Environmental pollution from shipbreaking industry : international law and national legal response

The international legal regime on shipbreaking is in its formative years. At the international level, the shipbreaking industry is partially governed by the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. However, how far this convention will be applicable for all aspects of transboundary movement of end-of-life ships is still, at least in the view of some scholars, a debatable issue. Against this backdrop, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has adopted a new, legally binding convention for shipbreaking. There is a rising voice from the developing countries that the convention is likely to impose more obligations on recycling facilities in the developing countries than on shipowners from rich nations. This may be identified as a clear derogation from the globally recognized international environmental law principle of common but differentiated treatment. This article will examine in detail major international conventions regulating transboundary movement and environmentally sound disposal of obsolete ships, as well as the corresponding laws of Bangladesh for implementing these conventions in the domestic arena. Moreover this article will examine in detail the recently adopted IMO Ship Recycling Convention.

Victims of War must be loyal to deserve protection: International law and national legislation on enemy aliens 1907-1918

In international law the internment of civilians has only been regulated in writing in the context of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. Nevertheless this did not mean that civilians were not protected by at least some rules of customary international law before that date and especially in World War I. Furthermore specialists of international law expected states – at least those considered to be part of the community of civilized nations – to continue to treat all men equal before the law even in wartime. As research already conducted (Bird, Panayi, Fischer) has shown, this was not the case during World War I. Based on these findings the presentation proposed here wants to look into the development of international law and into some national preparations for treating so called “enemy aliens” in the period before 1914 (Austria-Hungary, Australia, United Kingdom), in order to see to what extent principles of international law protecting civilians from the consequences of war can be detected in the pre-war preparations. As far as can be judged so far the issue of loyalty was central in this context. Looking at the war itself, the presentation proposed here will try to look at how far the principles of international law alluded to above continued to influence the policies on “enemy aliens” in the countries mentioned and to see, how the International Committee of the Red Cross tried to use them to legitimize and expand its protective policies in regard to civilians interned in belligerent as well as neutral countries throughout the war.

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.

A treatise on international law, and a short explanation of the jurisdiction and duty of the government of the republic of the United States.

Mode of access: Internet.