magnify
Home Archive for category "Non-State Actors" (Page 4)

Book Discussion: Introducing Daragh Murray’s Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups

Published on November 2, 2016        Author: 

book-dmThe blog is happy to announce that this week we will be hosting a discussion on Daragh Murray’s new book with Hart, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups. Daragh is a lecturer at the University of Essex School of Law and Director of the Human Rights Centre Clinic. He will start the discussion tomorrow morning by outlining the main arguments of his book. Comments by Jonathan Horowitz, Cordula Droege, and Marco Sassoli will follow over the course of the week, while Daragh will then have an opportunity to respond.

I hope the readers will enjoy the discussion, and they are invited to join in if they wish to do so; comments will of course be open on all posts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Book Discussion: Introducing Daragh Murray’s Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups

A Role for the Security Council on Defensive Force?

Published on October 21, 2016        Author: 

Last wMonica Hakimieek, Elena Chachko and Ashley Deeks posted a helpful resource at Lawfare: a compilation of states’ pronouncements on the use of defensive force against nonstate actors. Readers no doubt know that there is an ongoing debate about whether and, if so, under what circumstances a state may use force in self-defense against nonstate actors that operate from another state. The Lawfare post asserts that ten states have expressly endorsed the unable-or-unwilling standard, under which defensive force would be permissible if the “host” state is unable or unwilling to contain the violence. The post then characterizes three states as having implicitly endorsed the unable-or-unwilling standard; eighteen as ambiguous about that standard; and four as expressly objecting to it.

We disagree with some of those characterizations. A few of the “express” endorsements seem to us to be less definitive than Chachko and Deeks claim. Moreover, we don’t think the “implicit” or “ambiguous” endorsements are endorsements at all. In these cases, the acting states seem not to support the unable-or-unwilling standard but rather to articulate a narrower standard -one that is limited either to the host state’s affirmative support for the nonstate group or to that state’s loss of control over portions of its territory. (For a discussion of the various standards that might be in play, see this article.)

cogan-faculty-pageWe want to focus here on a more interesting phenomenon: in the current fight against the Islamic State, six states have invoked in their reports to the Security Council a combination of Resolution 2249 and Article 51 to justify their use of force in Syria. (The six states are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.) Resolution 2249 was adopted in November 2015. It “determin[ed]” that the Islamic State “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” and “not[ed] the letters . . . from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory.” The Council also:

“call[ed] upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, . . . to prevent and suppress terrorist acts. . . .”

This Resolution nowhere authorized the use of force. And even if it did, it would be unnecessary if Article 51 itself provided a basis for using force in Syria. The point of Article 51 is to permit unilateral force – that is, force without any Council action – in “true” cases of self-defense. As such, the Article 51 reports that reference 2249 are, at the very least, odd. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Monica Hakimi on Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict

Published on September 23, 2016        Author: 

The second post in our joint blog series arising from the 2016 Transatlantic Workshop on International, ‘Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict’- by Monica Hakimi (Michigan Law) is now available on Lawfare.

Here’s a taste:

hakimiThe fair trial protections that apply in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) have received much less attention in recent years than have the protections on targeting and security detention. No doubt, this is because the basic contours of a fair criminal trial are generally not in dispute. Still, they raise a number of interesting questions. Here, I describe the current legal landscape and identify some issues that warrant further study.

A. The Regulatory Framework

The relevant treaty law can be laid out succinctly. The four Geneva Conventions, the two Additional Protocols, and human rights law all require that criminal trials be fair. The specific language and requirements of each instrument vary, but the key parameters are similar. (The relevant provisions are GCI art. 49; GCII, art. 50; GCIII arts. 84, 86, 99, 102–08; GCIV arts. 5, 64, 66–75, 117; common art. 3; API art. 75; APII art. 6; and ICCPR art. 14.)  In short, a court must: (1) be independent, (2) be impartial, and (3) afford defendants basic guarantees. A court is independent if it has the ability to conduct its business without undue external interference. It is impartial if its decisions rest on the evidence before it, without any predisposition toward one side or the other.

