Two Weeks in Review, 19 September – 2 October

Written by

New Issue of EJIL (Vol. 33 (2022) No. 2)

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law  (Vol. 33 (2022) No. 2) 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.

Related posts

responds to Taylor St John’s review of his latest book ‘Investment Treaties and the Legal Imagination’. Perrone notes:

‘My view is that international economic law often misses how corporations shape ideas and put them into practice— among others, through lawyers and law firms. The legal literature has paid attention to instrumental and structural corporate power, but corporate discursive influence remains underexplored. Then again, this is beginning to change, and business historians deserve some credit for it.’

Read the full post here.

Other posts

In his post, ‘Struggles to Reconcile Theory and Politics: Comments on the Revised Draft Convention on the Right to Development’, Makoto Nakagiri discusses the revised draft of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development. Makoto reviews the changes to the draft document and comments on these changes from the perspective of effective human rights protection. This author notes the struggles and pressures the Intergovernmental working group is under to balance political power and the interests of the most vulnerable.

Read the full post here.

provides an analysis of the right to identity under Irland’s Birth Information and Tracing Act. This act enables adopted persons to access information about the identity of their biological parents once they reach the age of 16, this in turn shows a clear preference for the right to identity of the child over the privacy rights of the biological parent. Aspell draws attention to the similarities between the new act and relevant case law from the ECtHR. Regarding the balancing of these competing rights, Aspell argues that the Irish legislation may very well satisfy the balancing of rights required by the ECtHR.

Read the full post here.

In their post, ‘Of Parties, Third Parties, and Treaty Interpretation: Ukraine v. Russia (X) before the European Court of Human Rights‘,  and  explore the value of third-party interventions in the case brought against Russia in the ECtHR. The two conclude that: 

‘The array of third-party interventions in Ukraine v. Russia (X) is an opportunity for the primary subjects of international law to express their legal views and to provide clarity on the crucial questions raised, notably on the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law. The unprecedented engagement of more than half of the ECHR member States is also an important validation of the Court’s supervisory system and its parent organization, the Council of Europe.’

Read the full post here.

discusses the creation of a new free trade area (FTA) between the European Union and New Zealand from the perspective of sustainable development. The author argues the Trade and Sustainable Development clauses mark a paradime shift for the EU. concludes that: 

‘Unquestionably, the new enforcement strategy for the TSD chapters brings the EU closer to a successful implementation of the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Hopefully, this new path towards a more effective implementation of sustainable development values will be consistently followed by EU also in future negotiations with other major trading partners. The Commission seems at last to be seriously intentioned to go in this direction, if one should judge from the Communication of June 2022 previously mentioned. However, the final result is far from obvious. If New Zealand had demonstrated to share EU sensitivity over sustainable development imperatives, the same cannot be taken for granted as to the other trade partners of the EU. In this regard, it is to expect that some challenges would probably arise within the negotiations with India and Indonesia in the light of their national policies on labour and environmental rights.’

Read the full post here.


The recent UNHRC decision on climate change 

In her post, ‘UNHRC is Turning up the Heat: Human Rights Violations Due to Inadequate Adaptation Action to Climate Change’, Discusses the decision in Daniel Billy at al. versus Australia (“Torres Strait Islanders case”), issued on 23 September 2022, by the UN Human Rights Committee. The UNHRC found that by failing to implement timely and adequate adaptation measures to the climate change crisis, Australia is violating the CCPR rights of Australian citizens residing in the Torres Strait Islands. Voigt provides an analysis of the groundbreaking nature of this decision and reviews its possible shortcomings.  

Read the full post here

In her post, ‘Torres Strait Islanders: United Nations Human Rights Committee Delivers Ground-Breaking Decision on Climate Change Impacts on Human Rights’,  adds to the discussion on the recent UNHRC decision. explains was the first legal action brought by climate-vulnerable inhabitants of low-lying islands against a Sovereign state. She focuses on the several ground-breaking precedents for international human rights law and climate justice set in this decision. The author concludes:  

‘The Committee accepted that the Torres Strait Islanders bringing the complaint are entitled to “full reparation” (§11).  The meaning of what full reparation entails is defined by international law. The Committee referred to compensation (which is a precedent now within the notion of loss and damage category) and the duty to“resolve any deficiencies as soon as practicable” relating to the adaptation measures needed.  Quite crucially, it also stated that “the State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future.”(§ 11).  This falls within the scope of guarantees of non-repetition and it can only be achieved by adequate mitigation measures.  This is an important legal consequence arising from the findings of the Committee which now has to  be implemented.  The Committee gave the State 180 days to report on the measures taken to implement this decision (§12).’

Read the full post here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed