Archive of posts for category
Online Symposia

Emerging Voices Symposium 2016 Comes to a Close

by Jessica Dorsey

The summer is coming to a close and so is our fourth annual Emerging Voices Symposium. We have featured fantastic posts from emerging scholars, practitioners and students over the course of the summer and a roundup follows of what it is that they have covered.

Alexandra Hofer started our 2016 edition off with her post on assessing the role of the European Union as an enforcer of international law in the Ukranian crisis, concluding that both the EU and Russia ought to change their practices in order to escape the stalemate in which they currently find themselves. Wolfgang Alschner weighed in on a novel approach to dealing with the complexities of international law in his post on computational analysis of international law, specifically focusing on text-as-data tools for investigating international investment agreements.

Our next post featured an analysis by Andrea Bowdren of the trial of Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi before the International Criminal Court, which represented a series of firsts for international law and justice. as Al Mahdi is the first individual from Mali brought before the ICC, the first Islamic extremist to face charges at the ICC, the first individual to be prosecuted solely for cultural destruction as a war crime, and the first individual who indicated an intention to plead guilty to an ICC charge (which he subsequently did). John Coyle asked whether foreign investors can enforce international investment law in U.S. courts, and after a careful analysis concluded that the government should at least consider the possibility that an FCN treaty might impose legally enforceable limitations on its freedom of action.

The Symposium continued with Jenny Poon’s insightful contribution discussing whether the margin of appreciation accorded to European Union Member States is too wide, which may lead to violations of international law and used the topic of asylum as a lens in which to analyze this question, ultimately calling for more clarification on the margin of appreciation in order to protect the rights of the vulnerable. Myriam Feinberg weighed in with a thoughtful analysis of the role of international organizations in the context of sovereignty in the age of global terrorism, contending that this can be examined in the wider context of state sovereignty, even though a number of international law analyses consider the concept of State sovereignty obsolete or in need of reform.

Amina Adanan discussed the role of national prosecutors in the context of domestic regulation of universal jurisdiction, concluding, in particular, a balance must be struck between prosecutorial discretion and the need to prevent impunity for the worst atrocities, after a thorough analysis. Finally, Grazyna Baranowska analyzed the European Court of Human Rights and women affected by the disapperance of their relatives, positing several alternatives for action and concluding that actions that countries should take in order to address specific needs of female relatives of disappeared persons face could be included in ECtHR judgments.

Thank you again to all of our participants. We hope you have all enjoyed reading and interacting with the contributions in our fourth annual Emerging Voices Symposium.

Emerging Voices: The European Court of Human Rights and Women Affected by Enforced Disappearances of Their Relatives

by Grazyna Baranowska

[Grazyna Baranowska is a Senior Researcher at the Poznań Human Rights Centre of the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences.]

The nature of enforced disappearances is that it affects whole families, rather than only the individuals who disappeared. While the majority of the forcibly disappeared are men, these disappearances have a strong economic, socials and psychological effects on the wives/partners of the disappeared.

The impact of enforced disappearances on women has been recognized by the Working Groups on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. In the Preamble to the General comment on women affected by enforced disappearances it is stated that:

“(…) gender equality and the empowerment of women are essential tools to address the situation that women victims of enforced disappearances face. A gender perspective is crucial in explaining, understanding and dealing with unique disadvantages and obstacles that women face in the exercise of their human rights and to outline solutions to try and address these issues. (…)The experience of the Working Group demonstrates that the effects of enforced disappearances are lived and faced in different ways by women and girls due to gender roles, which are deeply embedded in history, tradition, religion and culture (…).”

International law considers the ‘victims of enforced disappearances’ to be both the disappeared persons and any individuals who have suffered harm as a direct result of a disappearance (art. 24.1 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, ICPPED). Even though ICPPED does not have a gendered perspective, the effects of disappearances on women had been discussed since the second session of the Committee of Enforced Disappearances in March 2012. The results of these discussions have been included in the document on relationship with NGO’s: the Committee encouraged integration of a gender perspective in submissions and consultation of women’s organization and women human rights defenders.

The European Court of Human Rights also recognizes that disappearances violate  the rights of a disappeared persons’ families As stated by the ECtHR: “The phenomenon of disappearances imposes a particular burden on the relatives of missing persons who are kept in ignorance of the fate of their loved ones and suffer the anguish of uncertainty” (Varnava v. Turkey). In Çakıcı v. Turkey, the ECtHR  found that art. 3 of the ECHR was violated with regard to the disappeared persons’ relatives when their suffering has a character and dimension distinct from the emotional distress stemming inevitably from the violation itself.

The court established ‘special factors’ in this context, covering: (1) the proximity of the family tie, (2) the particular circumstances of the relationship, (3) the extent to which family members witnessed the events, (4) their involvement in the attempts to obtain information and (5) the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries (Çakıcı v. Turkey, par. 98).

Those factors have been developed in subsequent judgments. Recently, the ECtHR has tended to focus on the last aspect – the authorities’ reaction and attitude to the situation when it is brought to their attention (Khachukayevy v. Russia, par. 73; Khava Aziyeva v. Russia, par. 96).

During the first decade of disappearance cases before the ECtHR, the Court attached great importance to the involvement of the applicant in the attempts to obtain information and direct contact with authorities (see for example Nenkayev and others v. Russia, par. 168).  However, this has changed over time. In the applications against Russia, which currently constitute the vast majority of disappearances cases, very often whole families are applicants and the ECtHR has in most cases not differentiated between the applicants, even when some of them were more involved in the inquiries. Nevertheless there are still cases when all of the ‘special factors’ are brought up by the ECtHR.

The “special factors” established by the ECtHR are not gender-sensitive: requiring involvement in the attempts to obtain information might be difficult for a woman especially when – after the disappearance of her partner – she is the single parent of small children. This is further exacerbated in patriarchal societies, were male relatives traditionally represent women in their contact with authorities. Furthermore the illiteracy rate is higher among women in the countries from which the enforced disappearance cases to the ECtHR origin from and in minority communities (such as Kurds and Chechens) the language barrier is an additional obstacle, especially for women.

Due to these factors, a  substantial number of applicants before the ECtHR in cases against Turkey are men. These cases thus result in finding that men– often the brothers of disappeared—as opposed to the wives, are thevictims of violations of article 3 of the ECHR. When the wife is an applicant, she is usually accompanied by male members of the family, as has been the case in the majority of applications against Russia. There is a very limited number of cases submitted solely by women.

Therefore, although women are strongly affected by enforced disappearances of their male relatives/partners, they are less often authors of applications and if men are representing them in contact with authorities due to the ‘special factors’, they are less likely to be found victims of violation of art. 3 of the ECHR. A striking example of such a way of reasoning was a judgment, in which the ECtHR found no violation of article 3 of the ECHR because the wife of the disappeared failed to demonstrate that she was involved in the ongoing investigation pertaining to the disappearance of the husband (Nesibe Haran, 83).

In order to recognize the suffering of women relatives of disappeared persons, it would be beneficial to rethink the “special factors.” This could be done through resigning from the requirement of involvement in the attempts to obtain information. Alternatively the ECtHR could analyze how the applicant is affected by the disappearance and its consequences. This would make it possible for the applicants and their representative to show the particularly difficult situation for the female relatives of the disappeared person. The Court could also – just like other international bodies – completely abandon the “special factors.”

Second, the ECtHR could reconsider analyzing a violation of the rights of family members of a disappeared person under article 8 of the ECHR, guaranteeing right to respect for private and family life. This has been raised previously by a number of applicants, but it has rejected by the ECtHR. Article 8 of the ECHR could be used to recognize the vulnerable situation of female relatives of disappeared persons.

A third possibility would be to recognize at the enforcement stage the particular effect enforced disappearances of family members have on women. In the judgment Alakhanova and others v. Russia the ECtHR provided “guidance on certain measures that had to be taken by the Russian authorities to address the systemic failure to investigate disappearances in the Northern Caucasus.” Currently the Committee of Ministers expects Russia to address those measures in order to implement the disappearances judgments. Therefore, actions that countries should take in order to address specific needs of female relatives of disappeared persons face could be included in the ECtHR judgment.

Emerging Voices: Domestic Regulation of Universal Jurisdiction–The Role of National Prosecutors.

by Amina Adanan

[Amina Adanan is a PhD candidate at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway.] 

In common law and civil law legal systems it is the responsibility of the public prosecutor to determine whether the prosecution of an international crime is pursued. The level of this discretionary power and the considerations to be taken into account in making the decision vary from state to state. As such, the prosecutor plays a significant role in the prosecution of international crimes under the universality principle. Notwithstanding the importance of universal jurisdiction, the regulation of the principle at a domestic level is of crucial significance because it dictates the parameters within which the jurisdiction operates in a particular state. In this context, the role of the national prosecutor in the exercise of universal jurisdiction should be examined at interstate forums and also by academics.

Universal jurisdiction (or the universality principle) grants all states the right to prosecute persons suspected of committing certain human rights abuses regardless of where the crime has occurred and notwithstanding the nationalities of the accused person(s) or victim(s). This right exists in both customary international law and in conventional international law. The list of offences to which the jurisdiction applies is: genocide, war crimes (committed in both international and non-international armed conflict), crimes against humanity, torture and international piracy. The right can be found in a range of sources. The Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) expressly reaffirmed universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, as was declared in Attorney General of Israel v Eichmann. The right of states to exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict is recognised in rule number 157 of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Customary International Humanitarian Law database.

Universal jurisdiction over torture is provided under Article 5(2) of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), while universality over international piracy is codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The grave breaches regime of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I includes an obligation on the High Contracting Parties to prosecute persons, ‘regardless of their nationality’, who are accused of committing grave breaches, so long as they are present in the territory of the forum state (the prosecuting state). Universality is also inscribed in Article 16(1) of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and in Articles 13(1) and 14 of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. In addition, universal jurisdiction applies to some transnational offences such as the destruction of undersea water cables and currency counterfeiting.

Regardless of the existence of the principle in customary and conventional international law, it is up to each individual state as to whether it legislates for universal jurisdiction and under what conditions it is exercised. For example, some states such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and others have legislated for universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict, whereas other states, such as Ireland, have not done so. What is more, some states have gone further than the parameters of international law and legislated for universal jurisdiction over additional offences. For example Belarus and Colombia can exercise universal jurisdiction over the crime of ecocide. It should also be acknowledged that where a state has enacted universal jurisdiction over a said offence, it does not necessarily mean that the law is utilised.

One such obstacle to the initiation of an investigation or trial under universal jurisdiction is prosecutorial discretion. As Judge Daniel D. Ntanda Nsereko notes, in some countries the government may direct the prosecutor, while in other countries prosecutors may act of their own accord. In deciding if an investigation or trial is to be pursued, the prosecutor must take into account a series of considerations such as whether a prosecution is in the public interest and whether evidence can be obtained easily.

An example of the gap between universal jurisdiction in international law and its exercise on a national level can be seen in states’ regulation of access to the jurisdictional principle. In some states it is possible for an individual or a group to initiate proceedings in respect of the extraterritorial crime. In fact, some of the most prominent examples of universal jurisdiction cases commenced in this manner. However, this legal mechanism is quickly becoming a thing of the past with many states closing off this means of judicial access. In Belgium, the consent of the Federal Prosecutor is required for the initation of an investigation into international crimes under Article 16 (2) of the Law on Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (August 2003). Prior to 2003 it was possible for individuals to commence such proceedings. Equally, in the United Kingdom, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required in order for an arrest warrant to be issued against persons accused of having committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions under Section 153 of the UK Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Prior to the enactment of the UK legislation it was possible for a judge to issue such an arrest warrant upon receipt of a petition by an individual. These legislative changes are the result of the deterioration in international relations with states whose nationals were the subject of universal jurisdiction proceedings. In some states, such as Australia and Canada, prosecutorial discretion in respect of international crimes is not a new phenomenon.

There is little doubt that the exercise of universal jurisdiction will negatively impact the forum state’s bilateral relations with the state of nationality of the accused when the latter does not support the prosecution. This reality has been noted by some states participating in the discussion on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction taking place at the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. Thus, on the one hand, it is to be expected that an official linked to the executive should decide important matters that are likely to have repercussions for the forum state’s international relations. In many states, the executive has traditionally regulated foreign policy matters. Moreover, the preservation of prosecutorial discretion may provide an incentive for states to sign up to future international treaties that contain a clause providing for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over a particular crime.

However, on the other hand, prosecutorial discretion raises a series of significant issues concerning international criminal justice. First, it begs the question as to whether the obligation to prosecute or extradite that applies to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I and to torture (as provided in the respective conventions) is fulfilled. The enactment and exercise of universal jurisdiction over these offences is a fundamental element of the obligation to prosecute in both the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I and in UNCAT. Second, concerns arise in respect of the right of victims of serious violations of international law to have access to justice as guaranteed by the Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity.

Third, the reality is that political considerations are a factor in the decision making process of a national prosecutor and this consideration will result in the exercise of universal jurisdiction being biased in support of the interest of powerful and influential states. In practical terms, relations with powerful trading allies are likely to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not a case should proceed. In 2014, pressure placed on the Spanish Government by the Chinese authorities, after an arrest warrant was issued by a Spanish judge for alleged international crimes committed in Tibet, resulted in significant restrictions to the Spanish law on universality. An exception to this proposition is the ‘US torture case’ in Germany. Here, the German Federal Prosecutor initiated a ‘monitoring procedure’ into alleged torture committed by US officials against persons while in CIA detention and overseas facilities, following the publication of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on CIA Detention. (The monitoring procedure is still pending). Indeed, it is often said that universal jurisdiction operates in favour of the interests of influential states, predominantly from the Global North. The recent prosecution of Hissène Habré by Senegal and the ‘Zimbabwe Torture Docket’ case in South Africa may be cited against this contention. However, the reality of realpolitik is that the nationals of certain states will not be tried under the universality principle.

