Europe and Russia

Published on September 28, 2018        Author:  and
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

During the forthcoming October part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), it will vote on amending its rules of procedure. Normally such technical changes do not attract much public interest but this vote certainly will. Due to inappropriate pressure, considered by many as blackmail, the Russian (parliamentary) authorities have suggested that the Assembly’s rules ought not to permit the exclusion of national delegations from the Assembly. In other words, the Assembly should take away from itself its ultimate sanction, namely excluding a parliamentary delegation of the state that refuses to comply with Council of Europe’s fundamental values: human rights, the rule of law and pluralistic democracy. This can only be done once attempts to admonish or reprimand a state which breaches the rules of the democratic club have failed.

That said, the Committee of Ministers, the other statutory body of the Council of Europe, can suspend or expel a state which seriously violates the club’s rules. Expulsion is however a politically complex exercise. Article 8 of the Organisation’s Statute specifies that if a member state seriously violates founding principles of the rule of law and human rights, the Committee of Ministers can so decide. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email