Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law Content Type Journal Article Journal The Goettingen Journal of International Law

11. Interpretation and Application of the ECHR: Between Universalism and Regionalism

Author:
Mattias Guyomar
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
 e protection of human rights guaranteed by the Council of Europe, in particular through the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the supervision exercised by the European Court of Human Rights, has a dual dimension: its universal vocation goes hand in hand with the regional nature of its implementation. Tensions between universalism and regionalism play out in a fruitful and productive way.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Regionalism, Universalism, and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Political Geography:
Europe

12. Military Intervention on Request in Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello and the question of recognition of governments

Author:
Chiari Redealli
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Over the past decades, foreign interventions in internal conflicts upon the request of host governments have turned into a common practice. These instances have proved to be particularly challenging both from a jus ad bellum and a jus in bello point of view. On the one hand, it is often unclear whether the intervention is lawful; on the other hand, the classification of these armed conflicts is equally problematic. In both cases, the key to answer these questions is the identification of the organ capable of speaking on behalf of the state: who is the government? Considering the pivotal relevance of the identification of the government both in jus ad bellum and jus in bello, it is crucial to determine the criteria for identifying the authority capable of issuing a valid invitation. This article seeks to clarify these criteria. Ultimately, it will demonstrate that jus ad bellum and jus in bello reach different conclusions on the matter and it will argue that this should not be the case.
Topic:
International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, Military Intervention, Conflict, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. Missed Communications and Miscommunications: International Courts, the Fragmentation of International Law and Judicial Dialogue

Author:
Francis Maxwell
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The increase in the number of international judicial bodies has led to different international courts deciding similar issues of international law. There is the real possibility that these international judicial bodies, not subject to the supervision of a common appeal court, may rule differently on similar questions before them. While this fragmentation of decision-making may undermine the coherency and certainty of the international legal system, it may in some cases be in the interests of the international community, including where divergences in decision-making are the result of specialized regimes or where there is progressive development of the law. So that fragmentation is limited to what is beneficial and necessary for the international community, it is essential that international judicial bodies are in open and structured dialogue with one another. This analysis considers three scenarios of overlapping decision-making, over the course of the lives of two sets of international courts: the International Court of Justice, and the international criminal courts and tribunals. It also considers the recent decision of the International Criminal Court with respect to Palestine and the Court’s refusal to weigh in on questions of general international law, in apparent departure from the previous three examples. It is submitted that these examples demonstrate that insufficient attention is given by these international judicial bodies to the issue of judicial dialogue and its importance. This may undermine the legitimacy of the system and introduce the risks of fragmentation without its benefits.
Topic:
International Law, International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), Dialogue, Fragmentation, and Customary International Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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