Judge Wang Chung-hui at the Permanent Court of International Justice

As the predecessor of the International Court of Justice atThe Hague, the Permanent Court of International Justice wasa pioneering institution blessed with brilliant lawyers. Oneof the important figures was Mr Wang Chung-Hui. In 1922, Wangcame to the Permanent Court as his country's foremost jurist;ultimately, he was to exercise notable influence on his colleaguesas well as landmark decisions of the Permanent Court. This articleseeks to introduce Wang Chung-hui as the first Chinese memberof the World Court. Wang's success as an international judgemay suggest that the Permanent Court, and international lawof the period, cannot be distinguished on the ground that itwas peculiarly Eurocentric.     

国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评

国际刑事法院是否成功的关键取决于《罗马规约》的缔约国和国际社会与之真诚的国际合作与司法协助。反之 ,国家也应根据国际法的基本原则善意履行其自愿承担的义务 ,向国际刑事法院提供国际合作与司法协助。本文通过阐述《罗马规约》有关国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助方面的实体性和程序性规定 ,说明国家在国际刑事法院调查、起诉和惩治国际社会关注的最严重的国际犯罪中的作用和义务     

论构建WTO框架下竞争法协调机制

从竞争法法律冲突产生的原因和国际上现有的处理竞争法法律冲突的协调模式展开论述,分析了在WTO框架下建立国际竞争规则协调机制的必然性和可能性,并对WTO框架下竞争法协调机制在实体和程序方面的构成提出了建议。     

The Nomination of International Judges by ‘the Enlightened Few’: A Comment on the Royal Decree of 23 January 2020 Concerning the Establishment of a Dutch National Group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration

On 23 January 2020, the Government of the Netherlands adopted a Royal Decree concerning the Establishment of a Dutch National Group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Decree aims to provide fairness, transparency and consistency in terms of the composition of the national group and its function of nominating candidates for election to international courts. This contribution puts the Dutch national group in context in the relevant international legal framework, analyses the specifics of the Decree and critically evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. It will be argued that while the Decree offers a number of welcome procedural specifications and innovations, it contains elements that deserve refinement and improvement in order to prevent that the Dutch national group acts (or is perceived to act) as a rubber stamp institution that simply carries out the will of the Government when making nominations for the international judiciary.

     

Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.     

International human rights for mentally ill persons: the Ontario experience

This article is part of a working project which assesses Ontario's mental health legislation and practice vis-à-vis international human rights standards. The paper focuses on procedural safeguards provided by the major international human rights instruments in the field of mental health law such as the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness (MI Principles) and the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Human Rights Court. In analysing Ontario's compliance with international standards, the paper will explore some problems arising from the implementation of the legislation with which the author is familiar with from his experience as counsel for the Consent and Capacity Board. The paper aims to generate discussion for potential reforms in domestic legal systems and to provide a methodology to be used as a tool to assess similar mental health legislation in other local contexts.     

关于非法医疗机构内执业医师是否构成非法行医罪主体的探讨

依最高人民法院《关于审理非法行医刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》规定,个人未取得《医疗机构执业许可证》开办医疗机构的行为应认定为《刑法》第三百三十六条第一款规定的“未取得医生执业资格的人非法行医”,即在个体行医的场合下,医师必须取得《医疗机构执业许可证》,方能开展诊疗活动,否则便属于非法行医。然而,非个体行医的情形下,医师在无执业许可证的医疗机构行医,是否属于非法行医？对此,法律并无相关规定,本文对此类案件所涉医师是否属于刑法规定的“未取得医生执业资格的人”进行探讨。     

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.     

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则与国际条约的关系

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则和已对该国生效的国际条约中的冲突规则同属该国国际私法的渊源。多数国家的国际私法制定法均有优先适用国际条约中的冲突规则的规定,但其国际私法分则对国际条约中的冲突规则的处理方式则主要有三种不同的立法模式。在裁判涉外民事案件的实践中,实体法解决办法有别于冲突法解决办法,仅在案件不符合国际统一实体私法条约的适用条件的情形下,才能依法院地国家国内法的冲突规则确定准据法。涉外合同的双方当事人选择已对法院地国家和其他缔约国生效的国际条约并不等于选择了合同准据法。而如果涉外合同的双方当事人选择了尚未对法院地国家生效、但已对两个或两个以上其他国家生效的国际条约,则只能视为对无法律约束力的“非国家规则” 的选择。由于“程序问题适用法院地法”,涉外民事案件的程序事项既不适用冲突规则,也不适用实体私法规则。法院地国家国内法的冲突规则不会同国际条约中的国际民事程序法规则发生抵触。     

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect

In In re JR38, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a 14 year‐old boy who argued that the dissemination of his image, taken whilst he was participating in sectarian rioting, to local newspapers, violated his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Court was divided on whether or not the measures taken by the police engaged the applicant's Article 8(1) rights at all. This case raises fundamental questions as to the scope of private life in the context of criminal investigations, and the place of the European Court of Human Rights’ ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test in determining whether Article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged. This case comment subjects the majority's interpretation of Article 8(1) to critical scrutiny, concluding that this interpretation may unduly restrict the scope of Article 8 protection for those subject to criminal investigations.     

A Court as the Process of Signification: Legal Semiotics of the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in 1996 was a landmark case because, for the first time in history, the legal aspect of nuclear weapons was addressed. The decision has evoked controversies regarding the Court’s conclusion, the legal status of international humanitarian law in relation to nuclear weapons, and a newly introduced concept of state survival. While much legal scholarship discusses and criticizes the legal significance of the opinion, there has not been enough scholarship examining the Court’s specific choice of words and concepts that sustain its wider ideological and political position in the opinion. The paper argues that the Court’s vague and controversial logic is attributed to its confrontation with two international orders/codes: the legal order (or international law) and the political order (or state practice). The paper engages in legal semiotics as methodology to decode legal text and discover a deep structure that sustains networks of codes, according to which text is interpreted. Through the semiotic examination of three sets of key concepts (1) “permitted” and “prohibited,” (2) “threat of use” and “possession of the weapon,” and (3) “state survival,” the paper shows the ICJ’s confrontation with two orders/codes and eventual prioritization of the political order over the international legal order. The analysis of the opinion based on legal semiotics indicates an intimate and inseparable relationship between state practice and international law, which must be disentangled for the sake of the rule of law.     

On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the RomeStatute or the Statute) entered into force on 1 July 2002, withthe satisfaction of Article 126 of the Statute.¹ Up until 24 September 2004, 139 States have signed the Statuteand 97 States have become the Parties. Under such circumstances,China, as one of the permanent members of the Security Councilof the United Nations and a non-party State playing a greatrole in international affairs, needs to acquire a better understandingand also makes a detailed study on the Statute. One of the mostunique characters of the International Criminal Court (the ICCor the Court)—as reflected in the principle of complentarity—willbe discussed and analysed in the following essay.     

All Bark and No Bite: Notes on the Federal Constitutional Court's 'Banana Decision'

The Federal Constitutional Court's banana decision of 7 June 2000 continues the complex theme of national fundamental‐rights control over Community law. Whereas in the ‘Solange II’ decision (BVerfGE 73, 339) the Federal Constitutional Court had lowered its standard of review to the general guarantee of the constitutionally mandatorily required minimum, the Maastricht judgment (BVerfGE 89, 155) had raised doubts as to the continued validity of this case law. In the banana decision, which was based on the submission of the EC banana market regulation by the Frankfurt‐am‐Main administrative court for constitutional review, the Federal Constitutional Court has now confirmed the ‘Solange II’decision and restrictively specified the admissibility conditions for constitutional review of Community law as follows. Constitutional complaints and judicial applications for review of European legislation alleging fundamental‐rights infringements are inadmissible unless they show that the development of European law including Court of Justice case law has since the ‘Solange II’ decision generally fallen below the mandatorily required fundamental‐rights standard of the Basic Law in a given field. This would require a comprehensive comparison of European and national fundamental‐rights protection. This paper criticises this formula as being logically problematic and scarcely compatible with the Basic Law. Starting from the position that national constitutional courts active even in European matters should be among the essential vertical ‘checks and balances’ in the European multi‐level system, a practical alternative to the Federal Constitutional Court's retreat is developed. This involves at the first stage a submission by the Federal Constitutional Court to the Court of Justice, something that in the banana case might have taken up questions on the method of fundamental‐rights review and the internal Community effect of WTO dispute settlement decisions. Should national constitutional identity not be upheld even by this, then at a second stage, as ultima ratio taking recourse to general international law, the call is made for the decision of constitutional conflicts by an independent mediating body.     

民事程序类指导案例的构建与运用

成文民事诉讼规则具有对个案所适用的司法环境难以清晰表达、对当事人就程序性争议所秉持的诉讼态度和诉讼心理难以描述、对类型化的程序要素无法一一明细等固有局限.目前最高人民法院已公布的程序类指导案例数量较为匮乏、对个案诉讼场景的展示不充分、对程序价值理念的彰显和分析不足.为此,应加强对待建程序类指导案例所精选素材的描述,同时...     

Military Veterans, Culpability, and Blame

Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this Article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the State than offenders without such backgrounds. Two rationales for a differential treatment of military veterans who commit crimes are typically set forth. The Porter Court raised each, stating that we should treat veterans differently “in recognition of” both “their service” and “the intense stress and mental and emotional toll” of combat. The former factor suggests there being a “social contributions” or gratitude-based discount, whereas the latter factor points towards a “mental disturbance” discount. This Article analyzes the two accounts and raises some doubts about both. This Article then argues that a military veteran who commits a crime should not be blamed to the full extent of his blameworthiness, not necessarily because of his mental capacity nor because of his social contribution, but because the State’s hand in producing his criminality undermines its standing to blame him.     

论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权

国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权一直是人们论争的焦点。作为补充性管辖权 ,国际刑事法院管辖权是国家主权相对性的表现 ,也是国家主权的自愿让渡 ,与国家主权总体相容 ,但其隐含的第三国义务则超越了现有国际体制。为保证国际刑事法院的有效运作 ,必须坚持国际社会共同利益与国家利益的统一 ,保证国际秩序追求与国家权力追求之平衡     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

Trámite legal para el pago de obligaciones pecuniarias impuestas al estado colombiano en decisiones sobre derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario

This article is one of the research results of the project “Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case law on Latin American High Courts rulings. Study about Brazil, Mexico and Colombia”. The author indicates how the Colombian State was seen compelled to send off a Law in the year 1996, through which, receiving a special procedure, he is included inside his internal code the guarantee of not repetition as mechanism of application of the decisions in matter of human rights and international human law in said country.     

On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide

On the face of it the 1948 Convention on Genocide appears tobe a treaty that on the one hand obliges contracting statesto criminalize and punish genocide in their domestic legal systemsand, on the other, arranges for interstate judicial cooperationfor the repression of genocide. The International Court of Justice(ICJ), in the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, has instead held thatthe Convention, in addition to providing for the criminal liabilityof individuals, also imposes on contracting states as internationalsubjects a set of obligations (to refrain from engaging in genocide,to prevent and punish the crime, and also to refrain for allthose categories of conduct enumerated in Article III: conspiracy,incitement, attempt, complicity). This approach raises two questions:(i) is it warranted so to broaden states' responsibility? (ii)when applying such Article III categories to state responsibility,should an international court such as the ICJ that pronounceson interstate disputes rely upon criminal law categories toestablish whether a state incurs responsibility for conspiracy,complicity, and so on? Or should it instead forge autonomouslegal categories better suited to state responsibility? Theauthor sets forth doubts about whether it is appropriate totranspose criminal law categories to the corpus of internationallaw of state responsibility. In particular, his misgivings relateto the category of ‘state complicity in genocide’as set out by the Court: once the Court decided to transplantthis criminal law category to state responsibility, arguablyit should have relied upon the rigorous concept of complicity,as derived by international criminal courts from case law andthe relevant practice of states, rather than apply a notionthat finds no basis in international criminal law, in comparativecriminal law or in state practice.