The "European model" of international law and its significance for Asia. Some critical reflections. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 7, June 2012

There is a certain arrogance in the affirmation that a “European model” of regional integration and of compliance with international law should be adopted anywhere in the world, and in Asia in particular. This article argues on the contrary that Asia and Europe are in fundamentally different situations vis-à-vis international law. Based on an analysis of recent events and latest legal developments in Europe, it puts the “European model” of regional integration and the European selective compliance with international law in perspective with regard to the Asian context. Without denying that “civilizations” should learn from one another and that the European experience may be relevant to some extent in Asia, this article concludes that the tools developed in Europe should be used differently in Asia.

EU Law, International Law and Economic Sanctions against Terrorism: The Judiciary in Distress? Research Papers in Law, 3/2008

From the Introduction. This article seeks to examine the relationship between European Union law, international law, and the protection of fundamental rights in the light of recent case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Court of First Instance (CFI) relating to economic sanctions against individuals. On 3 September 2008, the ECJ delivered its long-awaited judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat on appeal from the CFI.3 In its judgment under appeal,4 the CFI had held that the European Community (EC) is competent to adopt regulations imposing economic sanctions against private organisations in pursuance of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions seeking to combat terrorism; that although the EC is not bound directly by the UN Charter, it is bound pursuant to the EC Treaty to respect international law and give effect to UNSC; and that the CFI has jurisdiction to examine the compatibility of EC regulations implementing UNSC resolutions with fundamental rights not as protected by the EC but as protected by jus cogens. On appeal, following the Opinion of Maduro AG, the ECJ rejected the CFI’s approach. It held that UNSC resolutions are binding only in international law. It subjected the contested regulations to full review under EC human rights standards and found them in breach of the right to a hearing, the right to judicial protection and the right to property. Kadi and Al Barakaat is the most important judgment ever delivered by the ECJ on the relationship between EC and international law and one of its most important judgments on fundamental rights. It is imbued by constitutional confidence, commitment to the rule of law but also some scepticism towards international law. In the meantime, the CFI has delivered a number of other judgments on anti-terrorist sanctions assessing the limits of the “emergency constitution” at European level. The purpose of this paper is to examine the above case law and explore the dilemmas and tensions facing the EU judiciary in seeking to define and protect the EU’s distinct constitutional space. It is divided as follows. It first looks at the judgment in Kadi. After a short presentation of the factual and legal background, it explores the question whether the EU has competence to adopt smart sanctions. It then examines whether the EU is bound by resolutions of the Security Council, whether the ECJ has jurisdiction to review Community measures implementing such resolutions and the applicable standard of judicial scrutiny. It analyses the contrasting views of the CFI, the Advocate General, and the ECJ taking account also of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Further, it explores the consequences of annulling the contested regulation. It then turns to discussing CFI case law in relation to sanctions lists drawn up not by the UN Security Council but by the EC. The paper concludes by welcoming the judgment of the ECJ. Whilst its reasoning on the issue of Community competence is questionable, once such competence is established, it is difficult to support the abrogation of Community standards for the protection of fundamental rights. Such standards should ensure procedural due process whilst recognising the importance of public security.

The Soviet union and international law; a study based on the legislation, treaties and foreign relations of the Union of socialist soviet republics,

Half-title: Bureau of international research, Harvard university and Radcliffe college.

International law reports.

Editors: 1919/22- H. Lauterpacht and others.

The Responsibility to Protect and International Law

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law focuses on questions relating to R2P’s legal quality, its relationship with sovereignty, and the question of whether the norm establishes legal obligations. It also aims to introduce readers to different legal perspectives, including feminism, and pressing practical questions such as how the law might be used to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, and punish the perpetrators.

