The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe

The recent case of Bosphorus Airlines v Ireland provided theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with an opportunity torefine further its relationship with the EU. In particular,the ECtHR was called upon to clarify when States could be heldresponsible for actions taken under the banner of the EU. Thisarticle examines the status quo prior to the Bosphorus judgment,and then scrutinises the judgment itself, focusing particularlyon the use and scope of the doctrine of ‘equivalent protection’to determine State responsibility. The doctrine as outlinedin Bosphorus is applied to some likely scenarios involving EUaction and its relative merits and disadvantages are discussed.The article also briefly addresses the further global implicationsof the judgment, namely for the legal accountability of theUN Security Council and the ongoing issue of responsibilityof international organisations under international law.     

The Bush Doctrine Revisited: The 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA

In its 2006 National Security Strategy, the USA reaffirms thecontroversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence as crucialin the "war on terror" proclaimed after the attacks of 9/11.But it does not provide a detailed examination of pre-emption.The questions left open in the 2002 US National Security Strategyas to what will trigger pre-emptive action, when action againstnon-State actors will be permissible and what degree of forcewill be proportionate in pre-emptive action are still unresolved.The promise that "The reasons for our actions will be clear,the force measured and the cause just" does not offer much inthe way of specific guidance. It is very striking that in thiscontext, the US strategy makes no reference to internationallaw or to the role of the UN Security Council. The other mainfocus of the strategy is on the "promotion of democracy", butit does not go so far as to assert any legal right to use forcefor this purpose, and it makes only passing reference to humanitarianintervention. The EU 2003 Security Strategy provides a markedcontrast in that it does not adopt the doctrine of pre-emptiveself-defence, does not expressly identify "rogue States" anddoes profess respect for international law and for the roleof the UN. Other States have not generally shown themselveswilling to accept a Bush doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence.They agree that there are new threats facing the world frominternational terrorists and the danger of proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction, but the 2005 World Summit showedclearly that there is no general acceptance of pre-emptive action.Moreover, the International Court of Justice still follows acautious approach to self-defence. The 2006 National SecurityStrategy largely reaffirms the doctrines of the earlier 2002Strategy, but whereas the focus in the 2002 Strategy was onthe threat posed by Iraq and North Korea; attention has nowshifted to Iran and Syria, accused of being State sponsors ofterror by Hizbollah and Al-Qaida. The article ends with a discussionof the recent conflict in Lebanon: this raised the crucial questionwhether the war on terror gave Israel a wide right to use force,even a pre-emptive right. The conflict highlights dramaticallythe practical significance of the divisions on the scope ofthe law of self-defence with regard to action against non-Stateactors, pre-emption and proportionality.     

Precedents in the Mountains: On the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia

International law, especially its customary part, evolves toa great extent through acts of State practice serving as precedents.If States do not want that their behaviour becomes law (i.e.if they prefer to act contrary to Kant's categorical imperative),they claim that certain acts of their behaviour are so unique,so peculiar that they must not be considered as contributingto the change of law (they express their opinio non juris).In the 1990s, the UN Security Council also found that only uniquenessof situations in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina justifiedthe use of "all necessary means" to deal with those situations.More recently, the recognition of the independence of Kosovoby a number of States and the recognition of Abkhazia and SouthOssetia by Russia were described by recognizing States as beingso unique, so sui generis that they could not serve as precedents.The article argues that the uniqueness, or parallels for thatmatter, is usually in the eye of the beholder. Whether certainsituations, facts or acts serve as precedents depends to a greatextent on whether one is interested in seeing them as precedentsor not. People too often act upon their ideologies, beliefsand prejudices, not upon facts; the latter are interpreted inthe light of preconceived ideas, or as Charles King, writingof the Georgia–Russian war, observes, "unfortunately,Western thinking of Russia has too often substituted analogyfor analysis" ("Putin's March to the Sea", Foreign Affairs,Vol. 87, No. 6, November–December 2008). Then this articleproceeds to study in greater detail parallels and differencesbetween Kosovo, on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia,on the other. The study ends with an inquest into the matterof how different States (or categories of States) deal withsecessionist problems.     

Reforming the United Nations: What About the International Court of Justice?

In September 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted an ambitiouslist of reforms of the UN structure, mandate and agenda. Ifimplemented, it is going to be the most radical reform of theUN to date. Yet, the International Court of Justice, the principaljudicial organ of the organization, has been largely ignored.This Report suggests that States should take advantage of thereform-mood at the UN to consider also some essential reformsof the ICJ. These include: Should the Security Council be enlarged,then UN member States should consider expanding the membershipof the ICJ, too; judges should not be allowed to be re-electedand their tenure should be increased to 12 years; age limitsshould be introduced; the number of female candidates to beelected should be increased; intergovernmental organizationsshould have capacity to be a party in contentious proceedings;the new Human Rights Council and certain international courtsand tribunals should be given the power to request advisoryopinions.     

Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2006 (III)

Continued from Part II published last year, this part of theSurvey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2006relating to: XI. Outer Space Law (Definition and Delimitationof Outer Space; Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to SpaceAssets to the Convention on International Interests in MobileEquipment; The Status and Application of Five UN Treaties onOuter Space; Practice of States and International Organizationsin Registering Space Objects; The Establishment of the DisasterManagement International Space Coordination Organization; ThePolicy of Peaceful Use of Outer Space; The Cooperative Approachto the Peaceful Use of Outer Space; The Convention of Asia-PacificSpace Cooperation Organization); XII. International Law on Diplomaticand Consular Relation (Preconditions for the Establishment ofDiplomatic Relation; Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations;Diplomatic Protection and Consular Assistance); XIII. InternationalCriminal Law (Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia; Treaty andJudicial Practice on Extradition and Criminal Judicial Assistance;The "East Turkistan" Terrorists in Guantanamo Bay; The LAI CheongSing (LAI Changxing) Case in Canada; The Position Towards TokyoTrial; Illegal Migrants; Trafficking of Persons; Anti-Corruption);XIV. International Law on Environment (Environment and Development;Climate Change; Dam-building on International Rivers; SonghuajiangRiver Pollution Accident; Tropical Rain Forest in SoutheastAsia; Animal Fur Trade; Auction of Dinosaur Egg); XV. InternationalOrganization (United Nations; World Health Organization; ShanghaiCooperation Organization); XVI. International Economic Law (InternationalTrade Law; International Protection of Intellectual PropertyRights; International Financial Law); XVII. International Lawon Energy (Energy and Development; Energy Policy); XVIII. InternationalLaw on Natural Disaster (Tsunami Warning System; InternationalHumanitarian Donation and Assistance); XIX. International Lawon Health (The Issue of SARS; the Issue of Avian and Human PandemicInfluenza).     

Controlling lethal autonomous weapons systems: A typology of the position of states

This paper seeks to understand the potential for robust global control of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The paper seeks to uncover the predominant views and trends in global decision-making about such weapons systems by way of observing the positions and preferences of States inhabiting the international system as a realistic modality of a more probable normative outcome. Through a thorough examination of publicly available positions of United Nations (UN) Member States, it establishes a typology of varying positions maintained by States and reveals the argumentative rationale for the major positions advanced. This typology results to be far from unified and is composed of the following categories: (1) States that support the prohibition of LAWS; (2) States that support the prohibition of LAWS, but do not support calls for an international ban treaty; (3) States that do not support (or oppose) the prohibition of LAWS; (4) States with “flexible” positions over the LAWS: oppose use or use under certain circumstances, but not the development and production; (5) States that expressed support for multilateral talks, but have not expressed a position on the prohibition or not of LAWS; and (6) States that have called for a legally binding instrument (or legal regulation) on LAWS (inclusive of both prohibitions and regulations). Regulation and human control emerge as factors that have significant value in the equation.     

Vagueness in Progress: A Linguistic and Legal Comparative Analysis Between UN and U.S. Official Documents and Drafts Relating to the Second Gulf War

This paper is based on a doctoral thesis which aimed at investigating on whether the use of strategic vagueness in Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq has contributed to the breakout of the 2002–2003s Gulf war instead of a diplomatic solution of the controversies. This work contains a linguistic and legal comparative analysis between UN and U.S. documents and their drafts in order to demonstrate how vagueness was deliberately added to the final versions of the documents before being passed, and thus strategically used vagueness has played a crucial role in UN resolutions related to the outbreak of war in Iraq, and in relevant legislation produced by the United States for its Congressional authorisation for war. The comparative analysis between S/RES/1441(2002) and US legislation has evidenced that that there would have been diplomatic solutions to the Iraq crises which were not synonymous of light-handed intervention against Iraq, but deliberately vague UN wording allowed the US to build its own legislation with a personal interpretation implying that the UN did not impede military action.     

Barcelona 2002: law, ethics, and human rights. HIV testing for peacekeeping forces: legal and human rights issues

In 2001, the United Nations Security Council established an Expert Panel to study the issue of whether the UN should institute HIV testing of peacekeeping personnel. This article, based on a 9 July 2002 presentation to the XIV International AIDS Conference (abstract TuOrG1173), reports on the findings of a paper prepared for the Expert Panel by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The paper examined whether it is permissible for the UN to implement mandatory HIV testing of its peacekeeping personnel, and whether HIV-positive UN peacekeeping personnel should be excluded or restricted from service on the basis of their HIV status or HIV disease progression. The article describes some of the court cases in which these issues have been considered; discusses the importance of analyzing such issues in the context of a human rights-based approach to the pandemic; and formulates a series of key principles for guiding UN decision-making. The article concludes that a policy of mandatory HIV testing for all UN peacekeeping personnel cannot be justified on the basis that it is required in order to assess their physical and mental capacity for service; that HIV-positive peacekeeping personnel cannot be excluded from service based on their HIV status alone, but only on their ability to perform their duties; and that the UN cannot resort to mandatory HIV testing for all UN peacekeeping personnel to protect the health and safety of HIV-negative personnel unless it can demonstrate that alternatives to such a policy would not reduce the risk sufficiently. In the end, the Expert Panel unanimously rejected mandatory testing and instead endorsed voluntary HIV counselling and testing for UN peacekeeping personnel.     

Comments on the Security Council Referral of the Situation in Darfur to the ICC

Recently, the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) decidedto refer the situation in Darfur to the International CriminalCourt (ICC), following the suggestion of the UN Commission ofInquiry established by the Secretary-General pursuant to SCRes. 1564 (2004). The authors discuss four main problematicissues raised by the first SC referral of a situation to theICC. First, they emphasize that States Parties to the ICC andnon-States Parties have different obligations to cooperate withthe Court, irrespective of the adoption of a SC Resolution.Secondly, they discuss the question of immunity granted to nationalsof non-States Parties. Thirdly, the puzzling reference containedin the SC Resolution to exemption agreements is commented upon.Finally, the paper concludes with a criticism of the lack ofany measure providing for compensation to victims.     

Light Treatment of a Complex Problem: The Law of Self-Defence in the Wall Case

In its recent Wall Opinion, the International Court of Justicegave rather short shrift to Israel’s claims that the constructionof the wall could be justified as an act of self-defence inthe sense of Article 51 United Nations Charter. This articleassesses the Court’s approach and places it in the broadercontext of ICJ pronouncements on the use of force. It suggeststhat the Court failed to appreciate the complex legal problemsto which Israel’s claim gave rise, in particular the problemof self-defence against attacks by non-state actors. It showsthat the Court’s restrictive understanding of self-defence,while following the 1986 merits judgment in the Nicaragua case,is difficult to bring in line with modern state practice, andincreases the pressure to admit other, non-written, exceptionsto Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.     

The Beleaguered Gatekeeper: Protection Challenges Posed by UNHCR Refugee Status Determination

The number of individual RSD applications received by UNHCRoffices worldwide nearly doubled from 1997 to 2001, while UNHCR'sRSD operations have been criticized for failing to implementbasic standards of procedural fairness. Yet, although thereis some literature critiquing how UNHCR determines refugee status,there is little literature examining whether UNHCR should doso, and if it should, when, where, and under what conditions. UNHCR performance of RSD poses protection challenges becauseit is founded on a basic contradiction. On the one hand, governmentaction is essential for effective refugee protection. On theother hand, UNHCR RSD is premised on at least partial governmentfailure. Neither direct concern for protection from non-refoulement norstrict legal obligations completely explain UNHCR's currentRSD activities. UNHCR's RSD activities seem best explained bywhat Goodwin-Gill has called ‘negative responsibility’,and hence can represent a risky shift of responsibility fromgovernments to the UN. At the same time, in some circumstancesUNHCR RSD substantially advances refugee rights. In order to match its actual mandate and resources, UNHCR shouldperform RSD when it can enhance the protection provided to refugeesby governments, but the activity should be more limited andconditional than it is today.     

UNITED STATES V. MICROSOFT: DID CONSUMERS WIN?

United States v. Microsoft and the related state suit filedin 1998 appear to have concluded. In a unanimous en banc decisionissued in late June 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit rejected challenges to the remedies specified ina settlement reached in late 2001 and approved by the districtcourt in November 2002. We examine the remedies imposed in theUnited States, in terms of both their relationship to the violationsfound and their impact on consumer welfare. We conclude thatthe remedies addressed the violations ultimately found by theCourt of Appeals (which were a subset of those found by theoriginal district court and an even smaller subset of the violationsalleged, both in court and in public discourse) and went beyondthem in important ways. The remedies imposed appear to havestruck a reasonable balance between protecting consumers againstthe types of actions found illegal, on the one hand, and, onthe other hand, avoiding excessive restrictions that would harmconsumers by restricting Microsoft's ability to compete in pro-competitiveways.     

Still not in Force: Should States Support the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention?

On 21 May 1997, at the UN General Assembly, an overwhelming majority of States voted for the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses – a global overarching framework governing the rights and duties of States sharing freshwater systems. To date, the Convention counts 17 Contracting States – 18 short of the number required for entry into force. This article examines whether and why States should support the Convention towards ensuring its entry into force. We first look at the governance of international watercourses in order to illustrate the relevance of the Convention. The article also examines the Convention's drafting and negotiation process, the subsequent practice of States, some possible reasons slowing down ratifications and the likelihood of entry into force in the foreseeable future. Noting the widespread State support for the Convention in 1997, we conclude that, while various reasons have possibly prevented that support from translating into entry into force, the need for an effective UN Watercourses Convention has not diminished. In view of current human and environmental threats to the world's water resources, coupled with the poor governance of transboundary watersheds, the potential role that the Convention could play, once in force and widely ratified, as discussed, may in fact be more critical than ever.     

国际民用航空组织争端解决机制司法化改革论析

1944年《芝加哥公约》第18章赋予国际民用航空组织理事会裁判与公约的解释与适用有关的国际争端的权能。但过往裁判实践表明,国际民用航空组织争端解决机制的结构性缺陷导致理事会司法功能未有效发挥。一方面,《芝加哥公约》第54条与第84条存在适用冲突,使得理事会在实践中更愿意以政治角色介入争端解决,导致《解决分歧规则》的司法效能被弱化。另一方面,理事会成员国代表司法能力不足且缺乏司法中立性,使得理事会对争端的解决难以提供高效的法律产出。国际民用航空组织应在2018年所启动《解决分歧规则》修订进程中对争端解决机制进行司法化改革,避免国际民用航空业沦为国际政治对抗的工具。     

U.S. policy in the UN environmental arena: powerful laggard or constructive leader?

As the world’s one remaining superpower, the United States stands forth as a hegemon in international politics. Within the traditional realist perspective, this means that the U.S. is decisive for the ambition and scope of international cooperation. However, research has shown that there is limited empirical support for this assumption when it comes to environmental cooperation. After a brief look at the U.S. general attitude and perception of the UN, this paper will then review general trends in U.S. foreign environmental policy within the United Nations context, including several key domestic factors that have influenced the U.S. in this area. I will then look more specifically at three UN institutions that are responsible for different aspects of environmental governance: United Nations global conferences (Stockholm in 1972, Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The main focus will be how U.S. policies and influence in these arenas, and their relationship to UN reform, have evolved over time. Finally, the paper will attempt to analyze the American policies and answer the question posed in the title: is the U.S. a powerful laggard or a constructive leader?     

The US Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm

In 2004, for the first time in history, the United States SupremeCourt addressed the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute(ATS) of 1789. Originally intended to provide redress for actsof piracy or offences against ambassadors, the Statute has beenused since the 1980 watershed case of Filartiga v. Peña-Iralato award damages in civil trials in the United States to foreignvictims of, inter alia, torture, summary execution and forceddisappearance. Opponents have claimed, among other things, thatuse of the ATS shows disregard for principles of internationalcomity; is inconsistent with principles governing the use ofuniversal jurisdiction; and results in an imperialist Americanprivatization of human rights. The author argues that the SupremeCourt's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain limits the ATS toa tool of complementary justice consistent with prevailing principlesof global accountability.     

The Islamic Veil and Freedom of Religion, the Rights to Education and Work: a Survey of Recent International and National Cases

The wearing of the female Islamic dress (generally referredto as the hijab), or any feature of this dress such as the headscarf(khimar), face veil (niqab) and the head-to-toe all envelopinggarment (jilbab) is a complex and multi-faceted issue that isoften raised in public debate in most European States in recentyears particularly in the education and employment areas. Thisarticle analyses the selected State practice and judicial decisionson the banning and similar restrictions to the wearing of theIslamic dress in State schools. Two issues are analysed: (i)whether the prohibition of female Muslim pupils or studentsfrom wearing the Islamic dress, or any feature of the Islamicdress, while at State schools amounts to an unjustifiable violationof the right to education and/or an unjustifiable violationof freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs and (ii) ifa State (or a non-State actor) prohibits a female Muslim teacherfrom wearing the Islamic dress while at a State school, doesthis amount to a violation of the teacher's right to work and/orthe teacher's right to manifest freedom of religion or belief?     

Discourses of Division: Law, Politics and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

This article undertakes a critical reading of the argumentsused at the bench and the bar in the 2004 ICJ Wall advisoryopinion. The Wall case included an unprecedented number of Stateand non-State participants and it is therefore a valuable sitein which to explore the parameters and limits of legal speech.What argumentative strategies were employed at the Peace Palace?How did different participants present the relationship betweenlaw and politics? In particular, because the example of Palestinecan be seen as a challenge to the post-colonial order, how didThird World States employ the language of international lawin support of Palestinian self-determination? It is shown thatalthough international legal speech is highly restrictive, manyThird World States are willing to challenge its boundaries througha deep-set faith in the dividends of legal argumentation.     

File-sharing and downloading: goldmine or minefield?

Legal context: Major copyright owners have been slow to rise to the challengepresented by illegal file-sharing and downloading. In recentyears, they have scored a number of significant Court victoriesagainst file-sharers, but the recent decision in Promusicaev Telefónica, in which the ECJ held that the right tothe protection of industrial property does not necessarily outweighthe right to privacy, indicates that rights holders may benefitfrom a more creative and co-operative approach to file-sharing. Key points: The author provides an analysis of the Promusicae decision,along with a summary of the statutory position in the UK. Thisis also accompanied by a review of the recent internationallitigation landscape on file-sharing and a review of currentattitudes towards addressing illegal filesharing, includingrecent proposals from the British Government and the EuropeanParliament and new models of co-operation between rights holdersand file-sharing service providers. Practical significance: The Promusicae decision will disappoint copyright owners. TheECJ decision left it to Member States to determine whether thereshould be an obligation to disclose personal data in order toprotect copyright, so long as the interpretation of the lawattempts to reconcile the parties' competing rights and principlesand demonstrates proportionality. Copyright owners will, therefore,have to tailor enforcement strategies to individual Member States.This will hamper their ability to take action against individualinfringers efficiently. In addition to litigating against infringers,however, they may benefit from the new models of co-operationbetween copyright owners and file-sharing services which areemerging.     

Three IP blogs

Lessig Blog By Lawrence Lessig United States of America Archivedback to August 2002 http://www.lessig.org/blog/ Techno Llama ByAndres Guadamuz Scotland Archived back to October 2004 http://technollama.blogspot.com/ Patently-O:Patent Law Blog By Dennis Crouch United States of America Archivedback to April 2005 http://patentlaw.typepad.com/