15 Apr Weekend Roundup: April 8-15, 2019
Alonso provided a detailed post on the interplay between human rights and investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), with a particular focus on indigenous “social license” in investment projects.
Kevin welcomed Opinio Juris 2.0’s first guest blogger, Angela Mudukuti, who offered insight into the opportunities and hurdles associated with the exercise of universal jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in domestic courts, in light of the persistent problems facing the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Christopher “Kip” Hale and Santiago Vargas Niño commented on the ICC’s financial woes and its ramifications vis-à-vis Bemba’s claim for compensation and damages.
In a two-part post (here and here), Kingsley Abbott and Saman Zia-Zarifi provided a robust analysis of the pros and cons of replacing the current practice of instituting ad hoc international investigative mechanisms (see, e.g., Syria and Myanmar) with the creation of a Standing Independent Investigative Mechanism (SIIM).
Kevin then jumpstarted several discussions about the PTC’s regrettable decision to reject the Afghanistan investigation based on the vague notion of “interests of justice.” Kevin first addressed whether the decision could be appealed, and then whether the PTC acted ultra vires in ruling the way it did. While Kevin answered both questions in the negative, he nevertheless argued in a follow-up post why the PTC got its review “completely, utterly wrong.” Kevin’s posts spawned a response by Gabor Rona, who argued, inter alia, that in light of the US’s political coercion on the ICC, the PTC’s decision not to proceed with the Afghanistan investigation out of “interests of justice” was not only ultra vires but also “appalling.” This is likely just the beginning of the debate, so stay tuned!
Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a great week!