Climate change is an urgent global challenge, and human rights-based climate justice litigation is increasingly used in efforts to force executives and legislators to take action to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change. These effects are already felt around the world—for example, in the form of droughts, rising sea levels, and more frequent extreme weather events. Among the most important pollutants that accelerate climate change is CO2. As a highly industrialised nation, Germany contributes about 2 percent of global CO2 emissions, although it only is home to around 1 percent of the Earth's population. In recent years, German companies have faced litigation over their contributions to human-made climate change. The decision by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) that is presented here is to be seen in the context of the current trend of human rights-based climate justice litigation in domestic and international courts. It can be considered the German counterpart to the landmark Urgenda case that was decided by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019.
{"title":"Climate Justice for Future Generations (Order of the First Senate) (BVerfG)","authors":"S. Kirchner","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.49","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change is an urgent global challenge, and human rights-based climate justice litigation is increasingly used in efforts to force executives and legislators to take action to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change. These effects are already felt around the world—for example, in the form of droughts, rising sea levels, and more frequent extreme weather events. Among the most important pollutants that accelerate climate change is CO2. As a highly industrialised nation, Germany contributes about 2 percent of global CO2 emissions, although it only is home to around 1 percent of the Earth's population. In recent years, German companies have faced litigation over their contributions to human-made climate change. The decision by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) that is presented here is to be seen in the context of the current trend of human rights-based climate justice litigation in domestic and international courts. It can be considered the German counterpart to the landmark Urgenda case that was decided by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123272175","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 June 17, 2022, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference issued a “Draft Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement,” addressing the requirements established in Articles 31 and 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Decision provides several clarifications regarding the process by which member countries may “authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent” without the consent of the right holder for the purposes of “production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines.” The decision provides guidance to countries considering the use of legal mechanisms, particularly compulsory licenses, to transfer vaccine technology with the goal of increasing the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine available to underserved populations, especially in lower-income countries.
{"title":"Ministerial Decision on the Trips Agreement (WTO)","authors":"Ana Santos Rutschman","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.47","url":null,"abstract":"On June 17, 2022, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference issued a “Draft Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement,” addressing the requirements established in Articles 31 and 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Decision provides several clarifications regarding the process by which member countries may “authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent” without the consent of the right holder for the purposes of “production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines.” The decision provides guidance to countries considering the use of legal mechanisms, particularly compulsory licenses, to transfer vaccine technology with the goal of increasing the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine available to underserved populations, especially in lower-income countries.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132468745","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 March 24, 2020, Benin notified the African Union Commission that it was withdrawing from the optional aspect of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (Court) that entitled non-governmental organizations and individuals to bring cases directly to the Court. Benin withdrew due to perceived interference by the Court in a domestic commercial transaction and numerous decisions against Benin involving political opposition, with the state noting “serious incongruities.” Benin also indicated its intention to attempt to reform the Court at the next African Union Summit.
{"title":"Hossou v. Benin (Judgment on Jurisdiction) (Afr. Ct. H.P.R.)","authors":"Scott W. Lyons","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.52","url":null,"abstract":"On March 24, 2020, Benin notified the African Union Commission that it was withdrawing from the optional aspect of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (Court) that entitled non-governmental organizations and individuals to bring cases directly to the Court. Benin withdrew due to perceived interference by the Court in a domestic commercial transaction and numerous decisions against Benin involving political opposition, with the state noting “serious incongruities.” Benin also indicated its intention to attempt to reform the Court at the next African Union Summit.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115048270","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}
{"title":"Foreword to the 60th Anniversary Volume","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.61","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134261892","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}
Resolution 2629 (April 29, 2022) – The Security Council reaffirmed its commitment to free and fair elections in Libya and recalled the timeline for achieving this as set out in the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum roadmap. It decided to extend until July 31, 2022, the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and requested the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Strategic Review of UNSMIL. The Council also called upon “all parties to refrain from any actions that could undermine the political process” or the ceasefire in Libya.
{"title":"United Nations Security Council Resolutions","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.60","url":null,"abstract":"Resolution 2629 (April 29, 2022) – The Security Council reaffirmed its commitment to free and fair elections in Libya and recalled the timeline for achieving this as set out in the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum roadmap. It decided to extend until July 31, 2022, the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and requested the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Strategic Review of UNSMIL. The Council also called upon “all parties to refrain from any actions that could undermine the political process” or the ceasefire in Libya.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114956165","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 October 6, 2021, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down Opinion 1/19 on the conclusion of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention). Based on a request by the European Parliament, the Opinion was rendered under Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which enables the Court to rule on the compatibility with EU law of international agreements envisaged, but not yet concluded, by the Union. The Opinion is about, on the one hand, the legal basis under the EU Treaties and, on the other hand, the procedure pursuant to which the EU and its member states may conclude the Convention.
