Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501024
Jacob Katz Cogan
‘Mechanisms’ abound in today’s United Nations. Yet ‘mechanism’s’ ubiquity represents more than the popularity of a word. Its use is broader, employed today not only as a name but also as a category. The term has come to be applied broadly to characterize organizational devices of all types, regardless of the names given to them, that are established and designed to achieve specified goals or to carry out distinct tasks. The proliferation of mechanisms at the United Nations and the trajectory in the development of their functions provide some insight into changes in the way the organization approaches the implementation of its policies.
{"title":"‘Mechanisms’ at the United Nations","authors":"Jacob Katz Cogan","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501024","url":null,"abstract":"‘Mechanisms’ abound in today’s United Nations. Yet ‘mechanism’s’ ubiquity represents more than the popularity of a word. Its use is broader, employed today not only as a name but also as a category. The term has come to be applied broadly to characterize organizational devices of all types, regardless of the names given to them, that are established and designed to achieve specified goals or to carry out distinct tasks. The proliferation of mechanisms at the United Nations and the trajectory in the development of their functions provide some insight into changes in the way the organization approaches the implementation of its policies.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122908318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501019
Yann Prisner-Levyne
Wildlife crime and more precisely the illicit trade of wildlife products is one of the fastest growing international crimes in connection with narcotics trafficking, human trafficking and the small arms trade. Conducted mostly by transnational crime syndicates, wildlife crime is also a source of funding for terrorist groups and armed militias in conflict ridden states contributing to the erosion of the rule of law and environmental degradation which has been expressly acknowledged by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Yet, there is no dedicated international law instrument to tackle wildlife crime. Instead, the international community relies on international cooperation and a patchwork of international instruments none of which were originally designed to deal specifically with wildlife crime. Predictably, the current legal framework does not seem to contribute that much to the prevention and eradication of wildlife crime as wildlife populations worldwide keep plummeting. If at the legal level, the adoption of an international agreement to prevent, supress and punish wildlife crime could be a step in the right direction, maybe it is humanity’s relationship with nature which needs to be reassessed especially in the light of the probable zoonotic origin of COVID-19.
{"title":"Wildlife Crime: Story of an International Law Lacuna","authors":"Yann Prisner-Levyne","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501019","url":null,"abstract":"Wildlife crime and more precisely the illicit trade of wildlife products is one of the fastest growing international crimes in connection with narcotics trafficking, human trafficking and the small arms trade. Conducted mostly by transnational crime syndicates, wildlife crime is also a source of funding for terrorist groups and armed militias in conflict ridden states contributing to the erosion of the rule of law and environmental degradation which has been expressly acknowledged by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Yet, there is no dedicated international law instrument to tackle wildlife crime. Instead, the international community relies on international cooperation and a patchwork of international instruments none of which were originally designed to deal specifically with wildlife crime. Predictably, the current legal framework does not seem to contribute that much to the prevention and eradication of wildlife crime as wildlife populations worldwide keep plummeting. If at the legal level, the adoption of an international agreement to prevent, supress and punish wildlife crime could be a step in the right direction, maybe it is humanity’s relationship with nature which needs to be reassessed especially in the light of the probable zoonotic origin of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115193775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501022
T. Soave
The field of humanitarian assistance is undergoing a computational revolution, but international lawyers are slow to realize it. Thanks to the deployment of data analytics, humanitarian agencies are increasingly able to forecast where and when a crisis will strike, whom it will affect, and what needs it will create. These developments enable new and promising models of anticipatory response, but also raise concerns in terms of risk management and irresponsible experimentation. Yet, so far, international lawyers have been strikingly silent about the normative implications of digital humanitarianism. Seeking to fill the gap, this article assesses the impact of data- driven humanitarian response on the practice of international law, and sets out some broad parameters for dialogue and mutual engagement between the two fields of expertise. That engagement requires, first, an understanding of the normative character of humanitarian data practices. Based on that understanding, international lawyers can contribute to the regulation of digital humanitarian networks and help steer the system towards greater accountability.
