Germany v Italy:The Triumph of Sovereign Immunity over Human Rights Law

This article analyses the doctrine of State immunity within the context of the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening). The object of this article is to explore the implications of the State immunity from foreign judicial proceedings in cases of jus cogens crimes. Challenging the assumption that the law of immunity is merely procedural in nature, this article argues that there can be no immunity in cases of undisputed international crimes.

Human Rights in Irish Prisons

Ireland is bound by several international instruments in the area of prisoners’ rights and penal policy and the ongoing reform in the Irish prison system means that the time is opportune to consider the extent to which these legal obligations are currently met and to evaluate what needs to be done to ensure greater compliance. The aim of this article is thus to examine Ireland’s record in prisoners’ rights against international standards and to determine where reform needs to take place in order to ensure full respect for the rights of prisoners in Irish law, policy and practice.

Review: T. Murphy, New Technologies and Human Rights (OUP, 2009)

Extended review.

Missions and Institutions: Henri-Philippe Junod, Anthropology, Human Rights and Academia between Africa and Switzerland, 1921–1966

Drawing on a cultural, transnational and genealogical approach, this article studies the work of a Swiss missionary, Henri-Philippe Junod, between Europe and Africa. It tries not to look at what he brought to Africa, or brought back from Africa, but to see how his back-and-forth movement contributed to the formation of new ideas and institutions globally. The article looks at Junod’s contribution in three domains in particular, namely anthropology, human rights worldwide, and African studies in Switzerland.

Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-sharing

Consociations are power-sharing arrangements, increasingly used to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts. Current examples include Belgium, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Burundi, and Iraq. Despite their growing popularity, they have begun to be challenged before human rights courts as being incompatible with human rights norms, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Courts and Consociations examines the use of power-sharing agreements, their legitimacy, and their compatibility with human rights law. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements.

In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and then in Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia regarding the constitution established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court's decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in Belgium. This book accounts for this change and assess its implications. The problematic aspects of the current state of law are demonstrated. Future negotiators in places riven by potential or actual bloody ethnic conflicts may now have less flexibility in reaching a workable settlement, which may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that negotiators will consider excluding regional and international courts from reviewing these political settlements.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.