Beyond the National Resource Privilege: towards an International Court of the Environment

The national resource privilege, which holds that states are allowed to control all the natural resources found in their territory, is a cornerstone of international politics. Supporters of the national resource privilege claim that without the privilege states would fail to be sovereign and self-determining entities which provide for the needs of their citizens. However, as this paper shows the case is not as simple as that. In fact, control over resources must be carefully unpacked. Doing so shows that states do not require full control over all resources found in their territory in order to be sovereign. Moreover, sovereignty and self-determination come with a set of responsibilities and duties attached. Based on these observations the paper will sketch the contours of an alternative resource governance scheme built around the idea of an International Court of the Environment.

Dignity and the Challenge to Liberty :Reading Andras Sajo's Constitutional Sentiments

This paper considers debates about the anti-liberal tendencies of the concept of “human dignity”, in particular those conceptions that are “expressivist”. My aim is to examine how far conceptions of dignity are expressivist, and if so what problems the concept of dignity understood in this way poses for liberty. I consider concerns about dignity’s potential illiberality, in particular the potential illiberality of respect-based conceptions of dignity, in the context of Professor András Sajó’s recent writing, illustrating the discussion with examples drawn from recent judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of speech.

Why do national court judges refer to human rights treaties?: A comparative international law analysis of CEDAW

An analysis was conducted of 325 national judicial decisions across 55 jurisdictions, in which CEDAW was referred to in the reported decision. Despite predictions to the contrary based on previous scholarship, significant variations between courts in their interpretation of CEDAW occurred relatively infrequently, courts referred relatively seldom to interpretations of CEDAW by other national courts, and there was little evidence of transnational dialogic approaches to judging. An analysis of these results suggests that domestic judges invoking CEDAW act primarily as domestic actors who use international law in order to advance domestic goals, rather than acting primarily as agents of the international community in applying CEDAW domestically, or contributing to the transnational shaping of international law to suit national interests. The Article suggests an understanding of the domestic implementation of a human rights treaty as not only law, but a unique kind of law that performs a particular function, in light of its quality as something akin to hard and soft law simultaneously.

Digital evidence as a means of proof before the International Court of Justice

This article discusses the use of digital evidence as a means of proof before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The absence of specific Court rules and procedures for digital evidence (with the exception of Practice Direction IX bis) is not necessarily an obstacle to its production and evaluation before the ICJ, as the general evidentiary rules can also be applied to digital evidence. The article first looks at the rules on the production of documentary evidence and then examines the specific issues related to audiovisual evidence. Finally, it examines the admissibility of digital evidence unlawfully obtained by a litigant through unilateral transborder access to data. The article concludes that, even if specific regulation may be needed as to the specific way in which authenticity and accuracy of digital evidence are to be established, the particular facts of the case and the grounds of challenge can vary widely, and it is doubtful that any regulation could be sufficiently flexible to deal with this in advance.

The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Carter v. Canada: A New Era of End-of-Life Care for Canadians

La tribune de l'éditeur / Editor's Soapbox

Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--

Les opinions séparées et leurs répercussions sur l’indépendance du juge international

Différents points de vue pour déterminer la portée du secret des délibérations dans certains tribunaux internationaux ont débouché sur le fait que les juges aient le droit de présenter des opinions séparées; alors que d’autres n’ont pas ce droit. En tenant compte du rôle et des objectifs des missions internationales, les juges devraient avoir le droit de présenter des opinions séparées, de la même façon que dans le système de common law et dans un grand nombre de tribunaux constitutionnels.Cependant, ces analogies ont joué un rôle marginal dans les travaux préparatoires du Statut de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale en 1920. D’autant que les Etats ne trouvaient pas  orrect qu’une opinión juridique d’un juge international soit condamnée a l’anonymat comme consequence du principe du secret des délibérations, ceci comme conséquenced’un «technicisme» relatif au fait que ladite opinion était contraire à la position majoritaire de la Cour au moment de voter le projet de la décision.Les règles générales de droit international public garantissent un pouvoir autonome au pouvoir judiciaire international. Selon les règles de procédure des tribunaux internationaux, les juges ont le droit de se prononcer avec une opinion séparée, même si ce droit ne se trouve pas typifié de façon expresse dans le Statut ou dans le traité constitutif de l’organisation. Cette règle est présumée à moins qu’il y ait eu une claire volonté des Etats dans le sens contraire.Le droit relatif aux opinions séparées peut être analysé sous la perspective des juges en tenant compte de leur droit à la liberté d’expression. En ce sens, un juge international peut avoir la liberté pour démontrer, de façon systématique, par le biais d’opinions séparées, les vides argumentatifs de la majorité, en évitant un style qui puissent être offensif envers ses collègues. Cette façon de s’exprimer est considéré inoffensive envers l’autorité judiciaire.Les effets positifs par l’absence, ou l’interdiction, d’opinions séparées, en relation avec l’indépendance des juges internationaux ne sont pas faciles à mettre de côté. Cependant, ce genre des mesures restrictives à la liberté d’expression n’est pas suffisamment effectif ni proportionné pour légitimer l’objectif du juge. Il y a des instruments bien plus effectifs y moins restrictifs qui mènent au même résultat (par exemple, un seul mandat, non renouvelable, des juges nternationaux).