{"title":"Digital Humanitarians and International Lawyers: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?","authors":"T. Soave","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501022","url":null,"abstract":"The field of humanitarian assistance is undergoing a computational revolution, but international lawyers are slow to realize it. Thanks to the deployment of data analytics, humanitarian agencies are increasingly able to forecast where and when a crisis will strike, whom it will affect, and what needs it will create. These developments enable new and promising models of anticipatory response, but also raise concerns in terms of risk management and irresponsible experimentation. Yet, so far, international lawyers have been strikingly silent about the normative implications of digital humanitarianism. Seeking to fill the gap, this article assesses the impact of data- driven humanitarian response on the practice of international law, and sets out some broad parameters for dialogue and mutual engagement between the two fields of expertise. That engagement requires, first, an understanding of the normative character of humanitarian data practices. Based on that understanding, international lawyers can contribute to the regulation of digital humanitarian networks and help steer the system towards greater accountability.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116529843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501020
R. Garciandía, P. Webb
In 1997, the Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations General Assembly decided to convene the third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa. All the major United Nations treaties protecting individuals from racial discrimination had been adopted prior to 1997 and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance had been created in 1993. But the Durban Conference, symbolically held in post- apartheid South Africa, generated new momentum for these political and legal commitments against racial discrimination. This chapter presents an overview of the United Nations mechanisms and initiatives tackling racial discrimination and the thematic developments since 1997. In light of contemporary challenges posed by the use of technology and pandemics, and reflecting on the intersectional nature of discrimination, it concludes with reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations response to racial discrimination. The chapter identifies areas for further attention, including racial profiling in law enforcement and border security, racism in sport, and the deepening inequalities caused by global emergencies.
{"title":"The UN’s Work on Racial Discrimination: Achievements and Challenges","authors":"R. Garciandía, P. Webb","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501020","url":null,"abstract":"In 1997, the Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations General Assembly decided to convene the third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa. All the major United Nations treaties protecting individuals from racial discrimination had been adopted prior to 1997 and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance had been created in 1993. But the Durban Conference, symbolically held in post- apartheid South Africa, generated new momentum for these political and legal commitments against racial discrimination. This chapter presents an overview of the United Nations mechanisms and initiatives tackling racial discrimination and the thematic developments since 1997. In light of contemporary challenges posed by the use of technology and pandemics, and reflecting on the intersectional nature of discrimination, it concludes with reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations response to racial discrimination. The chapter identifies areas for further attention, including racial profiling in law enforcement and border security, racism in sport, and the deepening inequalities caused by global emergencies.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133073965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501017
E. Ivanova
This article addresses the issue of intervention in inter-State arbitration, including arbitration under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex vii and tackles the question whether intervention in arbitral proceedings is only possible where the parties in dispute have expressly consented to it. It is maintained in this paper that international arbitration is not static and has undergone long evolution which has implications for the notions of party autonomy and confidentiality of proceedings. Nowadays inter-State arbitration is increasingly influenced by the practice of the ICJ and other international courts and tribunals engaged in State-to-State dispute resolution especially in the field of international procedural law. The article demonstrates that intervention in inter-State arbitrations is not as unthinkable as it was some decades ago. It does so by reference to the history of intervention in international arbitration and the practice of States in the field of intervention in international judicial and arbitral proceedings. While examining the function and purposes of the procedure of intervention in inter-State litigation and the forms of intervention known to it, the article assesses what the nature of the competence to permit intervention is. In this regard, it also examines the operation of the principle of consensual jurisdiction with a view to establishing whether intervention is subject to the consent of the parties in dispute. Finally, by way of comparison with other known forms of participation of non-litigants in the proceedings, it stresses the special function of the intervention procedure so as to justify the permissibility of intervention in inter-State arbitration.
