Prosecution of maritime terrorists : the role of national courts in ensuring accountability

Maritime security has emerged as a critical legal and political issue in the contemporary world. Terrorism in the maritime domain is a major maritime security issue. Ten out of the 44 major terrorist groups of the world, as identified in the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism, have maritime terrorism capabilities. Prosecution of maritime terrorists is a politically and legally difficult issue, which may create conflicts of jurisdiction. Prosecution of alleged maritime terrorists is carried out by national courts. There is no international judicial institution for the prosecution of maritime terrorists. International law has therefore anticipated a vital role for national courts in this respect. The international legal framework for combating maritime terrorism has been elaborately examined in existing literature therefore this paper will only highlight the issues regarding the prosecution of maritime terrorists. This paper argues that despite having comprehensive intentional legal framework for the prosecution of maritime terrorists there is still some scopes for conflicts of jurisdiction particularly where two or more States are interested to prosecute the same offender. This existing legal problem has been further aggravated in the post September 11 era. Due to the political and security implications, States may show reluctance in ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. Nevertheless, international law has established a comprehensive system for the prosecution of maritime terrorists where national courts is the main forum of ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators as well as ensuring the effective prosecution of maritime terrorists thereby playing an instrumental role in establishing a rule based system for combating maritime terrorism. Using two case studies, this paper shows that the role of national courts has become more important in the present era because there may be some situations where no State is interested to initiate proceedings in international forums for vindicating rights of an alleged offender even if there is a clear evidence of violation of international human rights law in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. This paper presents that despite some bottlenecks national courts are actively playing this critical role. Overall, this paper highlights the instrumental role of national courts in the international legal order.

Operationalizing the Comparative International Human Rights Law Method: A Case Study of CEDAW in National Courts

In this chapter, I focus on how the example of CEDAW illustrates the methodological and conceptual difficulties that future work in comparative international human is likely to encounter. Despite the challenges, I suggest that the worked example of CEDAW has raised interesting lines for empirical analysis, and additional perspectives which may enrich normative inquiry, sufficient to justify comparative international human rights law being regarded as likely to give rise to insights that might not otherwise have emerged, and therefore to be as an approach worth pursuing in the future.

Prosecution of maritime pirates : the national court is dead—long live the national court

Piracy is one of the main maritime security concerns in the contemporary world. The number of piracy incidents is increasing rapidly, which is highly problematic for maritime security. Although international law provides universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of maritime pirates, the actual number of prosecutions is alarmingly low compared to the number of incidents of piracy. Despite many states becoming parties to the relevant international conventions, they are reluctant to establish the necessary legal and institutional frameworks at the national level for the prosecution of pirates. The growing incidences of piracy and the consequential problems associated with prosecuting pirates have created doubts about the adequacy of the current international legal system, which is fully dependent on national courts for the prosecution of pirates. This article examines the possible ways for ensuring the effective prosecution of pirates. Contrary to the different proposals forwarded by researchers in the wake of Somali piracy for the establishment of international judicial institutions for the prosecution of pirates, this article argues that the operationalization of national courts through the proper implementation of relevant international legal instruments within domestic legal systems is the most viable solution. However, this article submits that the operationalization of national courts will not be very successful following the altruistic model of universal adjudicative jurisdiction. A state may enact legislation implementing universal jurisdiction but will not be very interested in prosecuting a pirate in its national court if it has no relation with the piratical incident. Rather, it will be successful if the global community seriously implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), which obligates the states that have some connection with a piratical incident to prosecute pirates in their national courts.

Why do national court judges refer to human rights treaties?: A comparative international law analysis of CEDAW

An analysis was conducted of 325 national judicial decisions across 55 jurisdictions, in which CEDAW was referred to in the reported decision. Despite predictions to the contrary based on previous scholarship, significant variations between courts in their interpretation of CEDAW occurred relatively infrequently, courts referred relatively seldom to interpretations of CEDAW by other national courts, and there was little evidence of transnational dialogic approaches to judging. An analysis of these results suggests that domestic judges invoking CEDAW act primarily as domestic actors who use international law in order to advance domestic goals, rather than acting primarily as agents of the international community in applying CEDAW domestically, or contributing to the transnational shaping of international law to suit national interests. The Article suggests an understanding of the domestic implementation of a human rights treaty as not only law, but a unique kind of law that performs a particular function, in light of its quality as something akin to hard and soft law simultaneously.

Competition and cooperation between international courts: a critical approach to the new paradigms of cross-border dispute resolution model

This article examines the arising cross-border dispute resolution models (Cooperation and Competition among national Courts) from a critical perspective. Although they have been conceived to surpass the ordinary solution of a Modern paradigm (exclusive jurisdiction, choice of court, lis pendens, forum non conveniens, among others), they are insufficient to deal with problems raised with present globalization, as they do not abandon aspects of that paradigm, namely, (i) statebased Law; and (ii) standardization of cultural issues.

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.

Preserving patent policy space and securing access to medicines in developing countries: the role of states and pharmaceutical corporations

This thesis examines the tension between patent rights and the right to health and it recognizes patent rights on pharmaceutical products as one of the factors responsible for the problem of lack of access to affordable medicines in developing countries. The thesis contends that, in order to preserve their patent policy space and secure access to affordable medicines for their citizens, developing countries should incorporate a model of human rights into the design, implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of their national patent laws. The thesis provides a systematic analysis of court decisions from four key developing countries (Brazil, India, Kenya, and South Africa) and it assesses how the national courts in these countries resolve the tension between patent rights and the right to health. Essentially, this thesis demonstrates how a model of human rights can be incorporated into the adjudication of disputes involving patent rights in national courts. Focusing specifically on Brazil, the thesis equally demonstrates how policy makers and law makers at the national level can incorporate a model of human rights into the design or amendment of their national patent law. This thesis also contributes to the ongoing debate in the field of business and human rights with regard to the mechanisms that can be used to hold corporate actors accountable for their human rights responsibilities. This thesis recognizes that, while states bear the primary responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to health, corporate actors such as pharmaceutical companies also have a baseline responsibility to respect the right to health. This thesis therefore contends that pharmaceutical companies that own patent rights on pharmaceutical products can be held accountable for their right to health responsibilities at the national level through the incorporation of a model of civic participation into a country’s patent law system.

Software Patents and the Digital Environment

Software is patentable in Europe so long as there is sufficient ‘technical contribution’ under the decades-long interpretation of the European Patent Convention made by the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Despite the failure of the proposed Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions, opponents of software patents have failed to have any affect upon this technical contrivance. Yet, while national courts find the Boards of Appeal decisions persuasive, ‘technical contribution’ remains a difficult test for these various courts to apply. In this article I outline that the test is difficult to utilise in national litigation (it is an engineering approach, rather than a legal one) and suggest that as the Boards of Appeal become less important (and thus less persuasive) should the proposed Unified Patent Court come to fruition, the ‘technical contribution’ test is unlikely to last. This may again make the whole issue of what/whether/how software should be patentable open to debate, hopefully in a less aggressive environment than has existed to date.

"A reserva ecológica nacional e a sua importância para o ordenamento do território"

This work primarily aims to investigate the ambiguity between the right to build and the need to preserve nature through one of its instruments: the National Ecological Reserve. In both national and international political effort, forced by increasing ecological awareness of the society were being created regulations for environmental problemsolving frameworks. This significant increase in provisions, that regulated the environment and spatial territory, are directly related to the objectives of the European community. In a year when the soil policy has changed, it is important to review the priorities of regional planning in the face of environmental policies. REN is a restriction of public utility that, among other things, aims to define and integrate diverse areas of our territory which by their structure are essential to the ecological stability of the environment. Going through a historical study of the various regimes that regulated REN, the present work aims to inform the understanding of the concept REN, exposing its objectives and form of delimitation of integrated areas, in order to answer questions about the nature of this institute. It were related to all regulations governing the ecological reserves and land, namely Scheme for Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity; Natura 2000, the National Agricultural Reserve, the Law of the ownership of water resources and water, and the RJIGT RJUE, checking to its compatibility with REN. Through a literature review regarding the jurisprudence of national courts applying the doctrine, analysis of legal regimes, analysis of maps depicting the REN, we carried out a qualitative assessment of the trend and legal effect of REN in protecting populations and environment. Therefore we will work with this reflect on the existing environment awareness in our society and its problems in the management of natural resources.

Les causes de déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité du transporteur maritime international de marchandises sous connaissement

La présente étude examine les causes de déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité du transporteur maritime de marchandises. En règle générale, les plafonds d’indemnisation fixés par les conventions internationales écartent la réparation intégrale du préjudice causé par le transporteur maritime de marchandises. Cependant, il est également prévu un certain nombre de causes de déchéance de ce droit à limitation, pour lesquelles les conditions d’application diffèrent d’une convention internationale à l’autre (Règles de La Haye, Règles de La Haye-Visby, Règles de Hambourg et Règles de Rotterdam). Parallèlement, les tribunaux nationaux, par le recours à des notions propres de leurs systèmes juridiques, modifient l’étendue des causes de déchéance de ce droit. En somme, la déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité variera selon la convention internationale appliquée et selon la juridiction compétente. Ce qui, en définitive, porte atteinte à la structuration rationnelle du régime de responsabilité du transporteur maritime dans sa globalité et à l’objectif d’uniformisation poursuivi jusqu’ici.

L'étendue de la compétence ratione materiae du juge étatique dans le règlement des différends nés de l'exécution d'un contrat complexe.

Les arrêts sur l’affaire Beaudoin c. Université de Sherbrooke (Cour Supérieure et Cour d’Appel du Québec 2008-2010) ont porté sur l’intensité de l’obligation de consultation insérée dans l’accord de partenariat de recherche. Ce type de partenariat est souvent créé par un accord et peut prendre plusieurs formes. La plupart d’entre elles sont méconnues par le droit, c’est pourquoi la doctrine les considère comme étant des entreprises complexes puisque le choix des partenaires est souvent guidé par le souci d’échapper au formalisme qu’imposent les règles étatiques. Cependant, les pratiques connues dans le secteur d’activité des associés et les accords qui les lient sont souvent les seules règles qu’ils suivent. En cas de conflit, ils recourent généralement à un tiers expert pour régler leur litige, la saisine des tribunaux ne se faisant qu’exceptionnellement. Dans cette cause, les contractions entre les deux décisions ont soulevé quelques interrogations : d’une part, sur la capacité des tribunaux à trancher des conflits qui peuvent naître au cours de l’exécution de ce type de contrat, et d’autre part sur la compatibilité des règles matérielles applicables au fond par les juges lorsque les parties ne sont liées que par la lex contractus et les usages reconnus dans leur secteur d’activité. Cette étude tente donc d’identifier la forme de partenariat en cause afin de mesurer l’étendue de la compétence ratione materiae du juge dans la résolution des conflits nés d’un contrat complexe (PARTIE I), et d’examiner l’opportunité de recourir aux modes alternatifs de résolution des litiges (PARTIE II).

Le droit à réparation des victimes de violations des droits humains par les entreprises multinationales

Alors que la question de la responsabilité juridique des entreprises multinationales (EMNs) est sujette à de nombreuses controverses sur la sphère internationale, les victimes collatérales et directes des activités des EMNs sont engagées dans une tout autre bataille. En effet, de quels recours disposent les victimes de pollution environnementale causée par les activités d’une entreprise minière, ou les employés victimes de violations des droits fondamentaux du travail au sein d’une chaîne de production par les sous-traitants d’une très respectable EMN? Telles sont les interrogations animant la présente étude qui se focalise essentiellement sur la mise en oeuvre du droit à la réparation consacrée par le troisième pilier des Principes directeurs adoptés par l’ONU en 2011. Retraçant les fondements du droit à la réparation en droit international, elle met en évidence l’impossibilité de poursuivre les EMNs devant les instances internationales du fait de l’irresponsabilité juridique internationale découlant du statut actuel des EMNS. En l’absence de législation extraterritoriale et d’harmonisation juridique au niveau régional, l’analyse aborde ainsi en profondeur les opportunités et les limites de la mise en oeuvre du droit à réparation devant les instances judiciaires nationales les plus courues du moment par les victimes qui cherchent à obtenir des réparations pour les violations des droits humains par les EMNs. Si les obstacles rencontrés par les victimes devant le prétoire américain n’ont eu de cesse de se multiplier ces dernières années, l’émergence d’un principe de diligence raisonnable sous-tendant l’idée d’une responsabilité civile des EMNS devant le juge européen et canadien peut offrir une base adéquate pour asseoir l’encadrement d’un droit à réparation par les acteurs transnationaux à l’échelle locale. Les Principes directeurs privilégiant également l’implication des EMNs dans la mise en oeuvre du droit à réparation, la recherche se clôt avec l’étude du cas pratique de la réponse apportée par les EMNs aux victimes bangladaises de la tragédie du Rana Plaza survenue en 2013 à Dacca. L’analyse permet ainsi de conclure que de ce combat aux allures de David contre Goliath opposant les EMNs à leurs victimes, il est impératif que les mécanismes judiciaires nationaux soient renforcés et que l’encadrement juridique de la responsabilité internationale des EMNs sorte enfin des sentiers battus afin de remédier à l’asymétrie causée par la poursuite des intérêts économiques sur la protection effective des droits humains.