Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 5 Years

11. The Leadership Requirement of the Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court

Author:
Faruk H. Avdic
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
The subject of this analysis was the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court devoted to the leadership requirement of the crime of aggression. The crime in question is the successor of crimes against peace. This paper employed normative and formal dogmatic legal methods in analyzing the particulars of the leadership clause. Besides, this analysis also took into consideration the case-law of certain judicial bodies. This paper aimed to examine whether the leadership requirement of the crime of aggression has been properly constructed for the Statute. The main focus was on the meaning of the conditions stemming from the leadership clause that each perpetrator ought to fulfill to incur criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. Additionally, this research addressed the criminal responsibility of public and private actors and the modes of participation in the crime in question. The article established that the leadership requirement concerning the crime of aggression has been aptly incorporated in the Statute since this requirement, at the same time, embraces the post World War Two standards concerning crimes against peace and the contemporary notion of aggression as one of the core crimes under international law.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Law, Leadership, and International Criminal Court (ICC)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. The Evolution of the Prohibition of Genocide: From Natural Law Enthusiasm to Lackadaisical Judicial Perfunctoriness – And Back Again?

Author:
Julia Klaus
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
International legal scholarship and practice have reached a point where it is undisputed that the prohibition of genocide has the status of jus cogens and entails erga omnes obligations. It is, however, astonishing how little academic focus has been dedicated to the normative development leading to this extraordinary rank. In a legal regime with as little hierarchical structure as public international law, examining the birth process of such a norm promises considerable insights into normative formation in general and may inform jurisprudential theories on the nature of international law. This article illustrates the evolution of the prohibition of genocide by outlining the way to the 1948 UN Genocide Convention and the later interpretations of the norm. It traces the origin of the genocide prohibition to naturalistic ideas of overarching laws of humanity in international law and follows its development into the early 21st century. An analysis of international jurisprudence reveals that, after the jus cogens status of the prohibition of genocide and its erga omnes dimension had been settled, international judges handled the norm in a surprisingly lackadaisical and perfunctory manner. The very recent ICJ order on provisional measures in the Myanmar Genocide case potentially marks a return towards a deeper focus on moral facts determining the prohibition that point to naturalistic theories persisting, notwithstanding the positivistic mainstream approaches to international law. The article contributes to a more accurate picture of and greater academic interest in these naturalistic undercurrents.
Topic:
Genocide, International Cooperation, International Law, International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. Perspectives for a New International Crime Against the Environment: International Criminal Responsibility for Environmental Degradation under the Rome Statute

Author:
Ammar Bustami and Marie-Christine Hecken
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
This article draws attention to the need of a reform of the environmental protection by means of international criminal law as enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. After giving a short overview of the contemporary environmental protection in war- and peacetime offered by international criminal law, it becomes clear that international criminal law fails to succeed at offering sufficient environmental protection. This paper outlines that there is no convincing reason for a differentiated approach in international criminal law to environmental damage in wartime and in peacetime, and that a shift from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric approach would positively contribute to a more effective protection of the environment. It is therefore argued for the introduction of a new integral and ecocentric international crime against the environment in the Rome Statute. The paper then elaborates on existing proposals on such a new crime against the environment before some proper observations on the exact contours of the crime are made. A focus lies on the new crime’s threshold of seriousness as well as on the necessary mens rea requirements. The insufficiency of the contemporary legal framework and the merits of a new crime against the environment are exemplified by an archetype example of peacetime environmental damage, the Chevron/Texaco oil spill scenario in Ecuador.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, and International Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. Moral Imperatives and Legal Realities: The Perennial Conundrum of Humanitarian Intervention

Author:
Chris O'Meara
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Article 1 of the UN Charter embodies a well-known tension that exists in international law. On the one hand, it sets out perhaps the most fundamental purpose of the UN: the maintenance of international peace and security. This principle underpins the operation of the post-World War II rules-based inter- national order. It is reflected in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political indepen- dence of any state.”1 Such prohibition, while routinely flouted by states, stands as an intransgressible rule of international law.2 On the other hand, Article 1 establishes what appears to be an equally foundational principle: promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, the burgeoning body of international human rights law that has arisen since the signing of the Charter has increasingly placed human rights and human security at the center of international concern.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. The Role of International Seabed Authority with Respect to the Administration of Mineral Resources

Author:
Şûle Anlar Güneş
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
Deep ocean floor called as Area is considered as Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) and the mining activities are managed by International Seabed Authority (ISA). In this article, firstly, the significance of the CHM concept with respect to decolonised states and its impact on law of the sea is elaborated. Secondly, the mandate of ISA which assumed responsibility for the translation of the CHM concept into practice is examined. Every state can take part in mining activities in the Area as a ‘sponsor state’ but the lack of precision with respect to responsibility limits have a deterrent effect over the states that are disadvantaged technically and financially. Considering the negative impact of this issue over the CHM concept the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea that was given in 2011 is examined.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, Natural Resources, Law of the Sea, Maritime, and Mining
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, and Global Focus

