In the years since 9/11, international security discourse has heightened concerns around extremism, positioning this as the key threat that States need to address in order to prevent and combat terrorism. Politically, enactment of domestic legislation curtailing extremist expressions has been internationally authorised and encouraged and in May 2016 the United Kingdom (‘UK’), spearheading a liberal State trend towards rights-restrictive approaches to extremism, announced its intention to enact legislation imposing a range of civil sanctions on those publicly expressing extremist views. But laws such as this restrict the core democratic right to freedom of expression and so must comply with the tripartite requirements for restrictions enshrined in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) to be legitimate. Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.
{"title":"Extremism, Free Speech and the Rule of Law: Evaluating the Compliance of Legislation Restricting Extremist Expressions with Article 19 ICCPR","authors":"A. Shepherd","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.405","url":null,"abstract":"In the years since 9/11, international security discourse has heightened concerns around extremism, positioning this as the key threat that States need to address in order to prevent and combat terrorism. Politically, enactment of domestic legislation curtailing extremist expressions has been internationally authorised and encouraged and in May 2016 the United Kingdom (‘UK’), spearheading a liberal State trend towards rights-restrictive approaches to extremism, announced its intention to enact legislation imposing a range of civil sanctions on those publicly expressing extremist views. But laws such as this restrict the core democratic right to freedom of expression and so must comply with the tripartite requirements for restrictions enshrined in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) to be legitimate. Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41332736","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}
Maritime piracy began to re-emerge a decade ago, mostly off the coast of Somalia, thereby presenting major economic, security and humanitarian concerns. Prosecuting piracy raises many issues, not in the least because traditional maritime piracy from 200 years ago is so notably different from contemporary piracy. The present article describes the Public International Law and Policy Group’s formation of the High Level Piracy Working Group (HLPWG), which since 2011 has been producing memoranda on major issues in contemporary piracy prosecution. The issues span the legal foundations of piracy prosecution, including how to criminalise certain acts and how to exercise jurisdiction over such acts. Laws governing the use of force could apply to government or private actors when capturing and apprehending pirates. Once captured, there are questions of extraditing and transferring these pirates. Moreover, when such pirates are eventually brought to trial, there are pre-trial, evidentiary, substantive and post-prosecution issues to consider. The article also explores the merits and likelihood of creating an international piracy court. It shows how the HLPWG has influenced legal and policy developments today that draw on the distant past, and will undoubtedly have an enduring legacy in the future.
{"title":"A Contemporary Approach to the Oldest International Crime","authors":"M. Scharf, Mistale Taylor","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.373","url":null,"abstract":"Maritime piracy began to re-emerge a decade ago, mostly off the coast of Somalia, thereby presenting major economic, security and humanitarian concerns. Prosecuting piracy raises many issues, not in the least because traditional maritime piracy from 200 years ago is so notably different from contemporary piracy. The present article describes the Public International Law and Policy Group’s formation of the High Level Piracy Working Group (HLPWG), which since 2011 has been producing memoranda on major issues in contemporary piracy prosecution. The issues span the legal foundations of piracy prosecution, including how to criminalise certain acts and how to exercise jurisdiction over such acts. Laws governing the use of force could apply to government or private actors when capturing and apprehending pirates. Once captured, there are questions of extraditing and transferring these pirates. Moreover, when such pirates are eventually brought to trial, there are pre-trial, evidentiary, substantive and post-prosecution issues to consider. The article also explores the merits and likelihood of creating an international piracy court. It shows how the HLPWG has influenced legal and policy developments today that draw on the distant past, and will undoubtedly have an enduring legacy in the future.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43190935","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 rise of Islamic State (IS) has fundamentally altered the conception of terrorism, a development which international criminal law is arguably unprepared for. Given the scale and gravity of the group’s crimes, questions abound as to how those responsible will be held accountable. In the absence of significant domestic prosecutions and short of the establishment of a dedicated accountability mechanism, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as the forum of last resort in which IS members could stand trial. Such a proposition is not without significant challenges, however. This article addresses some key issues facing any potential prosecutions from the perspective of: (i) jurisdiction; (ii) applicable crimes; and (iii) modes of liability. First, as Syria, Iraq, and Libya are not States Parties to the Rome Statute, the available avenues for asserting jurisdiction will be assessed, namely: a Security Council referral; jurisdiction over so called ‘foreign fighters’ who are State Party nationals; and jurisdiction over attacks on the territory of a State Party and whether they could be considered part of a broader series of criminal acts in IS held territory. Second, as there is no crime of terrorism in the Rome Statute, the question of prosecuting acts encapsulated in a systematic campaign of terror through existing provisions will be assessed. Third, the regime of accountability at the ICC will be analysed in light of IS’s purported structure and the crimes with which it stands accused. Focus will be directed to those responsible for the propagation of genocidal propaganda and individuals who provide aid or assistance to IS which contributes to its crimes. These questions are far from theoretical. The UN has designated IS a threat to international peace and security. There follows an expectation that international criminal law should play a role in tackling one of the major criminal concerns of our time and ensure that impunity for those responsible for IS’s atrocities is avoided.
