Two Weeks in Review, 22 June – 5 July 2020

Written by

COVID related posts

and  note the recent moves by some states, as part of efforts to contain the transmission of COVID-19, denying the entry to their nationals. They examine whether it is lawful for a State to deprive individuals of the right to enter their own country, through the lens of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and regional human rights treaties.

 situates debates about the performance of the WHO during COVID, saying the “noble dream” and ambition of its institution, quickly turned into a “technocratic nightmare”. Besson notes two weaknesses of the global health governance affecting the WHO: the first concerns the “rule of expertise instead of rule of law”; and the second is the insufficient and unequal compulsory public funding, given that Member State contributions only makes up 20% of the WHO’s budget.

 writes about the turn by states to using private security to secure migrant detention centres and public transport, and also those firms now ‘positioning themselves as humanitarian actors’, carrying out public health testing, and tracking and tracing services. MacLeod argues this raises serious human rights concerns, and discusses the human rights impacts of this outsourcing of public functions to the private security sector. 

Black Lives Matter Symposium

 writes about the debate about defunding the police, noting the fifty year cycle of reform-and-retreat. Stone is hopeful the recent protests and feelings force a meaningful measure of community control, including funding community groups that could act as alternatives to the police.

 comments on the internationalisation of Black Lives Matter at the UN Human Rights Council, noting the 17 June 2020 debate on a draft resolution submitted by Burkino Faso on behalf of the Group of African States with the support of Iran and Palestine, strongly condemning systemic racism in law enforcement in the US and other countries. Parmar suggests that the result of the debate was disappointing, given it resulted in the adoption by consensus of a ‘very weak’ resolution that does not set up a commission of inquiry and that it stripped any mention of the US in its operative paragraphs. 

This is an ongoing symposium. If you have a post you would like to contribute to it, please get in touch with a member of the editorial team or email the editors at ejiltalk {at} gmail(.)com.

non-COVID related posts

 comments on the recent US announcement of economic and travel sanctions against ICC officials involved in an investigation into whether US forces committed war crimes during the Afghan conflict, saying it is likely that these sanctions will succeed in disrupting an effective investigation into the actions of US forces and raising questions of victor’s justice.

and  take a look at the legality of Israeli annexation and the long term consequences for Israel of these developments, noting that according to most observers the annexation of, and most settlements in, the West Bank are a blatant violations of international law.

, , , and  make the case for why The Netherlands should ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA), noting that without ratification, CETA cannot enter into force for the entire EU. They argue that ‘in today’s crumbling international legal order, this would be a very negative signal … CETA represents a step forward and a good basis to further improve a variety of matters at the international level.’

 undertakes an in-depth study of the Riyadh Agreements, which underlie the various disputes between Qatar and the Quartet (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain), including before the ICJ, UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ICAO, and WTO. 

 writes about the possibility that the ICC will change its position on trials in absentia, noting the decision by the Appeals Court in Gbagbo and Blé Goudé case where the Judge noted that the aim of Article 63(1) of the Rome Statute is perverted when an accused is deliberately absent from trial.

Book Discussion: Don Herzog’s Sovereignty RIP

Over the next week, EJIL:Talk! is running a Book Discussion, reflecting on Don Herzog’s Sovereignty RIP. Reviewers include Jack Goldsmith, Neil Walker, Heike Krieger and James Gathii.

We began the discussion on Friday with ’s introductory post.

Finally, all recent Announcements and Events can be found here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed