Search: Symposium on the Functional Approach to the Law of Occupation

requires a more robust approach, namely — the immediate establishment of an independent investigative mechanism. Until now, States have adopted a softer approach to the human rights situation in Afghanistan, maintaining hope for positive progress by the Taliban. States are still under the view that more time is needed for the de facto authorities to change course. However, after over one year, the Taliban have not kept their promises and have unequivocally proven that they will not do so — failing to meet the terms of the Doha Agreement and...

[Dr. Jelena Aparac is lecturer and legal advisor in international law, with a research focused on Business and Human Rights in Armed Conflicts; and a Member of the UN Working Group on mercenaries. This is the first part of a two-part post. This is part of a series of blog posts examining International Criminal Law and the Protection of the Environment, and stems from an expert meeting group convened at the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law in February 2020.] The principal role of international law...

is a major scholarly accomplishment, and a must-read for everyone interested in armed conflict and international law. It is a kind of modern encyclopedia on law and war, bringing new research, sources and perspectives to the table, analyzing case law and drawing on political speeches, literature, memoirs and film. At the same time, the disparate strands of analysis are skillfully brought together to provide an overarching evaluation of the legal consequences of a state of war in modern times. I feel very honoured to have had the opportunity to talk...

...& mechanisms that will facilitate domestic democratic deliberation over local incorporation and adaptation of human rights norms. This is an intriguing proposal, but it doesn’ t resolve the paradox of the U.S. approach to international human rights law; rather, it suggests a shift in our understanding of what the paradox is. As Tara herself puts it, the U.S. “upsets first principles of international human rights law” by “invoking only subsidiarity’s negative side” without providing mechanisms for international support and consultation, in complement to domestic deliberative processes (p. 454) In other...

authors claim. To understand why, it is necessary to discuss judicial practice before Medellín. According to IL at Home, in the period from World War II to Medellín, “the lower federal courts developed a bifurcated approach to treaty enforcement.” Id. at 64. They “continued to infer a private right of action for treaties that involved economic or commercial relations. But they began taking a more skeptical approach toward treaties . . . regulating the relationship between the state and the individual.” Id. at 64-65. This claim is mostly right, but...

...lost, however, is the unique reason why a reparations approach is imperative. The greatest value of a reparations effort is to center the moral issues at base and foster the key elements of a just state of affair. Trust and recognition of harm are key steps to reaching that just state of affairs. The global negotiations under the UNFCCC and other parallel processes have been marked by distrust between nations as well key stakeholders. Further, while Professor Osofsky is correct in citing the very real and positive outcomes of climate-related...

...Pre-Trial Chamber can review it (Article 53(3)(b)). The only job of the PTC when the Prosecutor requests the opening of an investigation is to determine jurisdiction and admissibility. And the “interests of justice” fall under neither of these categories. As I will explain in my next post, I completely reject the PTC’s approach to the “interests of justice” — for reasons Dov touches on. But I disagree with the idea that the PTC acted ultra vires by second-guessing the OTP’s belief that the interests of justice did not counsel against...

[Tarcisio Gazzini is Professor of International Law at the University of Padova (Italy). He is the author of The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law (Manchester University Press, 2006) and a founding editor of the book series Nijhoff International Investment Law and of Journal du droit transnational] Introduction Self-defence has become a legally intractable subject. Article 51 of the UN Charter was drafted in 1945 having in mind the second world conflict. It is disputed whether it is fit for purpose to regulate the use of...

importance of also covering state responsibility, notably because states are often involved in the commission of core crimes. Constructive ambiguity was the chosen path to secure the consensus adoption of the Convention: on the one hand, the expression “committed through acts attributable to the State under international law” was deleted and, on the other hand, the Australian proposal to add the expression “domestic criminal law” was set aside. The result was a watered-down and unqualified wording in Article 83(1) that may be interpreted to advance different legal approaches. The provision...

of killing the civilian as collateral damage during a lawful attack against a military objective. In that scenario, does the civilian have the right of self-defense? In the criminal law we usually view the right of self-defense as only applicable against unlawful attacks, but in this case the attacking soldier’s original assault is lawful under LOAC as long as the anticipated collateral damage is not disproportionate to the value of the military objective. If the envisioned collateral damage is disproportionate, then the attack is unlawful. So, in that case, the...

...to convince you to use arguments instead of trying to identify the person behind the arguments. Considering this tendency, It really doesn't seem like you have a background in law at all? The 'reasonable person standard' should be applied carefully in areas such as tort and criminal law, but when it comes to politically sensitive issues we should aim at addressing the real problems, the content of the research. You should not assume that every politically or morally sensitive topic is within the area of criminal/tort law, right? By the...

...(and thus the blockade of Gaza is unlawful). U.N.‘s Palmer Committee Report on the Mavi Marmara incident (and note that the U.N. is not exactly the most sympathetic forum for Israel): “The Panel considers the [Hamas-Israel] conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade” (and thus the blockade is lawful). Heller: “I have questioned the legality of the blockade before, leading two readers to claim that the Palmer Committee’s report contradicts my analysis of the situation. In fact, the opposite is true.”...