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 importance of International Developments in the case-law of the European Court of Justice: Kadi and the autonomy of the EC legal order. Research Papers in Law, 1/2009

From the Introduction. In the USA, the debate is still ongoing as to whether and to what extent the Supreme Court could or should refer to foreign precedent, in particular in relation to constitutional matters such as the death penalty.1 In the EU, in particular the recent Kadi case of 20082 has triggered much controversy,3 thereby highlighting the opposite angle to a similar discussion. The focus of attention in Europe is namely to what extent the European Court of Justice (hereafter “ECJ”) could lawfully and rightfully refuse to plainly ‘surrender’ or to subordinate the EC legal system to UN law and obligations when dealing with human rights issues. This question becomes all the more pertinent in view of the fact that in the past the ECJ has been rather receptive and constructive in forging interconnectivity between the EC legal order and international law developments. A bench mark in that respect was undoubtedly the Racke case of 1998,4 where the ECJ spelled out the necessity for the EC to respect international law with direct reference to a ruling of the International Court of Justice. This judgment which was rendered 10 years earlier than Kadi equally concerned EC/EU economic sanctions taken in implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions. A major question is therefore whether it is at all possible, and if so to determine how, to reconcile those apparently conflicting judgments.

La légalité de l'intervention militaire française au Mali : contribution à l’étude du cadre juridique de la lutte armée contre le terrorisme international

Mémoire récipiendaire de la mention "Excellent", avec les félicitations du jury.

Kosowo - przed ostatecznym rozwiazaniem. Proces uregulowania statusu miedzynarodowego = uwarunkowania polityczne i historyczne perspektywy rozwoju sytuacji. Prace OSW 2008. Kosovo before the final decision. Regulation Kosovo's international status - historical and political conditions and prospects for future developments. OSW Study 27/2008

The question of Kosovo's status is currently one of the most important issues in international politics. Since 1999, Kosovo has been an international protectorate which was created in the aftermath of the NATO intervention to stop the brutal pacification of the Albanian insurgency by Serb forces. The province has since de facto become independent of Serbia. Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council, which established the protectorate, does not preclude any possible outcome as regards its status. Aware that after the crimes of 1999, any attempt to re-integrate Kosovo into Serbia would lead to a massive Albanian uprising, the West has decided that the best solution would be to award Kosovo internationally supervised independence, while at the same time granting very wide autonomy to the Kosovo Serbs. Serbia and Russia rejected the solution proposed by the West, and so Kosovo became an arena of international rivalry for influence in the Western Balkans as well as another element of rivalry, transcending the regional dimension, between Russia and the West. Russia has been using the Kosovo case to build a new model of its relations with the United States and the EU. Since there is a group of countries sceptical about, or even opposed to, Kosovo's independence within the EU, the Kosovo settlement will be a test of the EU's ability to speak with one voice with regard to its external policy.

The ICC and its Deteriorating Relationship with Africa in Light of the Kenya Cases: What Should the EU Position be? IES Policy Brief Issue 2013/09 • November 2013

Summary. The African Union (AU), a union consisting of 54 African States, held an Extraordinary Summit on 11-12 October 2013, to discuss its relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court). The meeting took place just weeks before the trial of Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta is scheduled to begin, and was clearly intended to voice discontent and put on hold the ongoing ICC proceedings against Kenyatta as well as his deputy, Vice-President William Ruto. Before the Summit, there were even widespread rumors that the Assembly of the AU would call for a mass withdrawal of African States Parties from the ICC Statute. Eventually, the Assembly did not go that far and took two important, but less controversial decisions. It called for the granting of immunities to Heads of States from prosecutions by international criminal tribunals and requested a deferral of the ICC cases against Kenyatta and Ruto through a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council (UNSC). After providing a background to the Kenya cases, this policy brief aims to evaluate what the position of the EU and its Member States as outspoken supporters of the ICC and the fight against impunity should be, especially given the fact that France and the UK, as permanent UNSC members, could block a UNSC deferral at any time.

The consequences for Russia of the nuclear deal with Iran. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 177/03.08.2015

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, the United Kingdom, China, France and Russia) plus Germany and the European Union signed a deal with Iran on 14 July in Vienna (a Plan of Action with five appendices, henceforth referred to as the Vienna Agreement). Under this agreement, Iran undertook to restrict its nuclear programme and to bring it under international scrutiny for 15 years in exchange for a gradual lifting of international sanctions (both those imposed between 2006 and 2010 by the UN Security Council and the unilateral US and EU sanctions). Even though Russia has officially reacted positively to this deal, the consequences it will have are rather ambiguous from Moscow’s point of view. Iran looks set to become stronger and will possibly normalise its relations with the West, and especially the United States. This, in political terms, is a disadvantage for Russia. The Kremlin’s ability to use its policy towards Iran as a bargaining chip in contacts with Washington will be reduced significantly. In turn, the benefits will include improving the perception of Russia in the West and the opening up of new opportunities for the geopolitical game in the region, both with Iran and its opponents in the Arab world. Similarly, in economic terms, the possible lifting of sanctions will offer Russia new opportunities to achieve immediate benefits owing to co-operation in the nuclear and military-technical areas. In the short term, the lifting of sanctions will not pose any threat to Russia’s position on the global energy markets. However, in the long term, the end of Iran’s international isolation may bring negative consequences for Russia, such as the dominant position of Western and/or Chinese companies in the Iranian upstream sector, rising exports of Iranian oil and gas to EU and Asian markets (which are essential for Russia) and the downward pressure on oil and gas prices.

La légalité de l'intervention militaire française au Mali : contribution à l’étude du cadre juridique de la lutte armée contre le terrorisme international.

Mémoire récipiendaire de la mention "Excellent", avec les félicitations du jury.

Third USC/FAR consolidated plan for foreign affairs research, fy-1974-75 /

Mode of access: Internet.

Second to none : preserving America's military advantage through dual-use technology /

"February 1995."

Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world's most threatened people. The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world's states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN's High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around intervention in future cases.

Deliberação e participação: dinâmica e efetividade do conselho de saúde de Mossoró/RN – 2009/2012

The social participation in Brazil takes a new impetus with the (re)democratization process of the Brazilian society and is strengthened by the resurgence of the civil society and the 1988 Constitution. In this context, the study is conducted with the scope to verify the effectiveness of deliberative Municipal Health Council of Mossoro (CMSM), with theoretical and methodological support based on the following models: the participatory normativity, which measures the degree of institutionalization, democratization and council representation; and the effectiveness of deliberative that, from the calling capacity and agenda of the participants, from the kinds of manifestation, from the decisions and the council’s office, that measures the degree of effectiveness of the deliberative council. It appears, thus, that the council has an average degree of effectiveness deliberative, standing out as means an institution that practice, despite the existence of obstacles and challenges, the role of control over municipal health policies, due, among other factors, the conservative political context, the asymmetry of resources between the counselors, the little substantive participation of the actors who attend its meetings, either counselor or not, and in particular, the reduced influence of the members in its decision-making process. In public management of Mossoro, social participation, especially social control over public actions, face, today, great number of difficulties to be held. The study recognizes that, in such circumstances, the council partially fulfills the role for which it was created, what does not impede, however, be characterized as an important deliberative space, since it allows the participation of representatives of the various segments of the state, society, their demands and intentions. Overcoming such obstacles moves through the interest of civil society to wake up and fight for the spaces in these institutions.

L'apport de la théorie des systèmes dynamiques complexes à l'ontologie du droit international dans la crise- Analyse de l'action normative du Conseil de sécurité

Cette thèse est une réflexion originale sur le droit international dans la crise, car elle aborde le droit international grâce à une théorie peu connue en droit, celle des systèmes dynamiques complexes. L’étude du cas particulier de la gestion normative de la crise par le Conseil de sécurité illustre les intérêts de l’utilisation d’une théorie novatrice en droit. La théorie des systèmes dynamiques complexes offre les outils d’une réflexion sur le droit, fondée sur les interactions du droit avec le contexte particulier dans lequel il intervient, la crise, et ses acteurs. La mise en lumière de ces interactions favorise une lecture critique du droit international dans la crise et permet de renouveler l’ontologie de ce droit. Les dynamiques complexes appréhendées et définies par cette théorie sont utiles lorsqu’il s’agit d’expliquer les atouts et les limites de l’action normative du Conseil. Par ailleurs en renouvellant l’ontologie du droit, la théorie des systèmes dynamiques complexes facilite une lecture prospective de l’action normative du Conseil et insiste sur le rôle institutionnel du droit.

2222+2015=110

2222 é a Resolução que o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas adoptou em 27/5/15. 7450 reunião. A Carta das Nações Unidas de 1945 visa a paz internacional, prevenção e resolução dos conflitos. A protecção dos jornalistas e colaboradores é um desiderato que vem sendo reafirmado desde a Resolução 1265, 1999. § 2222 is the Resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 5/27/15. 7450 meeting. The 1945 United Nations Charter aims at international peace, conflict prevention and resolution. The protection of journalists and employees has been reaffirmed since Resolution 1265, 1999.

Alcances y límites del principio de la responsabilidad de proteger: actuación del consejo de seguridad frente al conflicto en libia en el 2011 y Siria durante el periodo 2011-2014.

El propósito de este estudio de caso es determinar los alcances y límites de la Responsabilidad de Proteger, tomando como ejemplo la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas ante el conflicto en Libia y Siria. Para esto es necesario analizar fuentes primarias documentos oficiales y secundarias como artículos académicos, para así comprobar que la evolución del concepto de soberanía ha permitido que se legitimen las intervenciones con fines humanitarios, ya que todos los Estados tienen la responsabilidad de garantizar la protección de los derechos humanos de sus ciudadanos, de lo contrario, la comunidad internacional debe tomar medidas para evitar o detener los crímenes masivos.

Análisis de las sanciones internacionales en el marco del tratado de no proliferación nuclear. Estudio de caso: energía atómica en Irán (2006-2015)

El presente trabajo de Grado tiene como propósito examinar la incidencia de las sancionesinternacionales en el marco del régimen de no proliferación nuclear en el caso de Irán durante el periodo 2006-2015, teniendo en cuenta factores históricos de años anteriores. Se analiza y explica cómo las sanciones internacionales pueden ser una medida persuasiva por violar ciertos artículos del Tratado de no Proliferación Nuclear. Finalmente identifica y analiza los tipos de sanciones económicas, financieras y comerciales que los Estados y el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas le han impuesto a Irán, así como la manera en que estas han incidido en la esfera política iraní y mundial.