Two Weeks in Review, 1 – 14 March 2021

Written by

EJIL: The Podcast!

Episode 7: “Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?” ‬


In this episode of the podcast, Sarah Nouwen is in conversation with Laurence Helfer (Harry R. Chadwick, Sr. Professor of Law, Duke Law School) and Erik Voeten (Peter F. Krogh Professor of Geopolitics and Justice in World Affairs, Georgetown University) about their article “Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?” which was published in the latest issue of EJIL. You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or TuneIn.

The ICC 

 discusses some of the issues related to the Pre-Trial Chamber I decision regarding the ICC’s jurisdiction for possible war crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories and argues that the question of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories has not been definitively settled.

 addresses the confirmation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC that it has initiated an investigation regarding the Situation in Palestine, and argues that the tone is conciliatory towards Israel given it explicitly acknowledges that the investigation concerns crimes against Palestinian and Israeli victims. 

and  address the issue of detention and interim release pending trial at the ICC and argue that the Court’s practice seems to suggest that there is an implicit presumption that Article 70 suspects are to be released and Article 5 suspects are to be not. They argue that there needs to be a more transparent and consistent approach which clarifies the burden of proof on parties.

The EU

 writes about the contested nature of the EU’s diplomatic network and the recent debacle related to the UK government’s refusal to grant the EU delegation diplomatic privileges and immunities because it is an office of an international organisation. Gatti suggests some responses that might be open to the EU including ‘downgrading’ the UK mission in Brussels. 

 analyses the dispute resolution provisions of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and Withdrawal Agreement and the EU-Switzerland Draft Institutional Framework Agreement and argues there is an identifiable ‘spirit of collaboration’ in both the EU-UK and EU-Switzerland arrangements

 discusses the recent European Parliament resolutions on human rights situations in Uganda, Rwanda and Kazakhstan and argues that while the sanctions may contribute to the fight against impunity in these states, they also risk creating unintended human rights consequences.

writes about the recent decision by the European Parliament to lift the immunity of Catalan MEPs, Puigdemont, Comin and Ponsati, theoretically enabling Spanish authorities to resume the European arrest warrants issued for these Catalan leaders in exile and argues that the intended depoliticisation of extraditions that the European arrest warrant was supposed to ensure does not appear to be materialising.

Other Posts

and  discuss the approaches to self-determination and sovereignty by ITLOS in respect of the Chagos Archipelago and ICC in respect of Palestine and argue that these show ‘self-determination and the intended status of statehood with its concomitant bundle of sovereign rights is a legal fact’ and that international law is moving closer to an institutional normative order. 

 writes about the recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights advisory opinion on the procedure for and effects of withdrawal from the ACHR and the OAS Charter. Steininger argues the IACtHR developed ‘three insightful but highly controversial elements in its approach to state withdrawal‘: first, that the decision to withdraw must follow a specific domestic procedure; second, it requires the decision to withdraw to be made in good faith; and third develops the idea of a “collective guarantee” underlying the Inter-American human rights system such that the OAS and member states should engage in institutional and diplomatic activities to address denunciations early and collectively.

and  write about the application of international humanitarian law to, and its limits of, cyber operations during armed conflict. They examine the dangers posed to civilians if IHL were not to apply and argue that it is imperative that all States join the growing consensus that IHL does apply. 

 reflects on many of the challenges that humanity is facing today. Allot affirms that:

The time has come to recognise the universal society of all human beings and all human societies, the society whose ideals are the common good of all human beings seen as the common interest of that society, with the making and distribution of its common wealth seen as the collective enterprise of and for all human beings.

This is the next great leap forward in the self-evolving and self-perfecting of the human species. It is no more difficult in principle than all those that have proceeded it … Recognising the possibility of a better world is a big step on the way to making a better world.


Finally, you can find all the recent Announcements and Events here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed