Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law

71. Advancing the Rule of Law Through Executive Measures: The Case of MINUSCA

Author:
Edith Vanspranghe
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) has been mandated to implement “urgent temporary measures” in the form of arrests and detentions of individuals. This rather innovative mandate brings about several legal and conceptual consequences that the article addresses, focusing on the compatibility of these measures with UN peacekeeping norms and principles and with past UN practice. In addition, the measures are said to contribute to law and order, public safety, the fight against impunity, and to the rule of law. This sheds light on the UN’s interesting conception of the rule of law in the Central African Republic and in conflict and post-conflict settings in general.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, Conflict, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
Africa and Central African Republic

72. Reconciling the Irreconcilable? – The Extraterritorial Application of the ECHR and its Interaction With IHL

Author:
Severin Meier
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
This article examines the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) during international armed conflict. After a brief discussion of the different historic origins of international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL), the article examines the test for establishing jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR. A critical analysis of some contentious legal issues regarding derogations completes the picture of when jurisdiction is established. Subsequently, the article considers the interaction between the ECHR and IHL in international armed conflicts and concludes by arguing that a balance must be found between protecting human rights in international armed conflicts while not interfering unduly with IHL.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe

73. The Perils of Judicial Restraint: How Judicial Activism Can Help Evolve the International Court of Justice

Author:
Deepak Mawar
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The article analyzes the International Court of Justice and its approach to judicial decision-making. By investigating the Court’s jurisprudence over its seventy years of activity, the article seeks to outline, that if given the choice, the ICJ tends to prioritize judicial restraint over judicial activism. In fact, the Court maintains a strict adherence to judicial restraint, which stems from a fear of losing its legitimacy when facing the issue of consent-based jurisdiction. The article purports that although judicial restraint is an important facet of sound judicial decision-making, the ICJ should not be so reluctant to adopt judicial activism when it is suitable to utilize such an approach. Such a position is strengthened when analyzing the criticisms made of judgments delivered by the Court, which fail to serve the international community beneficially.
Topic:
International Law and International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

74. Secessionist Conflict: A Happy Marriage between Norms and Interests?

Author:
Rafael Biermann
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
This roundtable debates how norms, values, and interests are balanced and harmonized in a world of conflict. My contribution focuses on one specific policy field: secessionist conflict. Like Megan Bradley’s contribution on the international refugee regime,1 this essay takes a metaperspective and does not investigate any one specific case or actor.2 I assume a political science perspective, paying attention first to social norms (as standards of appropriate behavior), which encompass but go beyond legally codified norms of international law;3 and second to interests, whether they be national, group, personal, or other. My perspective here is a critical social constructivist one, investigating the dialectic relationship of norms, interests, and power. I introduce the concept of “norm selection” in a policy field, which offers choice within a cluster of competing norms. Finally, following Bernd Bucher’s call to bring back agency into what he terms international “norm politics,” this contribution prioritizes agency, arguing that it is actors with diverging interests who do the balancing of norms, values, and interests.4 This was one of the major insights we gained from the workshop preceding this roundtable.5 The central argument of my contribution is that the policy field of secessionist conflict is structured around a set of five rival norms, of which territorial integrity and self-determination form the core. This normative structure permits the parties involved in a secessionist conflict to select from a menu of norms those that best suit their interests. The selection displays remarkable regularities, indicating default positions for each type of actor. However, significant outlier cases signal that interests do not simply trump norms but that actors accord different values to those norms. This attribution is influenced by the dynamics of a normative environment in which norms rise and fall. In particular, since the Cold War ended, discourse as well as state practice have shifted away from the traditional taboo on secession toward more revisionist concepts, such as remedial secession or earned sovereignty, providing an opening for the secessionist wave that started with the breakup of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia. I present my argument in three steps. First, I introduce the above-mentioned cluster of norms that shape discourse and policies on secession, distinguishing the two core norms and the three circumjacent ones of noninterference, human rights, and democratic good governance. Second, I identify five major types of actors in secessionist conflicts and investigate how each balances those norms. Since this balancing is actor-specific and conforms to the interests that each pursues, I arrive at distinct default positions for each actor type. Whereas this analysis suggests that norms serve primarily as legitimation devices to advance the diverging interests of various actors, the last section discusses outlier cases where norms and interests do not match as presumed.
Topic:
International Law, Self Determination, Norms, and Secession
Political Geography:
Global Focus

