Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law Publishing Institution The Goettingen Journal of International Law Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Dogmatik and International Criminal Law: Approximations in the Realm of ‘Language’ and ‘Grammar’

Author:
Morten Boe
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Starting from the assertion of George Fletcher that there could never be an effective International Criminal Law (ICL) without a corresponding ICL Dogmatik – understood as a supporting culture of ideas and general principles – the article attempts to retrace and critically assess the connection made between the domestic concept and the international realm; to give a first approximation of what ‘ICL Dogmatik’ is supposed to mean. While not being definable in a conclusive way, Dogmatik – as understood in the German legal system – represents a specific habitus and mindset when approaching law, providing for an autonomous legal discourse fueled by the aspiration of a coherent normative system based on argumentative rationality and close cooperation of legal scholarship and legal practice. The article argues that, while the term Dogmatik is a specific cultural expression, the substance of the concept more generally refers to and echoes universal challenges of law and legal scholarship. The urge for an ICL Dogmatik should therefore not be (mis-)understood to argue for an authoritative rule of scholars or the adoption of German legal theories on the international level. Instead, the statement enunciates the necessity to establish ICL as an autonomous normative framework of concepts and terms. Dogmatik merely stands for an abstract vision, which may help to organize legal thinking in ICL, to structure and systemize the field, and most importantly to raise awareness for the necessity to develop a shared and coherent (legal) language, which enables productive discourse between all legal families.
Topic:
International Law and International Criminal Law (ICL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. The Settlement of EEZ Fisheries Access Disputes under UNCLOS: Limitations to Jurisdiction and Compulsory Conciliation

Author:
Valentin J. Schatz
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
This article revisits the scope of the limitation to jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 297(3) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the context of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) fisheries access disputes in the light of recent jurisprudence of UNCLOS tribunals. It first provides an overview over general aspects of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS in the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism of Section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS. Next, it briefly considers the relationship between Article 297(3) and Article 297(1) of UNCLOS in order to clarify the former limitation’s role in the complex internal logic of Article 297 of UNCLOS. Thereafter, this article addresses the sometimes-overlooked function of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS as a confirmation of jurisdiction with respect to fisheries disputes that are not related to the EEZ. It then analyzes the scope of the limitation to jurisdiction ratione materiae of Article 297(3) of UNCLOS in the context of fisheries access disputes. Next, this article examines the potential and limits of the compulsory conciliation procedure under Article 297(3)(b) and Annex V of UNCLOS with a focus on the scope of the procedural mandate and subject-matter competence of such conciliation commissions.
Topic:
Economics, International Law, and Fishing
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Compulsory Settlement of EEZ Fisheries Enforcement Disputes under UNCLOS: “Swallowing the Rule” or “Balancing the Equation”?

Author:
Camille Goodman
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
While there is a widely held view that disputes concerning fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are largely exempt from the compulsory jurisdiction of courts and tribunals as a result of far-reaching exceptions in Part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), this is not the case for all EEZ fisheries disputes. This article examines the specific question of disputes concerning the enforcement of fisheries laws and regulations in the EEZ, and considers how the Part XV framework has been – or could be – used and interpreted for the compulsory settlement of EEZ fisheries enforcement disputes. It examines the obligation of prompt release established in Article 292, the option to exclude compulsory jurisdiction with respect to law enforcement activities concerning EEZ fisheries by written declaration under Article 298(1)(b), and the opportunity to bring disputes concerning EEZ fisheries enforcement within the scope of compulsory jurisdiction under Article 297(1) by characterising them as relating to the freedom of navigation or the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Framing its enquiry by reference to the question posed in this special issue, the article argues that, rather than “swallowing the rule” of compulsory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional scheme established for EEZ fisheries enforcement disputes helps to “balance the equation” and support the effectiveness of Part XV in protecting the compromises that are embodied in the LOSC.
Topic:
International Law, Territorial Disputes, Fishing, and Jurisdiction
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. The Many Facets of EEZ Fisheries Disputes and their Resolution under UNCLOS