Universal jurisdiction is a rationale-based jurisdiction. The rationale for the exercise of universal jurisdiction is that the offences to which the jurisdiction applies are so heinous that they impact the whole of humanity. The principle fills an important void where there is no prospect of a domestic prosecution in the territorial state or in the state of nationality of the accused (often these are the same). Nonetheless, cases where the interests of the state of nationality of the accused align with the interests of the forum state are the cases most likely to proceed. Adding foreign policy considerations into the mix eschews the original rationale for universal jurisdiction. During the discussion at the Sixth Committee, some states have called upon the creation of guidelines on the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In the event of any such guidelines being formulated, it is imperative that the role of the prosecutor be examined in the deliberations. In particular, a balance must be struck between prosecutorial discretion and the need to prevent impunity for the worst atrocities.

Emerging Voices: ‘Sovereignty in the Age of Global Terrorism’ What is the Role of International Organizations?

by Myriam Feinberg

[Dr Myriam Feinberg is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, University of Haifa. The topic addressed in this blog post is based on her monograph Sovereignty in the Age of Global Terrorism – The Role of International Organisations published by Brill/Martinus Nijhoff in May 2016.]

The attacks of 9/11 brought terrorism to the international stage. They raised many legal questions, both on the nature of terrorism itself and on the responses to the phenomenon. One of these questions is the role of international organisations in addressing the terrorist threat, and the ensuing question of the place of States in the international community. More generally, I contend that this can be examined in the wider context of state sovereignty, even though a number of international law analyses consider the concept of State sovereignty obsolete or in need of reform.

It is clear that the concept of sovereignty has evolved and that its validity can be challenged. Its definition was never completely clear but it definitely does not equate absolutism anymore. In fact, sovereignty is today considered to include a number of responsibilities for States. The Global Trust Project for instance, looks at sovereigns as ‘trustees of humanity’ and aims to examine the obligations that States and international organisations have towards various stakeholders, including foreign stakeholders.

However, the notion of sovereignty is also still frequently used as a narrative by States in order to impose certain domestic measures or to question territorial challenges. This is exactly why, to my mind, sovereignty is a useful frame of reference for counterterrorism, an area where issues of legitimacy and power are crucial: not as an ideal concept, not as a strict and defined notion, but rather, as the thermometer of how States consider their status, obligations and capacities in international law and their willingness to work alongside international organisations, especially in order to address security issues.

This post examines State sovereignty in the context of post-9/11 counterterrorism and focuses both on the ability of international organisations to adopt and enforce counterterrorism measures and on the practical example of terrorist asset freezing sanctions.

Terrorism challenges the sovereignty of a State because it questions the State’s ability to protect its citizens against violence and therefore, the States needs to be perceived as acting against it. After the events of 9/11, it also constitutes a challenge to the nature of the State in international law and to the international community as a whole.

In parallel, the attacks of 9/11 questioned the existing counterterrorism regimes of States because they showed that national legislation and jurisdiction were not sufficient to deal with this major issue. In other words, traditional responses appear to have failed and terrorist threats seem to have superseded territorial and nationality concepts. Yet, if terrorism constitutes a challenge to the concept of State sovereignty, any international response will also inherently challenge State sovereignty: since security is a core component of State sovereignty, the actions of international organisations in counterterrorism mean that the State is not the only actor to deal with security threats in its own territory. Instead, international and regional organisations have become fundamental actors in counterterrorism.

This tension between the two challenges to sovereignty is particularly interesting and it shows the trade-offs that States will face and the compromises they will need to adopt in order to balance the protection of their citizens and territory with their desire to retain the primary responsible actor in national security.

In practice, I argue that in the case of counterterrorism, sovereignty remains relevant for the following two reasons.

Firstly, terrorism concerns national security and States consider that they have the primary duty in this regard, with a view to protecting their citizens. This involves sensitive information, as well as political decision-making. In practice, this is a considerable obstacle to true global counterterrorism and it questions whether international organisations can truly make an impact on domestic counterterrorism legislation.

Secondly, the absence of an international definition of terrorism but more significantly, the lack of an international court with specific jurisdiction on terrorism and enforcement power further question the possibility of an international counterterrorism regime. In fact, while there is now an extensive international framework to deal with terrorism, the need for domestic implementation keeps the primary responsibility with individual States.

To further make this argument, we can look at the case of terrorist sanctions: the 2008 Kadi case of the European Court of Justice was a ground breaking decision that re-defined conflict of norms, although more recent case law, such as the 2016 Al-Dulimi case continue to develop the theme of relationships between international organisations and States, as well as between various international organisations.

These cases first show the focus of counterterrorism regimes on executive measures. The nature of terrorist threats has led to a number of emergency measures that took place without the balance of a judicial review or parliamentary oversight. In addition, the sanction regimes of the UN and the EU, as well as their domestic implementation, show the increasing cooperation, in a circular way, between the executive bodies of States and international organisations. Executive measures are the preferred way for counterterrorism for reasons of speed, secrecy and separation of powers. Moreover, the concerted way in which States and international organisations adopt these measures enables a consistency against the evolving threat of international terrorism. In this respect, the sovereignty of States is maintained in that the policy and legislation decided by domestic governments will be replicated at the international level, which is based on an intergovernmental model.

Yet, cases on terrorist sanctions, and in particular cases since Kadi, are also a testimony to the judiciary’s more recent attempt to protect human rights in the context of counterterrorism. In this respect, the main difference between regional organisations and the UN is that most of the former include a judicial enforcement mechanism within their mandate. This has been crucial in the context of counterterrorism, in particular, in order to balance human rights concerns with security needs. The various organisations have set some human rights standards for addressing terrorism within their counterterrorism regimes, but have also made a significant impact through their courts’ case law regarding human rights protection, in particular the EU and the Council of Europe. This role is fundamental given the targeting of individuals, rather than States, by the sanctions regimes.

On the other hand, the case law has created legal uncertainty with regards to the hierarchy between norms and conflicts between legal orders that would traditionally give precedence to the Security Council and its binding resolutions. States condemned by the European courts will want to ensure that their UN obligations do not clash with European human rights. In that respect, this might be the biggest impact on State sovereignty.

The framework of State sovereignty allows all these considerations to be brought to light. It shows that most of the measures adopted by international organisations will tend to contribute to States’ security agenda by remaining intergovernmental. Yet, it also evidences that the

concept of sovereignty as a responsibility to fulfil human rights obligations is continuing to develop, through regional courts. This is all the more significant because of the risk of sovereign abuse that often characterises counterterrorism in relation to to security measures and the focus on executive measures.


Emerging Voices: Is the Margin of Appreciation Accorded to European Union Member States Too Wide, Permitting Violations of International Law?

by Jenny Poon

[Jenny Poon is a Doctoral Candidate at the Faculty of Law of Western University, Canada and a Barrister & Solicitor in Ontario, Canada. The topic addressed in this post is based on a paper entitled State Discretion on Asylum Claims Procedures: Violation or Adherence to Non-Refoulement? All websites were accessed on 22 July 2016. The author would like to thank Dr. Valerie Oosterveld for reviewing an earlier draft.]


The margin of appreciation is a creation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR grants European Union (EU) member states deference when the national authorities use their discretion to carry out duties under international law, which, it is argued, may at times be accorded so widely, that the margin of appreciation may permit member states to derogate from their international law obligations. The idea that the margin of appreciation is not yet a settled area of the law is reiterated by Greer in his paper. The doctrine first appeared in the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in the case of Cyprus Case (Greece v. the United Kingdom). Despite having an established presence in the jurisprudence of international tribunals, the extent of the doctrine is nonetheless uncertain as argued by Shany in his paper. For instance, international courts and tribunals have issued conflicting decisions on the use of the margin of appreciation. Most notably, the ECtHR applied the doctrine in the Handyside decision, stating that the doctrine applies to domestic legislators and to judicial bodies, while World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body and its Appellate Body has stated in the Asbestos case that the doctrine applies only to WTO members. In the former case, both domestic legislators and judicial bodies are given a margin of appreciation when applying the law, while in the latter case, only national authorities of WTO member states are given a margin of appreciation when making discretionary determinations.

Despite the law being unsettled with regards to margin of appreciation, this doctrine is nonetheless applied by the ECtHR to show deference to EU member states when the member states use their discretion to carry out international law obligations. Consequently, this interpretation of the margin of appreciation permits the violation of international law in the context of asylum, where it allows EU member states to derogate from their duties of ensuring procedural safeguards, creates multiple and thus inconsistent interpretations, and permits state interests to be placed above the interests of asylum claimants. Clarity in the law is therefore warranted with regards to defining the extent to which “margin of appreciation” applies, and where the line must be drawn to ensure that the vulnerabilities of asylum claimants are properly addressed.

A wide margin of appreciation permits violation of international law

The first argument I wish to make is that a wide margin of appreciation permits EU member states to derogate from their duties of ensuring sufficient procedural safeguards for asylum claimants. International law obligates States to adhere to the procedural safeguards including according asylum claimants with the opportunity to be heard and the right to appeal in the context of an expulsion order pursuant to Article 32(2) and 32(3) of the Refugee Convention. Procedural safeguards come in many forms, which can include the safeguard to ensure that asylum applications are examined for their merits and not permitting instances of bias to affect the decision-making process. This is illustrated in the case of OS v. Ministry of Interior, where the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic held that the Ministry of the Interior erred in basing its asylum decision to reject an application on an inaccurate assessment of Turkey, thus giving effect to biased decision-making. The Ministry had exercised its margin of appreciation by basing its decision on a biased country of origin report. Having based its decision on a report that was political and that was not an accurate assessment of Turkey at the time, the Ministry of the Interior had biased decision-making. This case demonstrates that a wide margin of appreciation enables the EU member state to derogate from its international duty of ensuring procedural safeguards for asylum claimants, thus violating international law.

Next, I argue that a wide margin of appreciation permits EU member states to create multiple and thus inconsistent interpretations, leading to inconsistency and unpredictability of the law.

When States exercise their margin of appreciation too widely, it permits the creation of multiple and thus inconsistent interpretations of their international law obligations. The ECtHR case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy illustrate the differences in interpretation among EU member states on their duties under international law. The ECtHR held that differences in interpretation on asylum decisions can result where there are bilateral treaties signed between the first and subsequent asylum-receiving EU member states. This case illustrates that a wide margin of appreciation permits EU member states to interpret their international law obligations differently. While differences in interpretation may be warranted in some circumstances, such as to accommodate for the unique geopolitical circumstances of different EU member states, if the margin of appreciation is too wide and thus improper, it creates too much room for EU member states to interpret their international law obligations, and result in a divergence among EU member states so wide that would not justify the doctrine’s original purpose. Another problem with a wide margin of appreciation is that it may lead to an increased likelihood of multiple and thus inconsistent interpretations, which may increase the possibility of international law being violated by EU member states.

Finally, I end with the proposition that a wide margin of appreciation permits EU member states to place their state interests above the interests of asylum claimants. EU member states exercise their margin of appreciation when they process asylum applications based on discretion which sometimes entails political considerations rather than merits. An example can be taken from the case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom, in which the ECtHR held that “national authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to decide [on the derogation from Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights…]. In this matter Art 15(1) leaves the authorities a wide margin of appreciation”. This case is used as an example to illustrate that the margin of appreciation may be accorded too widely in the case of derogation in times of emergency (Article 15), which, when the derogation is based solely upon political criteria, may permit EU member states to violate international law. For example, depending on the political agenda at the time, the EU member state may choose to interpret its duty to process asylum applications either narrowly or broadly, according to state interests at the time, leading to uncertainty and unpredictability of the law for asylum claimants. The case demonstrates that where the margin of appreciation accorded to an EU member state is too wide, the member state may utilize the doctrine to their advantage to promote their political agendas, often at the expense of asylum claimants. This motivation to accomplish state-interested goals permits the violation of international law in instances where interests of the EU member state are placed above the interests of the asylum claimant. It is argued that a wide margin of appreciation allows the EU member state to misuse the doctrine to circumvent their international law obligations. While some may argue that a flexible margin of appreciation would encourage the EU member state to sign on and support the norm, the concern is that, too much flexibility and therefore a margin of appreciation that is accorded too widely, would be detrimental to the asylum claimant given that a well-resourced member state may trump individual rights at any time where it would be in the member state’s interest to do so.


The purpose of this post is to consider the effects of the margin of appreciation doctrine in the context of asylum, where at times this can result in EU member states circumventing their international law obligations. I hope that illustrating the doctrine in this context can encourage the debate on proposing solutions for this perceived problem. It is important that the rights of the vulnerable such as asylum claimants are safeguarded against well-resourced mighty State powers. Therefore, the proper application of the margin of appreciation needs to be clarified in order to avoid EU member states acting outside of the permitted boundaries of the margin of appreciation at the expense of the asylum claimants. One proposed solution is to enlarge the role of the ECtHR to better define what constitutes ‘margin of appreciation’ and construct a framework within which EU member states may operate, while safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable.

Emerging Voices: Can Foreign Investors Enforce International Investment Law in U.S. Courts?

by John F. Coyle

[John Coyle is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.]

On June 14, 2016, the Islamic Republic of Iran initiated proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), alleging that the United States had violated the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (“Treaty”) between the two nations.  Iran claimed, inter alia, that the United States had discriminated against Iranian companies, failed to accord these companies the most constant protection and security, and expropriated their property without compensation.  In support of its claim, Iran noted that the ICJ had jurisdiction to hear the dispute pursuant to Article XXI(2) of the Treaty, which provides that “[a]ny dispute . . . as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty . . . shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice.”

Similar treaty provisions can be found in more than a dozen other treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation (“FCNs”) negotiated by the United States in the two decades following the Second World War.  At the time, these agreements to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was viewed as a significant milestone in the peaceful resolution of international investment disputes.  In the decades that followed, however, nations increasingly turned to bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) and investor-state arbitration to resolve such disputes.  It is today common in the academic literature for authors to identify two—and only two—fora whereby the rights granted to foreign investors under FCNs or BITs may be enforced.  The first is the ICJ.  The second is an international arbitral panel.

In a recent paper, Jason Yackee and I argue that this account overlooks a third possible forum—the courts of the United States.  We argue that the FCNs negotiated by the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, most of which remain in force, provide foreign investors with domestically enforceable rights. These FCNs contain promises of favorable substantive treatment that are quite similar to the rights commonly extended to investors through BITs and investment chapters in free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA.  Unlike NAFTA and CAFTA, however, the FCNs are self-executing and give rise to a private right of action. This means that their provisions may be directly enforced in U.S. courts by private litigants.

This ability to access substantive international investment law through domestic litigation rather than international arbitration is of significant practical and theoretical importance.  It could lead foreign companies to rethink their approach to asserting indirect or regulatory takings claims against governmental entities within the United States.  The choice available to foreign investors who believe that they have suffered a regulatory taking has long been viewed as binary. The investor may either bring a constitutional takings claim before a U.S. court or a treaty-based expropriation claim before an international arbitral tribunal. There was no way—or so conventional wisdom held—for a foreign investor to invoke the enhanced protections afforded by the treaty in domestic litigation. The FCNs make it possible, at least in principle, for foreign investors to litigate takings claims in U.S. courts under international investment law standards rather than constitutional ones.

The ability to access the substance of international investment law through the FCNs also suggests that foreign investors may in some cases enjoy domestically enforceable rights under those treaties that are superior to those accorded to citizens under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Penn Central that courts must balance three factors in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred under the Takings Clause: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action. In theory, the test constitutes a neutral attempt to balance the interests of the government against the interests of private property owners. In practice, the test typically results in a finding that no taking has occurred and that no compensation is owed to the property owner.  The standard of protection for regulatory expropriations under international investment treaties, by contrast, is generally viewed as more demanding than the standard of protection set forth in the Takings Clause. Indeed, when the U.S. Congress became aware of this divergence in 2002, it enacted a law directing U.S. trade negotiators to “[e]nsur[e] that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than United States investors in the United States.”  The treaty negotiators subsequently modified the text of the U.S. Model BIT to effectuate this goal for future agreements.  However, these textual modifications do not affect treaties that were then in existence, a list that includes all of the FCNs.

We acknowledge that there are a number of practical obstacles that would need to be overcome before the FCN revival could successfully occur.  The first is the well-documented reluctance on the part of U.S. judges to directly enforce rules of international law in the absence of a statute expressly directing them to do so.  The second is the fact that FCNs couch their promises to investors in language that is sometimes different from the domestic-law analogues with which U.S. judges are familiar. Judicial unfamiliarity with the language of international investment law may make it more likely for judges to restrict private access to the treaties.  The third obstacle is that U.S. courts have, at least historically, been reluctant to grant rights to foreign nationals while denying these same rights to U.S. citizens. Under our argument, foreign investors would be asking the courts to enforce a treaty provision granting rights to foreign companies that are arguably superior to those enjoyed by U.S. citizens.  While there are scattered precedents in which U.S. courts have recognized such rights in the past, contemporary judges may prove resistant to the idea in practice.

There is also at least one significant doctrinal obstacle that would need to be overcome—sovereign immunity.  In the United States, the state and federal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity unless they have waived this immunity or consented to suit.  The Supreme Court has stated that the Takings Clause amounts to a de facto waiver of federal sovereign immunity for suits in which a taking is alleged.  Some scholars have argued that the Takings Clause also abrogates state sovereign immunity for constitutional takings claims.  If the takings claim were to be framed as a treaty violation, rather than a constitutional one, then it is unclear whether the state and federal governments could invoke sovereign immunity as a defense.  On the one hand, the Fifth Amendment could be read as a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to treaty-based takings claims as well as constitutional ones.  This argument derives support from (1) the fact that the text of the standard treaty provision relating to takings closely tracks the text of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) the fact that foreign sovereigns generally do not enjoy immunity in U.S. courts when they take property in violation of international law.  On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment could be read to waive sovereign immunity only with respect to constitutional claims.  This argument derives support from the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that waivers of federal sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed” and the Court’s consistent practice of “construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign.”  To date, there is a dearth of case law on this issue.

It is important to note, however, that sovereign immunity only presents an obstacle with respect to suits against the United States or one of the several States; counties and municipalities do not enjoy sovereign immunity.  Even if a court were to conclude that the state and federal governments could assert sovereign immunity as a defense, FCNs could still serve as a useful check on any regulatory takings conducted by U.S. counties and municipalities.

In summary, the FCNs are not historical relics. They remain in force, and they provide doctrinally meaningful legal guarantees to foreign investment in the United States due to their self-executing character and the fact that they give rise to a private right of action. While the FCNs have not played a prominent role in domestic litigation over the past half-century, it is easy to imagine how they might be relevant in future years. The U.S. government and its sub-federal counterparts interact with FCN-covered investors all of the time. To the extent that the government thinks in advance about the consequences of its actions toward foreign investors, it should at least consider the possibility that an FCN treaty might impose legally enforceable limitations on its freedom of action. Investors who feel mistreated by the government, moreover, should consider the availability of FCN-based causes of action when planning their legal responses.

Emerging Voices: A Case of Firsts for the International Criminal Court: Destruction of Cultural Heritage as a War Crime, Islamic Extremism and a Guilty Plea

by Andrea Bowdren

[Andrea Bowdren (LLM (LSE), BCL International (NUI)) is a trainee solicitor at Arthur Cox in Dublin, Ireland. All views are the author’s own.]

The trial of Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi before the International Criminal Court represents a series of firsts for international law and justice. Al Mahdi is the first individual from Mali brought before the International Criminal Court, the first Islamic extremist to face charges at the International Criminal Court, the first individual to be prosecuted solely for cultural destruction as a war crime, and the first individual who has indicated an intention to plead guilty to a charge of the International Criminal Court.

Ansar Dine, a militant Islamist group associated with al-Qaeda, aimed to enforce an extreme interpretation of Sharia law throughout Mali. In the territories under its control, Ansar Dine banned alcohol, smoking and Friday visits to cemeteries, among many other restrictions. Al Mahdi’s role in the group was head of the “hisbah,” or morality brigade, enforcing sharia and “preventing vice” among the population.

In June and July 2012, Ansar Dine destroyed nine mausoleums of Muslim saints and the door of Timbuktu’s famous Sidi Yahia mosque, a UNESCO world heritage site dating back to the 15th and 16th centuries. Al Mahdi stands accused of jointly ordering or carrying out the attacks against the historical monuments, which UNESCO have described as “places of pilgrimage for the people of Mali and neighbouring West African countries.”

On 24 March 2016, the International Criminal Court judges ruled they would commit Al Mahdi to trial for one charge of the war crime of attacking “buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals or places where the sick and wounded are collected, which were not military objectives” under Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute. In this confirmation of charges hearing, it was stated Al Mahdi is criminally responsible:

  1. as a direct co-perpetrator under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute;
  2. for inducing the commission of such a crime under Article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute;
  3. for facilitating the commission of such a crime by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in its commission under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute; and
  4. for contrinuting in any other way to the commission of uch a crime by a group acting with a common purpose under Article 15(3)(d) of the Rome Statute.

The prosecution showed video extracts of interviews with Al Mahdi at the time of the attacks, where he explains the Islamic jurisprudence informing his actions.

On 1 March 2016, in an unprecedented move, Al Mahdi explicitly expressed his wish to plead guilty to the war crime charge. Defence counsel Mohamed Aouini has stated that Al Madhi “wants to be truthful to himself and he wants to admit the acts that he has committed. And he wants to ask at the same time for pardon from the people of Timbuktu and the Malian people.” This guilty plea has been described as a  “milestone in the history of the International Criminal Court” by chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. It provides both the prosecution and judges with an opportunity to reflect on how best to develop an institutional practice conducive to guilty pleas while advancing the interests of the International Criminal Court and justice.

What is the role of international law in this area? Why is the protection of cultural property important? What could this trial mean for the future interpretation of war crimes and the future of combatting terrorism?

Although the International Criminal Court has previously focused on attacks against people causing physical injury, the Rome Statute clearly provides that intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments is a war crime, provided they are not military objectives. Thus the Rome Statute envisages prosecutions of people like Al Madhi and recognises the effect that the destruction of cultural and religious monuments has on the psyche of the communities subjected to these attacks.

“A community’s cultural heritage reflects its life, history and identity. Its preservation helps to rebuild broken communities, re-establish their identities, and link their past with their present and future,” said Vibeke Jensen, UNESCO. Cultural heritage destruction is a powerful tool used to weaken morale and reinforce the authority of a new regime, which may have won control through violence or other criminal acts. In deciding to prosecute Al Madhi, the International Criminal Court underscored the seriousness of the destruction of cultural property and consequential psychological harm to the Malian population and highlighted the importance of accountability for perpetrators.

International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told the court:

“The charges we have brought against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi involve most serious crimes. They are about the destruction of irreplaceable historic monuments and they are about a callous assault on the dignity and identity of entire populations and their religion and historical roots.”

Similarly, the Minister of Culture of Mali summarised these feelings aptly on 25 February 2013, when he called the destruction “an attack on the lifeblood of our souls, on the very quintessence of our cultural values. Their purpose was to destroy our past … our identity and, indeed, our dignity …”

Pursuing and prosecuting those responsible for cultural destruction and resultant harm could yield important changes in the way the international community approaches violent extremism and terrorism. This approach by the International Criminal Court corresponds with former chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo’s contention that combating terrorism would be more effective and humane if terrorists were treated as criminals to prosecute rather than enemies to bomb.

The trial is set to proceed on 22 August 2016 and the Chamber aims to complete the trial in a single week. This case breaks new ground for the protection of humanity’s shared cultural heritage and for the procedural future of the International Criminal Court, as it affords the Chamber an opportunity to reflect on what is best for the advancement of the interests of the International Criminal Court and international justice.

Emerging Voices: Computational Analysis of International Law-Using Text-As-Data Tools to Investigate International Investment Agreements

by Wolfgang Alschner

[Wolfgang Alschner (PhD in International Law, JSM (Stanford)) is a post-doctoral researcher at the World Trade Institute in Bern and the Graduate Institute in Geneva specializing in text as data analysis of international law.]

As international law scholars we are overwhelmed with information. The United Nations Treaty Series alone contains more than 50,000 treaties. Add to that the many thousand decisions by international courts and organizations that grow day by day. Just keeping abreast with a sub-field of international law is a full-time job. Not only academics but also beneficiaries of international law are affected by this information overkill. A recent UNCTAD report pointedly concluded that international investment law has become “too big and complex to handle for governments and investors alike”. Lest we are to drown in the rising tides of information and complexity, we need to find novel ways to digest and analyze international law materials.

Computational analysis of international law promises such a new way. Not only do computers not grow tired or grumpy when reading through thousands of documents, but they also find patterns in data that humans would not be able to spot. To be sure, robot lawyers are not going to replace human researchers any time soon – nor should they. But the interaction between computers crunching numbers and scholars interpreting results does provide new and exciting opportunities to tackle international law’s big data problems. In this post, I will highlight four examples derived from computational international investment law research that I did together with Dmitriy Skougarevskiy, which showcases some of the insights revealed through computer-assisted approaches that would have been difficult or impossible to gain using traditional human-led research.

Dmitriy and I have investigated over 2,100 International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and their 24,000 constituent articles. Using a computational approach similar to what is being employed in plagiarism detection software, we were able to empirically demonstrate four hitherto unknown or only anecdotally presumed aspects of the IIA universe relating to asymmetry in negotiations, the evolution of national investment treaty programs, the diffusion of treaty design and the innovations achieved in recent mega-regional agreements. To allow researchers and other stakeholders to engage with our findings directly and interactively, we have created the open-access website

The simple, yet powerful text-as-data procedure we employ in our research consists of four steps. First, we collect treaty full texts and split them into their constituent articles. Second, we represent each treaty and article based on its consecutive 5-character components. The phrase “shall be permitted” is thus represented as “shall”, “hall_”, “all_b”, “ll_be”, “l_be_”, “_be_p”, “be_pe”, “e_per”, “_perm”, “permi”, “ermit”, “rmitt”, “mitte”, “itted” (“_” signifies space). Third, we compare the textual similarity between two treaties or articles based on the 5-character components they have in common calculating what is formally known as a Jaccard distance – a measure of dissimilarity ranging from 0 (100% similarity) to 1 (0% similarity). The phrase “shall be permitted” and a second phrase “shall not be permitted”, for instance, are identical, except for the 5-character components “all_n”, “ll_no”, “l_not”, “_not_”, “not_b”, “ot_be”, “t_be_” due to the word “not” in the second phrase, which yields a Jaccard distance of 0.48. Finally, since Jaccard distances by themselves do not tell us much, we compare Jaccard scores across sets of documents. Such comparison allows us to see where treaty language convergences or diverges uncovering latent patterns in our data – four of which we will present here.

First of all, our metric revealed a stark asymmetry in investment treaty making. While rich countries achieve highly consistent treaty networks whose design closely corresponds to the model template they employ, poorer states are party to patchworks of textual diverse treaties. Put differently, a computational assessment of textual similarity allows us to empirically show in a systematic, objective and replicable manner that developed countries tend to be the system’s rule-makers while developing countries are its rule-takers.

Second, Jaccard distances also shed light on consistency and innovation in national investment treaty programs. Some countries like the United Kingdom have only made cosmetic changes to their investment agreements over time. The country’s network of 110 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded between 1975 and 2009 is thus the most consistent of the world. Other states have continuously updated their investment treaties. Our metric allows us to detect major changes in treaty design such as when the United States revamped its model agreement in 2004. Also less well-known innovations, such as the Finish shift to a pre-establishment treaty model in 1999 that combines investment protection with capital liberalization, are made visible. Our metric thus provides a means to inductively investigate the evolution of national treaty programs.

Third, our approach enables us to trace treaty design diffusion. We observe that some countries copied and pasted almost entire treaties from third states. Israel, for instance, heavily drew from British BITs when devising its own BIT program. Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia, in turn, used the BITs they concluded with each other in January 1993 as templates for their subsequent treaty negotiations resulting in strikingly similar agreements. Diffusion also happens on the clause level. We discovered, for instance, that the language of a public policy exception first appearing in Article 11 of the 1985 BIT between Singapore and China later diffused to India, Mauritius and half a dozen African countries. What makes the clause special is that it was conceived and is exclusively being used by developing countries making it one of the rare treaty design innovations in investment law that is indigenous to the Southern hemisphere.

Fourth, the approach we developed allows us to assess the novelty of newly concluded agreements. The Transpacific Partnership (TPP), for instance, was initially heralded as a “new and high standards agreement”. Our metric reveals how new it actually is and how high the standards are that it sets. We found that 81% of the text of the TPP investment chapter is taken verbatim from the 2006 USA-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The remaining 19% are mostly used to clarify and further refine already existing standards. Hence, while it is true that the TPP investment chapter sets higher standards as compared to some of the earlier BITs with which it overlaps, it is very much a continuation of prior US practice rather than an IIA 2.0.

Computational analysis of international law thus provides an efficient and effective way to investigate the hidden structures of the international investment law universe revealing new and surprising insights. At the same time, the presented research offers only a glimpse of the multitude of opportunities that computational international law still holds in store. As computers turn the flood of legal information from a burden into a resource, hitherto impossible research avenues are opening up from the quantification of international law’s fragmentation to the investigation of state practice and opinion juris in 195 countries. Exciting times lie ahead.

Emerging Voices: Promoting Threat? Assessing the Role of the European Union as an Enforcer of International Law in the Ukrainian Crisis

by Alexandra Hofer

[Alexandra Hofer is a Doctoral Researcher at Ghent University, GRILI member. The topic addressed in this post is based on a paper entitled Promoting Threat: The Effect of European Union Restrictive Measures on the Development of International Law’s Enforcement, a Sociological Approach. All websites were last accessed on 5 July 2016.]

The starting point of this post is related to the renewal of the EU’s economic and sectorial sanctions against the Russian Federation for its destabilizing policies in Ukraine. These restrictive measures were first adopted in July 2014 in reaction to the events in east Ukraine. The measures restrict financial exchanges with Russia and exports of technology needed for oil exploitation and production; they impose an embargo on arms, dual-use goods and technology. They aim at pressuring Russia into using its influence on the Ukrainian separatists and to prevent the transfer of heavy arms across the Ukrainian border. Their objective is to impose costs on Russia for its illegal and destabilizing conduct in Ukraine. (For example, see this.)

Since 2014, renewals have taken place despite signs of sanctions fatigue as certain EU Member States have suggested reconsidering the sanctions against Russia, arguing that the restrictive measures have been ineffective against the Kremlin. (Examples include Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Hungary; French President Hollande). At present, the lifting of the European measures is dependent upon Russia’s implementation of its obligations under the Minsk Agreements and its contribution to the peaceful settlement of the dispute with Ukraine.

This post considers whether such restrictive measures are an effective means for the EU to resolve the Ukrainian crisis and enforce international law. In order for this to be the case, the measures need to be successful in convincing (or pressuring) Russia to change its policy in east Ukraine and cease its wrongful act. Although the effectiveness of sanctions is generally an issue addressed by political scientists, it is an equally important question for international lawyers who are interested in ensuring compliance with international legal obligations. Can sanctions such as those imposed by the EU change Russia’s behaviour? We are therefore interested in these measures’ coercive effect (see Francesco Giumelli ‘How EU sanctions work. A new narrative’ (2013) n° 129, 13 EUISS Chaillot Paper).

It is relatively safe to say that the EU uses its sanctions policy in order to play out its role as a civil and liberal power (see for example Barbara Delcourt ‘Au nom de quoi sanctionner et punir?’ (2015/1) nº97 Revue internationale et stratégique 79). Not only is the EU’s external action guided by the norms that contributed to its creation, which are ‘democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law’, through its international relations the organization seeks to advance them in the wider world (as illustrated by the Treaty on European Union, Title 1, Article 3 and Title V, Chapter 1 ‘General Provisions on the Union’s External Action’, Article 21).

It is within the scope of this role that the EU adopts restrictive measures. Accordingly, through these measures the EU seeks to enforce compliance with one of the most fundamental rules of international law by pressuring Russia into changing its behavior towards Ukraine and complying with the Minsk Agreements. Notwithstanding the high structural costs of the sanctions to Russia’s economy and the negotiation of a ceasefire, it would appear that the sanctions have not encouraged Russia to change its policy in Ukraine but have instead been used to enforce anti-EU propaganda and have further alienated Russia from the EU, resulting in a stalemate between the two parties. Russian high-officials have stated that the sanctions against it are illegal and that they have contributed to souring relations between the EU and Russia, leading to a new Cold War (See these two statements: 1 and 2.) Tit-for-tat sanctions have followed as Russia has adopted its own measures against the EU. Finally, Russia has avoided isolation by forging new alliances.

Acts of aggression and the imposition of sanctions do not come about in a vacuum. Instead, they are the product of an interaction between agents whose respective identities and perceptions of a situation cause them to act in a certain way. From a sociological perspective, it would appear that the EU’s coercive measures have not encouraged the Kremlin to change its policy in Ukraine and cease its wrongful conduct. Taking into account constructivist notions of State identity and norms, the sanctions may have had the effect of encouraging Russia to further pursue its destabilizing, and illegal, policies in Ukraine. This is because the restrictive measures cause Russia to continue to view the EU as a threat. In as much as this perception of threat caused the Kremlin to pursue its destabilizing policy in the first place, the restrictive measures are not giving Russia incentive to change its behavior.

Indeed, as argued by Hopf in a recent article (Ted Hopf ‘”Crimea is ours”: a discursive history’ (2016) vol. 30(2) International Relations 227), Russian policies in the Ukraine can be understood as the result of Russia’s identity as, inter alia, a regional power that has historical and fraternal ties with Ukraine and its interpretation of Western policies coupled with the circumstances that arose in Ukraine. Russia may have felt threatened by NATO’s expansion and by Ukraine’s turn to the EU, which would have been perceived as the broadening of Western influence in Eastern Europe. Indeed, President Putin has expressed misgivings about the military alliance’s turn to Eastern Europe, which prevents the European continent from uniting and moving away from the Cold War mentality (see for example, 1 and 2); this concern has been expressed over the years, as illustrated by Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Under these circumstances, Russia reacted dominantly, or aggressively. When Russian officials state that the restrictive measures bring EU-Russian relations back to the Cold War, this is an indication that the sanctions contribute to the perception that the EU poses a threat. The Kremlin therefore continues its destabilizing policies in Ukraine because they are believed to be necessary to safeguard Russian interests and standing in the region. In a way, not complying with the EU’s demands become a value to the Russian Federation, who would have too much to lose if it were it to give into Western pressure (such as, for example, its standing as a regional power).

In conclusion, the argument here is that the restrictive measures have been counterproductive because they have contributed to promoting a situation of mutual distrust between the EU and the Russian Federation. Each actor continues to view the other as a threat and bases its response on this perception. This would mean that contrary to encouraging Russia to cease its policy in the Ukraine, the sanctions give Russia incentive to continue its actions in the region, which gives the EU incentive to pursue its sanctions policy, etc. Russia’s interpretation of Western powers’ policies in Ukraine and NATO’s expansion towards the East caused Russia to feel its fraternal ties with Ukraine were threatened and act aggressively. In response, the EU believes the norms it wants to defend in the ‘wider world’ are threatened and responds – with Kiev’s approval (see 1, 2, and 3)– by adopting coercive measures; this also allows the organization to fulfil its identity as a civil and liberal power that aims at promoting peaceful relations between States (see TEU, Title V, Chapter 1, Article 21(2)(c)). In the EU’s view, ‘it has a special responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity in Europe’ (see this statement). Instead of feeling the negative costs of its actions, the ban on exportations to Russia in technology is used as an opportunity to develop Russian industry and steps are being taken to substitute former EU and American agricultural imports (see here and here). Instead of being enforced, international law is continuously violated. The challenge is to free both parties from the deadlock. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to occur with the breaking down of communication, the pursuit of NATO operations in Eastern Europe and the continuation of the sanction tit-for-tat. Given this counterproductive outcome, the EU’s role as an enforcer of essential legal norms is being undermined. Nevertheless, as Wendt wrote: ‘if states find themselves in a self-help system, this is because their practices made it that way’ (Alexander Wendt ‘Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’ (1992) 46:2 International Organization 391, 407). Hence, if the EU and Russia want out of the stalemate, they need to change their practices. The EU should focus on tools that promote dialogue and communication, which would bridge the gap and help Russia no longer perceive the EU as a threat. This may then have the effect of encouraging Russia to demilitarize in Ukraine.