{"title":"Prosecuting Crimes of International Concern: Islamic State at the ICC?","authors":"Cóman Kenny","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.364","url":null,"abstract":"The rise of Islamic State (IS) has fundamentally altered the conception of terrorism, a development which international criminal law is arguably unprepared for. Given the scale and gravity of the group’s crimes, questions abound as to how those responsible will be held accountable. In the absence of significant domestic prosecutions and short of the establishment of a dedicated accountability mechanism, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as the forum of last resort in which IS members could stand trial. Such a proposition is not without significant challenges, however. This article addresses some key issues facing any potential prosecutions from the perspective of: (i) jurisdiction; (ii) applicable crimes; and (iii) modes of liability. First, as Syria, Iraq, and Libya are not States Parties to the Rome Statute, the available avenues for asserting jurisdiction will be assessed, namely: a Security Council referral; jurisdiction over so called ‘foreign fighters’ who are State Party nationals; and jurisdiction over attacks on the territory of a State Party and whether they could be considered part of a broader series of criminal acts in IS held territory. Second, as there is no crime of terrorism in the Rome Statute, the question of prosecuting acts encapsulated in a systematic campaign of terror through existing provisions will be assessed. Third, the regime of accountability at the ICC will be analysed in light of IS’s purported structure and the crimes with which it stands accused. Focus will be directed to those responsible for the propagation of genocidal propaganda and individuals who provide aid or assistance to IS which contributes to its crimes. These questions are far from theoretical. The UN has designated IS a threat to international peace and security. There follows an expectation that international criminal law should play a role in tackling one of the major criminal concerns of our time and ensure that impunity for those responsible for IS’s atrocities is avoided.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45302607","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 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, leaving no survivors. Since, victims’ relatives, States, and the wider public are trying to understand what happened, how it could happen, who is responsible, and how to address these responsibilities. The efforts to find justice have faced many complications and legal complexities. This article aims to provide insight into these legal and political complexities. In particular, it discusses the core legal questions of the criminal accountability of the perpetrators and the State responsibility of those States involved —Ukraine and Russia— through the legal doctrines of public international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It further offers some core considerations relating to civil liability of States and airline carriers. In addition to providing insight into why the road to justice is long and arduous, the legal options available, and the specific challenges of each, the article also emphasises that having a legal option does not necessarily mean that it is also the best choice to use it. That choice is up to victims’ relatives and the States concerned. The article takes no position in this regard. Instead, it seeks to provide an analysis that may contribute to making such decisions in an informed manner.