Common Article 3 does not list specific guarantees for criminal defendants in NIACs; it simply requires that defendants be afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.” Other treaty provisions identify what these guarantees might be. The provisions that apply in international conflicts, Additional Protocol II (which governs a subset of NIACs), and human rights law all require: (a) a presumption of innocence, (b) prompt notification of the offenses, (c) charges based on individual responsibility and offenses prescribed in law, (d) means to present a defense, (e) presence at trial, (f) a right against self-incrimination, and (g) notification of remedies. Three other guarantees are listed in the treaty provisions for international conflicts and in human rights law—but not in the provisions that specifically govern NIACs: (h) trial without undue delay, (i) open proceedings, and (j) no double jeopardy.

Read the full post over on Lawfare.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Monica Hakimi on Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict

Joint Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Fair Trial Guarantees in Armed Conflict 

Published on September 22, 2016        Author: 

As noted yesterday, EJIL:Talk! together with Lawfare and InterCross are running a joint series over the next few weeks on International Law and Armed Conflict. The first post in the series is by Nehal Bhuta on fair trial guarantees in armed conflict.

The protection of fair trial rights during international and non-international armed conflicts might reasonably be seen as an area where the convergence between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHR) is considerable, and in which the co-application of the two bodies of international law results in “interpretive complementarity” in respect of specific guarantees contained in both legal regimes. It should be noted at the outset that a person detained for the purposes of criminal prosecution during an international or non-international armed conflict is within the jurisdiction of the prosecuting state for the purposes of international human rights law whether the person is within the territory of the detaining state or not. At the same time,  that state may also be a detaining power, an occupying power or a party to a conflict on its own territory (even if part of that territory may be outside its effective control).

In this short post, I wish to raise for discussion areas of tension and uncertainty in the relationship between IHL and IHR in fair trial guarantees during an armed conflict. I first address the question of whether IHL countenances different understandings or interpretations of specific fair trial guarantees protected in both IHL and IHR. I then turn to the related question of whether derogation provisions can and should be invoked in order to give effect to IHL-based interpretations of a fair trial right over an IHR-based construction of the right. Finally, I examine some dilemmas associated with countenancing the possibility of courts constituted by armed groups as conducting fair trials under IHL.

Fair Trial Guarantees under IHL and IHR

The fair trial guarantees contained in IHL are expressed in the following general formulations found in the Geneva Conventions (GC) and Additional Protocols (AP I and II):  Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Belgium’s Article 51 Letter to the Security Council [UPDATED]

Published on June 17, 2016        Author: 

On 7 June, the government of Belgium sent an Article 51 letter to the President of the Security Council, justifying its military action on the territory of Syria against ISIS by way of collective self-defense. The ODS link to the letter is here (S/2016/523), and here is the key paragraph articulating Belgium’s legal position:

ISIL has occupied a certain part of Syrian territory over which the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic does not, at this time, exercise effective control. In the light of this exceptional situation, States that have been subjected to armed attack by ISIL originating in that part of the Syrian territory are therefore justified under Article 51 of the Charter to take necessary measures of self-defence. Exercising the right of collective self-defence, Belgium will support the military measures of those States that have been subjected to attacks by ISIL. Those measures are directed against the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” and not against the Syrian Arab Republic.

Interestingly, this paragraph is taken almost word-for-word from the letter Germany had sent to the Council on 10 December 2015, S/2015/946:

ISIL has occupied a certain part of Syrian territory over which the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic does not at this time exercise effective control. States that have been subjected to armed attack by ISIL originating in this part of Syrian territory, are therefore justified under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations to take necessary measures of self-defence, even without the consent of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. Exercising the right of collective self-defence, Germany will now support the military measures of those States that have been subjected to attacks by ISIL.

Note, however, some of the differences: Belgium calls this an exceptional situation, somewhat diplomatically removes the reference to the lack of any need for Syria’s consent, even though that’s implicit in its invocation of Article 51, and adds a sentence saying that measures taken in self-defence are directed at ISIS rather than against Syria (even if Belgian airplanes are flying in Syrian airspace and discharging weaponry on Syrian territory without its consent). Both Germany and Belgium endorse a position whereby action against a non-state actor operating from the territory of another state is permitted without that state’s consent if the state lost effective control over the relevant area – this is very close to, but not necessarily exactly the same thing, as the ‘unwilling and unable’ test.