75. Saudi Coalition “Admission” of Error in Bombing Cholera Treatment Center Implicates the United States

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
In June 2018, the U.S.-supported Saudi led coalition struck a cholera treatment center run by Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in Yemen. A recent internal investigation released by the coalition tries to lay the blame for the strike on MSF. But tucked into the report is a cryptic admission that the coalition did not “complete the necessary procedures used by the Coalition Forces” before undertaking the strike. This suggests that the coalition has not stuck to a deal it made with the United States to maintain U.S. support by properly vetting strikes, leaving the United States and its personnel legally exposed for continuing to support operations that violate international humanitarian law.
Topic:
International Law, Military Strategy, Humanitarian Crisis, and Air Force
Political Geography:
Middle East, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America

76. Accountability for War Crimes in Syria: The “Criminalization” Confusion

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway, Paul Strauch, Beatrice Walton, and Zoe Weinberg
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
In 1942, three years before World War II came to a close, international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht prepared a memorandum for the Committee on Crimes Against International Public Order. In it, he considered whether the Nazis should be tried for war crimes when the war ended. Before he could address when and whether to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes, he observed, it was first and foremost necessary to determine “what is a war crime.” Nearly 80 years later, this question looms yet again—this time in the horrific Syrian civil war. No international court or tribunal currently has jurisdiction over the vast crimes committed in Syria since 2011. It seems unlikely at the moment that Syria itself will provide an accounting, and the prospect of the United Nations Security Council agreeing to establish a new tribunal or refer the Syria situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) appears slim. As a result, domestic courts, mainly in Europe, have taken the lead in pursuing criminal accountability for crimes committed in Syria. The International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism (IIM), established by the UN General Assembly in 2016, is also beginning to assist domestic Syria-related prosecutions.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Criminal Court (ICC)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

77. What is a War Crime?

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway, Paul Strauch, Beatrice Walton, and Zoe Weinberg
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
Here we propose a potential solution to the challenges surrounding the definition of war crimes we identified. In an effort to eliminate the confusion that results from over-reliance on prior criminalization, we distill the concept of war crimes down to its essence. A better approach, we argue here and in a forthcoming article, is to define war crimes as consisting of two key elements: (1) a breach of international humanitarian law (IHL) that is (2) “serious.” This approach is not only more jurisprudentially grounded, but it also has several benefits in the context of ongoing prosecutions of Syrian war criminals in Europe.
Topic:
Genocide, International Law, War Crimes, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

78. The Missing State Department Memo on US Officials’ Possible Aiding and Abetting Saudi War Crimes

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to consider dueling bills on Saudi Arabia. A bill sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would block arms sales to the Kingdom and in-flight refueling of Saudi aircraft. This largely mirrors a series of measures passed in the House on July 17 to block the sale of billions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But in an unusual move, Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho) broke comity to put forward his own separate bill focused more narrowly on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi that would merely deny visas to a few Saudi government officials and require that the secretary of state conduct a review of the United States’ relationship with the country. In all likelihood, this is the bill that will advance, allowing the U.S. sales of arms to Saudi Arabia to continue.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Law, International Trade and Finance, Arms Trade, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, North America, and United States of America

79. Cyber Space and International Law as a 21st Century Paradox | 21. Yüzyıl Paradoksu Olarak Siber Uzay ve Uluslararası Hukuk