{"title":"Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17 Disaster","authors":"Marieke de Hoon","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.368","url":null,"abstract":"On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, leaving no survivors. Since, victims’ relatives, States, and the wider public are trying to understand what happened, how it could happen, who is responsible, and how to address these responsibilities. The efforts to find justice have faced many complications and legal complexities. This article aims to provide insight into these legal and political complexities. In particular, it discusses the core legal questions of the criminal accountability of the perpetrators and the State responsibility of those States involved —Ukraine and Russia— through the legal doctrines of public international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It further offers some core considerations relating to civil liability of States and airline carriers. In addition to providing insight into why the road to justice is long and arduous, the legal options available, and the specific challenges of each, the article also emphasises that having a legal option does not necessarily mean that it is also the best choice to use it. That choice is up to victims’ relatives and the States concerned. The article takes no position in this regard. Instead, it seeks to provide an analysis that may contribute to making such decisions in an informed manner.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48945331","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}
Whereas the characteristics of human rights fact-finding largely vary depending on the typology and scope of the entity that carries it out, consensus seems to be developing that a common set of challenges to human rights fact-finding exists. This is especially so when carried out under United Nations auspices. For example, it has long been acknowledged that the very nature of the institution, sitting as it does at the crossroads of international politics, as well as the seemingly irresolvable tension between calls for human rights protection on the one hand, and State sovereignty on the other, present some structural challenges to human rights fact-finding. Furthermore, issues of coordination between the United Nations and other institutions (such as international governmental and non-governmental organisations, or international tribunals), as well as what some have called a ‘lack of institutional memory’ arguably often feature as regular traits among fact-finding mechanisms. In recent years, a further set of challenges has been added to the mix by additional requirements, featuring increasingly often in mandates, that instruct fact-finding mechanisms to make further determinations of facts (concerning, e.g. , the identity of those most responsible for the violations being documented, or the existence of an armed conflict) and even consider questions of law ( e.g. the qualification of the violations as crimes under international law). Building on an expanding body of scholarship on the subject, as well as the author’s own experience with fact-finding efforts sitting at the intersection between traditional international human rights law and international criminal justice, this article argues: (i) that human rights fact-finding has evolved in three waves; (ii) that the third wave of human rights fact-finding is characterised by an “accountability turn”; and that (iii) this turn has brought about an additional set of challenges to the already thin-stretched capacity of UN human rights inquiries. By virtue of the arguments advanced in this article, the author posits that updating and solidifying the human rights fact-finding methodology can assist United Nations inquiries and other human rights fact-finders in strengthening the credibility of their findings.
{"title":"The Accountability Turn in Third Wave Human Rights Fact-Finding","authors":"Federica D’Alessandra","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.369","url":null,"abstract":"Whereas the characteristics of human rights fact-finding largely vary depending on the typology and scope of the entity that carries it out, consensus seems to be developing that a common set of challenges to human rights fact-finding exists. This is especially so when carried out under United Nations auspices. For example, it has long been acknowledged that the very nature of the institution, sitting as it does at the crossroads of international politics, as well as the seemingly irresolvable tension between calls for human rights protection on the one hand, and State sovereignty on the other, present some structural challenges to human rights fact-finding. Furthermore, issues of coordination between the United Nations and other institutions (such as international governmental and non-governmental organisations, or international tribunals), as well as what some have called a ‘lack of institutional memory’ arguably often feature as regular traits among fact-finding mechanisms. In recent years, a further set of challenges has been added to the mix by additional requirements, featuring increasingly often in mandates, that instruct fact-finding mechanisms to make further determinations of facts (concerning, e.g. , the identity of those most responsible for the violations being documented, or the existence of an armed conflict) and even consider questions of law ( e.g. the qualification of the violations as crimes under international law). Building on an expanding body of scholarship on the subject, as well as the author’s own experience with fact-finding efforts sitting at the intersection between traditional international human rights law and international criminal justice, this article argues: (i) that human rights fact-finding has evolved in three waves; (ii) that the third wave of human rights fact-finding is characterised by an “accountability turn”; and that (iii) this turn has brought about an additional set of challenges to the already thin-stretched capacity of UN human rights inquiries. By virtue of the arguments advanced in this article, the author posits that updating and solidifying the human rights fact-finding methodology can assist United Nations inquiries and other human rights fact-finders in strengthening the credibility of their findings.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46108565","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}
Yemen’s 2013–2014 National Dialogue Conference paved the way for Yemen to transition from a unitary to federal system of government. This is a common trajectory for States emerging from conflict as federalism offers the hope for greater democratic governance and inclusivity. Nevertheless, there is a danger in assuming that there is an ideal federal model to emulate or that federalism is itself a guaranteed remedy for political dysfunction and authoritarianism. Transitioning to federalism is an arduous, expensive, and technically complicated process. Such transitions can also renew conflict if, prior to the drafting of the federal constitution, key issues related to the design of the new system are not addressed or there is a lack of consensus on how to address those issues. Indeed, this was the case in Yemen. Prior to drafting its new federal constitution, Yemen struggled to reach sufficient political consensus on three key issues: (1) the formation of federal regions; (2) the structure of the new federal system; and (3) how powers were to be distributed in the State, including over natural resources management. This lack of consensus during the National Dialogue Conference resulted in the Constitution Drafting Committee having the responsibility of making highly controversial political decisions about Yemen’s future as a federal State. This article examines how Yemen’s transition to federalism was undermined by the inability to reach sufficient consensus on three key transition issues prior to the drafting of the 2015 federal constitution.