{"title":"Intervention in Inter-State Arbitration, including the Case of UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitration","authors":"E. Ivanova","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501017","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of intervention in inter-State arbitration, including arbitration under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex vii and tackles the question whether intervention in arbitral proceedings is only possible where the parties in dispute have expressly consented to it. It is maintained in this paper that international arbitration is not static and has undergone long evolution which has implications for the notions of party autonomy and confidentiality of proceedings. Nowadays inter-State arbitration is increasingly influenced by the practice of the ICJ and other international courts and tribunals engaged in State-to-State dispute resolution especially in the field of international procedural law. The article demonstrates that intervention in inter-State arbitrations is not as unthinkable as it was some decades ago. It does so by reference to the history of intervention in international arbitration and the practice of States in the field of intervention in international judicial and arbitral proceedings. While examining the function and purposes of the procedure of intervention in inter-State litigation and the forms of intervention known to it, the article assesses what the nature of the competence to permit intervention is. In this regard, it also examines the operation of the principle of consensual jurisdiction with a view to establishing whether intervention is subject to the consent of the parties in dispute. Finally, by way of comparison with other known forms of participation of non-litigants in the proceedings, it stresses the special function of the intervention procedure so as to justify the permissibility of intervention in inter-State arbitration.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"604 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114962551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501016
Chie Sato
This paper will consider whether the ‘International Legally Binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (BBNJ agreement) could provide the basis for an integrated framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in the area beyond national jurisdiction, and if in doing so, it could in turn give any impetus to the obligation of States to protect the marine environment stipulated in Article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To answer this question, Section 2 will briefly explain the gaps in two relevant international treaties for conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Section 3 will clarify the binding character of the BBNJ agreement in comparison to the existing relevant international agreements, such as the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement and the Part xi Agreement. Section 4 will analyse provisions in area-based management tools and the environment impact assessment stipulated in the BBNJ draft text, to assess their role as an important basis for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. Based on these analyses of the BBNJ draft text, Section 5 will then turn to consider the necessary elements that stand to play potentially significant roles as legally-binding tools for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of ABNJ. Three such elements are to be identified, the first being the binding effect of the due diligence obligation imposed by the BBNJ agreement, which could serve as a global tool for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. The second element is the means to ensure effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement, wherein the institutional framework would play a decisive role. The third element is the characteristics of the due diligence obligation referred to in the first point. As a further consideration, Section 6 will also specifically examine the due diligence obligation for the protection of marine biological diversity of ABNJ.
{"title":"The Necessity of a Global Legal Framework for Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction","authors":"Chie Sato","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501016","url":null,"abstract":"This paper will consider whether the ‘International Legally Binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (BBNJ agreement) could provide the basis for an integrated framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in the area beyond national jurisdiction, and if in doing so, it could in turn give any impetus to the obligation of States to protect the marine environment stipulated in Article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To answer this question, Section 2 will briefly explain the gaps in two relevant international treaties for conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Section 3 will clarify the binding character of the BBNJ agreement in comparison to the existing relevant international agreements, such as the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement and the Part xi Agreement. Section 4 will analyse provisions in area-based management tools and the environment impact assessment stipulated in the BBNJ draft text, to assess their role as an important basis for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. Based on these analyses of the BBNJ draft text, Section 5 will then turn to consider the necessary elements that stand to play potentially significant roles as legally-binding tools for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of ABNJ. Three such elements are to be identified, the first being the binding effect of the due diligence obligation imposed by the BBNJ agreement, which could serve as a global tool for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. The second element is the means to ensure effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement, wherein the institutional framework would play a decisive role. The third element is the characteristics of the due diligence obligation referred to in the first point. As a further consideration, Section 6 will also specifically examine the due diligence obligation for the protection of marine biological diversity of ABNJ.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122079552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501023
Sara Palacios-Arapiles
This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.
