Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation that the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has developed in its case law has givenrise to considerable criticism. In this article I draw a distinctionbetween two different ways in which the Court has used the doctrine.The first one is in cases where the Court has to decide whethera particular interference with a Convention freedom is justified.In answering that question, the Court often uses the label ‘marginof appreciation’ without drawing on a substantive theoryof rights that can justify the conclusion reached. The seconduse appears in cases where the Court refrains explicitly fromemploying a substantive test of human rights review on the basisthat there is no consensus among Contracting States on the legalissue before it. My aim is to highlight the principles thatcan be used to justify each use of the doctrine, by locatinghuman rights within broader issues in moral and political philosophy.Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between reason-blockingand interest-based theories of rights as well as on the natureof the duties of the European Court, as a matter of internationalhuman rights law.     

Evidentiary Issues in the ICJ's Genocide Judgment

Despite the commitment by the International Court of Justice(ICJ or the Court) in clarifying underlying methods and guidelinesof its approach to fact-finding and evidence, it can be doubtedwhether the judgment delivered in the Bosnia and Herzegovinav. Serbia case genuinely marked a decisive step towards a moretransparent and reliable methodology for evidentiary matters.Behind the formula of ‘fully conclusive evidence’,when dealing with Articles II and III of the Genocide Conventionthe Court adopted for all practical purposes a typical criminallaw ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ standard of proof.By this choice the Court upheld in substance the argument putforward by Serbia that even if the questions of state responsibilityfor acts of genocide are not excluded by the scope of the Convention,they must nevertheless be judged by the same parameters of individualcriminal responsibility. In reaching its conclusions the Courtrelied heavily on the jurisprudence of the ICTY, both as regardsthe ascertainment of facts and their legal qualification. Itremains to be seen whether in future cases the Court will beable to adopt a similar criminal court posture, and whetherit will be similarly prepared to rely on the findings of otherinternational tribunals such as the International Criminal Court,which is not established by the Security Council.     

Dutch Courts' Universal Jurisdiction over Violations of Common Article 3 qua War Crimes

On 14 October 2005, The Hague District Court sentenced two Afghanasylum seekers for their role and participation in the tortureof civilians during the Afghan War of 1978–1992. The Courtheld in both cases that it had ‘universal jurisdiction’over violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventionsand that the accused were guilty of ‘torment’ (‘foltering’)and torture as a war crime (‘marteling’). The jurisdictionalbasis relied upon by the Court and the Court's legal reasoningin both cases is open to criticism.     

Domestic Violence and Asylum: Toward a Working Model of Affirmative State Obligations

While the 1951 Convention is no longer limited geographicallyand its definition of a refugee is not linked to any particularcrisis or place, the source of persecution and the role of thestate with respect thereto has proved problematic. Domesticviolence claims have suffered particularly because of theseshortcomings, as these cases have been uneasy fits within doctrine.Though the Convention definition ordinarily envisions the stateas persecutor, domestic violence follows a different course.Almost inevitably, its victims are persecuted by their husbands.As ‘non-state actors’, they have frequently andwrongly eluded the Convention norms, revealing a tragic protectiongap in the Convention. An asylum seeker must prove that shehas a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion,nationality, membership of a particular social group or politicalopinion. Despite the seriousness of the claim, if the reasonfor the threat does not lie in one of those five sources, aproper asylum claim has not been made. Worse, however, the sourceof the persecution, a non-state actor, often blocks Conventionprotection. This paper will analyze these stumbling blocks toasylum seekers. It will posit the notion that legitimate asylumseekers have been marginalized by their home countries, renderedvirtual non-citizens. Whether through complicity, neglect orsheer indifference or incompetence, these home countries are‘failed states’, failures in not having providedfull rights of citizenship throughout their populations. Inconjunction with that, it will examine the standards for determiningwhen the non-state actor is a persecutor within the Conventionsense. Finally, it will set out factors to be used to test thefailed state for litigation purposes.     

The bowl with the bitter taste

This article examines the particular approach taken by the Courtof First Instance (CFI) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ)in comparing complex or composite trade marks, contrasting itwith the ‘net effect’ doctrine applied by the UK'sAppointed Persons.     

Saint Gobain patron of pharmaceutical patentees?

In recent years there has been much complaint from originatingpharmaceutical companies that the test of obviousness appliedin the UK, as evidenced by decisions of the Patent Court onpharmaceutical related patents, is set unfairly low. This isof particular impact where ‘formulation’ type patentsare concerned. That is, typically, those patents that claiman existing active ingredient mixed, formulated, or combinedwith other known components or in a different way. Pharmaceuticalcompanies complain that the vulnerability of such patents againstinvalidity proceedings in the UK fails to protect the considerableinvestment made in the development of these formulations againstgeneric competition. This article looks at whether the reasons for this concern canbe traced to particular sub-tests that have been used by thecourts to try to answer the statutory test for obviousness.In particular, the sub-tests of ‘lying in the road’and ‘obvious to try’ are examined and the questionof whether there has been an imbalance between these two sub-testsis explored. Further, it is argued that the decisions in therecent cases of Saint-Gobain and Angiotech suggest that therehas been a shift in how the Court of Appeal assesses obviousness.This is away from the ‘obvious to try with a reasonableexpectation of success’ standard to one of ‘obviousto try if success is self-evident’. If the Court of Appeal follows the line taken in these two casesthen pharmaceutical patents of the formulations kind shoulda face better prospect of surviving invalidity challenges basedon obviousness in future.     

International Law and Detention of US Asylum Seekers: Contrasting Matter of D-J- with the United Nations Refugee Convention

US refugee law reflects an ever-increasing conception that theapplication of international standards would constitute an unacceptablerisk to national security. CSR Article 31(2)’s requirementthat refugees ‘shall not’ be detained unless ‘necessary’appears among the chief casualties of such suspicions. US jurisprudenceremains strikingly devoid of reference to Article 31, and 2003’sMatter of D-J- is a prime example. D-J- was an administrativedecision in which the US Attorney General held that nationalsecurity required all US asylum seekers who successfully arrivevia boat must be subject to mandatory detention throughout thecourse of removal proceedings. Despite US accession to the Protocol,Article 31(2) was not mentioned. This article explores what might have happened to D-J- if theRefugee Convention had indeed been applied to his case. Utilizingthe international methodology for treaty interpretation, itapplies Article 31(2) to various aspects of the Attorney General'sdecision. Part 2 argues that under the Supreme Court's CharmingBetsy rule, statutory discretion to detain must be interpretedconsistently with US international obligations. Part 3 concludesthat Article 31(2) of the Refugee Convention grants asylum seekersa right to release whenever their detention is not ‘necessary’.Part 4 proposes a three-part ‘pyramid’ approachto explain the elemental phases of the decision to detain anasylum seeker and examines necessity at each stage. Finally,Part 5 discusses Article 31(2)’s implications regardingevidence and proportion. The premise throughout is that, hadit been applied, the Refugee Convention could have protectedthe interests of both D-J- and ‘national security’.     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.     

Trade marks are 'possessions'--but applications are not (yet)

In its decision of 11 October 2005 the European Court of HumanRights (ECHR) ruled that a registered trade mark was a ‘possession’within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR failed, however,to extend this level of protection to the particular trade markapplication at issue, thereby leaving the protection of intellectualproperty rights as fundamental rights somewhat incomplete forthe time being.     

Trustees beware: submit with care

The Royal Court of Jersey has recently heard an interestingapplication reported in Jersey as In the Matter of CI Law TrusteesLimited and Folio Trust Company Limited as Trustees of the FountainTrust [2005 JRC099]. The case concerned an application for directions by CI Law TrusteesLimited (the ‘Trustee’) seeking directions as tohow to respond to a judgement of the Family Division of theHigh Court of Justice in England and Wales setting aside a Jerseylaw trust (the ‘Trust’) as a sham, and orderingthe Trustee to transfer the Trust assets to the petitioner inthe English matrimonial proceedings (the ‘Wife’).     

Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?

Three recent International Court of Justice decisions –Oil Platforms, Avena and Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory– highlight the uncertain status of the margin of appreciationdoctrine in the Court’s jurisprudence. The purpose ofthis article is to evaluate, in the light of contemporary practiceof other courts, the current status under international lawof the margin of appreciation doctrine, which encourages internationalcourts to exercise restraint and flexibility when reviewingthe decisions of national authorities, and to offer preliminaryguidelines for future application. The article also discussesa variety of policy arguments concerning the legitimacy andeffectiveness of international courts, which can be raised insupport of the development of a general margin of appreciationdoctrine with relation to some categories of international lawnorms governing state conduct, and it examines potential criticism.Eventually, it argues that the same considerations which haveled to the creation of ‘margin of appreciation type’doctrines in the domestic law of many states and in the contextof specific international regimes (for instance, the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights) also support the introduction ofthe doctrine into general international law. The position ofthe ICJ towards the application of the doctrine therefore meritsreconsideration.     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).     

Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility

The joint criminal enterprise doctrine appears more and moreas the ‘magic weapon’ in the prosecution of internationalcrimes. Yet, the doctrine not only gives rise to conceptualconfusion and conflicts with some fundamental principles of(international) criminal law but also invades the traditionalambit of command responsibility liability. This becomes obviousif both doctrines are applied simultaneously in cases againstaccused with some kind of superior position. After a short introductionon both doctrines, as interpreted in modern case law, the articlegives some examples of their simultaneous application and triesto develop distinguishing criteria in light of the case lawand a ‘dogmatic’ analysis of both the doctrines.A reference to the theory of ‘Organisationsherrschaft’shows that there is yet another option to impute internationalcrimes to top perpetrators.     

A Full Stop to Amnesty in Argentina: The Simon Case

In Simón, the Argentine Supreme Court held that two amnestylaws, adopted in the late 1980s in order to shield authors ofserious human rights violations committed during the so-called‘Dirty War’ (1976–1983), were unconstitutionaland void. Although the Argentine Congress had already repealedthe two laws in 2003, uncertainty about the validity of thisparliamentary decision had led to some controversy. With itsdecision in Simón, the Supreme Court puts an end to thelegal uncertainty concerning the prosecution of serious humanrights violations committed under the military regime and definitivelyclears the path for judicial actions against their authors.Setting aside deeply rooted national legal principles —such as statutory limitations, the principle of legality andamnesties — the Argentine Supreme Court has confirmedthe role of human rights principles and of public internationallaw in general in dealing with the most heinous crimes againsthumanity.     

Multilevel Judicial Governance of International Trade Requires a Common Conception of Rule of Law and Justice

Since the establishment of the Permanent Court of InternationalJustice in 1922, governments have consented to, and activelyused, an ever larger number of international and transnationalcourts, quasi-judicial dispute settlement bodies and ad hocarbitral tribunals for the settlement of disputes over the interpretationand application of rules of international law. Such judicialclarification of disputed interpretations of incomplete, intergovernmentalagreements reduces not only the negotiation costs of governmentsby delegating the clarification of contested facts and legalclaims to independent third-party adjudication. Judicial decision-makingat intergovernmental, transnational, national and private levelsalso supplements rule-making and offers citizens judicial remediesfor defending their rights and interests. Modern internationaleconomic law increasingly complements intergovernmental, legislative,and administrative governance by multilevel ‘judicialgovernance’ so as to protect rule of law more effectivelyfor the benefit of citizens (Section I). This contribution criticizesthe one-sidedly power-oriented perceptions of WTO law as ‘internationallaw among states’ (Section II) and the related perceptionsof international judges as dependent agents of states (Section III).Civil society, parliaments and democratic governments shouldencourage national and international judges to cooperate intheir legal task of interpreting citizen-oriented internationaleconomic law ‘in conformity with principles of justiceand international law’, as explicitly prescribed in theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The legal coherenceof multilevel judicial governance depends on protecting principlesof procedural as well as substantive justice and a common conceptionof ‘rule of law’ not only in intergovernmental relationsamong states, but also vis-à-vis their citizens engagedin, and benefiting from, international trade (Sections IV–VIII).     

Cyber-trespass and 'Unauthorized Access' as Legal Mechanisms of Access Control: Lessons from the US Experience

The common law doctrine of trespass to chattels has recentlybeen revived and applied by courts in the United States (US)to cover intrusions (in the form of electronic signals) to computersystems connected to the Internet. These cases represent judicialrecognition of the need to protect certain unwanted intrusionsin cyberspace, though the principles developed therewith areremarkably expansive. As such, they overlap with the conceptof ‘unauthorized access’ under computer misuse legislationin the US and elsewhere. This overlap has yet to be judiciallyacknowledged. Since the US, the United Kingdom and other commonlaw countries not only share a common law ancestry but also‘unauthorized access’ principles as the primarytrigger for computer misuse, this paper seeks to examine theconsequences of developing a broad cyber-trespass doctrine beyondthe US, and its corresponding implications for judicial interpretationsof ‘unauthorized access’ in the common law world.     

Shadows in Paradise - Exploring Non-Refoulement as an Open Concept

The principle of non-refoulement contains a paradox. While stateshave committed to respecting the principle by joining the 1951Refugee Convention and key human rights conventions, its contentis not established in international law. In other words, stateshave committed to a principle the content of which is indeterminate.Since no common definition exists, in practice, national andinternational bodies have extensive powers of discretion togive content to the terms ‘persecution’, ‘torture’,‘degrading’ or ‘cruel’ treatment. Thepurpose of this article is to explore non-refoulement as anopen and ambiguous concept. Acknowledgement of the indeterminacyis important, as open concepts never remain such in practicebut are always issued with content or interpreted. This approachcalls for a further question: how do interpretations come aboutand what kind of factors influence them? The conclusion of thearticle is that different national and international actorspromote their own ‘correct’ interpretations of thiskeystone of refugee protection.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.