{"title":"A Legal Perspective on Yemen’s Attempted Transition from a Unitary to a Federal System of Government","authors":"Paul R. Williams, Tiffany Sommadossi, Ayat Mujais","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.366","url":null,"abstract":"Yemen’s 2013–2014 National Dialogue Conference paved the way for Yemen to transition from a unitary to federal system of government. This is a common trajectory for States emerging from conflict as federalism offers the hope for greater democratic governance and inclusivity. Nevertheless, there is a danger in assuming that there is an ideal federal model to emulate or that federalism is itself a guaranteed remedy for political dysfunction and authoritarianism. Transitioning to federalism is an arduous, expensive, and technically complicated process. Such transitions can also renew conflict if, prior to the drafting of the federal constitution, key issues related to the design of the new system are not addressed or there is a lack of consensus on how to address those issues. Indeed, this was the case in Yemen. Prior to drafting its new federal constitution, Yemen struggled to reach sufficient political consensus on three key issues: (1) the formation of federal regions; (2) the structure of the new federal system; and (3) how powers were to be distributed in the State, including over natural resources management. This lack of consensus during the National Dialogue Conference resulted in the Constitution Drafting Committee having the responsibility of making highly controversial political decisions about Yemen’s future as a federal State. This article examines how Yemen’s transition to federalism was undermined by the inability to reach sufficient consensus on three key transition issues prior to the drafting of the 2015 federal constitution.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43888581","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 Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assists in prosecuting war criminals. As part of this work, PILPG assists States in establishing and implementing electoral systems that meet international standards for democratic elections, and undertakes election monitoring. Free and fair elections are crucial for the legitimacy of democratic States and are protected by human rights law. The present article focuses on the issue of the franchise and on the restrictions permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, this article addresses franchise restrictions on non-resident citizens across ECHR member States. Setting out the protections for the franchise in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, this article analyses the permissible limitations on those rights according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article presents a comparative analysis of other voting rights cases, such as the limitations on prisoners’ franchise. After considering whether residency-based limitations pursue legitimate and proportionate aims, it questions whether blanket restrictions disenfranchising non-resident citizens should be permissible today. The article concludes by advocating the importance of an inclusive franchise for the legitimacy of democratic systems as well as the protection of individual rights, and inviting the ECtHR to revisit its jurisprudence on this topic.
