magnify

Here Comes the Name Again: Treaty Making at the Epicenter of the Greek Debate over the agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Published on June 16, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

This week, the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia reached agreement over the long running dispute regarding the name of the latter. After independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the former Yugoslav Republic continued to use the name it had used as an entity within Yugoslavia, namely the Republic of Macedonia. Greece objected strongly to the use of this name and over the last 25 years or so we have seen sanctions imposed, Security Council Resolutions with provisional designations, an Interim Accord in 1995 and a case before the ICJ which culminated in a 2011 decision finding a violation of that Accord on the part of Greece due to its objections to fYR Macedonia being invited to join NATO in late 2008.

The agreement provides for the use erga omnes of the name ‘Republic of North Macedonia’ as the name of fYR Macedonia, makes provision for other eventualities, such as adjectival uses, commercial brands and designations, and cooperation between the two states in various areas including defence, and seemed to have finally brought resolution to this bizarre dispute. Not so fast. In the last few days, provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and general international law regarding treaty making powers and the process of signature, ratification, and entry into force, have made their way to the epicenter of the Greek debate over the matter. In an article on 11 June 2018 in the Greek conservative daily Kathimerini[link in Greek], Georgios Gerapetritis, a Professor of Public Law at the University of Athens, argued that by signing the agreement, the Greek Prime Minister (or, as the case actually is, the Foreign Minister) would be binding Greece to the obligations under the Convention irrespective of its (domestic) ratification by the Greek Parliament, which only serves to introduce the treaty into domestic Greek law. This would expose Greece to international responsibility.

 

The argument is flawed. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Commanders’ Motivations in Bemba

Published on June 15, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

Introduction

No doubt there is much to be written about Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s acquittal by the Appeals Chamber – on its implications for the ICC, for politics in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and for the standard of review in future appeals. In this post, I will focus on a single issue addressed by the Appeals Chamber: the relevance of a commander’s motivation in taking measures to prevent or punish the crimes of his subordinates. This may seem a narrow issue – it was, initially, but one aspect of one element of the test for superior responsibility that formed part of one ground of appeal. However, this issue turned out to play a critical role in the majority’s decision to acquit the defendant.

Background

A majority of the Appeals Chamber – Judges Van den Wyngaert, Eboe-Osuji and Morrison – held that the second ground of appeal and part of the third ground of appeal were determinative of the appeal. The second ground averred that the conviction exceeded the charges. The third ground averred that Mr Bemba was not liable as a superior, with the relevant part upheld concerning whether he took all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of his subordinates’ crimes. Within this part, the majority’s decision emphasised, in particular, two putative errors in the Trial Chamber’s finding that Mr Bemba failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures (para 191). The first concerned the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Mr Bemba’s motivation in taking the measures that he did take. This is the issue addressed in this post. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags: ,

The Aquarius incident: navigating the turbulent waters of international law

Published on June 14, 2018        Author:  and
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

Between Saturday 9 June and Sunday 10 June, 629 migrants were rescued from overcrowded boats in the Central Mediterranean in search and rescue (SAR) operations carried out by NGOs and the Italian navy. They were taken on board by the Aquarius, a rescue vessel operated by the German NGO SOS Méditerranée and flying the flag of Gibraltar. On Sunday, the Aquarius was on its way to Italy, whose Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) had coordinated the operations. Around 35 nautical miles off the southern coast of Italy, Italian authorities ordered the Aquarius to stop. Italy refused the Aquarius access to its ports and prohibited disembarkation of the rescued migrants on Italian territory. This, Italy’s new Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini announced, would be Italy’s new policy for any NGO vessel rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean.

Italy’s instructions ‘manifestly go against international rules’, Malta’s Prime Minister Joseph Muscat tweeted on Sunday night, but then himself denied the ship to dock in the port of Valletta. Malta in turn, Muscat claimed, was thereby acting in full compliance with international law. For another 24 hours, the Aquarius remained on stand-by, floating between Malta and Italy. Maltese and Italian vessels supplied the Aquarius with water and food, but neither of them gave in by offering safe haven.

On Monday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced that Spain could facilitate disembarkation of all 629 rescued individuals in the port of Valencia. When it appeared that this journey would be too dangerous for passengers and crew of the Aquarius and the Valencia-plan seemed off the table again, Italy offered its ships to facilitate safe passage to Spain.

