Two Weeks in Review, 22 May – 4 June 2023

In his post, ‘Ukraine’s Involvement in Cross-Border Raids by Russian Paramilitary Groups: Illegal Use of Force and Intervention or Lawful Self-Defence?’, Stefan Talmon explores the legality and classification of the 22 May 2023, cross-border raids from Ukraine into Russia. The raid was conducted by two Russian paramilitary groups and raise a searies of questions. Talmon argues that the assistance provided by Ukraine to these groups is covered by Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defense. And so, while exercising that right, Ukraine may carry the war to Russia, either by using its own troops or by taking advantage of Russian armed opposition forces.

Read the full post here. 

Andrew Forde reflects on the Council of Europe’s Heads of State and Government summit, held on 16 – 17 May 2023 in Reykjavík. The Summit focused principally on four main issues: ensuring accountability for Russia’s crimes in Ukraine, reviving commitment to the ECHR control system, reiterating fundamental principles of democracy, and advancing the agenda of human rights and the environment. Forde concludes that

The Reykjavik Summit is a critical point of inflection for the CoE but the system will only be strengthened if Member States actively implement the spirit of the Declaration, in particular in the way they resource, defend and champion the values they have voluntarily subscribed to at home. As German Chancellor Olaf Schloz noted in his speech there is an inseparable link between the rule of law, democracy and the protection of human rights at the national level and peaceful coexistence at the international level.Whether the future of the Council of Europe will be characterised by fire or by ice remains to be seen.

Read the full post here. 

Juliette Rémond Tiedrez analyzes the legal framework of Universal jurisdiction in France following recent Cour de cassation decisions in the Nema and Chaban cases. While Rémond Tiedrez notes the recent changes made to the legal framework, she argues the law on universal jurisdiction is still too restrictive. In particular, the requirement of habitual residence of the suspect on French soil and the consent of the prosecutor for the initiation of proceedings. Further, the author calls on France to follow Germany’s example in prosecuting Syrian regime officials and allow the French specialized bodies to investigate and prosecute all international crimes by amending its universal jurisdiction law.

Betül Durmuş explores racial hate speech in the context of the recent Jallow v. Denmark case. Durmuş argues the case consolidates the CERD’s firm stance on the interpretation of Article 4 in the context of satirical art. Further, she notes Jallow offers important doctrinal guidance on two key criteria for the assessment of racist hate speech: harmful effect and harmful intent. Nevertheless, the author finds that the CERD failed to discuss the role of satire in the context of hate speech and it would benefit from more clarity as to how it employs its doctrine of deference to national authorities, in order to amplify its interpretive authority on racist hate speech.

The European Journal of International Law has new advanced articles and advanced reviews available to read online.