Over the past few years an overhaul of the European data protection edifice has been under way. Practically all basic data protection regulating documents in effect until today have either already been replaced or are in the process of being thoroughly amended. This is probably a development that was long overdue, given that all of them have an age of several decades while none of them has been released taking the internet into account. The OECD is the first international organisation that issued any data protection regulations at all: it did so in 1980, and its Guidelines remained unchanged until 2013, when their amendment process was completed. The Council of Europe released its own data protection regulations, formulated in Convention 108, only a few weeks after the OECD; they too remained in effect unchanged over the decades that passed, admittedly complemented by rich secondary legislation, and are now in the process of being amended. However, most of the data protection work undoubtedly takes place within the EU which chose to dominate the international field since it became involved in it, through the EU Data Protection Directive in 1994. The Directive set the EU and international, through its “adequacy” criterion, data protection standard. However, it remained hopelessly outdated, because it was released before the advent of the Internet (although the Court of Justice through its recent Google Spain case showed that there is still some life left in it). The European Commission seized the opportunity presented by the Treaty of Lisbon, and its Article 16 TFEU, and took upon itself the herculean task of reconstructing the whole EU data protection edifice, both from an architectural and from a substantive law point of view
在过去的几年里，对欧洲数据保护体系的彻底改革一直在进行。实际上，迄今为止所有有效的基本数据保护规范文件要么已经被取代，要么正在被彻底修改。考虑到所有这些都有几十年的历史，而没有一个是考虑到互联网而发布的，这可能是一个早就应该出现的发展。经合组织(OECD)是第一个发布数据保护法规的国际组织:它在1980年发布了数据保护法规，其《指导方针》(Guidelines)一直保持不变，直到2013年修订过程完成。欧洲委员会(Council of Europe)发布了自己的数据保护条例，即108号公约(Convention 108)，仅比经合组织晚了几周;在过去的几十年里，它们实际上也没有改变，不可否认的是，它们得到了丰富的次级立法的补充，现在正在被修改。然而，大多数数据保护工作无疑是在欧盟内部进行的，自1994年通过《欧盟数据保护指令》参与进来以来，欧盟选择了主导国际领域。该指令通过其“充分性”标准设定了欧盟和国际上的数据保护标准。然而，它仍然无可救药地过时了，因为它是在互联网出现之前发布的(尽管法院通过最近的谷歌西班牙案表明它仍然有一些生命力)。欧盟委员会抓住了《里斯本条约》及其第16条TFEU所带来的机会，从建筑和实体法的角度出发，承担起了重建整个欧盟数据保护大厦的艰巨任务
{"title":"The Right to Protection of Personal Data. Incapable of Autonomous Standing in the Basic EU Constituting Documents","authors":"P. Hert","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CZ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CZ","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past few years an overhaul of the European data protection edifice has been under way. Practically all basic data protection regulating documents in effect until today have either already been replaced or are in the process of being thoroughly amended. This is probably a development that was long overdue, given that all of them have an age of several decades while none of them has been released taking the internet into account. The OECD is the first international organisation that issued any data protection regulations at all: it did so in 1980, and its Guidelines remained unchanged until 2013, when their amendment process was completed. The Council of Europe released its own data protection regulations, formulated in Convention 108, only a few weeks after the OECD; they too remained in effect unchanged over the decades that passed, admittedly complemented by rich secondary legislation, and are now in the process of being amended. However, most of the data protection work undoubtedly takes place within the EU which chose to dominate the international field since it became involved in it, through the EU Data Protection Directive in 1994. The Directive set the EU and international, through its “adequacy” criterion, data protection standard. However, it remained hopelessly outdated, because it was released before the advent of the Internet (although the Court of Justice through its recent Google Spain case showed that there is still some life left in it). The European Commission seized the opportunity presented by the Treaty of Lisbon, and its Article 16 TFEU, and took upon itself the herculean task of reconstructing the whole EU data protection edifice, both from an architectural and from a substantive law point of view","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70727049","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}
Article 8 ECHR was adopted as a classic negative right, which provides the citizen protection from unlawful and arbitrary interference by the state with his private and family life, home and communication. The ECtHR, however, has gradually broadened its scope so that the right to privacy encroaches upon other provisions embodied in the Convention, includes rights and freedoms explicitly left out of the ECHR by the drafters of the Convention and functions as the main pillar on which the Court has built its practice of opening up the Convention for new rights and freedoms. Consequently, Article 8 ECHR has been transformed from a classic privacy right to a personality right, providing protection to the personal development of individuals. Apart from its theoretical significance, this shift might prove indispensable in the age of Big Data, as personality rights protect a different type of interest, which is far more easy to substantiate in the new technological paradigm than those associated with the right to privacy.