This whole episode raises a broad variety of questions, but one stands out: Are Italy and Malta violating international law by not allowing the Aquarius to find a safe haven in one of their ports? Two legal regimes are particularly relevant in this respect: the law of the sea and international human rights law. As we argue, neither provides much clarity in relation to Aquarius-like incidents. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

In Bemba and Beyond, Crimes Adjudged to Commit Themselves

Published on June 13, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

And now, it seems, we must fear to endure crimes adjudged to have no cognizable author – crimes that everyone knows occurred, but that escape the assignment of responsibility that is supposed to be an essential function of international criminal justice. Crimes adjudged, as one commentator lamented, to have committed themselves.

Provoking these dire sentiments is Friday’s International Criminal Court judgment in Prosecutor v. Bemba, in which a bitterly divided Appeals Chamber exonerated a politician-warlord from the Democratic of Congo (DRC) whom a Trial Chamber had sentenced to serve eighteen years in prison. The Appeals Chamber majority, constituting three of the five appellate judges, first maintained that the 2016 trial judgment merited no deference, then proceeded to evaluate the case de novo, and ultimately found all five counts of conviction unsustainable. The man whom para. 13 of the appeals decision identifies as “President of the MLC, a political party founded by him and based in the northwest of the DRC, and Commander-in-Chief of its military branch, the ALC,” thus was acquitted of charges on which he had been held since 2008. Bemba is awaiting the results of his appeal on a separate conviction for witness tampering. Yesterday, the Court ruled that he could join his family in Belgium while he awaits sentencing in that case. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Fiddling While Rome Burns?  The Appeals Chamber’s Curious Decision in Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo

Published on June 12, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

On March 21, 2016, after a 4-1/2 year-long trial that heard the testimony of 77 witnesses, the introduction of 773 items of evidence, and gave rise to a transcript that was thousands of pages long, a unanimous Trial Chamber convicted Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by his troops in the Central African Republic from 2002-2003 and sentenced him to 18 years imprisonment.  The case was the first to find a perpetrator guilty of command responsibility under article 28, and the first ICC case involving a conviction for sexual violence. The three trial judges, were unanimous in their assessment of Bemba’s culpability under the Statute, although two judges raised questions regarding the parameters of article 28.

On June 8, the Appeals Chamber reversed, 3-2, and acquitted the accused finding that Bemba’s conviction exceeded the facts and circumstances described in the charges brought against him and declined to permit a trial on the facts it found to be outside the scope of the initial Trial Chamber Judgment. Judges Monagang (Botswana) and Hofmański (Poland) would have upheld the conviction and penned a lengthy Dissenting Opinion.  Judge Eboe-Osuji (now President of the Court) would have permitted a retrial on the new charges his colleagues found to be outside the scope of the original conviction, but was apparently unable to persuade his colleagues to join him in that view. 

How did this happen? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Announcements: Interventions in the Supply Chain; Salzburg Law School on ICL, IHL and HRL Summer Session; CfP Religion and Ethnicity on the International Bench; Lawyering Justice for Society Conference

Published on June 10, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN
1. Interventions in the Supply Chain. Together with the ICA, Human Rights Lawyers’ Association are bringing together human rights experts to discuss the pursuit of corporate accountability for abuses in their supply chains on 20 June 2018, 6:30pm – 8:30pm, ICA, London. Chaired by Krishnendu Mukherjee from Doughty Street Chambers, the event will explore the opportunities for effective legal interventions into labour conditions. The panel of experts across different fields include: Shanta Martin from Leigh Day, Christina Varvia from Forensic Architecture, Jenny Holdcroft from IndustriALL and Dr Anil Yilmaz-Vastardis from University of Essex School of Law and the Human Rights Centre. The panel will interrogate new methods of promoting accountability, from strategic litigation to negotiating private agreements and from advising companies around best practice to developing forensic methods of investigation. As part of the event, Forensic Architecture will also present their analysis of a factory fire in Pakistan in 2012, in which the alleged failure to fulfil safety measures contributed to the death of 260 workers. This will ground the discussion in an understanding of the obstacles and the opportunities when seeking to secure accountability. Entry is free for HRLA members, who can reserve their seats by emailing administrator@hrla.org.uk and non-members can buy tickets for the event on the ICA’s website.  See here for further information.
 
2. Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law Summer Session. The Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (SLS) has a few remaining places for its commemorative Twentieth Anniversary Summer Session: ‘Towards an Effective International Criminal Justice System in the Era of The Permanent International Criminal Court – Coordinating and Strengthening Enforcement on National, Regional, and International Levels’, being held from 5 to 15 August 2018. The remaining places will be filled on a rolling basis until 30 June 2018. For further information about the academic programme and the eminent 2018 SLS faculty see here, or contact SLS by email: Salzburg_Law_School {at} sbg.ac(.)at.
 

3. Call for Papers: Religion and Ethnicity on the International Bench. On 4 and 5 October 2018, the third and final conference in the Identity on the International Bench Series is taking place in The Hague, organized by the PluriCourts Centre of Excellence, Oslo University. The aim of this conference is to analyse when and how adjudicators’ identity and, in particular, features relating to religion and ethnicity (including race, language, culture, ancestry and membership of minority groups, among other) may affect the composition of international courts and tribunals, as well as judicial reasoning and decision-making. The conference will also investigate whether the prevalence of certain religious and political backgrounds, ethnic identities and languages, may also have implications for the perceived legitimacy of the international adjudicatory process itself. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 18 July 2018. For the full Call for Papers, please see here. For more information, please feel free to contact: Prof. dr. Freya Baetens (freya.baetens {at} jus.uio(.)no ). ​

4. Lawyering Justice for Society Conference. The Netherlands Office of Public Intentional Law and Policy Group in collaboration with Vrije University Amsterdam are inviting you to the first Lawyering Justice for Society Conference, taking place on 12 June 2018, at VU University premises. The Conference features prominent speakers that will talk about Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes, as well as the Legal Dimensions of Independence and Secession. Attendance is free, but registration required: NLconference {at} pilpg(.)org. For more information on the speakers and the event visit PILPG’s facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pilpgnl/.

 

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: Announcements and Events
 

The Israeli Strikes on Iranian Forces in Syria: a case study on the use of force in defence of annexed territories

Published on June 8, 2018        Author: 
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

Factual Background and Legal Issue

The extensive air strikes launched by Israel on Iranian forces and assets across Syria in the early morning of 10 May 2018 present a complex case study which deserves proper legal scrutiny. According to the reconstruction given by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the strikes were decided in retaliation for a rocket barrage fired some hours earlier from Syrian territory on IDF forward outposts in the Israeli-controlled Golan. Despite denials by Iranian officials of any direct involvement of their military in Syria, the rockets were immediately attributed by the IDF to the Quds Force, the special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in charge of extraterritorial operations.

Reacting to the alleged Iranian attack and to Syria and Iran’s condemnation of Israel’s response as an act of aggression against Syria, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany explicitly referred to Israel’s right to act in self-defence against Iran. The same Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, before the operation could take place, had invoked ‘Israel’s obligation and right to defend itself against Iranian aggression from Syrian territory’. This claim, although phrased in legal terms, was not formalised in an Article 51 letter filed with the UN Security Council, which should include a justification for the use of force against both Syria (whose territorial integrity was violated) and Iran (whose forces and facilities were targeted). A self-defence argument however would raise in the present case a legal issue related to the status of the territory attacked: the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed in 1981. Can an annexing state invoke Article 51 UN Charter to justify the use of force in self-defence against an armed attack directed exclusively at a territory that it annexed? This post submits that the answer to this question, which appears unsettled and largely unexplored, cannot overlook the situation of manifest illegality that a self-defence argument would purport to preserve and protract. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:

UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Concerns about Costs, Transparency, Third Party Funding and Counterclaims

Published on June 6, 2018        Author:  and
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

As explained in a previous post, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions on states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. To facilitate discussions about the desirability of reforms and their potential nature, we have organized these quotes into key themes that emerged during the meetings. This blog sets out quotes about costs, transparency, third party funding and counterclaims. The other blogs deal with concerns about:

  1. Facts versus Perceptions and Systemic Problems or Solutions
  2. Consistency, Predictability and Correctness
  3. Arbitral Appointments, Incentives and Legitimacy

We avoid editorializing because we think that it is important for other stakeholders to hear states’ concerns expressed in their own words. We have grouped states’ concerns under headings but otherwise have kept the interventions on each sub-topic in the order in which they were made. For an analytical framework for understanding these reform dynamics, see Anthea Roberts, Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration, 112 AJIL _ (2018) (forthcoming).

  1. Costs & duration of arbitral proceedings

SOUTH AFRICA – on significant costs of arbitration: “In terms of the issue of costs when it comes to ISDS, we believe that the amounts at stake in investment treaty arbitration are often very high. Claims for compensation do amount to billions of dollars in most cases and in this context entering into treaties with the investor dispute settlement clauses carry significant financial costs for governments particularly the developing countries whose fiscal position can be seriously affected even when cases have been discontinued or when the outcome is said to be in favor of the state. The state will usually have to bear the exorbitant costs of legal defense and arbitrators fees. Furthermore large claims may serve to sustain threats of arbitration increasing the bargaining power of investors in informal discussions with governments to water down regulatory measures or to settle a dispute.” Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Concerns about Arbitral Appointments, Incentives and Legitimacy

Published on June 6, 2018        Author:  and
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

As explained in a previous post, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions on states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. To facilitate discussions about the desirability of reforms and their potential nature, we have organized these quotes into key themes that emerged during the meetings. This blog sets out quotes about arbitral appointments, incentives and legitimacy. The other blogs deal with concerns about:

  1. Facts versus Perceptions and Systemic Problems or Solutions
  2. Consistency, Predictability and Correctness
  3. Costs, Transparency, Third Party Funding and Counterclaims

We avoid editorializing because we think that it is important for other stakeholders to hear states’ concerns expressed in their own words. We have grouped states’ concerns under headings but otherwise have kept the interventions on each sub-topic in the order in which they were made. For an analytical framework for understanding these reform dynamics, see Anthea Roberts, Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration, 112 AJIL _ (2018) (forthcoming).

  1. General observations: the lack of independence and impartiality of adjudicators

INDIA – on the problem of pro-investor and pro-state arbitrators for impartiality and independence: “The very fact that there are investors arbitrators and there are states arbitrators is a testimony that impartiality and independence is lacking in the system. The system is lacking in adequate ethical requirements. And there’s a lot of conflict of interest in this system which needs to be corrected. Third party funding is a problem as well. The mix of third party funding, multiple hatting and lack of adequate ethical standards has the potential to derail the system.” Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Concerns about Consistency, Predictability and Correctness

Published on June 5, 2018        Author:  and
Facebook
GOOGLE
https://www.ejiltalk.org/page/3
LINKEDIN

As explained in a previous post, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions on states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. To facilitate discussions about the desirability of reforms and their potential nature, we have organized these quotes into key themes that emerged during the meetings. This blog sets out quotes about predictability, consistency and correctness. The other blogs deal with concerns about:

  1. Facts versus Perceptions and Systemic Problems or Solutions 
  2. Arbitral Appointments, Incentives and Legitimacy 
  3. Costs, Transparency, Third Party Funding and Counterclaims

We avoid editorializing because we think that it is important for other stakeholders to hear states’ concerns expressed in their own words. We have grouped states’ concerns under headings but otherwise have kept the interventions on each sub-topic in the order in which they were made. For an analytical framework for understanding these reform dynamics, see Anthea Roberts, Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration, 112 AJIL _ (2018) (forthcoming).

  1. Inconsistency and lack of predictability:

EUROPEAN UNION – on the relationship between costs and consistency and predictability: “We think that the system has an effect of increasing those costs and hence by looking at the system we may be able to identify ways to gradually bring about reductions and these costs. We see this happening in three ways. The first way is because the system as it currently functions does not bring about predictability and does not bring about consistency. What does this mean. It means that in any given case before any freshly constituted ad hoc tribunal, a lawyer who is doing his or her job properly will make any possible argument that can be made legally in that particular situation. It doesn’t matter if that particular legal argument has been dismissed on multiple occasions by other tribunals. It may be the case that that particular ad hoc tribunal will accept the argumentation and so any diligent lawyer will have to make that argument again. So we think increasing and dealing with the issue of predictability and consistency will help address the issue of costs.” Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email