UPDATE: Many thanks to everyone contributing in the comments. I’d say that perhaps the most valuable lesson to be learned from this discussion is how all of these states are strategically using ambiguity in their various letters to the Council. They know perfectly well that the formulations that they have chosen are open to several possible interpretations, and they were deliberately chosen precisely with that in mind – not simply as a matter of diplomacy, but in order to create legal cover for what they want to do today while keeping their options open for the future. Nothing less could be expected, of course, when we bear in mind that the Council’s ISIS resolution 2249 is itself a masterful example of such a use of ambiguity. But ambiguity of this kind is also obviously detrimental when it comes to solidifying a clear position with regard to self-defence against non-state actors on the basis of state (and UNSC) practice.

In that regard, a kind reader also let me know that Norway has also sent a letter to the Council, dated 3 June, S/2016/513. The three key paragraphs are quoted below the fold – note how simply wonderful Norway is in saying nothing, beyond simply stating that it is exercising the right to collective self-defence without directing its actions against Syria.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Corporate Liability Debate still Alive and Kicking in US Courts

Published on May 30, 2016        Author: 

While various bodies of the UN continuously work on the issue of the human rights law obligations of multinational corporations, the US courts have been grappling with the question as to whether such entities can be held liable for violations before domestic courts. While some observers lamented the death of the corporate liability debate following the 2013 Supreme Court decision Kiobel II, it appears that the discussion is still very much alive. Continuous disagreement among US courts shows that corporate liability for human rights violations is a complicated issue, as a matter of both domestic and international law.

The Arab Bank Case

In December 2015, a panel of the US Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) ruled on the case of Arab Bank, which concerned claims brought against Arab Bank PLC for its alleged role in financing and facilitating armed attacks that took place in Israel between January 1995 and July 2005. The plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bankʹs involvement with payments to the families of ‘martyrs’ incentivized and encouraged suicide bombings and other killings that harmed the plaintiffs. In its judgment, the Second Circuit confirmed the position taken in Kiobel I (2010), in which it held that corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS, 28 U.S. Code § 1350).

Arab Bank was heard by a different panel of the same Court of Appeals that had issued Kiobel I. The panel struggled in deciding whether to follow the Court’s own precedent (Kiobel I) or the subsequent Kiobel II decision of the Supreme Court. In that much-debated decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Kiobel I, but on different grounds, namely that a presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS cases, without discussing the original question of corporate liability. The Arab Bank panel identified several ways in which Kiobel II had “cast a shadow on Kiobel I”. It nevertheless decided to follow its own precedent in Kiobel I and left it to “either an en banc sitting of [the Second Circuit] or an eventual Supreme Court review to overrule Kiobel I”.

The latest development occurred on 9 May 2016, when seven of the thirteen judges of the Second Circuit rejected a petition for an en banc review of the Arab Bank case. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Self-defense Operations Against Armed Groups and the Jus in Bello

Published on December 16, 2015        Author: 

The Paris shootings and France’s reaction have once again triggered debate on states’ right to self-defense against attacks by non-state actors (see here, here, or here). Discussions normally focus on jus ad bellum issues, such as the ‘unwilling or unable’ test or when a threat is imminent. A question that receives strikingly little attention is whether the invocation of the right to self-defense against a non-state armed group under jus ad bellum would provide a sufficient legal basis for attacking this group by military means. As Marko Milanovic pointed out on this blog, the lawfulness of strikes against a non-state entity does not only depend on jus ad bellum but also on a second layer of legal examination: does the attack form part of an armed conflict and complies with international humanitarian law, or is the attack in questioned governed by international human rights law and possibly infringes on the targeted person’s right to life? This post examines how the use of military force in self-defense against non-state armed groups may be justified under jus in bello. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Strange Angel: Some Reflections on War

Published on December 14, 2015        Author: 

The philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin owned a print, Angelus novus, by Paul Klee. In his essay, Theses on the philosophy of history, Benjamin’s Ninth Thesis recalled that it depicted:

An angel…who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past. Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment…to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them. The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm.

This image and idea has been influential in philosophy and culture, for example, check out this song by Laurie Anderson.

