Protecting recognized Geneva Convention refugees outside their states of asylum

This article highlights the predicament of persons recognized as refugees according to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951 refugees) when they travel outside their state of asylum. Their status entails ipso facto that, if they are ill-treated abroad, they cannot turn to representatives of their state of nationality and request its diplomatic protection, nor can they expect to receive its consular assistance. It is submitted that a state of asylum ought to extend the scope of protection that it offers CSR1951 refugees residing in its territory, and provide them diplomatic protection and consular assistance when they travel abroad as if they were its nationals. Four claims are advanced in support of this contention: First: the advent of human rights treaties has not rendered obsolete the protection of nationals abroad nor has the practice fallen into disuse. On the contrary, protection abroad retains its pedigree and significance, as is illustrated by the recently adopted International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection and by frequent resort to consular assistance. Second: while states previously enjoyed unfettered discretion concerning whether and when to protect their nationals abroad, recent developments in domestic jurisdictions as well as in European Union (EU) treaties point to the potential emergence of a qualified duty to exercise state protection or to be willing to provide justifications for its refusal. These developments call particular attention to the vulnerability of CSR1951 refugees: the professed aim of the EU treaty regime is that EU citizens should enjoy effective state protection wherever they travel; by contrast, CSR1951 refugees are in need of state protection wherever they travel. Third: according to CSR1951, states of asylum are required to issue Convention Travel Documents (CTDs) to recognized refugees lawfully staying in their territory. While CTDs do not in of themselves authorize states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their CSR1951 refugees, they reflect partial recognition of the instrumental role of these states in facilitating safe refugee travel. Fourth: while the 'nationality of claims' requirement remains pivotal to the institution of diplomatic protection, and efforts to effectuate its general relaxation have thus far failed, the International Law Commission (ILC) has 'carved out' an exception authorizing states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their recognized refugees. The ILC's protection-enhancing agenda, reflecting progressive development of the law, is laudable, even though it has opted for a rather cautious approach.

Consent and the use of force: an examination of ‘intervention by invitation’ as a basis for US drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen

Drone strikes are becoming a key feature of the United States’ global military response to nonstate actors, and it has been widely adduced that these strikes have been carried out with the consent of the host states in which such non-state actors reside. This article examines the degree to which assertions of consent (or ‘intervention by invitation’), provided as a justification for drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, can be said to accord with international law. First the article provides a broad sketch of the presence of consent in international law. It then analyses in detail the individual elements of consent as provided by Article 20 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles of State Responsibility. These require that consent should be ‘valid’, given by the legitimate government and expressed by an official empowered to do so. These elements will be dealt with individually, and each in turn will be applied to the cases of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Finally, the article will examine the breadth of the exculpatory power of consent, and the extent to which it can preclude the wrongfulness of acts carried out in contravention of international law other than the prohibition of the use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations.

Public Art Commission, Where is Heidenheim? Tina O'Connell and Neal White

Research undertaken through significant public art commission. The researchers were both artists were selected separately by Dr Penelope Curtis of Tate and then the shortlist was awarded through competition (peer reviewed by Critics and Artist in Germany) part of the Heidenheim Sculpture Biennial, Germany (€18K). The work was realised by two companies in Heidenheim. Where is Heidenheim? was based within the Heidenheim Zietung newspaper[HZ] and drew together a site of a local paper in a small town in Germany with other local International papers; Wendover Times – Utah, USA;, Limerick Leader, Ireland; Free Imphal Press, Manipur, India; Hibr, Lebanon; Namibia Times, Namibia and The Countryman, Tasmania, Australia. Each of these papers ran a story showing a sign erected onto HZ in Heidenheim, which was subsequently printed inside HZ itself – linking together sites and local voices. Project research identifying global partners was conducted through the management of a PhD research student from the BU Media School - Venkata Vermuri. The work for both artists expands the context of their research into the impact of global networks on public art, and the traditions and norms of public art being confined to single ‘geographical’ sites. This research indicates the potential for media as a common public space that can also be used.

Public Art Commission, 1x1 project, Tina O'Connell and Neal White

A significant development in the Washington DC arts and Humanities Commission programme, the 5x5 project represented the first publicly funded arts project of this type in the US Capital. Following an International call a panel selected 20 curators who in turn selected 5 artists. All curators programmes and research were presented and 5 curators projects selected. Research into control issues surrounding the import and export of water from Japan were used to set up a project in which public were invited to put one of one thousand small droplets of this imported water onto Cherry Blossom Trees. Many of the interactions were recorded onto the database that also included documentation of sites which have vested political or national interests in the Earthquake and Fukushima Diaichi disaster in Washington DC itself. Hundreds of participants took part in the project over one week.

Transitional justice in Nepal: the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014

The Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014 is Nepal’s latest attempt to establish a transitional programme to respond to conflict era abuses. In part, the Act remedies the inadequacies of the 2013 Ordinance. It creates two commissions, on truth and reconciliation and enforced disappearances, makes provision for the establishment of a Special Court to try past abuses and incorporates systems to enable vulnerable witnesses to participate in truth seeking. Yet in a number of respects it continues to fall short of international legal standards, not least in the possibility of amnesty for international crimes and gross violations of human rights. In addition, the relationship between the three mechanisms – truth seeking, amnesty and prosecution – remains unclear and safeguards for individual rights are lacking. This paper explores these recent developments, highlighting issues that must be remedied if transitional justice objectives are to be achieved in Nepal.