Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction: Reflections on the van Anraat Case

When adjudicating international crimes, domestic courts arefaced with a choice between the application of internationallaw or national law. In the recent van Anraat judgment, a DutchDistrict Court explicitly opted for the former alternative.This approach led to the accused's acquittal of complicity ingenocide. In the Court's opinion, there was no proof beyonda reasonable doubt that van Anraat had actual knowledge of SaddamHussein's special intent to destroy part of the Kurdish population.According to the Court, such proof is required under internationallaw. This article argues that the Court's preference for internationallaw was not prescribed, either by international law or by domesticlaw, although in principle such preference may prove advisable,whenever international rules are clear and exhaustive. Aftertracing the intricate legal discussions on mens rea requirementsfor genocide and complicity in genocide, the author concludesthat the issue has not yet been completely elucidated in internationalcase law and legal literature. In situations of ambiguity whereinternational case law offers insufficient guidance, domesticcourts would better resort to their own criminal law. As Dutchcriminal law extends the mens rea of the accomplice beyond ‘knowledge’so as to cover dolus eventualis as well, application of domesticlaw might have affected the outcome of the case.     

Comments on Guyana v. Suriname

Guyana v. Suriname is a case where the international tribunalhas an opportunity to deal with the state responsibility issuein a maritime delimitation dispute. This paper examines thejurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over Guyanese submissionthat Suriname was internationally responsible for violatingits obligations under the LOS Convention, the Charter of theUnited Nations and general international law to settle disputesby peaceful means. And the arbitral tribunal made great contributionsto the clarification of the obligations under Articles 74(3)and 83(3) of the LOS Convention to make every effort to enterinto provisional arrangements and not to jeopardize or hamperthe reaching of a final delimitation agreement.     

The Hand Rule and United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Reconsidered

Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in United States v. CarrollTowing Co. (1947) is canonized in the law-and-economics literatureas the first use of cost-benefit analysis for determining negligenceand assigning liability. This article revisits the case in whichthe Hand formula was born and examines whether Judge Hand’sruling in that case would provide correct incentives for efficientlevels of precaution. We argue that the negligence test as usedby Judge Hand is somewhat different from the Hand test as usedby modern law-and-economics theorists. With a game theoreticanalysis of the case, we show that Judge Hand’s negligencetest could in fact produce games with inefficient equilibria,or with liability determinations opposite Judge Hand’s.     

Evaluating the Role of Brown v. Board of Education in School Equalization, Desegregation, and the Income of African Americans

The public profile of the Brown v. Board of Education decisiontends to overshadow the well-established fact that racial disparitiesin school resources in the South began narrowing 20 years beforethe Brown decision and that school desegregation did not beginon a large scale in the Deep South until ten years after theBrown decision. We instead view Brown as a highly visible markerof public policy’s mid-century reversal on matters ofrace. When we examine the labor market outcomes of male workersin 1990, we find that southern-born blacks who would have finishedtheir schooling just before effective desegregation occurredin the South fared poorly compared to southern-born blacks whofollowed behind them in school by just a few years, relativeto northern-born blacks in same age cohorts.     

The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Tecmed v. Mexico

The principle of proportionality has been applied in the caseof Tecmed v. Mexico, an arbitration conducted under the auspicesof the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.Analysis indicates that its application will be expanded further.The principle of proportionality demands more than the non-discriminationtreatment principle and is even regarded as an important principleincluded in the fair and equitable treatment principle. Whilemost of new bilateral investment treaties that China has enteredinto include the fair and equitable treatment principle, theright of examination case by case has been gradually abandonedby China as the host country on the whole and internationallaw is receiving more and more applications, the initiatoryapplication of the principle of proportionality in arbitrationsconcerning international investment and expropriation shouldarouse attention among Chinese scholars and authorities.     

The Spectre of Addis in Contracts of Employment in Canada and the UK

This article examines the legacy of the 1909 House of Lordsdecision in Addis in both Canada and the UK by closely analysinga key case from each jurisdiction: Wallace v United Grain Growersand Johnson v Unisys. It underlines the continuing strong tendencyto treat wrongful dismissal solely as breach of the notice termand considers the remedial consequences of that stance.     

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.     

