Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, a Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes

The International Court of Justice has issued its long-awaited decision in the suit filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro with respect to the 1992–1995 war. The decision confirms the factual and legal determinations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ruling that genocide was committed during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 but that the conflict as a whole was not genocidal in nature. The Court held that Serbia had failed in its duty to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, although—because, the Court said, there was no certainty that it could have succeeded in preventing the genocide—no damages were awarded. The judgment provides a strong and authoritative statement of the general duty upon states to prevent genocide that dovetails well with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

Mentally disordered offenders and the European Court of Human Rights

This article presents the findings from a study of cases taken to the European Court of Human Rights by mentally disordered offenders. The issues raised include the problems raised by indeterminate sentences, the use of detention for preventive purposes, and debates about treatment. The countries represented are Belgium, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, Russia and the United Kingdom.

UK Power Sector Challenge to National Allocation Plan Under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Refused by the European Court of Justice

In Case T-130/06 Drax Power and others v European Commission, the Court of First Instance held that an application by Drax Power and others for annulment of Commission Decision (C(2006)426 final of 22 February 2006 concerning a proposed amendment to the National Allocation Plan notified by the UK in accordance with the EU Emissions Trading Directive was inadmissable. The Court ruled that the applicants could not be considered to be 'directly concerned' by the contested decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of the European Treaty, on legal standing: 'Any natural or legal person may, under the same conditions, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision, which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another persion, is of direct and individual concern to the former...'

Absent Witnesses and the U.K. Supreme Court: Judicial Deference as Judicial Dialogue?

This article analyses the position of absent witness evidence under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 after significant European and domestic case law on the topic. It argues that flexibility in the hearsay regime under the 2003 Act and a permissive approach by appellate courts has increased the potential for fair trial violations in recent years. Moreover, the UK Supreme Court decision in R v Horncastle preserves domestic courts’ authority to determine the meaning of European rights and selectively defer to Parliament. This area of the law demonstrates the scope that the domestic system retains for divergence from European standards.