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).

The Right to Water in the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The human right to water is nowadays more broadly recognised, mainly due to the essential societal function that this resource plays; likewise, because of the present water scarcity is generating conflicts between its different uses. Thus, this right aims at protecting human beings by guaranteeing access to clean water that is essential to satisfy vital human needs. Similarly, access to clean water is an important element to guarantee other rights including the right to life and health. The recognition of the right to water is mainly achieved in two ways: as a new and independent right and as a subordinate or derivative right. Concerning the latter, the right to water can emanate from civil and political rights, such as the right to life; or can be derived from economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to housing. This contribution explores the position of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the right to water, and analyses whether the Court has recognised the right to water and, if so, in which manner.

The “War on Terror” and the Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian La

Las nuevas amenazas a la seguridad que han surgido en los últimos años están poniendo seriamente en juego la importancia y la implementación del derecho internacional humanitario. Este artículo investiga el impacto de la guerra del terror en el principio de distinción en el derecho internacional humanitario. Examina, de forma específica, prácticas estatales, por ejemplo, de los Estados Unidos, que han cedido frente al surgimiento de nuevas reglas relativas al principio de distinción. Para esto, se hace un análisis de dicho principio bajo dos perspectivas: blancos concretos y captura

First victims then perpetrators: child soldiers and International La

Este artículo examina la cuestión de los niños soldados en el Derecho Internacional. Después de haber hecho algunas observaciones preliminares sobre el enfoque del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y del derecho humanitario sobre la protección de los derechos de los niños que se encuentren en un conflicto armado, el artículo revisa la prohibición del reclutamiento de los menores y la responsabilidad penal personal de los que los reclutan. También, será analizada la jurisprudencia sobre el reclutamiento de los niños. En la cuarta parte del artículo, se dará cuenta de la hipótesis de los menores autores de crímenes internacionales y se considerarán los enfoques de la justicia retributiva y de la justicia restaurativa

Securitización en el desierto: Una respuesta al terrorismo en Malí y en Níger, 2009 - 2013.

Este es un estudio sobre las dinámicas de seguridad en Malí durante el periodo de 2009 a 2013. La investigación busca explicar de qué manera se ha dado un proceso de securitización de los grupos insurgentes frente a la amenaza generada por la proliferación de grupos armados no estatales en el territorio comprendido entre Malí y Níger. Se toma a Níger con el ánimo de ver la existencia de un subcomplejo regional de seguridad entre este país y Malí. De esta manera se afirma que el aumento de las actividades insurgentes y terroristas en la zona compuesta por Malí y Níger se da por la proliferación de actores armados no estatales, entre los cuales se encuentran los grupos seculares e insurgentes Tuareg, las agrupaciones islamistas fundamentalistas y los grupos que se componen entre rebeldes Tuareg, criminales e islamistas, éstos actores han afectado la percepción que tiene Malí sobre su seguridad.

Framing the local and the global in the anti-nuclear movement: Law and the politics of place

This article examines the politics of place in relation to legal mobilization by the anti-nuclear movement. It examines two case examples - citizens' weapons inspections and civil disobedience strategies - which have involved the movement drawing upon the law in particular spatial contexts. The article begins by examining a number of factors which have been employed in recent social movement literature to explain strategy choice, including ideology, resources, political and legal opportunity, and framing. It then proceeds to argue that the issues of scale, space, and place play an important role in relation to framing by the movement in the two case examples. Both can be seen to involve scalar reframing, with the movement attempting to resist localizing tendencies and to replace them with a global frame. Both also involve an attempt to reframe the issue of nuclear weapons away from the contested frame of the past (unilateral disarmament) towards the more universal and widely accepted frame of international law.

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.

State practice, customary humanitarian law and civilian casualties of armed conflict

The article examines the customary international law credentials of the humanitarian law rules proposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICR) in 2005. It relies on the BIICL/Chatham House analysis as a ‘constructive comment’ on the methodology of the ICRC study and the rules formed as a result of that methodology with respect to the dead and missing as an aid to determination of their customary law status. It shows that most of the rules studied have a customary international lawpedigree which conforms to the conclusions formed on the rules generally in the Wilmshurst and Breau study. However, the rules with respect to return of personal effects, recording location of graves and notification of relatives of access to gravesites do not seem to have even on a majoritarian/deductive approach enough volume of state practice to establish them as customary with respect to civilians.

Second Strike and you are (finally) out? The Quashing of the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Amendment no. 4)

The blog-post critically analyses the Israeli Supreme Court judgment (HCJ 8425/13 Anon v. Knesset et al) quashing the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Amendment no. 4), offering themes of comparative constitutional interest.