16. Reconsidering the Classification of Perpetrators in instances of Genocide and Mass Atrocity: A focus on the Khmer Rouge Era

Author:
Sabah Carrim
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Review of Human Rights
Institution:
Society of Social Science Academics (SSSA)
Abstract:
The terms “primary”, “mid-level” and “lower level” are employed to qualify perpetrators of mass atrocities, based on the magnitude of guilt and criminal responsibility. Could this classification be a misnomer? Could the relationship among perpetrators, or the roles they assume be more intricate, warranting a reassessment of the existing hierarchy? This paper explores the need to be more circumspect in penning perpetrators in categories, especially in complex scenarios of mass atrocity. To do so, the Non-Solitarist View of Human Identity and Framing Theory are used to explore the matter, with a focus on perpetrators of the Khmer Rouge era.
Topic:
Genocide, International Law, Atrocities, and Khmer Rouge
Political Geography:
Cambodia, Southeast Asia, and Global Focus

17. Enhancing the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts – the Draft Principles of the International Law Commission and Beyond

Author:
Britta Sjostedt and Anne Dienelt
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
n 2011, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) took up the topic Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts.1 The decision was triggered by a joint report issued by the UN Environment Programme and the Environmental Law Institute in 2009 recommending the ILC to “[...] examine the existing international law for protecting the environment during armed conflicts [...] [including] how it can be clarified, codified and expanded [...]”.2 Since the inclusion of the item on the ILC’s agenda, the Commission has published five reports3 by the two special rapporteurs, Dr. Marie Jacobsson (2011-2016) and Dr. Marja Lehto (2017-). In 2019, the plenary adopted 28 Draft Principles on first reading.4 The ILC has touched on highly controversial issues such as reprisals,5 corporate liability,6 indigenous peoples’ rights,7 among others. Nevertheless, it was clear from the beginning that the ILC would not be able to exhaustively deal with the topic for two main reasons. First, the Commission has a limited mandate that is restricted to “[...] initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of [...] encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification [...]”.8 Enhanced legal protection of the environment, as one of the purposes of the Draft Principles,9 must therefore be based on existing customary international law and its progressive development. The Commission decided to also include recommendations to account for the uncertain legal status of some of the Draft Principles.10 Second, some related issues touch upon controversial and political matters, as mentioned earlier. Consequently, the ILC has been reluctant to include some of these issues in its workflow.11 Therefore, the adoption of the Draft Principles should be regarded as a starting point for shaping and developing the legal framework for environmental protection in relation to armed conflicts. As a part of that process, Hamburg University and Lund University organized an international workshop in March 2019 in Hamburg. Several members of the ILC, including two special rapporteurs, academic legal experts, and practitioners, attended the workshop to discuss the Draft Principles. The discussion also focused on some issues not covered by the ILC, such as the implications for gender and climate security. The engaging dialogue in Hamburg has inspired the publication of this Special Issue of the Goettingen Journal of International Law (GoJIL) to ensure that the outcomes and ideas of the workshop reach a wider audience. It has also contributed to maintaining the momentum of this topical area of international law by inviting contributions from researchers not present during the workshop in Hamburg.12
Topic:
Environment, International Law, and Non State Actors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

18. Reflections on the Legality of Attacks Against the Natural Environment by Way of Reprisals

Author:
Stavros-Evdokimos Pantazopoulos
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The paper examines the concept of belligerent reprisals and assesses the legality of attacking the environment by way of reprisals. The law of belligerent reprisals, which is linked to the principle of reciprocity, allows one belligerent State unlawfully injured by another to react by means of what under normal circumstances would constitute a violation of the jus in bello, so as to induce the violating State to comply with the law. The instances of lawful recourse to reprisals have been considerably limited, since their application is either explicitly prohibited against certain protected persons and objects, including against the natural environment, or is subject to stringent conditions according to customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Despite its narrowing scope, the doctrine of reprisals remains a valid concept under the existing legal framework. For one, the state of affairs under customary international law with respect to reprisals directed at civilian objects (including against parts of the environment), subject to certain rigorous conditions, remains unclear. To complicate matters even further, any proposition on the status of reprisals in the context of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is shrouded in controversy, as there is no relevant treaty provision. In this regard, the present author endorses the approach espoused in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Study on Customary IHL, namely to altogether prohibit resort to reprisals in the context of a NIAC. Turning to the status of reprisals against the natural environment under customary IHL, it is argued that a prohibition of attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals is in the process of formation with respect to the use of weapons other than nuclear ones. All things considered, the International Law Commission (ILC) was confronted with an uncomfortable situation in the context of its work on the ‘Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts’. By sticking to the verbatim reproduction of Article 55(2) of Additional Protocol I, the ILC chose the proper course of action, since any other formulation would not only undercut a significant treaty provision, but might also result in the normative standard of conduct being lowered.
Topic:
Environment, International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, and Red Cross
Political Geography:
Global Focus

19. 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

20. 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