{"title":"Opinion 1/19 on the Conclusion of the Istanbul Convention (C.J.E.U.)","authors":"P. Koutrakos","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.34","url":null,"abstract":"On October 6, 2021, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down Opinion 1/19 on the conclusion of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention). Based on a request by the European Parliament, the Opinion was rendered under Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which enables the Court to rule on the compatibility with EU law of international agreements envisaged, but not yet concluded, by the Union. The Opinion is about, on the one hand, the legal basis under the EU Treaties and, on the other hand, the procedure pursuant to which the EU and its member states may conclude the Convention.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"139 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121618476","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}
During the winters of 1897 and 1898, from the window of his Parisian hotel, Camille Pisarro painted one of his first urban scenes, Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain (the Painting). The Painting marks a significant deviation from Pissarro's prior works, which primarily consisted of au plein air country landscapes. In addition to the Painting's art historical significance, it has now become one of Pissarro's most infamous paintings. Currently sitting in the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (TBC) in Madrid, this artwork has been the subject of a decades-long court battle over its ownership. After the Nazis assumed control of Germany, the original owner forcibly surrendered the Painting in order to obtain exit visas for her family. Decades later, the heirs of the original owners attempted to recover the Painting under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). After this decades-long litigation, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a procedural issue: what choice-of-law rule a court should apply in an FSIA case raising state claims.
在1897年和1898年的冬天，卡米尔·皮萨罗(Camille Pisarro)透过巴黎酒店的窗户，画出了他的第一批城市场景之一，《下午的圣奥诺罗伊街》(Rue saint - honor in the Afternoon)。雨的效果(画)。这幅画与毕沙罗之前的作品有很大的不同，后者主要是由质朴的乡村风景组成的。除了这幅画的艺术史意义之外，它现在已经成为毕沙罗最臭名昭著的画作之一。这件艺术品目前存放在马德里的蒂森-博尔内米萨国家博物馆(TBC)，它的所有权已经持续了几十年的法庭斗争。纳粹控制德国后，原主人为了家人获得出境签证，强行交出了这幅画。几十年后，原主人的继承人试图根据《外国主权豁免法》(FSIA)收回这幅画。在这场长达数十年的诉讼之后，该案件转至美国最高法院，以解决一个程序问题:法院在提起州索赔的FSIA案件中应适用何种法律选择规则。
{"title":"Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (U.S. Sup. Ct.)","authors":"Emily Behzadi","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.44","url":null,"abstract":"During the winters of 1897 and 1898, from the window of his Parisian hotel, Camille Pisarro painted one of his first urban scenes, Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain (the Painting). The Painting marks a significant deviation from Pissarro's prior works, which primarily consisted of au plein air country landscapes. In addition to the Painting's art historical significance, it has now become one of Pissarro's most infamous paintings. Currently sitting in the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (TBC) in Madrid, this artwork has been the subject of a decades-long court battle over its ownership. After the Nazis assumed control of Germany, the original owner forcibly surrendered the Painting in order to obtain exit visas for her family. Decades later, the heirs of the original owners attempted to recover the Painting under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). After this decades-long litigation, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a procedural issue: what choice-of-law rule a court should apply in an FSIA case raising state claims.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114650686","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 October 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway, sitting as a Grand Chamber, had to decide in three interconnected cases (HR-2021-1975-S) whether the construction of certain wind power plants, which will form part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe, in a particular rural area interfered with (Sami) reindeer herders’ rights to enjoy their own culture according to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The case, which had been initiated long before Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and concomitant spiking energy prices—which might have added an extra dimension to the underlying, countervailing issues—pits efforts to increasingly produce “green,” renewable energy and the minority rights of a particular cultural group against each other. Taking the peculiar requirements of reindeer husbandry, the need for safe winter pastures, and the specific geographical conditions of the locus delicti into account, the Court concluded that the windfarms would have a substantial negative effect on the reindeer herders’ possibility to enjoy their own culture, which, in the absence of satisfactory remedy measures, threatened the very existence of reindeer husbandry on Fosen, and therefore found a violation of Article 27, ICCPR.
{"title":"Statnett SF v. Sør-Fosen Sijte (Sup. Ct. Nor.)","authors":"Tom Syring","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.42","url":null,"abstract":"On October 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway, sitting as a Grand Chamber, had to decide in three interconnected cases (HR-2021-1975-S) whether the construction of certain wind power plants, which will form part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe, in a particular rural area interfered with (Sami) reindeer herders’ rights to enjoy their own culture according to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The case, which had been initiated long before Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and concomitant spiking energy prices—which might have added an extra dimension to the underlying, countervailing issues—pits efforts to increasingly produce “green,” renewable energy and the minority rights of a particular cultural group against each other. Taking the peculiar requirements of reindeer husbandry, the need for safe winter pastures, and the specific geographical conditions of the locus delicti into account, the Court concluded that the windfarms would have a substantial negative effect on the reindeer herders’ possibility to enjoy their own culture, which, in the absence of satisfactory remedy measures, threatened the very existence of reindeer husbandry on Fosen, and therefore found a violation of Article 27, ICCPR.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115158086","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：