Two weeks in review, 1 August – 14 August

Written by

New Issue of EJIL (Vol. 33 (2022) No. 1)

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law  (Vol. 33 (2022) No. 1) is now out. EJIL subscribers have full access to the latest issue of the journal at EJIL’s Oxford University Press site. Apart from articles published in the last 12 months, EJIL articles are freely available on the EJIL website.

Joseph Weiler reflects on the philosophy and educational objectives of teaching and how these translate into the format of an exam. His post, ‘On My Way Out – Advice to Young Scholars VII: Taking Exams Seriously (Part 1)’, is the seventh installment in a series of notes on different topics for scholars in the early phases of their careers. 

Other posts

In her post, ‘‘Biased’, ‘Selective’, ‘Antisemitic’: Accusations against the UN Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories’, Rosa Freedman explores the accusations against the UN Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These accusations follow the latest remarks by UN independent expert Miloon Kothari. Freedman argues these create an appearance of bias and greatly harm the credibility of the Commission of Inquiry and the legitimacy of its findings.

Read the full post here.

analyses the measures taken against Russian military officers by Ukraine, focusing on those sanctioned due to an asserted responsibility for international crimes. He concludes: 

‘The EU’s sanctioning of Russian military officers is not inherently problematic. In fact, such sanctions may legitimately work to counteract Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. However, if the values of human rights and the rule of law – as enshrined within the EU treaties – are to be preserved, EU sanctions must respect the key principles of international criminal law and the rights of those targeted. For example, simply refraining from asserting international criminal responsibility – as done in the EU’s 21 July listings (here) – remedies the majority of the concerns raised in this post. As the EU considers its response to the clear perpetration of heinous international crimes, caution must be exercised in the framing of sanctions to ensure their legitimacy, legality, and effectiveness.’ 

Read his post here

criticizes the WHO declaration that the outbreak of monkeypox constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. He highlights critical issues related not only to the PHEIC declaration but, more generally, to global health governance, designed by the IHRs and the WHO Constitution.

Read the full post here

examines the capacity of the Ukrainian courts to prosecute war crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Further, she questions the Ukrainian court’s ability to prosecute in compliance with fair trial guarantees and the appropriateness of doing so while the war is ongoing. She concludes: 

‘The main burden of prosecuting war crimes in Ukraine will inevitably fall on the shoulders of the Ukrainian judicial system. Ukrainian courts are best placed to do this job because of their proximity to the evidence, witnesses and victims, their understanding of the context and their knowledge of the languages involved. While the Ukrainian judicial system is naturally affected by the ongoing war, the vast majority of the courts remain available to administer justice. However, serious efforts should be made by Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community, to further strengthen the Ukrainian judiciary’s expertise in prosecuting war crimes.’

Read the full post here

explores the controversial question of whether Security Council resolutions are binding under international law if they conflict with peremptory norms. Herbert supports The ILC decision that Security Council resolutions do not create binding effects to the extent that they conflict with jus cogens.  

Read the full post here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed