A concise summary of the International System of Units, the SI

The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, the BIPM, was established by Article 1 of the Convention du Mètre, on 20 May 1875, and is charged with providing the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements to be used throughout the world. The decimal metric system, dating from the time of the French Revolution, was based on the metre and the kilogram. Under the terms of the 1875 Convention, new international prototypes of the metre and kilogram were made and formally adopted by the first Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) in 1889. Over time this system developed, so that it now includes seven base units. In 1960 it was decided at the 11th CGPM that it should be called the Système International d’Unités, the SI (in English: the International System of Units). The SI is not static but evolves to match the world’s increasingly demanding requirements for measurements at all levels of precision and in all areas of science, technology, and human endeavour. This document is a summary of the SI Brochure, a publication of the BIPM which is a statement of the current status of the SI. The seven base units of the SI, listed in Table 1, provide the reference used to define all the measurement units of the International System. As science advances, and methods of measurement are refined, their definitions have to be revised. The more accurate the measurements, the greater the care required in the realization of the units of measurement.

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.