{"title":"Privacy as Personality Right: Why the ECtHR's Focus on Ulterior Interests Might Prove Indispensable in the Age of 'Big Data'","authors":"B. Sloot","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CP","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CP","url":null,"abstract":"Article 8 ECHR was adopted as a classic negative right, which provides the citizen protection from unlawful and arbitrary interference by the state with his private and family life, home and communication. The ECtHR, however, has gradually broadened its scope so that the right to privacy encroaches upon other provisions embodied in the Convention, includes rights and freedoms explicitly left out of the ECHR by the drafters of the Convention and functions as the main pillar on which the Court has built its practice of opening up the Convention for new rights and freedoms. Consequently, Article 8 ECHR has been transformed from a classic privacy right to a personality right, providing protection to the personal development of individuals. Apart from its theoretical significance, this shift might prove indispensable in the age of Big Data, as personality rights protect a different type of interest, which is far more easy to substantiate in the new technological paradigm than those associated with the right to privacy.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726201","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}
Big data puts data protection to the test. Consumers granting permission to process their personal data are increasingly opening up their personal lives, thanks to the “datafication” of everyday life, indefinite data retention and the increasing sophistication of algorithms for analysis. The privacy implications of big data call for serious consideration of consumers’ opportunities to participate in decision-making processes about their contracts. If these opportunities are insufficient, the resulting rules may represent special interests rather than consumers’ needs. This may undermine the legitimacy of big data applications. This article argues that providing sufficient consumer participation in privacy matters requires choosing the best available decision making mechanism. Is a consumer to negotiate his own privacy terms in the market, will lawmakers step in on his behalf, or is he to seek protection through courts? Furthermore is this a matter of national law or European law? These choices will affect the opportunities for achieving different policy goals associated with the possible benefits of the “big data revolution”.
{"title":"Big Data and Consumer Participation in Privacy Contracts: Deciding who Decides on Privacy","authors":"Michiel Rhoen","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CU","url":null,"abstract":"Big data puts data protection to the test. Consumers granting permission to process their personal data are increasingly opening up their personal lives, thanks to the “datafication” of everyday life, indefinite data retention and the increasing sophistication of algorithms for analysis. The privacy implications of big data call for serious consideration of consumers’ opportunities to participate in decision-making processes about their contracts. If these opportunities are insufficient, the resulting rules may represent special interests rather than consumers’ needs. This may undermine the legitimacy of big data applications. This article argues that providing sufficient consumer participation in privacy matters requires choosing the best available decision making mechanism. Is a consumer to negotiate his own privacy terms in the market, will lawmakers step in on his behalf, or is he to seek protection through courts? Furthermore is this a matter of national law or European law? These choices will affect the opportunities for achieving different policy goals associated with the possible benefits of the “big data revolution”.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726686","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-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement has been among the most controversial instruments in the fight against terrorism that the EU negotiated with the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agreement has been heavily criticised for its implications regarding fundamental rights, in particular the rights to privacy and data protection. Nevertheless, the EU has put forward plans to develop its own PNR programme. The present article aims to examine the new dynamics concerning privacy that arise from the transatlantic fight against terrorism. It argues that, while attempts for the development of a transatlantic privacy protection framework have been made, ‘spillovers’ of security, taking the form of internalisation of external counter-terrorism measures, are prevalent in the era of the war against terror.
{"title":"The War Against Terror and Transatlantic Information Sharing: Spillovers of Privacy or Spillovers of Security?","authors":"M. Tzanou","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CQ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CQ","url":null,"abstract":"The EU-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement has been among the most controversial instruments in the fight against terrorism that the EU negotiated with the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agreement has been heavily criticised for its implications regarding fundamental rights, in particular the rights to privacy and data protection. Nevertheless, the EU has put forward plans to develop its own PNR programme. The present article aims to examine the new dynamics concerning privacy that arise from the transatlantic fight against terrorism. It argues that, while attempts for the development of a transatlantic privacy protection framework have been made, ‘spillovers’ of security, taking the form of internalisation of external counter-terrorism measures, are prevalent in the era of the war against terror.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726382","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}
Sophie in ‘t Veld, of the Dutch social liberal party Democrats 66, is a Member of the European Parliament (hereafter: MEP). She is Vice President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. In ‘t Veld has a specific interest in issues of privacy and data protection. As such, she is a member of, inter alia , the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, whose tasks include reviewing the EU’s proposed data protection reform package. She is also Chair of the European Parliament’s Privacy Platform. In the interview below, conducted on 7th November, 2014, In ‘t Veld elaborates on how the EU protects, or aims to protect, its citizens’ rights to privacy and data protection.
