Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (36)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (36) (remove)
Language
- English (36) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (36)
Keywords
- Aggression (1)
- Committee of Ministers (1)
- Council of Europe (1)
- European Court of Human Rights (1)
- Statute (1)
Institute
The article analyses whether the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has served as a catalyst for the development of international law, as well as whether international law has been instrumental in attempting to find solutions for the said conflict.
In several ways, this conflict has made a significant contribution to understanding and interpreting the UN Charter. It also brought along important developments about the role of third parties, both under the Geneva Conventions and under the law of state responsibility, which provides for an obligation of not recognizing as legal, or not rendering aid or assistance to situations caused by serious violations of jus cogens.
International judicial institutions (and also domestic ones) play a rather limited role in this respect, due both to a lack of courage to address fundamental questions, and/or a disregard of the outcome of the proceedings by at least one of the parties to the conflict. Other reasons are Israel's reluctance of accepting the jurisdiction of either the ICJ or the ICC, and its view on the non-applicability of human rights treaties outside of its territory, as well as Palestine's uncertain status in the international community limiting its access to international courts. However, the ICJ's 2004 (formally non-binding) advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall provided answers to some of the most fundamental questions related to the conflict, unfortunately without having any immediate impact on the situation on the ground. Given Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute in early 2015, time has yet to show which role in the process will be played by the ICC.
Other issues arising from the conflict, and examined by this article, are that of (Palestinian) statehood, going beyond the traditional concept of statehood and including the consequences of the jus cogens-character of the right of self-determination, as well as questions of treaty succession and succession in matters of State responsibility with regard to acts committed by the PLO.
State sucession in treaties
(2012)
Deforestation is a prominent anthropogenic cause of erosive overland flow and slope instability, boosting rates of soil erosion and concomitant sediment flux. Conventional methods of gauging or estimating post-logging sediment flux often focus on annual timescales but overlook potentially important process response on shorter intervals immediately following timber harvest. We resolve such dynamics with non-parametric quantile regression forests (QRF) based on high-frequency (3 min) discharge measurements and sediment concentration data sampled every 30-60 min in similar-sized (similar to 0.1 km(2)) forested Chilean catchments that were logged during either the rainy or the dry season. The method of QRF builds on the random forest algorithm, and combines quantile regression with repeated random sub-sampling of both cases and predictors. The algorithm belongs to the family of decision-tree classifiers, which allow quantifying relevant predictors in high-dimensional parameter space. We find that, where no logging occurred, similar to 80% of the total sediment load was transported during extremely variable runoff events during only 5% of the monitoring period. In particular, dry-season logging dampened the relative role of these rare, extreme sediment-transport events by increasing load efficiency during more efficient moderate events. We show that QRFs outperform traditional sediment rating curves (SRCs) in terms of accurately simulating short-term dynamics of sediment flux, and conclude that QRF may reliably support forest management recommendations by providing robust simulations of post-logging response of water and sediment fluxes at high temporal resolution.
As part of the current overall process of de-formalization in international law States increasingly chose informal, non-legally binding agreements or ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ (‘MOUs') to organize their international affairs. The increasing conclusion of such legally non-binding instruments in addition to their flexibility, however, also leads to uncertainties in international relations. Against this background, this article deals with possible indirect legal consequences produced by MOUs. It discusses the different legal mechanisms and avenues that may give rise to secondary legal effects of MOUs through a process of interaction with and interpretation in line with other (formal) sources of international law. The article further considers various strategies how to avoid such eventual possible unintended or unexpected indirect legal effects of MOUs when drafting such instruments and when dealing with them subsequent to their respective ‘adoption’.
In 2009, 'Palestine' lodged a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICC under Article 12(3). However, in April 2012, the OTP determined that this declaration had not brought about the result, of providing for the ICC's jurisdiction, pending clarification from the political organs of the UN concerning the legal status of Palestine within the organization. On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly granted Palestine the status of a non-member observer state within the UN framework, thereby fulfilling the condition mentioned by the OTP in April 2012. It is against this background that the article considers the current legal effects of the 2009 Palestinian declaration. In particular, it addresses the issue of whether the declaration, when read in conjunction with the 29 November 2012 decision, possesses retroactive effect, i.e. whether it provides, as claimed, for the Court's temporal jurisdiction from 1 July 2002 onwards or rather starting only from 29 November 2012.
... the current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of 'observer', not as a 'Non-member State'. ... [T]his... informs the current legal status of Palestine for the interpretation and application of article 12 [Rome Statute]. ... The Office could in the future consider allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations... resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment of article 12. ... International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, 'Situation in Palestine', 3 April 2012
Legal shades of grey?
(2021)
As part of the current process of de-formalization in international law, States increasingly chose informal, non-legally binding agreements or 'Memoranda of Understanding' ('MOUs') to organize their international affairs. The increasing conclusion of such legally non-binding instruments in addition to their flexibility, however, also leads to uncertainties in international relations. Against this background, this article deals with possible indirect legal consequences produced by MOUs. It discusses the different legal mechanisms and avenues that may give rise to such secondary legal effects of MOUs through a process of interaction with, and interpretation in line with, other (formal) sources of international law. The article further considers various strategies how to avoid such eventual possible unintended or unexpected indirect legal effects of MOUs when drafting such instruments and when dealing with them subsequent to their respective 'adoption'.
