Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law

11. Through the Looking Glass: Corporate Actors and Environmental Harm Beyond the ILC

Author:
Daniella Dam-de Jong and Saskia Wolters
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Corporate activities take place in a variety of social contexts, including in countries affected by armed conflict. Whether corporations are physically present in these regions or merely do business with partners from conflict zones, there is an increased risk that their activities contribute to egregious human rights abuses or serious environmental harm. This is especially so for corporations active in or relying on the extractives sector. It is against this background that the ILC included two principles addressing corporate responsibility for environmental harm in its Draft Principles on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. Both principles explicitly call on the home States of these corporations to give effect to their complementary role in regulating and enforcing corporate social responsibility. Draft Principle 10 addresses the responsibility of home States to regulate multinational corporations under the heading of “corporate due diligence”, while Draft Principle 11 addresses the responsibility of home States to hold multinational corporations liable for environmental damage caused in conflict zones. The current contribution engages with the potential normative foundations underpinning extraterritorial responsibilities for the home States of multinational corporations with respect to the prevention and remediation of environmental harm in conflict zones, focusing on international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It concludes that the Draft Principles are certainly indicative of the direction in which the law is evolving, but that no firm obligations beyond treaty law can be discerned as of yet. It was therefore a wise decision to phrase the respective Draft Principles as recommendations instead of obligations. At the same time, there are sufficient indications to conclude that it seems a matter of time before it is accepted that States have distinct obligations under customary international law for which their responsibility may be engaged. It is argued that the ILC Draft Principles provide an important impetus to these developments, not in the least because they provide a reference to States regarding the state-of-the-art and guidance for future action.
Topic:
International Law, Conflict, and Multinational Corporations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Business, Armed Conflict, and Protection of the Environment: What Avenues for Corporate Accountability?

Author:
Marie Davoise
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
In July 2019, the International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted, on first reading, a series of draft principles on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict (the Draft Principles). The role of businesses in armed conflict is addressed in Draft Principle 10 and Draft Principle 11. The latter, in particular, requires States to implement appropriate measures to ensure that corporations operating in or from their territories can be held accountable for environmental harm in the context of armed conflict. The inclusion of those two Draft Principles reflects increasingly vocal calls for corporate accountability, which has been the focus of the growing field of Business and Human Rights (BHR), an umbrella term encompassing a variety of legal regimes from tort law to criminal law. This contribution will look at the link between businesses, the environment, and armed conflict. Using the newly adopted Draft Principle 11 as a starting point, it explores three major liability regimes through which businesses could be held accountable for damage to the environment in armed conflict: State responsibility, international criminal law, and transnational tort litigation. Using case studies, the article discusses some of the challenges associated with each of those regimes, before concluding that the cross-fertilization phenomenon observed in this article (between public/private law, domestic/international level, and across various jurisdictions) is making BHR an increasingly salient discipline and useful tool in the fight against impunity for corporate environmental harm in armed conflict.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Business, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. The Martens Clause and Environmental Protection in Relation to Armed Conflicts

Author:
Dieter Fleck
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The existing treaty law on the protection of the natural environment during armed conflicts is less than adequate. Treaty provisions relating to international armed conflicts are limited to the prohibition of damage of an extreme kind and scale that has not occurred so far and may hardly be expected from the conduct of hostilities unless nuclear weapons would be used. Even in such a scenario, States possessing nuclear weapons have explicitly objected to the applicability of that treaty law. For internal wars, no pertinent treaty provisions exist in the law of armed conflict. Yet multilateral environmental agreements concluded in peacetime stand as an alternative approach to enhance environmental protection during war. As a civilian object, the environment may not be targeted nor attacked in an armed conflict, but this does not exclude collateral damage, nor does this principle as such offer specific standards for proportionality in attacks. In an effort to close these apparent gaps of treaty law, the present contribution looks into other sources of international law that could be used. In this context, the author revisits the role of the famous Martens Clause in the interplay of international humanitarian law, international environmental law, and human rights law. The role of the Clause in closing gaps caused by the indeterminacy of treaty law is reviewed and customary rules, general principles, and best practices are considered to this effect. For the protection of the natural environment during armed conflicts, the Martens Clause may, indeed, be used as a door opener to facilitate the creation and application of uncodified principles and rules. Particular standards for proportionality in attacks can be derived from the Martens Clause. Pertinent soft law instruments need to be developed in international practical cooperation and by academia. Yet it deserves further study to explore whether, and to what extent, the Martens Clause, which was adopted in the law of armed conflict, may also apply in post-conflict peacebuilding as a case of interaction between the jus in bello and the jus post bellum, at least as far as the protection of the natural environment is concerned.
Topic:
International Law, Treaties and Agreements, Humanitarian Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. Precaution in International Environmental Law and Precautions in the Law of Armed Conflict