Sophie in ' t Veld，荷兰社会自由党民主党66的成员，是欧洲议会(以下简称:MEP)的成员。她是欧洲自由民主党联盟的副主席。In ' t Veld对隐私和数据保护问题特别感兴趣。因此，她是欧洲议会公民自由、司法和内政委员会的成员，其任务包括审查欧盟提出的数据保护改革方案。她也是欧洲议会隐私平台的主席。以下采访于2014年11月7日进行，In ' t Veld详细阐述了欧盟如何保护或旨在保护其公民的隐私权和数据保护权。
{"title":"Privacy and Data Protection in the European Parliament: An Interview with Sophie in ‘t Veld","authors":"Mistale Taylor","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CX","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CX","url":null,"abstract":"Sophie in ‘t Veld, of the Dutch social liberal party Democrats 66, is a Member of the European Parliament (hereafter: MEP). She is Vice President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. In ‘t Veld has a specific interest in issues of privacy and data protection. As such, she is a member of, inter alia , the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, whose tasks include reviewing the EU’s proposed data protection reform package. She is also Chair of the European Parliament’s Privacy Platform. In the interview below, conducted on 7th November, 2014, In ‘t Veld elaborates on how the EU protects, or aims to protect, its citizens’ rights to privacy and data protection.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726918","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 recent exposure of the NSA documents has raised a great deal of concerns with regards to the effective control of companies that cooperate with intelligence agencies. It also exposed a network of secret government spying partnerships used to go around existing domestic guarantees and to spy on one’s own citizens through the back door. The dread that both legal and technological means designed with legitimate purposes such as counter-terrorism and crime prevention are also employed for total social control is now out there. In many aspects it looks like we are experiencing the end of privacy and opting for a ‘surveillance society’ instead. In the clutter of pressing issues, most of the recent scholarly attention has focused on the assessment and reform proposals of the existing, but as it turns out inadequate with respect to actual rights protection, domestic legal frameworks. This has left the obligations of the intruders under international human rights law unconsidered. Therefore, the present paper aims at evaluating the legality of such surveillance programs under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
{"title":"The Right to Privacy under Fire – Foreign Surveillance under the NSA and the GCHQ and Its Compatibility with Art. 17 ICCPR and Art. 8 ECHR","authors":"Ilina Georgieva","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CR","url":null,"abstract":"The recent exposure of the NSA documents has raised a great deal of concerns with regards to the effective control of companies that cooperate with intelligence agencies. It also exposed a network of secret government spying partnerships used to go around existing domestic guarantees and to spy on one’s own citizens through the back door. The dread that both legal and technological means designed with legitimate purposes such as counter-terrorism and crime prevention are also employed for total social control is now out there. In many aspects it looks like we are experiencing the end of privacy and opting for a ‘surveillance society’ instead. In the clutter of pressing issues, most of the recent scholarly attention has focused on the assessment and reform proposals of the existing, but as it turns out inadequate with respect to actual rights protection, domestic legal frameworks. This has left the obligations of the intruders under international human rights law unconsidered. Therefore, the present paper aims at evaluating the legality of such surveillance programs under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70727110","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}
This contribution is based on presentations and discussions at the conference “Safeguarding the Right to Data Protection”, held in Paris on the 30th and 31st October, 2014. Vladimir Marinescu, of the Academy of European Law (hereafter: ERA), in cooperation with the Cour de Cassation , organised the event. The conference looked at developments in EU data protection law with a focus on data protection as a fundamental right. Speakers discussed recent jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter: CJEU or the Court), the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: ECtHR) and national courts. The conference covered four main focus areas: EU data protection law; civil and criminal law aspects of data protection and the internet; data protection as a cornerstone of European fundamental rights protection; and data protection remedies. This contribution elaborates upon some of the most pertinent issues speakers discussed.