International Law as a Source of Constitutional Law

This article has the purpose to prove that the Customary International Law and the Conventional International Law are sources of Constitutional Law. First, it analyses the matter of the relations between International Law and National or Domestic law according with the theories dualism and monist and international decisions. Then, it studies the reception and the hierarchy of International Customary and Conventional Law to Domestic Law including Constitution. This matter has been studied according with several Constitutions and the international doctrine. Then, it considers the constitutional regulations about international law in the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia. The general conclusion is that International Law is incorporated in domestic law according with the Constitution of each country. But every state has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of International Law, and it may not invoke provisions in its Constitutions or its Laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Accordingly, state practice and decided cases have established this provision, and the same rule is established in articles 27 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties of 1969.

Legal outlier, again? U.S. felon suffrage: comparative and international human rights perspectives

The judiciousness of American felon suffrage policies has long been the subject of scholarly debate, not least due to the large number of affected Americans: an estimated 5.3 million citizens are ineligible to vote as a result of a criminal conviction. This article offers comparative law and international human rights perspectives and aims to make two main contributions to the American and global discourse. After an introduction in Part I, Part II offers comparative law perspectives on challenges to disenfranchisement legislation, juxtaposing U.S. case law against recent judgments rendered by courts in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The article submits that owing to its unique constitutional stipulations, as well as to a general reluctance to engage foreign legal sources, U.S. jurisprudence lags behind an emerging global jurisprudential trend that increasingly views convicts’ disenfranchisement as a suspect practice and subjects it to judicial review. This transnational judicial discourse follows a democratic paradigm and adopts a “residual liberty” approach to criminal justice that considers convicts to be rights-holders. The discourse rejects regulatory justifications for convicts’ disenfranchisement, and instead sees disenfranchisement as a penal measure. In order to determine its suitability as a punishment, the adverse effects of disenfranchisement are weighed against its purported social benefits, using balancing or proportionality review. Part III analyzes the international human rights treaty regime. It assesses, in particular, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which proclaims that “every citizen” has a right to vote without “unreasonable restrictions.” The analysis concludes that the phrase “unreasonable restrictions” is generally interpreted in a manner which tolerates certain forms of disenfranchisement, whereas other forms (such as life disenfranchisement) may be incompatible with treaty obligations. This article submits that disenfranchisement is a normatively flawed punishment. It fails to treat convicts as politically-equal community members, degrades them, and causes them grave harms both as individuals and as members of social groups. These adverse effects outweigh the purported social benefits of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, as a core component of the right to vote, voter eligibility should cease to be subjected to balancing or proportionality review. The presumed facilitative nature of the right to vote makes suffrage less susceptible to deference-based objections regarding the judicial review of legislation, as well as to cultural relativity objections to further the international standardization of human rights obligations. In view of this, this article proposes the adoption of a new optional protocol to the ICCPR proscribing convicts’ disenfranchisement. The article draws analogies between the proposed protocol and the ICCPR’s “Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.” If adopted, the proposed protocol would strengthen the current trajectory towards expanding convicts’ suffrage that emanates from the invigorated transnational judicial discourse.

EU membership of the WTO: international trade disputes and judicial protection of individuals by EU Courts

The European Union (EU) is embedded in a pluralistic legal context because of the EU and its Member States’ treaty memberships and domestic laws. Where EU conduct has implications for both the EU’s international trade relations and the legal position of individual traders, it possibly affects EU and its Member States’ obligations under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO law) as well as the Union’s own multi-layered constitutional legal order. The present paper analyses the way in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) accommodates WTO and EU law in the context of international trade disputes triggered by the EU. Given the ECJ’s denial of direct effect of WTO law in principle, the paper focuses on the protection of rights and remedies conferred by EU law. It assesses the implications of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) – which tolerates the acceptance of retaliatory measures constraining traders’ activities in sectors different from those subject to the original trade dispute (Bananas and Hormones cases) – for the protection of ‘retaliation victims’. The paper concludes that governmental discretion conferred by WTO law has not affected the applicability of EU constitutional law but possibly shapes the actual scope of EU rights and remedies where such discretion is exercised in the EU’s general interest.