magnify

Application of the CERD Convention (Qatar v UAE) and “Parallel Proceedings” before the CERD Committee and the ICJ

Published on May 17, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Last week, the International Court of Justice held hearings to consider the United Arab Emirates request for provisional measures in the Case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE).  The UAE’s requests are unusual in at least two ways. First these requests constitute the second request for provisional measures in the case, with the first requests considered by the Court last year. Second, and more unusually, this is a rare instance of the respondent state (and one which challenges the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case) requesting provisional measures. 

The UAE has made requests under four grounds, but I would like to focus on the first, that: ‘(i) Qatar immediately withdraw its Communication submitted to the CERD Committee [the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination] pursuant to Article 11 of the CERD on 8 March 2018 against the UAE’. The request raises the question of whether international law has developed a principle of lis pendens such that parallel proceedings before different international bodies should be disallowed. It also engages the issue in previous caselaw of whether the preconditions of Article 22 are alternative or cumulative.

Two mechanisms for inter-state disputes under the CERD

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (the CERD Convention) contains two mechanisms for inter-state “complaints”. First, Articles 11-13 provide for inter-state communications whereby one state party, considering that another state party is not giving effect to the provisions of the Convention, may bring the matter to the attention of the CERD Committee. Second, Article 22 provides that any dispute between two or more states parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention, can be referred to the ICJ for decision. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Is the Duty to Prevent Genocide an Obligation of Result or an Obligation of Conduct according to the ICJ?

Published on May 16, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This is the final post in our blog symposium arising out of the Nottingham International Law and Security Centre conference to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention. Read the other posts in this symposium here and here.

This post questions the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia case, according to which the duty to prevent a genocide is an obligation of conduct that can be assessed only after the occurrence of a genocide. The post first briefly explores the distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result on the basis of the International Law Commission (ILC)’s works and judicial practice. The post moves on to emphasise some inconsistencies in the ICJ’s reasoning in relation to the occurrence of a genocide as a prerequisite for the violation of the duty to prevent genocide. Finally, the post advances some possible explanations of the role of the event ‘genocide’ in relation to the duty to prevent genocide.

The 2007 ICJ’s Decision

In the 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia case, the Court for the first time declared that an autonomous obligation of diligent conduct to prevent genocide exists under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention (see my reflections here). According to the Court:

It is clear that the obligation in question is one of conduct and not one of result, in the sense that a State cannot be under an obligation to succeed, whatever the circumstances, in preventing the commission of genocide: the obligation of States parties is rather to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible. A State does not incur responsibility simply because the desired result is not achieved; responsibility is however incurred if the State manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its power, and which might have contributed to preventing the genocide. In this area the notion of “due diligence”, which calls for an assessment in concreto, is of critical importance. (para 430, emphasis added)

The Court went on to affirm that a breach of the duty to prevent genocide can be assessed only after a genocide has occurred. The Court took the view that:

a State can be held responsible for breaching the obligation to prevent genocide only if genocide was actually committed. It is at the time when commission of the prohibited act (genocide or any of the other acts listed in Article III of the Convention) begins that the breach of an obligation of prevention occurs. […] If neither genocide nor any of the other acts listed in Article III of the Convention are ultimately carried out, then a State that omitted to act when it could have done so cannot be held responsible a posteriori, since the event did not happen. (para 431, emphasis added)

However, the view that a genocide must occur before a State’s compliance with the duty to prevent genocide can be assessed ignores the fact that this duty is a due diligence obligation of conduct. This conclusion is supported by the analysis of the evolution of the notion of obligations of conduct. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Is the Duty to Prevent Genocide an Obligation of Result or an Obligation of Conduct according to the ICJ?

Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Reflecting on the Genocide Convention at 70: How genocide became a crime subject to universal jurisdiction

Published on May 16, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This is the second post in our blog symposium arising out of the Nottingham International Law and Security Centre conference to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention. Read the first post here.

The 9th of December 2018 marked the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. Article 6 of the Convention expressly grants adjudicatory jurisdiction to the territorial State (the State where the crime occurred) and to an international penal tribunal with the acceptance of the Contracting Parties. However, the textual content of the Article has not prevented the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction to the crime, including universal criminal jurisdiction. Reflecting on the Genocide Convention at 70, this post briefly analyses the development of universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. It explains how Article 6 has led to the application of the universality principle to the crime, and considers what can be learned from this phenomenon in the context of the legacy of the Genocide Convention.

The origins of the application of universal jurisdiction to genocide began decades before the drafting of the Genocide Convention in 1947. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Reflecting on the Genocide Convention at 70: How genocide became a crime subject to universal jurisdiction

Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Codification of the Crime of Genocide – a Blessing or a Curse?

Published on May 15, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: This is the first post in our blog symposium arising out of the Nottingham International Law and Security Centre conference to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention. 

Codification of the crime of genocide

A lot has been written about the origins of the crime of genocide that need not be repeated here. It is well known that Lemkin originally saw genocide as a broad concept, i.e. as different acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of groups (Axis Rule in Occupied Power, pp. 79-82). Along the same lines, the 1946 UN General Assembly Resolution 96 described genocide as the denial of the right of existence of entire human groups – including political ones. However, the scope of the definition adopted in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was significantly narrower. Cultural destruction and forcible population transfer were not included in the final text, protected groups were restricted, and jurisdictional reach limited. Yet, the Convention must be understood in the context of time. Indeed, having in mind the historical background, it is quite remarkable that the Convention was adopted at all – and broad support was generated by making concessions and imposing more stringent requirements.

Since the Genocide Convention defined and codified the crime of genocide as an independent crime, the definition of genocide has remained firmly settled in international law. Perhaps prematurely, the ICJ had already proclaimed its customary status in 1951, which was subsequently fortified by the verbatim reproduction of Article II of the Genocide Convention in the statutes of international ad hoc tribunals (here and here) as well as the Rome Statute of the ICC. This surely contributed to legal certainty and, from this perspective, codification can be viewed as a blessing for the relatively consistent application of the definition of genocide at the international level. Yet, simultaneously, it was a curse, preventing the crime from undergoing a development similar to that of crimes against humanity and even war crimes. This downside of the early codification could have been at least partially addressed through teleological and evolutive interpretation of the offence. The international tribunals, however, failed to realize the potential of the definition and thus contributed to frustrations surrounding prosecutions of genocide as well as to claims that genocide today is a redundant crime. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Introducing Upcoming Blog Symposium on the Genocide Convention

Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Editor’s note: Starting this afternoon, the blog will host a symposium arising out of the Nottingham International Law and Security Centre conference to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention.

On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in response to the Holocaust. It was designed to prevent and punish ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group’. At present, 150 states have ratified this treaty in the hope that current and future generations would not have to experience such heinous atrocities as committed during the Second World War.

Over the past seventy years, the legal concept of genocide has had time to evolve and mature. States and the international community have been given the impetus to prevent, prosecute and punish genocide to deliver on their historic promise that it would happen ‘never again’. The recent 70th anniversary of the Genocide Convention inspires reflection on its development and critical assessment of its legacy.

The Nottingham International Law and Security Centre, co-directed by Professors Mary Footer and Nigel White, organised and sponsored an interdisciplinary conference to mark the ‘70th Anniversary of the Genocide Convention’ in November 2018. In three panels, the participants focused on the conceptualisation of genocide, jurisdictional matters and universality, and responsibility. Three of the best papers, one for each panel, were then selected for this small blog symposium on EJIL: Talk!. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Introducing Upcoming Blog Symposium on the Genocide Convention

To be a Party or not to be a Party: Malaysia’s envisaged ‘withdrawal’ from its (pending) accession to the Rome Statute

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

As inter alia confirmed by its recent judgments concerning the Afghanistan situation and the Al Bashir case, the ICC currently finds itself in truly turbulent times. What is more, is that the Rome Statute has turned out to be a real treasure trove when it comes to the international law of treaties. This includes, inter alia, the ratification of the Rome Statute by Palestine and the ensuing question as to whether the accession by Palestine ought to be counted towards the quorum of 30 ratifications of the Kampala Amendment so as to provide for its entry into force (see here), as well as other intriguing questions of treaty law raised by the Kampala compromise on the crime of aggression and the way in which to eventually amend the Rome Statute (see here). The withdrawals by Gambia and South Africa, which both later, albeit for different reasons, ‘withdrew from their respective withdrawals’ before they even became effective (see here and here), as well as Burundi’s withdrawal in October 2017 (see here), and most recently that by the Phillipines, again raised various issues of treaty law. 

Yet another question of treaty law relating to the Rome Statute is emerging. After having submitted its instrument of accession to the UN Secretary General on 4 March 2019 (see here), which in accordance with Art. 126 (2) of the Rome Statute means that Malaysia would have formally become a State Party on 1 June 2019, the Malaysian Prime Minister announced on 5 April 2019 the Malaysian government’s decision to, as he put it, ‘rescind its membership of the Statute’. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on To be a Party or not to be a Party: Malaysia’s envisaged ‘withdrawal’ from its (pending) accession to the Rome Statute

An Analysis of the Use of ICJ Jurisprudence in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Published on May 13, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Last October 2018, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “the Court”) issued its merits judgment in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile). In a brief passage, the Court summarily dismissed Bolivia’s argument that the doctrine of “legitimate expectations” exists in general international law outside the context of fair and equitable treatment clauses. Despite the brevity of the Court’s analysis – and the minor importance of the legitimate expectations issue in that case – this finding drew attention from media outlets dedicated to investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”), including IAReporter. That the discussion of legitimate expectations in the Bolivia v. Chilejudgment was considered newsworthy in the ISDS sphere is a reflection of the importance that ISDS practitioners place on ICJ jurisprudence. As Professor Alain Pellet observed in a 2013 lecture, “[n]ot only do … investment tribunals… refer to the jurisprudence of the World Court, but they show a particular deference to it.”