{"title":"The Interpretation of Slavery before the International Criminal Court: Reconciling Legal Borders?","authors":"Sara Palacios-Arapiles","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501023","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123462864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-23DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501025
Paulina Starski, F. Arndt
Trying to reconcile the commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law with the ongoing brutal Russian invasion into Ukraine since 24 February 2022, this contribution will attempt to analyse the impact of the various claims put forward by President Vladimir Putin as to the ‘legality’ of the Russian aggression on the ius contra bellum regime as enshrined in the UN Charter. To this end, the authors will, first, sketch the distorted pseudohistorical narrative purported by Putin which gives his ‘legality claims’ context. Second, this contribution will take Putin’s ‘legality claims’ deliberately at face value in order to subject them to a legal assessment. In doing so, the authors attempt to demonstrate that the plentiful doctrinal controversies still permeating the discourse on the ius contra bellum regime have little bearing on the (in)validity of the proposed justifications. Third, the authors will address what is at stake for the modern international order based on the UN Charter in face of the blatantly illegal use of force on the part of Russia against Ukraine.
{"title":"The Russian Aggression against Ukraine – Putin and His ‘Legality Claims’","authors":"Paulina Starski, F. Arndt","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501025","url":null,"abstract":"Trying to reconcile the commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law with the ongoing brutal Russian invasion into Ukraine since 24 February 2022, this contribution will attempt to analyse the impact of the various claims put forward by President Vladimir Putin as to the ‘legality’ of the Russian aggression on the ius contra bellum regime as enshrined in the UN Charter. To this end, the authors will, first, sketch the distorted pseudohistorical narrative purported by Putin which gives his ‘legality claims’ context. Second, this contribution will take Putin’s ‘legality claims’ deliberately at face value in order to subject them to a legal assessment. In doing so, the authors attempt to demonstrate that the plentiful doctrinal controversies still permeating the discourse on the ius contra bellum regime have little bearing on the (in)validity of the proposed justifications. Third, the authors will address what is at stake for the modern international order based on the UN Charter in face of the blatantly illegal use of force on the part of Russia against Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121261836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501004
José-Miguel Bello y Villarino
Although first noted discussions at the United Nations (UN) level about corruption are reaching their 50th anniversary, the core of the UN activity against corruption has taken place in the last quarter of a century. The 2021 special debate at the UN General Assembly was an opportunity for the institution to pause and reflect about its role over this period in the international fight against corruption. It also presented a (partially missed) opportunity for the UN to renew its commitment and reconsider its approach for the next 25 years. This article provides first an overview of the UN activity against corruption, which relies on two main pillars. On the one hand, the well-known United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)1 in force since 2005, which has received remarkable academic attention and is an example of success in terms of ratifications. On the other hand, the insertion in Sustainable Development Goal 16 of an anticorruption objective (16.5) and its related indicators, which is not as widely acknowledged by anticorruption activists and scholars but serves as a recognition of the importance of tackling corruption in the development context. The article offers a historical contextualisation of both initiatives, analyses this dual approach and explores the impact of these initiatives in the global and domestic contexts. Based on previous research from the author, it highlights their joint value as a true global statement against corruption and an authoritative recognition of its damaging effects and their importance for peace, security, development, human rights and human wellbeing. The article presents, nevertheless, a critical analysis showing their shortcomings and the lack of a real effect of these instruments in overcoming or at least reducing corruption and kleptocracy at the international level. It proposes three different avenues within the UN mandate and fields of action that could guide newer initiatives. First, it explores the possibility of individual (non-criminal) ‘smart’ sanctions, modelled on the counter-terrorism regime driven by national governments, but assisted by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Second, the article considers how the economic and trade dimension of the UN, especially at the regional economic commissions level, could be reinvigorated with a mandate to tackle corruption through economic instruments. Third, it analyses how an optional protocol to the UNCAC could give more ‘teeth’ to the Convention. The general conclusion is that the UN, within its existing powers, has significant potential to take anticorruption initiatives a step further as the current ones have almost exhausted their shelf life.
{"title":"Middle Point, End of the Road or Just the Beginning? Anticorruption Efforts, Failures and Promises at the United Nations","authors":"José-Miguel Bello y Villarino","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although first noted discussions at the United Nations (UN) level about corruption are reaching their 50th anniversary, the core of the UN activity against corruption has taken place in the last quarter of a century. The 2021 special debate at the UN General Assembly was an opportunity for the institution to pause and reflect about its role over this period in the international fight against corruption. It also presented a (partially missed) opportunity for the UN to renew its commitment and reconsider its approach for the next 25 years. This article provides first an overview of the UN activity against corruption, which relies on two main pillars. On the one hand, the well-known United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)1 in force since 2005, which has received remarkable academic attention and is an example of success in terms of ratifications. On the other hand, the insertion in Sustainable Development Goal 16 of an anticorruption objective (16.5) and its related indicators, which is not as widely acknowledged by anticorruption activists and scholars but serves as a recognition of the importance of tackling corruption in the development context.\u0000 The article offers a historical contextualisation of both initiatives, analyses this dual approach and explores the impact of these initiatives in the global and domestic contexts. Based on previous research from the author, it highlights their joint value as a true global statement against corruption and an authoritative recognition of its damaging effects and their importance for peace, security, development, human rights and human wellbeing. The article presents, nevertheless, a critical analysis showing their shortcomings and the lack of a real effect of these instruments in overcoming or at least reducing corruption and kleptocracy at the international level. It proposes three different avenues within the UN mandate and fields of action that could guide newer initiatives. First, it explores the possibility of individual (non-criminal) ‘smart’ sanctions, modelled on the counter-terrorism regime driven by national governments, but assisted by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Second, the article considers how the economic and trade dimension of the UN, especially at the regional economic commissions level, could be reinvigorated with a mandate to tackle corruption through economic instruments. Third, it analyses how an optional protocol to the UNCAC could give more ‘teeth’ to the Convention. The general conclusion is that the UN, within its existing powers, has significant potential to take anticorruption initiatives a step further as the current ones have almost exhausted their shelf life.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116888023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501014
Ramona Vijeyarasa
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is the most prominent, although not flawless, women’s rights treaty. Yet, the slow, haltered or even backward steps we have witnessed with regard to gender equality beg the question, what role can CEDAW play in delivering a more transformative set of gender-responsive laws at the domestic level? This article is centred on the two-fold goal of stronger domestication of women’s rights norms and the provision of more systematic standards to enhance treaty body reporting. With these goals in mind, this article offers the results of a structured analysis of the CEDAW Committee’s 38 General Recommendations issued between 1986 and 2020, in order to establish a roadmap for the enactment of gender-responsive domestic laws and policies grounded in women’s rights norms. Seven core demands or ‘criteria’ emerge and serve to guide States Parties towards achieving gender-responsive legal and policy reform. At a key juncture in CEDAW’s history and at a moment when, in the eyes of some, international human rights treaties may prove inadequate to manage today’s threats to fundamental human rights, these seven priorities not only provide a viable, scalable and evidence-based roadmap to inform the enactment of gender-responsive domestic laws but they also create a basis for enhanced reporting to and compliance with CEDAW.
{"title":"Three Decades of CEDAW Committee General Recommendations","authors":"Ramona Vijeyarasa","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is the most prominent, although not flawless, women’s rights treaty. Yet, the slow, haltered or even backward steps we have witnessed with regard to gender equality beg the question, what role can CEDAW play in delivering a more transformative set of gender-responsive laws at the domestic level? This article is centred on the two-fold goal of stronger domestication of women’s rights norms and the provision of more systematic standards to enhance treaty body reporting. With these goals in mind, this article offers the results of a structured analysis of the CEDAW Committee’s 38 General Recommendations issued between 1986 and 2020, in order to establish a roadmap for the enactment of gender-responsive domestic laws and policies grounded in women’s rights norms. Seven core demands or ‘criteria’ emerge and serve to guide States Parties towards achieving gender-responsive legal and policy reform. At a key juncture in CEDAW’s history and at a moment when, in the eyes of some, international human rights treaties may prove inadequate to manage today’s threats to fundamental human rights, these seven priorities not only provide a viable, scalable and evidence-based roadmap to inform the enactment of gender-responsive domestic laws but they also create a basis for enhanced reporting to and compliance with CEDAW.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117120428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：