Filter by
  • M Aznar and E Methymaki, 'Article 2 ' in A Zimmermann and CJ Tams (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2019)
  • S von Schorlemer and A Tzanakopoulos, 'Article 46' in A Zimmermann and CJ Tams (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2019)
    Commentary to Article 46 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
  • S von Schorlemer and A Tzanakopoulos, 'Article 47' in A Zimmermann and CJ Tams (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2019)
    Commentary to Article 47 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
  • H Jöbstl, 'Article 8(2)(b)(viii)' in Mark Klamberg (ed), Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court (TOAEP 2019) (forthcoming)
  • E Methymaki and A Tzanakopoulos, 'Freedom With Their Exception: Jurisdiction and Immunity as Rule and Exception' in F Paddeu and L Bartels (eds), Exceptions and Defences in International Law (Oxford University Press 2019) (forthcoming)
    The relationship between the rules on state jurisdiction and sovereign immunity, as well as the rules of sovereign immunity between themselves, has been the subject of long-standing debate among international lawyers, as well as international and domestic courts. Although the starting point of any discussion is the jurisdiction of the territorial state, it is also accepted that domestic courts are barred from exercising such jurisdiction over acts of another sovereign. This latter rule has its own exceptions, namely that a foreign state is not entitled to immunity for acts performed in a commercial capacity and certain other limited circumstances. What are the consequences of such a rule-exception-exception to the exception relationship, and do they affect the waiver of immunity, the burden of proof, or the interpretation of these norms? This chapter argues that the relationship between jurisdiction and immunity as rule and exception has, in the final analysis, no particular normative weight in their application and interpretation by courts and other law-applying actors.
  • M Apostolaki and A Tzanakopoulos, 'Greece' in FM Palombino (ed), Duelling for Supremacy: International Law vs National Fundamental Principles (Cambridge University Press 2019)
    After decades of avoiding meaningful engagement with international law, Greek courts engaged more seriously in the years of the crises. Under conditions of ‘normality’, cases ‘at the edge’ are few, and domestic courts may be unwilling in such circumstances to openly contest international law. This chapter demonstrates how Greek courts opted for avoidance in cases they thought that international law somehow left something to be desired when pitted against the Greek Constitution. They avoided international law by mechanistically invoking the Constitution’s normative supremacy even when they did not need to do so. This is undoubtedly resistance, but only formally principled resistance – and certainly not ‘reasonable’ resistance. But when international law is employed by both regulators and challengers as a sword and a shield on matters of high political and legal importance, resistance is no longer cheap, and can no longer be unprincipled. The stakes are too high, but so are the possibilities to influence the content and development of international law. In those circumstances, Greek courts seemed far more comfortable to forget about resisting and fall into line. Resistance here would be costly, not less so in terms of the quality of argument to be put forward. Resistance is not always futile. Sometimes, even if potentially futile, it is direly needed. Unprincipled resistance is always futile, however, and definitely not useful in preparing one for proper contestation when the circumstances call for it.
    ISBN: 978-1108475266
  • E Methymaki, 'Irmgard Marboe, Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law (2nd edn, OUP 2017)' (2019) European Yearbook of International Economic Law [Review] (forthcoming)
  • A Tzanakopoulos, 'La Russie et le Conseil de sécurité : les trois époques de la pratique' (2019) 123 Revue générale de droit international public (forthcoming)
    This paper discusses the three different epochs of Soviet/Russian practice in the Security Council. After recounting the 'switch' from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation as a permanent member of the Security Council, the paper traces the three epochs it identifies: from the Soviet era of the deadlock during the Cold War, to the era of Russian retreat during the New World Order and US hegemony, to the current paradoxical era of Russian re-engagement, where Russia invokes Western arguments against the West.
    ISBN: 0373-6156
  • E Methymaki and L Bartels, 'Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308' (2019) 181 ILR (forthcoming)
  • MM Jackson, 'State Instigation in International Law: A General Principle Transposed' (2019) 30 European Journal of International Law (forthcoming)
  • A Tzanakopoulos, 'The Secretary-General's Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice' in H Ruiz-Fabri (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (Oxford University Press 2019) (forthcoming)
    The Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice was established in 1989 and inspired the creation of similar funds to financially assist states in the resolution of their disputes within the context of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In this entry for the Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law, I review the structure and operation, and the practice of the ICJ Trust Fund, comparing it occasionally to the other funds inspired by it, and offering a brief evaluation of the endeavour.
