The international regulation of persons displaced by climate change

It is certain that there will be changes in environmental conditions across the globe as a result of climate change. Such changes will require the building of biological, human and infrastructure resilience. In some instances, the building of such resilience will be insufficient to deal with extreme changes in environmental conditions and legal frameworks will be required to provide recognition and support for people relocating as a result of environmental change. International legal frameworks do not currently recognise or assist people displaced as a result of environmental factors. The objective of this chapter is to examine the areas of international law relevant to displacement arising from environmental factors, consider some of the proposed climate displacement instruments and suggest the most suitable international institution to host a program addressing climate displacement. In order to determine the most appropriate institution to address and regulate climate displacement, it is imperative to consider issues of governance. This paper seeks to examine this issue and determine whether it is preferable to place climate displacement programs into existing international legal frameworks, or whether it is necessary to regulate this area in an entirely new institution specifically designed to deal with the complex and cross-cutting issues surrounding the topic...

International regulatory framework for food production and diversity

Stakeholders commonly agree that food systems need to be urgently reformed. Yet, how food systems should be reformed is extremely contested. Public international law and regulations are uniquely placed to influence and guide law, policy, programmes and action at regional, national and local levels. Although plenty of international legal instruments intersect with food-related issues, the international regulation of food systems is fragmented, understudied and contested. In order to address these issues, this paper maps and analyses the public international regulatory aspects of food production with a view to providing recommendations for reform. Accordingly, this paper brings together a variety of binding and non-binding international regulatory instruments that to varying degrees and from a range of angles deals with the first activity in the food system: food production. The following paper traces the regulatory tools from natural resources, to the farmers and farm workers that apply skill and experience, and finally to the different dimension of world trade in food. The various regulatory instruments identified, and their collective whole, will be analysed against a rights-based approach to food security.

An analytical study revisiting debate on interpretation of Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice

Article 38(1) of the Statute of International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) is today generally seen as a direction to the significant sources of international law, which the world court must consider in resolving disputes; however, the list is not exhaustive nor encompasses all the formal and material sources of the international legal system. Article 38 of the Statute of ICJ was written ninety years ago in a different world, a question is under debate in many states, whether or not sources mentioned in Article 38 of the statute are compatible with needs of 21st century ? In recent decade, many new actors come on the stage which have transformed international law and now it is not only governs relations among states but also covers many International Organizations. Article 38(2) does refer to the other possible sources but does not define them. Moreover, law is a set of rules that citizens must follow to regulate peace and order in society. These laws are binding on both the individual and the state on a domestic and international level. Do states regard this particular rule as a rule of international law? The modern legal system of states is in the form of a specified and well organized set of rules, regulating affairs of different organs of a state. States also need a body of rules for their intercourse with each other. These sets of rules among states are called “International Law.” This article examines international law, its foundation and sources. It considers whether international conventions and treaties can be the only way states can considerably create international law, or there is a need for clarity about the sources of international law. Article is divided into two parts, the first one deals with sources of international law discussed in Article 38 of the statute of International Court of Justice whereas the second one discusses the material and formal sources of law, which still need reorganization as sources of law.

Cross-Border Unitization and Joint Development Agreements: An International Law Perspective

Okoye, Adaeze, et al, 'Cross-Border Unitization and Joint Development Agreements: An International Law Perspective', Houston Journal of International Law (2007) 29(2) pp.355-425 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

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.

New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 77/ January 2015

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU.

O direito penal do inimigo na atualidade: Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty – MLAT, em matéria penal, celebrado entre a República Federativa do Brasil e os Estados Unidos da América bem como seus reflexos na jurisdição brasileira

In view of the climate of instability and deep social inequalities, it has been evident in the Brazilian reality, a new way to punish systematic already developed and consolidated in other countries, in which, among other things, the criminality is anticipated only by danger that the individual sports. It appears, therefore, that the theory developed by Günter Jakobs, nominated Criminal Law of the Enemy, became subtly inserted in the Brazilian reality as well as in international relations signed. In this sense, the Brazilian State, in order to carry out the international legal cooperation in the criminal field, signed a mutual assistance agreement with the government of the United States of America. Forward the conclusion of Mutual legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), the signatory countries voiced a desire to cooperate in order to facilitate the implementation of tasks of the authorities responsible for law enforcement in both countries, comprising research, investigation, prosecution and prevention of crime, said internalized adjustment in the Brazilian legal system by means of Decree No. 3810 of 02 May 2001. Alongside these considerations, the present study aims to analyze the Criminal law of the Enemy today, seeking to find evidence of that theory in the MLAT, international legal cooperation instrument signed between the government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the government of the United States of America. Moreover, it has the objective to describe its effects on the Brazilian jurisdiction, especially as concerns the relativity and the suppression of human rights. Once done the introit, analysis will be carried out in the first chapter, on the definition and main features of the theory of Criminal Enemy of the law, it is imperative to approach the humanistic aspect that preceded the theory as well as the dealings given to some controversial issues surrounding it, such as the anticipation of the enemy's punishment and the disproportionality of the penalties imposed. In the second chapter will present the conceptual assumptions, historical evolution and the positives aspects, as well as the barriers and the pursuit of effectiveness of international legal cooperation. In the chapter, bedroom effective analysis of specific modality of cooperation will be held, the Mutual legal Assistance Treaty - MLAT in criminal matters, signed between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the United States of America, in which the general aspects will be addressed and the MLAT reflections on the Brazilian jurisdiction, which includes analysis about the relativity or suppression of human rights, future trends and creating stricter laws, followed by the presentation of the seized conclusion on the subject, in which, among other approaches, will be voiced understanding about the unconstitutionality certain service requests that, from these, there is the bad use of the agreed instrument.