ENTRY, PRODUCT LINE EXPANSION, AND PREDATION

In the Tourist-Caronte case in Italy, the incumbent, Tourist-Caronte,reacted to entry by entrant Diano by starting to supply a "damagedgood" in the sense theorized by Deneckere and McAfee in 1996.We argue that in principle this strategy can be predatory, butit can also be an innocent response to entry. Specifically,the strategy of damaging the good leads to fiercer competitionin the low segment of the market, which reduces the rents thatthe incumbent earns in the high segment, but may allow the incumbentto steal some of the entrant's rents. If this business stealingeffect in the low segment of the market is sufficiently strong,the incumbent may find it profitable to expand its product lineafter entry, even if it does not have any predatory intent.We discuss the welfare effects of this strategy, and we contrastit with predation.     

Database rights' subsistence: under starter's orders

Legal context. The criteria for database rights' subsistenceset out in the Directive on the Legal Protection of Databasesare largely undefined. Guidance on their interpretation hasbeen provided by the ECJ and its guidance on qualifying investmentactivities was applied by the Court of Appeal in the BHB case. Key points. The article comments upon the guidance on the subsistencecriteria for database rights provided by the Advocate Generaland the ECJ in the BHB and Fixtures Marketing cases and analysesthe Court of Appeal's application of the production-processingdichotomy in the BHB case. It offers thoughts on thorny issuessuch as the avoidance of a double benefit for database developersin copyright and database right, the role of investments intechnology, and the effect of the production-processing dichotomyon the risk of monopolies over facts. Practical significance. Database developers seeking databaserights' protection should keep the subsistence criteria in mindwhen devising their processing arrangements, designing theirdatabases, and recording their investment activities associatedwith database development.     

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music AustraliaPty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)¹is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharingcases from various jurisdictions that has found the softwaredistributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.² Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US SupremeCourt case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd ³ (‘Grokster’)that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providersbut also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine todeal with reprehensible conduct of infringers. While both cases involved similar technology and shared a numberof similarities on the facts and legal principles⁴, a closerexamination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringementin P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster. The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technologyprovider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovationdue to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the wideningof the design obligation.     

The Spanish Constitutional Tribunal's Decision in Guatemalan Generals: Unconditional Universality is Back

On 26 September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal reversedthe decisions of the Audiencia Nacional and the High Court (TribunalSupremo) in the case of the Guatemalan Generals. According tothe two judicial bodies, the exercise of universal jurisdictionover international crimes required a link between the crimeor the victims or the offender and Spain, such as the presenceof the offender on Spanish territory or the Spanish nationalityof the victims. The Constitutional Tribunal held, instead, thatthese requirements are contrary to the principle pro actione,i.e. they result in an unjustified restriction of the constitutionalright to effective judicial protection. The Tribunal also clarifiedthat universal jurisdiction, whose aim is fighting impunity,does not require any link other than the universal characterof the values protected by the provisions criminalizing themost serious violations of international law. The presence ofthe accused in Spain is merely a condition for trial, not adistinct ground of jurisdiction; in other words, the accusedmust be in Spain for the trial to begin, but jurisdiction maybe exercised even in his absence, for example for the issuanceof a request for extradition. The only condition to which theexercise of universal jurisdiction is subject is that the stateof the locus commissi delicti is not already investigating andprosecuting the case effectively.     

Towards the End and Beyond: The "Almost" Referral of Bagaragaza in Light of the Completion Strategy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

The Bagaragaza case was the first at the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda in which the referral of an accused to anational jurisdiction was discussed. Such a referral may bemade at the discretion of a Trial Chamber designated by thePresident, if the Chamber satisfied itself that the Accusedwill have a fair trial and that the death penalty will not beimposed or carried out. The referral can be made to three differentStates: the one where the accused was arrested, the one werethe crimes were committed and the one which has jurisdictionand is willing and adequately prepared to hear the case. Inthe Bagaragaza case, the request for referral was dismissed,because the Referral State in question, the Kingdom of Norway,has no provision for genocide in its penal law. This paper discussesthe referral mechanism and the role it plays in the Tribunal'sambitious completion strategy. An analysis of the Bagaragazacase will show how this mechanism has actually been applied,concluding that the Tribunal rightly resisted the pressure toabide by the completion strategy and chose substance over form.After the Tribunal's closure, two important questions will facethe international community: (a) Where will convicted and acquittedpersons be relocated? (b) Has international criminal justicebeen promoted at the expense of long-term peace and stability?     

The EOS Engineering Corporation Case and the Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una et Eadem Causa Principle in China

Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una et Eadem Causa is a general principleof civil procedure applied domestically in China. Foreign judgmentsare not regarded as res judicata unless an applicable internationaltreaty requires otherwise. The ruling in the EOS case by theSupreme People's Court in 2003 clarified to some extent theelements that should be considered when applying this principle.     

Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature

This paper uses parallels between Sophocles’ Theban Playsand the House of Lords decision in Dudley and Stephens, to questionthe decision in the Erdemovi case before the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia. One should distinguish betweencausal, moral and criminal responsibility. If a man who commitsa crime, not by the action of his free will, is to be foundguilty, we are essentially equating causal responsibility withcriminal guilt. This logic clearly does not correspond withthat of the rest of international criminal law. The storiesof Erdemovi, Oedipus, Dudley and Stephens are tragedies. Eachof the victims/perpetrators felt an overwhelming sense of remorse.Whether they should be considered morally guilty of murder isa matter of individual conscience. The International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia majority erred in using anabsolute moral position in Erdemovi. The majority's moral condemnationof the killing of innocents was confused with the question ofwhether Erdemovi should have been criminally punished. The contentof the majority opinion is largely of an irreproachably moralisticnature, though shrouded and mystified by the discussion of precedent.More generally, the decision to try Erdemovi at the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was itself self-defeating.Erdemovi should never have stood trial at The Hague. The internationalcommunity should not aid in self-flagellation. While his actionscannot be approved of, they should not be punished internationally.He could have been helped, supported and reintegrated with fargreater benefit to all.         ‘Heroesare hard to find in an atmosphere of total terror.’¹     

State Immunity for Torture

The House of Lords’ ruling in Jones v Ministry of InteriorAl-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)and others sets an important precedent in the field of internationalcivil claims for torture. It was also the first to address indetail the ratio of the seminal judgment in Pinochet No. 3,a ruling that has given rise to much speculation as to the relationshipbetween State immunity, jus cogens norms and human rights. Thisarticle explores the significance of the Jones case, and, inthe light of that ruling, comments more generally upon the widerissue of the extent to which State immunity acts as a barrierto international legal actions for torture brought in domesticcourts in both the civil and criminal spheres.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

The expenses of trustees, the right of indemnity and the role of taxation: making the equation work

The purpose of this article is to examine a Trustee's indemnityin respect of its expenses and liabilities incurred in connectionwith the Trust and how beneficiaries are able to have them scrutinized.This article considers, in particular, specific assessment proceduresthat have evolved in England, Jersey and Guernsey and, further,difficulties that have arisen in ensuring that any assessmentprocedure is consistent with the Trustee's right of indemnity.In Jersey, all these issues came to the fore in the case ofRe Internine Trust [2007] JCA 164 that is examined in particulardetail.     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

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.     

Civilized Squatting

This article seeks to trace the origins of the requirement thata squatter must have an intention to possess (animus possidendi)in order to establish title by adverse possession. The requirementhas been confirmed by the House of Lords in the recent caseof Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419. Its origins canreadily be traced back to the decision of the Court of Appealin Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19, but thereis little evidence of any need for intention before that case,and no convincing authority is cited for it. Possible explanationsfor the source of this requirement are considered by the article(for instance cases on re-entry by landlords and the so-called‘found chattel’ cases), but these are ultimatelyrejected. The article goes on to suggest that the reason forthis is that the intention requirement was ‘imported’into English law from German Pandectist writers of the nineteenthcentury. It suggests that Littledale was the case in which thishappened. It seeks to support this hypothesis by reference tobiographical details of Lindley MR, who gave the leading judgmentin Littledale, and who not only trained in part in Germany butalso took an active interest in German scholarship of the time.A brief survey of the relevant German sources is undertaken,focusing primarily on the work of Savigny, but also consideringthe rival theory of Jhering. Finally, it tracks the developmentand refinement of the content of animus possidendi, first by19th century legal scholars and then by 20th century judges,to make it ‘fit’ with English property law. It seeksto address the question of whether the animus possidendi requirementis a free-standing element (the ‘strong’ will theory),or whether it is simply implied from the acts of the squatter(the ‘weak’ will theory), and suggests a solutionby reference to the German sources and later English cases.Finally, it considers how the House of Lords decision in Pyereflects the logical culmination of the acceptance of this ‘legaltransplant’ into the common law.