Two Weeks in Review, 24 May – 6 June 2021

The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections in Cyberspace: The Regulation of Information Operations and Activities

The Oxford Institute for Ethics Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC) again convened different stakeholders in the ‘Oxford Process on International Law Protections in Cyberspace’ this time addressing the international regulation of ‘information operations and activities’.

You can read the Oxford Statement on ‘The Regulation of Information Operations and Activities’ and find out how to add your signature to the statement here. 

Previous Oxford Statements on International Law Protections in Cyberspace:

• The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections Against Cyber Operations Targeting the Health Care Sector
• The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections of the Healthcare Sector During Covid-19: Safeguarding Vaccine Research
• The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections Against Foreign Electoral Interference Through Digital Means

Blog Posts

Marina Lostal comments on some interesting features from the ICC’s Ntaganda Reparations Order and discusses some of the changes that the Order introduced to the ICC’s framework on reparations, including the idea of “collective reparations with individualised components” as a middle ground between collective and individual reparations. 

Miles Jackson and Antonios Tzanakopoulos write about the legal issues that arose when the government of Belarus forced Ryanair flight FR4978 to land in Minsk on account of a ‘potential security risk’. They concluded that with this action it is likely Belarus breached the Chicago Convention and the Montreal Convention, however, it was not ‘state hijacking’ or ‘piracy’. Jackson and Tzanakopoulos also argued that the road to adjudication appears to be open in relation to the Chicago Convention but not the Montreal Convention due to a Belarusian reservation, that all states parties have standing to bring claims against Belarus, and that state parties could adopt countermeasures against Belarus.

Marko Milanovic discusses the recent significant ECtHR judgments on electronic mass surveillance in Big Brother Watch and Others v. UK and Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden and argues that the judgments normalize mass surveillance and bulk interception because they focus on process (ensuring rules are clear and detailed, and that safeguards are in place) but otherwise find that bulk interception is ECHR-compliant.

Monika Zalnieriute also comments on these judgments and suggests they point to ‘an emerging dangerous convergence on the legality of bulk surveillance operations’ in the case law of the CJEU and ECtHR that is ‘grounded in “procedural fetishism”’ and reinforces a narrative that securitisation is inevitable.

Jan Eiken writes about the recent decision by the CERD Committee on the admissibility of the inter-State communication brought by Palestine against Israel and argues it further entrenches an ‘exception to the domestic remedies rule in inter-State cases where it is not a single incident of a human rights violation, but rather a structural deficit, that is being complained of’. The next step is for an ad hoc Conciliation Commission to be appointed. 

Callum Musto comments on the process thus far of negotiating the World Trade Organization’s fisheries subsidies agreement and examines the recently released draft text. Two of the major sticking points in the negotiations include how to identify unsustainable practices and how provide for special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing member states. 

Benoit Mayer offers some reflections on the major judgment in the District Court of the Hague that recognised Royal Dutch Shell has an obligation to mitigate climate change and which ordered Shell to reduce all carbon dioxide resulting from its global operations by 45 percent by 2030. 

Diane Desierto discusses the recent Joint Statement from IMF, WTO, World Bank, and WHO leadership ahead of the G7 meeting on “A new commitment for vaccine equity and defeating the pandemic“. Desierto argues that while the statement is ‘unprecedented and certainly laudable’ it rests on a simplistic and shortsighted understanding of inequitability and fails to commit to a human rights-centred global response to the pandemic. 

All recent Events and Announcements can be found here.

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