Author:
Natalie Klein
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The core question being posed for this symposium was whether the ‘exception swallows the rule’ in relation to disputes concerning fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This question emerges because of the starting point that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1 may be subject to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions – arbitration or adjudication – at the request of a party to the Convention. However, while this ‘rule’ is the start, it is immediately important to point our that there are exceptions and limitations to this proposition; the grant of compulsory jurisdiction in UNCLOS is limited in significant ways.2 The ‘exception’ of concern to this symposium is set out in Article 297(3) of UNCLOS, which excludes fisheries disputes from adjudication or arbitration in the following situation: “the coastal State shall not be obliged to accept the submission to such settlement of any dispute relating to its sovereign rights with respect to the living resources in the exclusive economic zone or their exercise, including its discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management laws and regulations.“3 Pursuant to Article 298(1)(b), States also have the option to exclude ‘disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal’ under Article 297(3).4 The symposium papers that follow seek to improve our understanding of these exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction; do they swallow the ‘rule’ of compulsory jurisdiction? This introduction aims to explain the relevance of the exception (Part B), situate the papers that are part of the symposium (Part C) and indicate what has been jurisprudentially achieved despite the exception (Part D).
Topic:
International Law, Sovereignty, Fishing, and Disputes
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. An Unlikely Duo? Regionalism and Jus Cogens in International Law

Author:
Carlos Lima Lima and Loris Marotti
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) in the international legal discourse.  e ongoing works of the International Law Commission (ILC or Commission) on the topic1 , also prompted by the increasing relevance such norms have gained in the case law of national and international courts, is refreshing the long-standing debate about the scope, nature and content of peremptory norms2 . Against this background, less attention is being paid to the possible relations between jus cogens and regionalism, as well as to the legal and political implications such relations may have in the international realm.
Topic:
International Law, Law, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Dynamic Belt and Road Initiative and the Global South’s Approach to Sustainability

Author:
Dan Yao and Mingzhe Zhu
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
When discussing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), mainstream scholarship adopts the narrative of grand strategy, which assumes the existence of a predetermined and top-down plan as well as China’s determination to implement it according to its interests and vision. This article, with its focus on sustainability, challenges this narrative and draws attention to the indeterminate features of the BRI. It proposes an alternative interpretation that considers the BRI as a dynamic field that facilitates the emergence of the Global South’s approach to international law. It argues that the countries of the Global South can be regrouped as a symbolic region by their proximity in the global distribution of economic and environmental goods, with its identity defined by common history with international law, and necessary solidarity in the pursuit of the cause of liberation. This article then compares the BRI with the previous projects of the Global South and identifies a vagueness of commitment, lack of coordination mechanism, and flexibility as their key features. Further substantialized by two case studies, it contends that the formulation of rules is determined by strategic interactions between States and different non-State actors in a given location according to local realities.
Topic:
International Law, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Global South

7. Is the International Law Commission Taking Regionalism Seriously (Enough)?

Author:
Janina Barkholdt
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Regionalism poses a challenge to the work of the International Law Commission (ILC). The Commission, entrusted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with the “progressive development of international law and its codification”, is tasked with identifying and elaborating universally accepted and acceptable rules of international law. The challenge posed by regionalism lies in its ambivalent role precisely in relation to the mandate of the ILC: on the one hand, a significant share of practice in international law is generated at the regional level. Since regional practice thus constitutes a substantial part of State practice, the ILC cannot avoid taking regional practice into account if it is to identify and develop common rules. On the other hand, regionalism often involves claims for special legal treatment based on the affiliation with a region; thus, deviations from precisely those general legal rules which the ILC seeks to codify and develop. The present contribution analyses how the Commission has approached regionalism in its previous work and identifies four approaches. It shows that each of these approaches suffers from shortcomings. At the same time, the current projects on General principles of law (GPL) and Sea-level rise in relation to international law possibly indicate the emergence of a more fruitful fifth approach. Based on this analysis, the present contribution shows that the practice of the ILC evinces two methodological challenges arising from regional plurality –, the challenge of equal regional representation and the challenge of regional exceptionalism, – and makes suggestions as to how to address these in the future.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. 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 (ECHR)
Political Geography:
Europe

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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