Author:
Vahit Güntay
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
Institution:
Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
Abstract:
The studies in the base of international relations and security have revealed a different research subject with the developments of technology. Cybersecurity that is in the focus of the technical area has also been argued in the political base. The cyber dimension of security with discussing concepts like cyber politics, cyber deterrence or cyberwar has succeeded to remain on the agenda of states. As a central actor of the international system, states’ interest in cybersecurity has carried this subject to the international law research area. In this study, the historical process and theoretical approach have been evaluated in the base of international relations discipline and it is practised to detail problems about international law. Different data have also supported the approach to the core of this study. | Uluslararası ilişkiler ve güvenlik temelindeki çalışmalar teknolojik gelişmelerle birlikte farklı bir araştırma konusunu karşımıza çıkarmıştır. Teknik bir alanın ilgi odağında olan siber güvenlik politik bir temelde de tartışılmaya başlanmıştır. Siber politikalar, siber caydırıcılık ya da siber savaş gibi isimlerle tartışılmaya başlanan güvenliğin siber boyutu devletlerin de siyasi ajandalarına girmeyi başarmıştır. Uluslararası aktörlerin merkezinde olan devletlerin ilgisi siber güvenliği uluslararası hukukun inceleme alanına taşımıştır. Bu çalışma dahilinde siber güvenliğe ilişkin tarihsel süreç ve teorik yaklaşım uluslararası ilişkiler disiplini temelinde ele alınmış ve uluslararası hukuka dair sorunlar detaylandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmanın özüne dair yaklaşım farklı verilerle de desteklenmiştir.
Topic:
International Relations, Crime, International Law, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Global Focus

80. U.S. Complicity in the 2014 Coup in Kiev as a Violation of International Law

Author:
A. Vyleghanin and K. Kritsky
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
FIVE YEARS AGO, a coup d’état took place in Kiev. Following demon- strations and arson attacks, a mob seized several government institutions, including the administration building and residence of the constitutional- ly elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich. Some members of the Ukrainian president’s security detail who were protecting his residence from illegal seizure were wounded and killed.1 Alexander Turchinov, one of the coup leaders, began serving as the president of Ukraine even though no Ukrainian presidential election had been held. The coup in Kiev led primarily to the U.S. assuming a leading role in Ukraine’s governance – something it had neither during the period of the Russian Empire nor the Soviet era. The February 2014 overthrow of the president in Kiev that took place without elections and in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution de facto divided the country into regions that recognized the new authorities in Kiev and those that opposed the coup (primarily the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine). This occurred not only because the Ukrainian presi- dent was unconstitutionally removed from power but primarily because the “installation” of the putschist government was accompanied by vio- lence, and ethnic and linguistic persecution. In March 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea left the new, “post-coup” Ukraine in accordance with the provision of the UN Charter on the right of peoples to self-determination. Subsequently, following a referendum in Crimea, a treaty on Crimea’s reunification with Russia was signed. A confrontation between the new regime in Kiev* and residents of Donetsk and Lugansk Regions turned into a protracted armed conflict. The forcible replacement in Kiev of a constitutionally elected head of state (Yanukovich) with an unconstitutional leader (Turchinov) directly impacted Russia’s national interests. Russians and Ukrainians lived together within a single state, the Russian Empire, from the 17th century until 1917. During the Soviet period, the border between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic did not have international legal significance. It was an administrative bor- der. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the independent UN member states (Russia and Ukraine) that replaced them continued to maintain close economic and other ties. Their continued integration, including through joint participation in the Customs Union, objectively met the strategic interests of Ukraine and Russia. A friendly Ukraine is also important to Russia from a national securi- ty standpoint, considering NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders that began in the early 1990s – i.e., NATO’s absorption of all former member states of the Warsaw Pact, including Poland and even the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia’s leadership has repeatedly stressed the inadmissibility of dragging Ukraine into NATO. Words about “fraternal” relations between the peoples of Russia and Ukraine are no exaggeration: Millions of family members (both Russians and Ukrainians) live on opposite sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border,2 and at least one-third of Ukraine’s population speaks Russian as a native language. In this context, it is not surprising that Moscow considered the U.S.- orchestrated seizure of power from the head of state in Kiev an event affecting its vital interests. Something else is remarkable: The U.S. administration said that the events in Ukraine, far away from the American mainland, “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”4 Westerners promulgated a very different assessment of the forced ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich in 2014. The U.S. called it a “people’s rev- olution” and said that the mob action organized in part by the U.S. ambas- sador in Kiev (including the killing of Berkut fighters, the state guard of the Ukrainian president) was a legitimate way of expressing the will of the “Ukrainian people.”
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Law, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Middle East, South America, Syria, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America