A while ago, I was asked to write some reflections on war and international law. Deadlines whooshed past, but it is finally finished. International law, at least traditionally, saw war and peace as mutually exclusive—“there is no middle ground between war and peace” (Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis (1625) Book III, Ch.XXI, 1), although this dichotomy predated Grotius by centuries. At least since the end of the First World War, peace has been seen as the normal condition in international relations, with war characterised as an abnormal state of affairs. But what is the function of war in the international community? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Strange Angel: Some Reflections on War

Trade Agreements, EU Law, and Occupied Territories (2): The General Court Judgment in Frente Polisario v Council and the Protection of Fundamental Rights Abroad

Published on December 11, 2015        Author: 

This is a follow-up to my July post on Action for Annulment Frente Polisario v Council (Case T-512/12), a case before the General Court of the European Union (GC) in which Frente Polisario – the National Liberation Movement for Western Sahara – seeks the Annulment of the EU Council decision adopting the 2010 EU-Morocco Agreement on agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries products. The GC delivered its judgment yesterday, both recognizing the standing of Frente Polisario and granting the (partial) annulment of the decision, with implications for EU-Morocco relations and for EU external relations law more broadly.

(1) Standing of Frente Polisario under Article 263 TFEU

As regards standing, the most striking aspect of the judgment is that the Court accepted the Frente’s entitlement to plead as a ‘moral person’, with the ‘necessary autonomy’ to challenge a decision of the EU legislator (paras. 50-53), without reference to the sui generis character of Frente Polisario or to the unique situation of Western Sahara. This would seem to open the door for other ‘autonomous entities’, even those with no claim to international legal personality, to challenge EU decisions under Article 263 TFEU.

By the same token, the Court fell short of recognizing the Frente’s legal personality under international law. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Legal and Political Feasibility of the EU’s Planned ‘War on Smuggling’ in Libya

Published on June 10, 2015        Author: 

Introduction

On 19 April 2015, after a series of deadly shipwrecks, over 800 migrants perished when their smuggling boats, boarded in the Libyan port Zuwara, capsized in the Mediterranean Sea. The response from the EU was immediate. On 20 April, at a joint meeting of EU Foreign and Interior Ministers, the EU Migration Commissioner presented a 10-point action plan, the second point of which foresaw “[a] systematic effort to capture and destroy vessels used by the smugglers. The positive results obtained with the Atalanta operation should inspire us to similar operations against smugglers in the Mediterranean”. At the special meeting of the European Council on 23 April 2015, this was streamlined into the commitment to undertake “systematic efforts to identify, capture and destroy vessels before they are used by traffickers”. These events precipitated the adoption on 18 May of a decision of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, establishing an EU military operation called EUNAVFOR MED with the mission “[to disrupt] the business model of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean, achieved by undertaking systematic efforts to identify, capture and dispose of vessels and assets used or suspected of being used by smugglers or traffickers” (Art. 1).

According to Article 2 of the decision, EUNAVFOR MED shall be implemented in three sequential phases. The first phase will be the “lightest”, aiming at the detection and monitoring of migration networks through information gathering and patrolling on the high seas. It is only in the second and third phases that the operation should achieve the aforementioned aspirations. Thus, in the second phase, it is foreseen to board, search, seize and divert suspected vessels, both on the high seas and in the territorial or internal waters of the state concerned whereas for the third phase, the decision speaks of taking all necessary measures against a suspected smuggling or trafficking vessel and related assets, “including through disposing of them or rendering them inoperable in the territory of that State” (Art. 2(b).

The decision makes the implementation of those second- and third-phase measures which need to be conducted in the territorial sea, the internal waters or the land territory of Libya conditional upon “any applicable UN Security Council Resolution or consent by the coastal State concerned” (Art. 2). This is quite logical. As the planned enforcement measures involve a threat or actual use of coercive power, the fundamental international law principles of sovereign equality, territorial sovereignty and non-interference prohibit the EU Member States from exercising enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of Libya (including territorial and internal waters) without: 1) Libya’s permission and/or 2) the authorization of the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (on international law implications cf. Gallagher and David, The International Law of Migrant Smuggling, CUP, 2014. p. 222).

Because there are competing authorities claiming to be the government of Libya, and inspired by the previous experience with the UNSC-accepted EU anti-piracy military operation ATALANTA (launched in 2008 in the framework of European Common Security and Defence Policy to combat the piracy off the coast of Somalia), the EU opted from the very beginning for seemingly the easiest and fastest solution, which is to obtain the green light from the UNSC. In the following, I will elaborate on the feasibility of this option. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags: