On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its reparations judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) case. This followed from its December 19, 2005 merits judgment, which found that Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated international law vis-à-vis each other and were obliged to make reparations to each other. The ICJ ultimately held that, over five annual instalments of US$65 million from September 1, 2022 until September 1, 2026, Uganda was to pay the DRC a total of US$325 million for damage to persons, damage to property, and damage related to natural resources.
{"title":"Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda) (Reparations Judgment) (I.C.J.)","authors":"M. J. Ventura","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.21","url":null,"abstract":"On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its reparations judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) case. This followed from its December 19, 2005 merits judgment, which found that Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated international law vis-à-vis each other and were obliged to make reparations to each other. The ICJ ultimately held that, over five annual instalments of US$65 million from September 1, 2022 until September 1, 2026, Uganda was to pay the DRC a total of US$325 million for damage to persons, damage to property, and damage related to natural resources.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128042198","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}
On December 21, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated interim measures in the case Armenia v. Azerbaijan (no. 4). The request for interim measures brought by the Government of Armenia alleged that Azerbaijan was blocking Armenians' access to the Lachin Corridor which, according to a press release from the Court, is used by Armenian residents in Nagoro Karbakh to access vita services, including medical care. In its decision to indicate provisional measures, the Court noted that Azerbaijan was obligated under Article 6 of the Trilateral Statement signed November 9, 2020, to “guarantee the security of persons, vehicles and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.” The Court also reiterated Azerbaijan's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court ordered Azerbaijan to take measures to ensure that seriously ill persons in need of medical treatment were granted safe passage through the Corridor.
{"title":"Briefly Noted","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.19","url":null,"abstract":"On December 21, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated interim measures in the case Armenia v. Azerbaijan (no. 4). The request for interim measures brought by the Government of Armenia alleged that Azerbaijan was blocking Armenians' access to the Lachin Corridor which, according to a press release from the Court, is used by Armenian residents in Nagoro Karbakh to access vita services, including medical care. In its decision to indicate provisional measures, the Court noted that Azerbaijan was obligated under Article 6 of the Trilateral Statement signed November 9, 2020, to “guarantee the security of persons, vehicles and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.” The Court also reiterated Azerbaijan's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court ordered Azerbaijan to take measures to ensure that seriously ill persons in need of medical treatment were granted safe passage through the Corridor.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135984155","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}
The Artemis Accords (the Accords) reproduced below were signed on September 13, 2020, by the administrator of the U.S. space agency, NASA, and seven other space agencies. The intervening years since then have underscored their importance: they may give a boost to the development of the legal regime of outer space exploration and use as defined by the existing treaty framework, while supporting the U.S. interpretation of the non-appropriation principle, or they may upset the existing legal regime of Outer Space, leading to its fragmentation by abandoning multilateralism. This introductory note highlights those aspects of the Accords that may affect the edifice of the international law relating to Outer Space, even if the Accords themselves are not legally binding, as explained briefly below.
{"title":"The Artemis Accords","authors":"Balázs Bartóki-Gönczy, Boldizsár Nagy","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.17","url":null,"abstract":"The Artemis Accords (the Accords) reproduced below were signed on September 13, 2020, by the administrator of the U.S. space agency, NASA, and seven other space agencies. The intervening years since then have underscored their importance: they may give a boost to the development of the legal regime of outer space exploration and use as defined by the existing treaty framework, while supporting the U.S. interpretation of the non-appropriation principle, or they may upset the existing legal regime of Outer Space, leading to its fragmentation by abandoning multilateralism. This introductory note highlights those aspects of the Accords that may affect the edifice of the international law relating to Outer Space, even if the Accords themselves are not legally binding, as explained briefly below.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134198318","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}
The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the Framework) was adopted at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on December 19, 2022. Despite the efforts made under the CBD, biodiversity loss has continued at an alarming rate, and the targets set under the Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 were not fully achieved. In 2018, the CBD Parties therefore adopted a decision to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to guide international efforts towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity over the next decade. The Framework, the adoption of which was delayed by two years by the COVID-19 pandemic, succeeds and replaces the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its accompanying Aichi Targets. The Framework includes four overarching goals and twenty-three accompanying targets to be achieved by 2030, together with four long-term goals to achieve the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.
{"title":"The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework","authors":"T. Stephens","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.16","url":null,"abstract":"The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the Framework) was adopted at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on December 19, 2022. Despite the efforts made under the CBD, biodiversity loss has continued at an alarming rate, and the targets set under the Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 were not fully achieved. In 2018, the CBD Parties therefore adopted a decision to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to guide international efforts towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity over the next decade. The Framework, the adoption of which was delayed by two years by the COVID-19 pandemic, succeeds and replaces the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its accompanying Aichi Targets. The Framework includes four overarching goals and twenty-three accompanying targets to be achieved by 2030, together with four long-term goals to achieve the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121199857","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}
The European Union's (EU) attempts to deal with the ongoing rule of law crisis in numerous member states resulted in the adoption of the so-called “rule of law conditionality” mechanism. Judicial challenges to the new tool before the Court of Justice resulted in two rulings issued in February 2022 by the full court and livestreamed for the first time in the Court's history. The judgements might be considered the most important “rule of law rulings” in the Court's case-law, since they put the rule of law at the forefront of the European Union's identity.
{"title":"Case C-156/21, Hung. v. Eur. Parl. & Council and Case C-157/21, Pol. v. Eur. Parl. & Council (C.J.E.U.)","authors":"Barbara Grabowska-Moroz","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.10","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's (EU) attempts to deal with the ongoing rule of law crisis in numerous member states resulted in the adoption of the so-called “rule of law conditionality” mechanism. Judicial challenges to the new tool before the Court of Justice resulted in two rulings issued in February 2022 by the full court and livestreamed for the first time in the Court's history. The judgements might be considered the most important “rule of law rulings” in the Court's case-law, since they put the rule of law at the forefront of the European Union's identity.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127354818","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}
Over the years, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian legal practice has responded to foreign and international economic sanctions reactively. As a rule, Russia has not initiated economic sanctions as an assertive measure against other countries, will apply sanctions authorized by an international organization of which it is a member and for which sanctions it has voted, and retaliates almost reflexively against economic sanctions imposed by others specifically against Russia, seemingly with little regard for the self-imposed consequences of its actions. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation authorizes (Article 1194), as did its predecessor the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, the introduction of retaliatory measures (retorsion) in response to similar measures against Russian citizens and juridical persons in other states.
{"title":"Russian Economic Sanctions","authors":"W. Butler","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"Over the years, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian legal practice has responded to foreign and international economic sanctions reactively. As a rule, Russia has not initiated economic sanctions as an assertive measure against other countries, will apply sanctions authorized by an international organization of which it is a member and for which sanctions it has voted, and retaliates almost reflexively against economic sanctions imposed by others specifically against Russia, seemingly with little regard for the self-imposed consequences of its actions. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation authorizes (Article 1194), as did its predecessor the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, the introduction of retaliatory measures (retorsion) in response to similar measures against Russian citizens and juridical persons in other states.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124708800","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：