Publications

The case study of investment treaty arbitration provides an opportunity to examine whether and how the invocation of responsibility by a non-state actor has affected secondary rules of state responsibility. This article takes the analytical perspective of investors, capable of being perceived as right-holders (by reference to human and consular rights), beneficiaries (by reference to the law of treaties rules on third states), or agents (by reference to diplomatic protection). The shift from the state to the investor as the entity invoking responsibility for the breach of investment treaties seems to have influenced the law of state responsibility in a number of distinct ways. The apparent disagreement about the law of state responsibility may sometimes properly relate to questions of treaty interpretation, while in other cases rules from an inter-state context are applied verbatim. In other cases, the different perspectives lead to importantly different conclusions regarding circumstances precluding wrongfulness, elements of remedies, waiver of rights, and, possibly, interpretative relevance of diplomatic protection rules. The overall thesis is that conceptual challenges faced by investment arbitration may be illuminated by the solutions provided by the regimes that formed the background for its creation.

In recent years, the International Court of Justice has been increasingly asked to adjudicate upon claims of State responsibility that raise or at least touch upon the possibility of international responsibility of multiple entities. In different substantive contexts, these cases raise similar conceptual questions that might be articulated by reference to the concept of ‘shared responsibility’. The focus of this article is on procedural matters, and in particular on how shared responsibility may be implemented in the ICJ. The argument will be made in three steps, dealing in turn with the manner in which cases concerning shared responsibility could be brought before the Court, the way how such cases could be handled, and the challenges raised in such cases by absent parties. The article argues for a nuanced consideration of the rationale of the procedural challenges: some are unremarkable in conceptual terms and reflect the broader judicial architecture of the Court, while others are of particular importance for shared responsibility, even though the particular legal issue might be mutatis mutandis relevant to other multilateral disputes.

The introductory paper to a symposium issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law, edited by the authors, dealing with the function of domestic courts as agents for the development of international law. The paper 'sets the scene' for the contributions to the symposium, which seek to trace the impact of domestic courts in the development of canonical areas of international law, such as jurisdiction, immunity, state responsibility, the law of international organisations/human rights, and the law of armed conflict/conduct of hostilities. It discusses the formal quality and actual influence of domestic court decisions on the development of international law, and introduces the concept of 'agents' of international law development. This is the analytical perspective that the contributions to the symposium adopt.

ISBN: 0922-1565

This paper discusses (in French) whether countermeasures can be invoked as a justification for disobeying binding decisions of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The first part establishes how the Security Council may engage the international responsibility of the UN and who should be allowed to determine that such engagement has in fact taken place. The second part argues that disobedience of illegal sanctions adopted by the Council may be justified under international law as a countermeasure in response to the Council's (the UN's) internationally wrongful act.

ISBN: 0035-0788

Abstract:

The article considers whether the obligations of states, which have been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the United Nations Security Council, are the same as the cooperation obligations of states parties to the ICC Statute. It is argued that despite the lack of clarity in the resolutions referring the situation in Darfur and in Libya to the ICC, the better view is that the obligation imposed on Sudan and Libya to �cooperate fully� with the ICC should be regarded as an obligation to cooperate in accordance with the provisions of the ICC Statute. This means that those states are entitled to benefit from those limited provisions of the ICC Statute that permit a refusal to cooperate with the Court or permit the state to postpone the execution of a request by the Court for assistance. The article also considers the interaction between the obligations of states to cooperate with the ICC and domestic proceedings against those sought for ICC prosecution. It considers the extent to which the obligation of cooperation may be suspended by an admissibility challenge and addresses whether the permission to suspend the obligation of cooperation may extend to a suspension of the obligation to surrender an accused person to the ICC.

ISBN: 1478-1387

Jeff McMahan’s challenge to the longstanding orthodoxy about the right way to conduct war has fallen on fertile grounds because it is an attempt to apply to the use of force between states a moral standard whose pertinence to international relations is decreasingly contestable and which regulation by international law (IL) is, therefore, under pressure to afford: the preservation of individual rights. This compelling endeavour is at an impasse given the admission of many ethicists that it is currently impossible for international humanitarian law (IHL) to regulate killing in war with a view to individuals’ liability. IHL’s failure to consistently protect individual rights, specifically its shortfall compared to human rights law, has led to challenges also by international lawyers. This paper identifies the features of war that ground the inability of IL to regulate it to a level of moral acceptability and characterises such situations as presenting an epistemically cloaked forced choice regarding the preservation of individual rights. Commitment to the above moral standard then means that IL should not prejudge the outcome of such quintessential wars and must, somewhat paradoxically, diverge from morality. In showing that many confrontations between states inevitably take the form of such epistemically cloaked forced choices, the paper contests the argument by revisionist just war theories that the failure of IL to track a deep morality of war is merely a function of contingent institutional desiderata. Symmetrical IHL with its current moral limitations has a continuing role to play in international relations.