There is some evidence, discussed below, to suggest that ISDS tribunals have referred to ICJ jurisprudence with increased frequency in recent years. Moreover, as ICJ President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf highlighted in his October 2018 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, the Court today is particularly busy. There may thus be even more opportunities for jurisprudential cross-pollination in the near future. Now is an opportune time to consider why, when, and how investor-State tribunals refer to ICJ jurisprudence.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on An Analysis of the Use of ICJ Jurisprudence in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Announcements: London Conference on International Law; CfP Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice; CfP International Investments and Ecological Sustainability; Stockton Center for International Law Visiting Research Scholar Program; CfA Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Right; Critical Approaches to International Law Symposium; Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Rosalyn Higgins Prize; Law of Immunities of International Organisations after Jam

Published on May 12, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email
1. The London Conference on International Law, 3-4 October 2019 at the Barbican, London. What is the use of international law and how do we engage with it? The London Conference on International Law will bring together international law academics, judges, practitioners, representatives of civil society, business-leaders, and other stakeholders to see how States and all other actors engage with international law. Visit the conference website for details on the programme and confirmed speakers. 
 
2. Call for Papers – Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice. The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at The University of Texas at Austin, School of Law invites submissions for an interdisciplinary conference on the theme of “Prison Abolition, Human Rights, and Penal Reform: From the Local to the Global,” to be held 26 – 28 September 2019. The full call for papers can be found here.
 
3. Call for Papers: International Investments and Ecological Sustainability. The International Investments in Latin America Network and the School of Policy and Government of the Universidad Nacional de San Martín, with the support of the University of Dundee and the Transnational Institute, are organizing a workshop on International Investments and Ecological Sustainability on the 25 – 26 July 2019 at the Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina. We call on scholars from across social sciences to submit abstracts by 31 May 2019. We particularly encourage submissions from the perspective of low and middle-income countries, noting that funding might be available to support their participation. Further information here.
 
4. Stockton Center for International Law Visiting Research Scholar Program. The Stockton Center for International Law is now accepting applications for its Visiting Research Scholar Program. An integral part of the U.S. Naval War College, the Stockton Center is an internationally recognized research institute focusing on the most challenging questions of international law pertaining to the use of force, the law of armed conflict, military operations, the law of the sea, and maritime security. Visiting Research Scholars typically spend two to three months at the Center, but shorter and longer stays are possible. Additional details and the application requirements are available here.
 
5. Call for Applications – Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Right, Finland, Helsinki Summer Seminar. The Eric Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights invites you to the 31th Summer Seminar on International Law – ‘International Environmental Law: Process as decline’. The seminar will take place 26 – 30 August 2019 at the University of Helsinki. The Summer Seminar applies a critical perspective to fundamental questions such as: Can the current preferred modus operandi of international environmental law respond effectively to the massive environmental and human health crises of the present and future? The seminar encourages international environmental law students, scholars and professionals to unlearn pragmatic, instrumentalist or functionalist ways of doing international environmental law. Further information and application deadlines can be found on our website. If you have further questions, contact intlaw-institute {at} helsinki(.)fi.
 
6. Critical Approaches to International Law Symposium. This Symposium will take place at Griffith College Dublin, Faculty of Law from 1 – 4 August, 2019. The deadline for registration has been extended, and there are 10 scholarships for scholars from the Global South available. For further information, see here

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
Comments Off on Announcements: London Conference on International Law; CfP Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice; CfP International Investments and Ecological Sustainability; Stockton Center for International Law Visiting Research Scholar Program; CfA Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Right; Critical Approaches to International Law Symposium; Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Rosalyn Higgins Prize; Law of Immunities of International Organisations after Jam

Passportisation: Risks for international law and stability – Part II

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

Editor note: This is Part II of a two-part post. See Part I here.

Part One of the blogpost examined the recent Russian decrees on a fast track procedure for conferring Russian nationality on inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine and explained international legal principles which govern such extraterritorial naturalisations. 

III. Striking the Balance: International Legal Limits on Passportisation

The conflicting individual and governmental interests and the overarching global value of a stable repartition of jurisdictions are reconciled by posing specific legal limits on the power of a state to naturalise citizens of another state.