Over the years, the Security Council has on several occasions dealt with humanitarian assistance issues. However, it is Security Council Resolution 2165(2014), related to the situation in Syria, that has brought the role of the Security Council to the forefront of the debate. It is against this background that the article discusses the legal issues arising from Security Council action facilitating humanitarian assistance to be delivered in situations of non-international armed conflict.
Following a brief survey of relevant practice of the Security Council related to humanitarian assistance, the article considers the relevance, if any, of Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) to humanitarian assistance to be delivered in such situations. It then moves on to analyse whether a rejection by the territorial state of humanitarian aid to be delivered by third parties may amount to a situation under Article 39 of the UN Charter. It then considers in detail whether (at least implicitly) Resolution 2165 has been adopted under Chapter VII and, if this is not the case, whether it can be still considered to be legally binding.
The article finally considers what impact the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2165 might have on the interpretation of otherwise applicable rules of international humanitarian law and, in particular, the right of third parties to provide humanitarian assistance in a situation of a non-international armed conflict in spite of the absence of consent by the territorial state, and the obligations that members of the Security Council, permanent and non-permanent, have under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions when faced with a draft resolution providing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, notwithstanding the absence of consent by the territorial state.
In November 2015, the 14th Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted, by consensus, an amendment providing for the deletion of Article 124 of the ICC Statute, which so far enables contracting parties, when joining the Statute, to opt out from the ICC’s treaty-based war crimes-related jurisdiction. After considering the genesis of the provision and the practice arising under Article 124 of the ICC Statute so far, this article considers the arguments for and against the deletion of Article 124 in light of the increasingly small number of accessions to the ICC Statute that have been forthcoming in the last few years. It also analyses the quite strict requirements for the entry into force of the amendment, as well as the effect of the entry into force of the amendment on possible declarations having been made pending such entry into force. It ends by considering the positive effect a continued applicability of Article 124 may have on states so far being reluctant to accede to the ICC Statute.
In November 2015, the 14th Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted, by consensus, an amendment providing for the deletion of Article 124 of the ICC Statute, which so far enables contracting parties, when joining the Statute, to opt out from the ICC’s treaty-based war crimes-related jurisdiction. After considering the genesis of the provision and the practice arising under Article 124 of the ICC Statute so far, this article considers the arguments for and against the deletion of Article 124 in light of the increasingly small number of accessions to the ICC Statute that have been forthcoming in the last few years. It also analyses the quite strict requirements for the entry into force of the amendment, as well as the effect of the entry into force of the amendment on possible declarations having been made pending such entry into force. It ends by considering the positive effect a continued applicability of Article 124 may have on states so far being reluctant to accede to the ICC Statute.
This paper consists of two parts: In the first part, some of the challenges with which the Internationaal Criminal Court is currently confronted are being presented. First of all, the article will describe the current state of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statue. Afterwards, the article analyses the Court’s efforts to deal with cases against third-country nationals and the challenges it is facing in that regard. In addition, the Court’s case law will be analyzed in order to determine an increasing ‘emancipation’ of the case law of the International Criminal Court from international humanitarian law. The second part of the paper will briefly discuss the role of domestic international criminal law and domestic courts in the further development and enforcement of international criminal law. As an example of the role that domestic courts may have in clarifying classic issues in international law, the judgment of the German Supreme Court of January 28, 2021 (3 StR 564/19), which deals with the status of costumary international law on functional immunity of State officials before domestic courts, shall be assessed.
Continuity of states
(2012)
In its Burmych and Others v. Ukraine judgment of October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed more than 12,000 applications due to the fact that they were not only repetitive in nature, but also mutatis mutandis identical to applications covered by a previous pilot judgment rendered against Ukraine. This raises fundamental issues as to the role of the Court within the human rights protection system established by the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as those concerning the interrelationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.
Draft Article 15 of the International Law Commission’s project on crimes against humanity — dealing with the settlement of disputes arising from a proposed convention — attempts to strike a balance between state autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which renders the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conditional upon prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause can be interpreted in light of the recent case law of the ICJ, especially in the case Georgia v. Russia. In addition, this contribution discusses several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause. It advances several proposals to improve the current draft, addressing its relationship with state responsibility — an explicit reference to which is currently missing — as well as the relationship between the ICJ and a possible treaty body. It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of the requirement of prior negotiations with, respectively, the possibility of seizing a future treaty body and the indication of provisional measures by the ICJ.
Article 33, para. 2
(2011)
Article 22
(2011)
Article 1 F
(2011)
The adoption, in Kampala in June 2010, of amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression was hailed as a historic milestone in the development of the international Criminal Court (ICC). However, the manner in which these amendments are supposed to enter into force runs the risk of undermining the rules of the international law of treaties, as well as the legality and acceptability of the Kampala compromise itself The author examines the relevant amendment procedures provided for in the ICC Statute and the compatibility with them of the amendment procedure chosen in Kampala and ultimately warns of the legal consequences which may follow from the Review Conference's somewhat-Alexandrian solution.
On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of States Parties of the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. In doing so, it however seems to have rescinded the Kampala amendment adopted in 2010, and in particular, the need for State Parties to eventually opt out from the Court’s aggression-related jurisdiction. This reversal, while being more in line with the Rome Statute than the Kampala amendment itself, raises new (and old) and challenging legal questions which are highlighted in this article.