DOI: 10.1163/170873811X563947

This article assesses the African Union’s (AU) concerns about Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It seeks to articulate a clearer picture of the law and politics of deferrals within the context of the AU’s repeated calls to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC, or the Council) to invoke Article 16 to suspend the processes initiated by the ICC against President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan. The UNSC’s failure to accede to the AU request led African States to formally withhold cooperation from the ICC in respect to the arrest and surrender of the Sudanese leader. Given the AU’s continued concerns, and the current impasse, fundamental questions have arisen about the Council’s authority to exercise, or not exercise, its deferral power. This culminated into a November 2009 African proposal for an amendment to the Rome Statute to empower the UN General Assembly to act should the UNSC fail to act on a deferral request after six months. Although ICC States Parties have so far shown limited public support for the AU’s proposed amendment to the deferral provision, this article examines its merits because a failure to engage the “Article 16 problem” could impact international accountability efforts in the Sudan, and further damage the ICC’s credibility in Africa. This unresolved issue also has wider significance given that the matters underlying the tension – how ICC prosecutions may be reconciled with peacemaking initiatives and the role and power of the Council in ICC business – will likely arise in future situations from around the world.

ISBN: 2210-9730

DOI: 10.1007/s12180-011-0018-6

Scientific and technological development necessitates often legal regulation, to be achieved through an interaction between science and law during the decision-making process. Taking as an example the case of underwater noise pollution, the examination of which is underway in many international organisations with a view towards its regulation, the article proposes to comment upon some aspects of this interaction. It is finally submitted that law provides sufficient legal principles and institutionalised frameworks for cooperation, which however have not been sufficiently put in use so far.

Starting from the observation that traditionally the law of State responsibility has hardly interacted with the law applicable to territorial and boundary disputes, the article examines how these two fields of international law may relate in the case of State action in contested areas, be they terrestrial or marine. Assessing recent international practice, particularly the case law of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals, and differentiating between land and maritime disputes, it identifies the primary obligations incumbent upon States when acting in contested areas – relating to State sovereignty and sovereign rights, ius ad bellum, ius in bello, procedural obligations pending the final settlement of the dispute – and it examines the consequences of the breach of those primary norms, in terms of secondary obligations, as well as third States’ duties and obligations. The legal framework specifically created for disputed maritime areas by Art. 74 para. 3 UNCLOS and Art. 83 para. 3 UNCLOS, including its implications for land disputes, is specifically analysed. The authors submit that, at a time of increasingly pro-active policies and robust actions taken by States in contested areas, more attention should be devoted to the extent to which the law of State responsibility, especially with regard to relevant forms of reparation, has to adapt to the content and scope of primary norms applicable to that specific context

As the title suggests, this paper does not deal with 'international law in domestic courts' but rather with 'domestic courts in international law'. It seeks to ascertain whether domestic courts are assigned an international judicial function by international law, and whether and to what extent they are in fact assuming and exercising that function. The paper attempts to define the concept of an ‘international judicial function’ and argues that, because of the peculiar ‘directionality’ of a great many international obligations (which require implementation within the domestic jurisdiction), domestic courts are the first port of call and the last line of defense for the interpretation and application of international law. However, as organs of States, courts may engage the international responsibility of the State if their conduct results in the breach of an international obligation. This is why the exercise of the international judicial function of domestic courts is supervised by States, either through the submission of disputes to international courts, or, more usually, through decentralized reactions.

ISBN: 1533-5860

DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chq080

This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime. We argue that personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) continues to apply even where prosecution is sought for international crimes. Also we consider that instead of a single category of personal immunity there are in fact two types of such immunity and that one type extends beyond senior officials such as the Head of State and Head of Government. Most of the article deals with functional immunity (immunity ratione materiae). We take the view that this type of immunity does not apply in the case of domestic prosecution of foreign officials for most international crimes. However, we reject the traditional arguments which have been put forward by scholars and courts in support of this view. Instead we consider the key to understanding when functional immunity is available lies in examining how jurisdiction is conferred on domestic courts.

ISBN: 0938-5428

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000361

The article revisits the Barcelona Traction judgment of the International Court of Justice, rendered forty years ago. It evaluates the lasting influence of the Court's pronouncements on the nationality of corporations and on obligations erga omnes, and uses the case to illustrate the Court's role as an influential agent of legal development. In this respect, it identifies a number of factors that can help to explain under which circumstances judicial pronouncements are likely to shape the law.

ISBN: 0922-1565

DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqq006

Domestic courts are increasingly being seized by persons subjected to or affected by sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, particularly through the regime established under Resolution 1267. In Abdelrazik v. Canada, the Canadian Federal Court ‘interprets away’ the obligations of Canada under the 1267 regime, potentially forcing upon the state a breach of its international obligations under the resolution and the UN Charter. But at the same time it offers an important — if implicit — justification for that breach under international law.

ISBN: 1478-1387

DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqp034

This article considers whether states are obliged or permitted to arrest Sudanese President Omar al Bashir pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The article considers the extent to which the ICC Statute removes immunities which would ordinarily be available to state officials. It is argued that the removal of the immunity by Article 27 of the ICC Statute applies also at the national level, when national authorities act in support of the ICC. The article examines the application of Article 98 of the ICC Statute and considers the legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC. It is argued that the effect of the Security Council referral is that Sudan is to be regarded as bound by the ICC Statute and thus by Article 27. Given that the Statute operates in this case not as a treaty but by virtue of being a Security Council resolution, the removal of immunity operates even with regard to non-parties. However, since any (implicit) removal of immunity by the Security Council would conflict with customary international law and treaty rules according immunity to a serving head of state, the article considers the application of Article 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter in this case.

ISBN: 1478-1387