The Prohibition of an Arbitrary Refusal to Release One’s Nationals

The prohibition of arbitrary decisions concerning nationality issues has emerged as a standard of reference in the international law of nationality. The Report of the UN Secretary General, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, 14 December 2009 (A/HRC/13/34), stated that “[T]he notion of arbitrariness could be interpreted to include not only acts that are against the law but, more broadly, elements of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of predictability also” (para. 25).

A state may not categorically and without any legitimate reason (i.e. arbitrarily) prevent its citizens from acquiring a different citizenship. Inversely, a state may validly oppose the naturalisation of its citizens if its governmental interests outweigh both the interests of the concerned natural persons and the interests of the naturalising state. In that case, the refusal to release its national would not be arbitrary. A state’s refusal to release a national who continues to reside within its own territory is presumptively not arbitrary.

The Requirement of a Factual Connection

International law has traditionally required that there be a factual relationship between the person to be naturalised and the naturalising state. It has never allowed a state to confer its nationality by naturalisation upon persons possessing the nationality of another state and to whom the conferring state has no factual relation at all. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Human Rights
 
Comments Off on Passportisation: Risks for international law and stability – Part II

Passportisation: Risks for international law and stability – Part I

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

I. Fast track to Russian nationality

On 24 April 2019, the Russian President issued an Executive Order identifying groups of persons entitled to a “fast-track procedure” when applying for Russian citizenship otherwise regulated by the Russian Law on Citizenship (Federal Law No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002). The decree facilitates the acquisition of Russian nationality by residents from various districts of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions, notably without taking residency in Russia. The regions border Russia and are struck by a military conflict between the central government and separatist forces under heavy involvement of Russia. On 1st May 2019, the President issued a second “Executive Order on Certain Categories of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons Entitled to a Fast-Track Procedure when Applying for Russian Citizenship”. The new fast track procedure is potentially open to around 4 million people living in the conflict area of Eastern Ukraine.

In the Security Council of 25 April 2019, the representative of the Russian Federation explained “that there is a high demand for Russian citizenship among people from south-eastern Ukraine whose living conditions Kyiv has made intolerable. In other words, Russia’s legislative initiative is a response to the aspirations of many thousands of people. It is not we who are forcing them to become Russian citizens but rather they themselves who desire it. We are simply providing them with an opportunity and significantly simplifying the process. (…) Why was it done? The conflict in Donbas has been going on for five years. For five years, the inhabitants of Donbas have been deprived of the ability to exercise their human rights and freedoms in Ukraine. They were denied the right to vote in the recent presidential elections.” “[T]he residents of Donetsk and Luhansk (…) have been deprived of income sources, pensions and benefits that other Ukrainian citizens are entitled to. They would not have survived without Russia (…). The people of Donetsk and Luhansk deserve to have reliable State care and social protection once again. (…) They are getting none of that from the Ukrainian Government, and we therefore felt compelled to offer them assistance.” (Vassily A. Nebenzia, Security Council 8516th meeting, Verbatim Record, UN Doc S/PV.8516, p. 15-16). The decrees might also respond to the Ukrainian draft language law which establishes Ukrainian as the language of the state and relegates Russian to a regional language (Bill №5670-d, reading in Parliament on 25 April 2019, not yet in force ).

The recently elected President of Ukraine spoke of “another unprecedented interference of the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of an independent state, a brutal violation of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine and a complete trampling upon its obligations in the framework of the Minsk agreements. In addition, the Kremlin therefore deliberately and cynically violates international humanitarian law, which prohibits the occupation authorities from changing the citizenship of the inhabitants of the occupied territories.” (24 April 2019).

In the UN Security Council Meeting of 25 April 2019, numerous delegates criticised the Russian measures. The Slovak OSCE Chairmanship expressed “deep concern”.

The recent decrees inscribe themselves in an overall Russian policy of generously conferring its nationality on residents of those states which emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union. In Crimea, an active Russian “passportisation” policy had allegedly been pursued since 1991, until the peninsula was annexed by Russia in 2014. In two breakaway territories of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, passportisation was rampant especially around 2002 (see the analysis in: Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Report (“Tagliavini Report”), vol. II, Chapter 3). Russia also offers easy Russian nationality to inhabitants of Transnistria (in Moldowa).

This two part-blogpost shows that the Russian “passportisation” policy (i.e. the policy of conferring Russian nationality en masse to persons residing outside Russia) is in many respects exorbitant and risks to violate various principles of international law. Part One examines the governing principles, Part Two balances these principles, applies them to the current case, and examines the legal consequences of  exorbitant naturalisations.  Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Human Rights
 
Comments Off on Passportisation: Risks for international law and stability – Part I