{"title":"Inclusive Democracy: Franchise Limitations on Non-Resident Citizens as an Unjust Restriction of Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights","authors":"J. Fraser","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.367","url":null,"abstract":"The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assists in prosecuting war criminals. As part of this work, PILPG assists States in establishing and implementing electoral systems that meet international standards for democratic elections, and undertakes election monitoring. Free and fair elections are crucial for the legitimacy of democratic States and are protected by human rights law. The present article focuses on the issue of the franchise and on the restrictions permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, this article addresses franchise restrictions on non-resident citizens across ECHR member States. Setting out the protections for the franchise in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, this article analyses the permissible limitations on those rights according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article presents a comparative analysis of other voting rights cases, such as the limitations on prisoners’ franchise. After considering whether residency-based limitations pursue legitimate and proportionate aims, it questions whether blanket restrictions disenfranchising non-resident citizens should be permissible today. The article concludes by advocating the importance of an inclusive franchise for the legitimacy of democratic systems as well as the protection of individual rights, and inviting the ECtHR to revisit its jurisprudence on this topic.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46644441","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}
Wittingly or unwittingly, civil society actors have long been faced with the task of documenting serious human rights violations. Thirty years ago, such efforts were largely organised by grassroots movements, often with little support or funding from international actors. Sharing information and best practices was difficult. Today that situation has significantly changed. The purpose of this article is to explore the changing landscape of civil society documentation of serious human rights violations, and what that means for standardising and professionalising documentation efforts. Using the recent Hissene Habre case as an example, this article begins by looking at how civil society documentation can successfully influence an accountability process. Next, the article touches upon barriers that continue to impede greater documentation efforts. The article examines the changing landscape of documentation, focusing on technological changes and the rise of citizen journalism and unofficial investigations, using Syria as an example, as well as on the increasing support for documentation efforts both in Syria and worldwide. The changing landscape has resulted in the proliferation of international documentation initiatives aimed at providing local civil society actors guidelines and practical assistance on how to recognise, collect, manage, store and use information about serious human rights violations, as well as on how to minimise the risks associated with the documentation of human rights violations. The recent initiatives undertaken by international civil society, including those by the Public International Law & Policy Group, play an important role in helping to standardise and professionalise documentation work and promote the foundational principles of documentation, namely the ‘do no harm’ principle, and the principles of informed consent and confidentiality. Recognising the drawback that greater professionalisation may bring, it nevertheless concludes by applauding the initiatives undertaken thus far and calls for even more sustained cooperation, dissemination and training for civil society where possible.
{"title":"Changing Landscapes in Documentation Efforts: Civil Society Documentation of Serious Human Rights Violations","authors":"B. M. Leyh","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.365","url":null,"abstract":"Wittingly or unwittingly, civil society actors have long been faced with the task of documenting serious human rights violations. Thirty years ago, such efforts were largely organised by grassroots movements, often with little support or funding from international actors. Sharing information and best practices was difficult. Today that situation has significantly changed. The purpose of this article is to explore the changing landscape of civil society documentation of serious human rights violations, and what that means for standardising and professionalising documentation efforts. Using the recent Hissene Habre case as an example, this article begins by looking at how civil society documentation can successfully influence an accountability process. Next, the article touches upon barriers that continue to impede greater documentation efforts. The article examines the changing landscape of documentation, focusing on technological changes and the rise of citizen journalism and unofficial investigations, using Syria as an example, as well as on the increasing support for documentation efforts both in Syria and worldwide. The changing landscape has resulted in the proliferation of international documentation initiatives aimed at providing local civil society actors guidelines and practical assistance on how to recognise, collect, manage, store and use information about serious human rights violations, as well as on how to minimise the risks associated with the documentation of human rights violations. The recent initiatives undertaken by international civil society, including those by the Public International Law & Policy Group, play an important role in helping to standardise and professionalise documentation work and promote the foundational principles of documentation, namely the ‘do no harm’ principle, and the principles of informed consent and confidentiality. Recognising the drawback that greater professionalisation may bring, it nevertheless concludes by applauding the initiatives undertaken thus far and calls for even more sustained cooperation, dissemination and training for civil society where possible.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46022652","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}
When the Editor-in-Chief of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law (UJIEL) approached us with the possibility of guest editing a special issue related to public international law and policy, we felt the timing could not have been better. As academics at Utrecht University with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and Montaigne Centre for Judicial Administration and Conflict Resolution, we felt that a theme linking the world of lawyers with that of policymakers was important in order to examine the role of law in protecting human rights and security. Moreover, as Senior Counsel with the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), which celebrated its 20-year anniversary in 2016, we welcomed the idea to link academic scholarship with the work of PILPG. After all, PILPG’s founders, Professor Paul Williams and Professor Michael Scharf, have themselves acted as bridges between scholarship and practice for years. As a result, this special edition is not only intended to highlight the extraordinary work carried out by PILPG on issues of law and policy around the world, but also to emphasise the importance of linking scholarship with practice and addressing contemporary issues impacting the world in which we live. PILPG’s motto ‘lawyering peace’ requires reflection on the role that law can play in helping to bring about the peaceful resolution of serious problems affecting individuals and societies as a whole. This special edition of UJIEL, addressing a variety of themes, does just that.