  • A Zimmermann, CJ Tams, F Boos and E Methymaki (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd edn Oxford University Press 2019)
  • T de Souza Dias and Dapo Akande, 'A new approach to the Interests of Justice in the 10 years ahead of the Rome Statute: Why and when the Prosecutor should use her discretion under Art. 53(1)(c) and 2(c) to defer investigations or prosecutions in favor of peace negotiations' (2018) UCLA ICC Forum
    We believe that a key reform that has the potential to make the international criminal justice project stronger, more efficient, and more effective is the consideration of peace negotiations as an additional factor in the Prosecutor’s decision of whether or not to pursue an investigation or prosecution “in the interests of justice,” in accordance with Article 53(1)(c) and 2(c) of the Rome Statute. At present, this would require a revision of the Policy Papers issued on this question, in particular, the 2013 Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations and the 2007 Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice. Significantly, we believe that this reform has the potential to prevent or alleviate, at least in part, some of the most pressing problems mentioned by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in its question for this issue of the ICC Forum, namely, the lack of state cooperation, limited budget, and lengthy or complex proceedings.
  • D. Akande and Talita de Souza-Dias, 'A New Approach to the"Interests of Justice” in the Ten Years Ahead of the Rome Statute' (2018) ICCForum.com
    We believe that a key reform that has the potential to make the international criminal justice project stronger, more efficient, and more effective is the consideration of peace negotiations as an additional factor in the Prosecutor’s decision of whether or not to pursue an investigation or prosecution “in the interests of justice,” in accordance with Article 53(1)(c) and 2(c) of the Rome Statute. At present, this would require a revision of the Policy Papers issued on this question, in particular, the 2013 Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations and the 2007 Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice. Significantly, we believe that this reform has the potential to prevent or alleviate, at least in part, some of the most pressing problems mentioned by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in its question for this issue of the ICC Forum, namely, the lack of state cooperation, limited budget, and lengthy or complex proceedings.
  • MM Jackson, 'Amnesties in Strasbourg' (2018) 38 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 451
    DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqy017
  • D. Akande, 'An Analysis of why the ICC does not have Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression Committed by Nationals of ICC Parties which have not Ratified the Kampala Aggression Amendments' (2018) ICCForum.com
    This piece examines the question of who will be subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression. One of the most contentious questions in the negotiations that have taken place, since the adoption of the Rome Statute, regarding the crime of aggression is the question whether the Court’s normal jurisdictional regime should apply to the crime of aggression. A key point that divided the parties during the aggression negotiations was whether the Court should have jurisdiction over nationals of a state that does not ratify the aggression amendments but which is alleged to have committed an act of aggression on the territory of a state has accepted the aggression amendments. At the Kampala Review Conference, a provision was included in the aggression amendments by which states parties to the Rome Statute could opt out from the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression. While some states asserted that the Kampala Amendments essentially created an opt-out regime, under which nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute were covered by ICC jurisdiction unless their state opted-out, others maintained the regime for aggression was essentially an opt-in regime under which nationals of state parties were not within the jurisdiction of the Court unless their state opted-in. The dispute on this issue continued right up to the 2017 ICC Assembly of States Parties meeting in New York at which the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression was activated. The resolution adopted in New York endorsed the “narrow view” of ICC jurisdiction and asserted that its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression was essentially based on states parties opting in. This comment first considers the legal effect that the New York resolution will have in determining this jurisdictional question. It is argued that the although an ASP resolution adopted by consensus can, in principle, be regarded as a subsequent agreement of the parties to the Rome Statute that establishes their authentic interpretation of the Statute, within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the New York resolution does not, in itself, provide the definitive answer as to the correct interpretation of the Rome Statute. It is argued that despite being adopted by consensus, and despite being highly relevant for the interpretation of the Rome Statute and Kampala Amendments, this resolution does not necessarily amount to a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice that the Court is legally bound to follow. Nevertheless, it is argued that the position adopted in New York with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court over nationals of states parties that do not ratify the aggression amendments is the correct legal position and the one that the Court, including the Office of the Prosecutor, ought to adopt. This comment argues that the answer to the question over whom the Court will have jurisdiction with respect to aggression is to be found in Rome rather than in Kampala and that the key to addressing that issue is to understand how the amendment provisions of the Rome Statute work, in conjunction with basic principles of the law of treaties.
  • ABE Bayot, 'Elite Bargains and Political Deals: Case Study on the Philippines' (2018) Elite Bargains and Political Deals Project; Stabilisation Unit, Government of the United Kingdom
    The paper discusses the history of the Bangsamoro peace process in the Philippines, focusing on how the issue of autonomy vis-à-vis centralized government steered the country from the peace table to conflict and back again. The paper shows that while the peace process has benefited from the assistance of various third parties throughout the almost 40-year successive negotiations, it is the party-driven stabilisation interventions, rather than the external actors, that have been crucial in taking the peace process forward. The primacy of local actors is particularly critical as the parties push for congressional implementation of the political settlement. The paper concludes with an assessment of the prospects for full implementation of the CAB in light of the prevailing political climate.
  • A Tzanakopoulos, 'Here Comes the Name Again: Treaty Making at the Epicentre of the Greek Debate over the Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (2018) EJIL: Talk!
    A short comment on issues of treaty making, authority to sign international treaties, and the legal effects of signature when treaties require also ratification, against the background of the Prespa Agreement between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with respect to the latter state's name.

Pages