Author:
Michael Bothe
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict, in particular during armed conflict is a complex problem as it involves at least two different fields of international law, the law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law) and international environmental law. Their mutual relationship is a delicate issue. International humanitarian law is not necessarily lex specialis. Three principles deserve particular attention in this connection: as to general international environmental law, the principle of prevention and the precautionary principle, as to international humanitarian law the duty to take precautions. The terms prevention and precaution are used in different contexts in environmental law (both national and international) and in the law of armed conflict. The duty, imposed by international humanitarian law, to take precautions has much in common with, but must be distinguished from, the precautionary approach of general environmental law. This paper shows what these principles mean and how they relate to each other. It answers the question to what extent the rules based on these concepts are effective in restraining environmental damage being caused by military activities. The application of these principles in peace and war serves intergenerational equity and is thus an important element of sustainable development.
Topic:
Environment, International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. The Role of Russian Private Military Contractors in Africa

Author:
Anna Borshchevskaya
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
It is no secret that Moscow is increasingly utilizing so-called “private military contractors” (PMCs) to pursue foreign policy objectives across the globe, especially in the Middle East and Africa. What has received less attention is that Moscow’s deployment of PMCs follows a pattern: The Kremlin is exploiting a loophole in international law by securing agreements that allow contractors to provide local assistance. The problem is, however, Russian PMCs are not simply contractors. This pattern of Russian behavior presents a new challenge that Western policymakers should address, as it speaks to broader Russian influence in Africa in the context of great power competition. This challenge is about Moscow’s erosion of broader behavioral norms.
Topic:
International Law, Military Affairs, and Private Sector
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, and Eurasia

16. The Greek-Turkish Maritime Disputes: An International Law Perspective

Author:
Efthymios Papastavrdis
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
This Policy Paper by Efthymios Papastavridis, Research Associate of ELIAMEP; Researcher and Part-time Lecturer, University of Oxford Fellow; Academy of Athens & Athens PIL Center, examines the maritime disputes between Greece and Turkey, in particular those concerning maritime delimitation and the breadth of the territorial sea of Greece, against the background of international law. It starts with setting out the historical and legal background of the continental shelf dispute in the Aegean Sea, in particular Greece’s applications before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Security Council in 1976. Then, the paper considers the different legal positions of Greece and Turkey concerning the issues of the breadth of the territorial sea and the maritime delimitation and assesses these positions under international law. This assessment is followed by the discussion of the various means available under international law for the settlement of the maritime delimitation dispute under international law, in particular, its submission to the ICJ, which has often been at the front line of public and scholarly discourse. The paper concludes that international law provides a sufficient, clear and predictable legal framework for the resolution of the Greek-Turkish maritime dispute, which will be of the outmost benefit for both States and for the Eastern Mediterranean region as a whole.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, and Maritime
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Greece, Mediterranean, and Aegean Sea

17. Annexation of Crimea from the Perspective of Offensive Realism | Ofansif Realizm Bağlamında Kırım’ın İlhakı

Author:
Oğuzhan Çakır and Ayça Eminoğlu
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
Institution:
Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
Abstract:
The main purpose of this study is to understand what motives the Russian Federation, a regional power, uses military force against its neighbor, Ukraine, and annexes Crimea. As a result of the literature review conducted for this purpose, this approach of Russia was generally interpreted from two different theoretical perspectives. Some of the critics evaluated Russia's attitude during the crisis process under the name of defensive realism, while the other group, on the contrary, evaluated Russia's attitude under the name of offensive realism. The work is addressed in the context of these two theories, with a deductive approach. The great powers do not refrain from using hard power when it comes to their security. The answer has been searched to the arguments that the Revisionist movement that Russia displayed in this crisis was caused by international developments rather than domestic political developments and that there is no sanctioning power against the great powers that have become a chronic problem of international law. When the relevant study concluded, and the previous crisis experiences of Russia taking in the consideration, it is observed that Russia has similar characteristic features in this crisis as well. It has been concluded that Russia has not been able to get rid of the sense of the siege it experienced during the Cold War and has pursued aggressive policies when it feels such a threat in its nearby geography. On the other hand, what happened in Crimea has clearly shown that the great powers do not refrain from using force and ignoring international law when it comes to their benefits and security. | Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, bölgesel bir güç olan Rusya Federasyonu’nun, komşusu olan Ukrayna’ya karşı hangi saiklerle askeri güç kullandığı ve Kırım’ı ilhak ettiğidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda yapılan literatür çalışması sonucunda, Rusya’nın bu yaklaşımı genel olarak iki farklı teorik perspektiften yorumlanmıştır. Düşünürlerin bir kısmı Rusya’nın kriz sürecindeki tutumunu defansif realizm bağlamında değerlendirmekteyken diğer grup ise tam aksine Rusya’nın tutumunu ofansif realizm bağlamında ele almışladır. Çalışma, bu iki teori bağlamında, tümdengelimci bir yaklaşımla ele alınmıştır. Büyük güçler, güvenlikleri söz konusu olduğunda sert güç kullanmaktan kaçınmamaktadırlar. Rusya’nın bu krizde sergilemiş olduğu revizyonist hareketin, iç politik gelişmelerden ziyade uluslararası gelişmelerden kaynaklandığı ve uluslararası hukukun kronik sorunu haline gelen büyük güçlere karşı bir yaptırım gücünün olmadığı argümanlarına cevap aranmıştır. İlgili çalışma sonuçlandığında, Rusya’nın geçmişte yaşadığı krizler de ele alındığında, bu krizle benzer karakteristik özelliklere sahip olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Rusya’nın, Soğuk Savaş dönemi yaşadığı kuşatılma algısından kurtulamadığı ve yakın coğrafyasında bu şekilde bir tehdit hissettiği zaman saldırgan politikalar izlediği sonucu varılmıştır. Öte yandan Kırım’da yaşananlar, büyük güçlerin kendi menfaatleri ve güvenlikleri söz konusu olduğunda güç kullanmaktan ve uluslararası hukuku hiçe saymaktan kaçınmadıklarının açıkça göstermiştir.
Topic:
International Law, Territorial Disputes, Realism, and Annexation
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea

18. South China Sea Dispute: China’s Role and Proposed Solutions

Author:
Mubeen Adnan and Fakhara Shahid
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
South China Sea (SCS) is a part of Pacific Ocean and is the most strategic and important waterway in the world containing large deposits of hydrocarbons and fossil oil. Due to its unquestioned importance it has become bone of contention among many East Asian nations and China regarding its sovereignty and control of the territory. Two Islands Parcel and Spratly in the SCS are the flashpoints of the dispute because countries like, Philippine, China, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia are claiming their rights over some parts or sovereignty over all the above mentioned Islands. Primary concern of the dispute lies in U shaped nine- dashed demarcation line by China in the SCS. A decision of international court of Arbitration in “Philippines v. china arbitration case” showed that China U-shaped nine dash line demarcation is uneven with UNCLOS 1982. This verdict has been rejected by China on the grounds that it has no binding forces because China controls 90% area of the SCS through nine dashed line by having historical claim of the sea and this line was drawn in 1946 by the help of USA prior to the 1982 UNCLOS. China wants to solve the dispute bilaterally without any third party interference while due to the importance of the region many other actors are getting involved in to the dispute. A permanent and lasting solution of the dispute is a dire need of the time to solve the complex issue.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Law, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
China, Asia-Pacific, and South China Sea

19. ON THE ASSASSINATION OF QASSEM SOLEIMANI

Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
On January 3, 2020, an American drone strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, and one of the most influential military and political figures in Iran. It is an extraordinary event—former American army general and director of the CIA David Petraeus called it “more consequential” than the killing of Osama bin Laden—with potentially profound implications for US-Iranian relations, and the entire Middle East. Here, international relations experts from UC San Diego discuss why the Trump administration killed Soleimani; what might come next; and the implications for US domestic politics. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Topic:
International Law, Military Intervention, Assassination, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

20. Building on Quicksand: Pursuing Transitional Justice in Times of Great Upheaval

Author:
Nadim Houry
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
Anyone who cares about transitional justice in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) faces a daunting task. How to address the past when the present is in great upheaval? How to tackle yesterday’s wars and violations when new ones—often worse—are occurring today? Practitioners have long recognized that transitional justice is a slow and nonlinear process that requires patience and long-term planning. Setbacks are expected along the way but, in the end, there is the promise or assumption that “if you keep at it, you will eventually get results.” But is this assumption still valid in the MENA region? Are existing transitional justice efforts succeeding in laying the groundwork for a better future, or are they being washed away by new rounds of violence and repression? The issue is both conceptual and pragmatic. On one level, there is the question of whether a society can start addressing the traumas of the past while simultaneously dealing with new traumas, often caused by new actors. On another level, there is the question of what sort of transitional justice processes and institutions can deal with the past, while also being able to adapt to an ever-shifting present. The challenges are immense and there are no easy answers. Here, I highlight the need for further research on transitional justice processes in the MENA region, with a focus on recent years of upheaval. Two fundamental questions emerge: (i) how to reconcile past and current claims; and (ii) how to accommodate ever-changing sources of legitimacy, given the increasing hollowness of state structures in the region.
Topic:
International Law, Transitional Justice, State Building, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa and Middle East