{"title":"Bridging Scholarship and Practice: 20 Years of the Public International Law and Policy Group","authors":"J. Fraser, B. N. M. Gonigle","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.401","url":null,"abstract":"When the Editor-in-Chief of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law (UJIEL) approached us with the possibility of guest editing a special issue related to public international law and policy, we felt the timing could not have been better. As academics at Utrecht University with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and Montaigne Centre for Judicial Administration and Conflict Resolution, we felt that a theme linking the world of lawyers with that of policymakers was important in order to examine the role of law in protecting human rights and security. Moreover, as Senior Counsel with the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), which celebrated its 20-year anniversary in 2016, we welcomed the idea to link academic scholarship with the work of PILPG. After all, PILPG’s founders, Professor Paul Williams and Professor Michael Scharf, have themselves acted as bridges between scholarship and practice for years. As a result, this special edition is not only intended to highlight the extraordinary work carried out by PILPG on issues of law and policy around the world, but also to emphasise the importance of linking scholarship with practice and addressing contemporary issues impacting the world in which we live. PILPG’s motto ‘lawyering peace’ requires reflection on the role that law can play in helping to bring about the peaceful resolution of serious problems affecting individuals and societies as a whole. This special edition of UJIEL, addressing a variety of themes, does just that.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47695959","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 EU’s international agreements with Morocco on trade in agricultural and fishery products have drawn criticism due to their application to the disputed territory of Western Sahara, a territory that remains on the list of non-self-governing territories to be decolonised in accordance with the right of self-determination of the indigenous Sahrawi people. Recently, the Sahrawi liberation movement Front Polisario brought an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union (GC) against the Council Decision approving the conclusion of one such agreement, alleging multiple violations of European and international legal norms. Interestingly, although the GC concurred by annulling the Decision insofar as it applies to Western Sahara, it chose to exclusively base its judgment on EU fundamental rights, invoking the EU’s failure to ensure that the fundamental rights of the Sahrawi people were not infringed by applying the agreements to Western Sahara. By summarily setting aside Front Polisario’s other claims, several relevant questions of applicable international and European law, which warrant further discussion, remain. This article examines these questions using the GC’s judgment in Front Polisario, thereby combining general matters of international and European law with the specific circumstances of the EU-Morocco relations and Western Sahara.
{"title":"It’s not the Fish that Stinks! EU Trade Relations with Morocco under the Scrutiny of the General Court of the European Union","authors":"S. Hummelbrunner, Anne-Carlijn Prickartz","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.322","url":null,"abstract":"The EU’s international agreements with Morocco on trade in agricultural and fishery products have drawn criticism due to their application to the disputed territory of Western Sahara, a territory that remains on the list of non-self-governing territories to be decolonised in accordance with the right of self-determination of the indigenous Sahrawi people. Recently, the Sahrawi liberation movement Front Polisario brought an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union (GC) against the Council Decision approving the conclusion of one such agreement, alleging multiple violations of European and international legal norms. Interestingly, although the GC concurred by annulling the Decision insofar as it applies to Western Sahara, it chose to exclusively base its judgment on EU fundamental rights, invoking the EU’s failure to ensure that the fundamental rights of the Sahrawi people were not infringed by applying the agreements to Western Sahara. By summarily setting aside Front Polisario’s other claims, several relevant questions of applicable international and European law, which warrant further discussion, remain. This article examines these questions using the GC’s judgment in Front Polisario, thereby combining general matters of international and European law with the specific circumstances of the EU-Morocco relations and Western Sahara.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2016-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70723741","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：