Search

Begin New Search Topic Legal Theory Publication Year within 10 Years

31. Determining the Relationship Between International and Domestic Laws Within an Internationalized Court: An Example From the Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers’ Jurisdiction Over International and Domestic Crimes

Author:
Melanie Vianney-Liaud
Publication Date:
08-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Internationalized criminal tribunals such as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) differ from traditional international criminal tribunals by a lesser degree of internationality. The ECCC emerged through an international agreement but their mixed composition and operating rules are also defined in Cambodian Law. The relationship between the ECCC’s Agreement and Law has not been clearly stated, which generates questions since both texts are not always consistent. This paper proposes, through the study of the provisions of the ECCC Law relating to the ECCC’s subject-matter jurisdiction, to determine the impact of such discrepancies on the activity of the Chambers. The decisions of their judicial bodies on the application of Articles 3, 4 and 5 which provide for the ECCC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, genocide and certain domestic crimes have allowed to cope with the uncertainty generated by those differences. However, a bigger issue remains which is due to the ECCC’s particular hybrid structure. Composed of national judges in the majority, ECCC’s decisions may only be taken if the required qualified majority is reached, which implies the need for an agreement with their international counterparts.
Topic:
International Law, Sovereignty, Legal Theory, and Jurisdiction
Political Geography:
Asia and Cambodia

32. General Principles Regarding the Legal Validity of RUD

Author:
Eric Chung
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This paper examines the legal validity of reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) in both U.S. and international courts. The analysis is based on 46 U.S. cases discussing RUDs as a general category and 26 U.S. cases discussing interpretative understandings and declarations, out of approximately 650 reviewed cases. The analysis is also based on 13 cases from international courts out of approximately 300 reviewed cases, including cases from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) tribunal and arbitral bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter- American Court of Human Rights. In the U.S. cases, RUDs are nearly always recognized as valid. For example, non-self- execution reservations in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are usually treated as legally controlling. The same is true for the reservation to the ICCPR that reserves the right to use capital punishment on juveniles despite treaty prohibitions, as well as interpretative understandings and declarations defining specific terms used in the CAT. U.S. courts have only questioned the validity of RUDs when they were not properly communicated to other state parties, did not support a contrary interpretation, or focused on issues of wholly domestic concern (although the only case on this point was vacated and is not precedential). In addition, individual circuit judges, writing in dissent, have examined whether RUDs violate the separation of powers principle or are inconsistent with the treaty language and international law. With few exceptions, international courts also usually defer to RUDs. The ICJ has indicated that it can invalidate a reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty pursuant to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. Yet the ICJ has only invalidated a RUD when it determined that a reservation was in fact an interpretative declaration (as opposed to a reservation modifying the state’s legal obligations under the treaty). This has been particularly important in cases where the treaty in question prohibits reservations, such as the UNCLOS. Rules stipulated by a treaty also shape how other courts review RUDs. The European Court of Human Rights, for instance, applies treaty rules to invalidate RUDs that are of a general character or fail to include a statement of the law concerned. Following a number of practices can reduce a RUD’s vulnerability to invalidation in U.S. and international courts. For U.S. courts, a RUD is extremely unlikely to be questioned if it is documented clearly at the time of ratification and communicated to all treaty parties at the time of ratification. For international courts, a RUD is unlikely to be questioned if, in addition to the above factors, it is not counter to the “object and purpose” of a treaty, it is not objected to by other parties, and it is not a reservation masquerading as an interpretive declaration in a situation where reservations are prohibited by the relevant treaty.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, Legal Theory, and Courts
Political Geography:
United States of America and North America

33. The Individual Sovereignty: Conceptualization and Manifestation

Author:
Nikola Lj. Ilievski
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
This paper is qualitative and theoretical research of the concept of sovereignty and the libertarian theory, particularly the concept of individual liberty. It represents a concept developing study, with a specific accent laid on the individual liberty, and the theoretically established concept of sovereignty. The research focus could be identified with the conceptualization and manifestation of the individual sovereignty, as a theoretical phenomenon that is not fully conceptualized and strictly defined. In the scope of this paper, content analysis method and comparative method are used. The analysis, comparison and synthesis refer to the theories of sovereignty and the theory of libertarianism, resulting in developing the concept of individual sovereignty and its socio-political manifestation.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Legal Theory, International Relations Theory, State, and Civil Liberties
Political Geography:
Global Focus