Can the European Union build a bridge over troubled waters? An analysis of the politicised and depoliticised legal approach between the European Union and Cyprus

The Cyprus dispute accurately portrays the evolution of the conflict from ‘warfare to lawfare’ enriched in politics; this research has proven that the Cyprus problem has been and will continue to be one of the most judicialised disputes across the globe. Notwithstanding the ‘normalisation’ of affairs between the two ethno-religious groups on the island since the division in 1974, the Republic of Cyprus’ (RoC) European Union (EU) membership in 2004 failed to catalyse reunification and terminate the legal, political and economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. So the question is; why is it that the powerful legal order of the EU continuously fails to tame the tiny troublesome island of Cyprus? This is a thesis on the interrelationship of the EU legal order and the Cyprus problem. A literal and depoliticised interpretation of EU law has been maintained throughout the EU’s dealings with Cyprus, hence, pre-accession and post-accession. The research has brought to light that this literal interpretation of EU law vis-à-vis Cyprus has in actual fact deepened the division on the island. Pessimists outnumber optimists so far as resolving this problem is concerned, and rightly so if you look back over the last forty years of failed attempts to do just that, a diplomatic combat zone scattered with the bones of numerous mediators. This thesis will discuss how the decisions of the EU institutions, its Member States and specifically of the European Court of Justice, despite conforming to the EU legal order, have managed to disregard the principle of equality on the divided island and thus prevent the promised upgrade of the status of the Turkish Cypriot community since 2004. Indeed, whether a positive or negative reading of the Union’s position towards the Cyprus problem is adopted, the case remains valid for an organisation based on the rule of law to maintain legitimacy, democracy, clarity and equality to the decisions of its institutions. Overall, the aim of this research is to establish a link between the lack of success of the Union to build a bridge over troubled waters and the right of self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot community. The only way left for the EU to help resolve the Cyprus problem is to aim to broker a deal between the two Cypriot communities which will permit the recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) or at least the ‘Taiwanisation’ of Northern Cyprus. Albeit, there are many studies that address the impact of the EU on the conflict or the RoC, which represents the government that has monopolised EU accession, the argument advanced in this thesis is that despite the alleged Europeanisation of the Turkish Cypriot community, they are habitually disregarded because of the EU’s current legal framework and the Union’s lack of conflict transformation strategy vis-à-vis the island. Since the self-declared TRNC is not recognised and EU law is suspended in northern Cyprus in accordance with Protocol No 10 on Cyprus of the Act of Accession 2003, the Turkish-Cypriots represent an idiomatic partner of Brussels but the relations between the two resemble the experience of EU enlargement: the EU’s relevance to the community has been based on the prospects for EU accession (via reunification) and assistance towards preparation for potential EU integration through financial and technical aid. Undeniably, the pre-accession and postaccession strategy of Brussels in Cyprus has worsened the Cyprus problem and hindered the peace process. The time has come for the international community to formally acknowledge the existence of the TRNC.

The international regulation of sustainable forest management : doctrinal concepts, governing institutions and implementation

The overarching objective of the research was to identify the existence and nature of international legal principles governing sustainable forest use and management. This research intended to uncover a set of forest legal considerations that are relevant for consideration across the globe. The purpose behind this, is to create a theoretical base of international forest law literature which be drawn upon to inform future international forestry research. This research will be of relevance to those undertaking examination of a particular forest issue or those focusing on forests in a particular region. The thesis explains the underlying legal issues in forest regulation, the dominant international regulatory approaches and makes suggestions as to how international and national forest policy could be improved.

World's pre-eminent powers recent treatment to international law : a paradigm of interest served or harmed

The US's recent rejection of some international laws may have been done to ensure American interests but it may have the opposite effects. While its recent rejection of some international legal arrangements has meant an unpopular opinion of America, its interest has been served.

Dreams and nightmares of alternative powers' futures

This chapter argues the importance of the role and nature of other powers to world order. The author suggests that, if the US are not prepared to take a lead in creating a rules-based legal order, they should and can do so – and it is in their interests to do so. America should be a natural leader in this process, taking part in a global dialogue just as they did in the transatlantic dialogue during the late eighteenth century.

Legitimising Rejection : International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are the two primary international legal instruments that states use to process asylum seekers' claim to refugee status. However, in Southeast Asia only two states have acceded to these instruments. This is seemingly paradoxical for a region that has been host to a large number of asylum seekers who, as a result, are forced to live as ‘illegal migrants’. This book examines the region's continued rejection of international refugee law through extensive archival analysis and argues that this rejection was shaped by the region’s response to its largest refugee crisis in the post-1945 era: the Indochinese refugee crisis from 1975 to 1996. The result is a seminal study into Southeast Asian's relationship with international refugee law and the impact that this has had on states surrounding the region, the UNHCR and the asylum seekers themselves.

The rise and fall of the international law of maritime terrorism : the ghost of piracy is still hunting!

Maritime terrorism is a serious threat to global security. A major debate in this regard is the treating of acts of maritime terrorism as piracy by some scholars and a rejection of this view by others. Moreover, the international law of maritime terrorism suffers from fundamental definitional issues, much like the international law of terrorism. This article examines the current international law of maritime terrorism with a particular emphasis on the debate regarding the applicability of the international law of piracy in the case of maritime terrorism. It argues that the international law of piracy is not applicable in the enforcement and prosecution of maritime terrorists on the high seas. International treaties on terrorism and the post-September 11 developments relating to international laws on terrorism have created a workable international legal framework for combating maritime terrorism, despite some bottlenecks.

Legal Reasoning in Context

This study in EU law analyses the reasoning of the Court of Justice (the Court of Justice of the European Union) in a set of its preliminary rulings. Preliminary rulings are answers to national courts questions on the interpretation (and validity) of EU law called preliminary references. These questions concern specific legal issues that have arisen in legal disputes before the national courts. The Court of Justice alone has the ultimate authority to interpret EU law. The preliminary rulings bind the national courts in the cases giving rise to the preliminary reference, and the interpretations of EU law offered in the preliminary rulings are considered generally binding on all instances applying EU law. EU law is often described as a dynamic legal order and the Court of Justice as at the vanguard of developing it. It is generally assumed that the Court of Justice is striving to realise the EU s meta-level purpose (telos): integration. Against this backdrop one can understand the criticism the Court of Justice is often faced with in certain fields of EU law that can be described as developing. This criticism concerns the Court s (negatively) activist way of not just stating the law but developing or even making law. It is difficult to analyse or prove wrong this accusation as it is not in methodological terms clearly established what constitutes judicial activism, or more exactly where the threshold of negative activism lies. Moreover, one popular approach to assessing the role of the Court of Justice described as integration through law has become fairly political, neglecting to take into consideration the special nature of law as both facilitating and constraining action, not merely a medium for furthering integration. This study offers a legal reasoning approach of a more legalist nature, in order to balance the existing mix of approaches to explaining what the Court of Justice does and how. Reliance on legal reasoning is found to offer a working framework for analysis, whereas the tools for an analysis based on activism are found lacking. The legal reasoning approach enables one to assess whether or not the Court of Justice is pertaining to its own established criteria of interpretation of EU law, and if it is not, one should look more in detail at how the interpretation fits with earlier case-law and doctrines of EU law. This study examines the reasoning of the Court of Justice in a set of objectively chosen cases. The emphasis of the study is on analysing how the Court of Justice applies the established criteria of interpretation it has assumed for itself. Moreover, the judgments are assessed not only in terms of reasoning but also for meaningful silences they contain. The analysis is furthermore contextualised by taking into consideration how the cases were commented by legal scholars, their substantive EU law context, and also their larger politico-historical context. In this study, the analysis largely shows that the Court of Justice is interpreting EU law in accordance with its previous practice. Its reasoning retains connection with the linguistic or semiotic criteria of interpretation, while emphasis lies on systemic reasoning. Moreover, although there are a few judgments where the Court of Justice offers clearly dynamic reasoning or what can be considered as substantive reasoning stemming from, for example, common sense or reasonableness, such reasons are most often given in addition to systemic ones. In this sense and even when considered in its broader context, the case-law analysed in this study does not portray a specifically activist image of the Court of Justice. The legal reasoning approach is a valid alternative for explaining how and why the Court of Justice interprets EU law as it does.