Emerging Voices 2016

by Jessica Dorsey

Our Fourth Annual Emerging Voices Symposium will kick off tomorrow. It features contributions from doctoral students and early-career academics or practicing attorneys posting about a research project or other international law topic of interest.

The Symposium will feature a few posts per week and will run for the next month. We hope you’ll join the conversation!

Reminder: Emerging Voices Submissions Deadline is July 6!

by Jessica Dorsey

Just a reminder: this summer we will host our Fourth Annual Emerging Voices symposium, where we invite doctoral students and early-career academics or practicing attorneys to tell Opinio Juris readers about a research project or other international law topic of interest.

If you are a doctoral student or in the early stages of your career (e.g., post-docs, junior academics or early career practitioners within the first five years of finishing your final degree) and would like to participate in the symposium, please send a draft blog post somewhere between 1000-1500 words and your CV to opiniojurisblog [at] gmail [dot] com by July 6, 2016.

Submitted posts will then be reviewed by our editors. We’ll let you know by mid-July if your post will be included. Final essays will be posted on Opinio Juris in mid July through late August.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments or send us an e-mail at the address above.

NYU JILP Symposium: Lopez’ Responses to Comments

by Rachel Lopez

[Rachel Lopez is an Assistant Professor of Law and the Director of the Community Lawyering Clinic at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law.]

This post is part of the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 47, No. 4, symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below.

First, I would like to thank Professors Drumbl, Roht-Arriaza, Teitel, and van der Vyver, who so generously offered their time and expertise to comment on my article. I have really enjoyed the opportunity to have these conversations with scholars whose writing has greatly influenced my own in near real time.

Response to Mark Drumbl

In a compelling and exquisitely written commentary, Professor Drumbl illustrates how collective memory (and storytelling more broadly) is evoked by survivors and perpetrators alike and reminds us of how thin the line between the two can be. He also highlights the contested nature of memory, resulting from a power struggle between those seeking to remember and those hoping to forget.

Professor Drumbl and I share much common ground in our assessment of the importance of remembrance after mass atrocity and how judicial proceedings can diminish its significance, which in turn frustrates and disenfranchises victims. We also agree about the notable concerns with permitting collective memory to be a source of evidence in the guilt phase of the criminal prosecutions.

Where Professor Drumbl and I part ways is when he suggests that the penal processes is so ill suited to accommodate collective memory that we should abandon that effort entirely. He astutely notes that the memories of survivors may splinter and diverge in ways that make its inclusion in judicial proceedings unworkable. I contend, however, that it is precisely for this reason that trials are such critical sites for the interjection of collective memory. On this point, I concur with legal scholar Mark Oseil when he argues that because trials are adversarial in nature, they are designed to accommodate dissensus and facilitate public discourse in ways that other institutions cannot. For instance, whereas truth commissions typically collect and catalog victims’ experiences into one official report that presents a single narrative, trials present multiple opportunities for the memories of different groups to emerge depending on who brings the claim and the scope of the conduct and events covered by it.

Professor Drumbl also cautions us that “[p]ushing one correct remembrance, and collectivizing it, risks memorializing the experiences of the strongest among the survivors while neglecting the recollections of the weakest.” I share this concern, but come to a different resolution about how to mitigate it. When lawyers are not permitted to admit collective memory and must rely on individual testimony alone, they are compelled to pick the strongest representative from their client base. That representative may engage in his or her own form of censorship, consciously or unconsciously, thereby excluding the voices of the broader affected community. On the other hand, permitting lawyers to submit victim impact statements in which a community collectively describes the harm from an alleged violation would broaden the number of voices who enter the process.

I also maintain that the lawyers are uniquely suited to act as preservers and promoters of collective memory, because of the trusting relationships they cultivate with their clients over time. In contrast, as Professor Roht-Arriaza and Laura Arriaza warn in Social Reconstruction as a Local Process, “a short-term truth seeking endeavor cannot hope to garner widespread trust among people of a deeply traumatized society, and thus the testimonies taken may be from those less affected, or more articulate…”

Furthermore, because lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients, they are better positioned to present their collective narrative. I fear that the external institutions that Professor Drumbl proposes as alternative sites for collective memory are more likely than lawyers to have divided loyalties. Since these institutions would obtain their mandates and likely their funding from external sources, they may be captured by outside interests that deviate from those of the victim group. In the interest of sounding neutral, they might also water down or incompletely portray victims’ stories. The problem of selectively authenticating one memory over another would be compounded.

If we aim to tether collective memory to remedies that more systematically address harms, I also believe that lawyers can play an important role in generating consensus among their clients about what relief is appropriate.

Response to Naomi Roht-Arriaza

Professor Roht-Arriaza offers a carefully considered and thoughtfully crafted commentary that furthers the conversation on the complementarity of collective memory and judicial proceedings.

First, she reminds us that not all post-conflict settings are the same and in some localities, communities may be so disrupted that collective memories are not formed. That observation aligns with my own experience working with societies in transition after mass atrocity and I would like to underscore my agreement with Jaya Ramji-Nogales that transitional justice must be bespoke. Put another way, both the form and objectives of transitional justice must be tailored to the local context and driven by homegrown demands. There is no one size fits all option in transitional justice.

For that reason, in some respects, what I suggest is quite narrow. As I explain in my article, “[w]hen I advocate for the admission of collective memory into judicial proceedings in this article, I am referring to the collective memory of groups of victims who were present or directly affected by the same event or experience.” Two preconditions are necessary: 1) there must be a group of survivors of the same event or alternatively groups of survivors who share a common experience and 2) they have must engaged in memory work and arrived at a common understanding of events.

As Professor Roht-Arriaza points out in her commentary, and I explain in my article, some of the rules of international and domestic courts may already lend themselves to the admission of collective memory. At the same time, other rules discourage attorneys from pluralizing the attorney-client relationship. For instance, pursuant to the International Criminal Court’s rules of evidence, attorney-client privilege is waived if the client discloses information to a third party, including fellow survivors. In addition, human rights lawyers, who were educated in countries with western legal traditions that propagate an individual-centered understanding of the law, may feel intrinsically wary of collective representation.

Professor Roht-Arriaza invites further discussion about how we might incorporate the on-ground experience of communities into the design and implementation of measures of non-repetition. It is my view that one critical step to accomplish that goal is to be more intentional about creating space for collective voices in judicial proceedings.

Response to Ruti Teitel