Identifying the Aggressor under International Law: A Principles Approach

null RAE2008

ARTICLE: Anarchy and International Law: The Approaches of Hedley Bull and Noam Chomsky

Are anarchy and the law antithetical? Not so, as for more than 350 years international law has governed a legal order based on anarchy; wherein no central authority exists and law functions not on the basis of coercion but on cooperation whereby States must agree to each specific laws before it is bound by its obligations. This article contemplates two manners in which an anarchist might consider international law interesting: first, as a legal system which governs an anarchical society as described by Hedley Bull in line with the English School of International Relations; and second, as a manifestation of a State system which, though illegitimate can be utilized, as Noam Chomsky does, for tactical reasons to demonstrate its inconsistencies and thus weakening the system with the ultimate aim being its implosion

The Social Power of Bodin's 'Sovereignty' and International Law

The word ‘sovereignty’ provides a forceful example of the social power of language as an organic instrument playing a leading role in the continuous and continuing process of creating and transforming human reality. The paper examines a pivotal episode in the history of the word ‘sovereignty’ — its formal introduction in the 16th century by Jean Bodin in his Six Livres de la Republique. It focuses on the social effects ‘sovereignty’ has had on the shared consciousness of humanity, including that of the international community. The proposed metalogical inquiry adopts a method that draws from the hermeneutic school of historical knowledge. The argument is that Bodin used ‘sovereignty’ for the purpose of attributing to the ruler (the French king) supreme power in the hierarchical organisational structure of society. This idea of a pyramid of authority is found in different elements of the discourse in Six Livres de la Republique, which is examined in the immediate context of Bodin’s personal background as well as the extended social, political and intellectual context of 16th century France. The conclusion shows that Bodin’s work was the first seminal step in the development of contemporary ideas of ‘internal sovereignty’ and ‘external sovereignty’. It is thus part of the history of the true power that the word at hand has exercised in framing the international state system and hence the international legal system.

The War in Iraq: the illusion of international law? Where to now?

Examines the legality of the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq. Relevance of the international law framework; Advantages and danger of humanitarian intervention principle; Implications of the war for the future of international law.

Of Law, Lawlessness, and Sovereignty : Multinational Peacekeeping and International Law

Laws of war have been carefully defined by individual nations’ own codes of law as well as by supranational bodies. Yet the international scene has seen an increasing movement away from traditionally declared war toward multinational peacekeeping missions geared at containing local conflicts when perceived as potential threats to their respective regions’ political stability. While individual nations’ laws governing warfare presuppose national sovereignty, the multinational nature of peacekeeping scenarios can blur the lines of command structures, soldiers’ national loyalties, occupational jurisdiction, and raise profound questions as to which countries’ moral sense/governmental system is to be the one upheld. Historically increasingly complex international relations have driven increasingly detailed internationally drafted guidelines for countries’ interactions while at war, yet there are operational, legislative, and moral issues arising in multinational peacekeeping situations which these laws do not address at all. The author analyzes three unique peacekeeping operations in light of these legislative voids and suggests systematic points to consider to the end of protecting the peacekeepers, the national interests of the countries involved, operational matters, and clearly delineating both the objective and logical boundaries of a given multinational peacekeeping mission.

Typology of instruments of public environmental international law

At the second meeting of the focal points appointed by the Governments of the signatory countries of the Declaration on the application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was held in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 16 and 17 April 2013, a decision was made to form working groups to advance towards the creation of a regional instrument. Thus, a working group on access rights and the regional instrument was formed for the purpose of gaining more in-depth knowledge on access rights in order to make a proposal on the nature and scope of the application of a regional instrument. At its first meeting, the working group determined that a study describing the different types of international instruments would be useful in helping it achieve its objective. This report explores the different types of instruments that are used in public international law, with an emphasis on the instruments that are relevant to Principle 10. The report has three chapters, which are as follows. The first chapter analyses the term “international instrument” and discusses the distinction between binding and non-binding legal instruments, illustrated with examples. The second chapter describes the function of implementation and compliance mechanisms in an international instrument, providing examples of these mechanisms. The third chapter presents the multilateral and regional instruments relevant to access rights regarding information, participation and justice in environmental matters in Latin America and the Caribbean.

International law topics: documents on neutrality and war, with notes, 1915.

Discussions conducted by George Grafton Wilson.