{"title":"“Safeguarding the Right to Data Protection in the EU”, 30th and 31st October 2014, Paris, France","authors":"Mistale Taylor","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CW","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution is based on presentations and discussions at the conference “Safeguarding the Right to Data Protection”, held in Paris on the 30th and 31st October, 2014. Vladimir Marinescu, of the Academy of European Law (hereafter: ERA), in cooperation with the Cour de Cassation , organised the event. The conference looked at developments in EU data protection law with a focus on data protection as a fundamental right. Speakers discussed recent jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter: CJEU or the Court), the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: ECtHR) and national courts. The conference covered four main focus areas: EU data protection law; civil and criminal law aspects of data protection and the internet; data protection as a cornerstone of European fundamental rights protection; and data protection remedies. This contribution elaborates upon some of the most pertinent issues speakers discussed.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726863","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}
Privacy vs Security , Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Joshua Philips and Mark D. Ryan, Springer, Springer Briefs in Cybersecurity, pp. 1–115, Softcover: €52.99, 2014, ISBN: 9781447165293
隐私与安全，Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Joshua Philips和Mark D. Ryan，施普林格，施普林格Briefs in Cybersecurity, pp. 1-115，软装:€52.99,2014,ISBN: 9781447165293
{"title":"Review of Privacy vs Security","authors":"A. Nieuwenhuis","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CY","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CY","url":null,"abstract":"Privacy vs Security , Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Joshua Philips and Mark D. Ryan, Springer, Springer Briefs in Cybersecurity, pp. 1–115, Softcover: €52.99, 2014, ISBN: 9781447165293","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70727007","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}
In the context of Israel’s declared permanent state of exception, this article focuses on the legal protection awarded to the Palestinian populations under Israeli control. To broaden the discussion over Palestinian people’s rights, which generally focuses on the confiscation of land and the right to return, the author consciously focuses on anti-terrorism and security measures, which contribute to the creation of what the International Court of Justice has defined as an ‘associated regime’ of occupation. The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author discusses Israel’s domestic obligations towards Palestinians (arguing the case of both Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian residents) and their de jure and de facto discrimination. The second part discusses the applicability of humanitarian law, specifically the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This section discusses the applicability of the Convention to both territories and people under Israeli control. The third part discusses the applicability of international human rights law to all territories under Israeli control and delves into the issue of the mutual relationship between the two international legal regimes in the territories under occupation. The article posits that Israel’s rationale for the non-applicability of such legislation to the Palestinian territories and populations it controls constitutes a form of ‘alternative legality’. The article concludes that Israel’s disproportionate application of security practices and anti-terrorism measures to the Palestinian segment of its population violates Palestinian rights protected under Israel’s domestic and international legal obligations.
{"title":"Israel’s Associated Regime: Exceptionalism, Human Rights and Alternative Legality","authors":"Federica D’Alessandra","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CM","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of Israel’s declared permanent state of exception, this article focuses on the legal protection awarded to the Palestinian populations under Israeli control. To broaden the discussion over Palestinian people’s rights, which generally focuses on the confiscation of land and the right to return, the author consciously focuses on anti-terrorism and security measures, which contribute to the creation of what the International Court of Justice has defined as an ‘associated regime’ of occupation. The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author discusses Israel’s domestic obligations towards Palestinians (arguing the case of both Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian residents) and their de jure and de facto discrimination. The second part discusses the applicability of humanitarian law, specifically the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This section discusses the applicability of the Convention to both territories and people under Israeli control. The third part discusses the applicability of international human rights law to all territories under Israeli control and delves into the issue of the mutual relationship between the two international legal regimes in the territories under occupation. The article posits that Israel’s rationale for the non-applicability of such legislation to the Palestinian territories and populations it controls constitutes a form of ‘alternative legality’. The article concludes that Israel’s disproportionate application of security practices and anti-terrorism measures to the Palestinian segment of its population violates Palestinian rights protected under Israel’s domestic and international legal obligations.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2014-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726463","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 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against William Ruto, Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but has since been postponed until October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the first against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly, they have not been without controversy. These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-colonialism. Although this withdrawal does not affect the current cases before the Court, it certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more difficult. Karim A.A. Khan, QC, formerly the defense counsel of Muthaura and currently the lead defense counsel of Ruto, raised these issues in an interview taking place one week before his opening statements in the Kenya I case. These same issues and concerns were also raised with Adesola Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013.
2013年9月10日，国际刑事法院(ICC)开始审理针对肯尼亚共和国副总统William Ruto和Joshua Sang的案件。针对肯尼亚总统乌呼鲁·穆伊盖·肯雅塔(Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta)的相关案件原定于2013年11月开始审理，但后来被推迟到2014年10月。这两起案件都是首次针对在任政客的案件，因此值得关注。不出所料，它们并非没有争议。这些审判对国际刑事法院具有挑战性，尤其是因为肯尼亚政府最近通过了一项退出国际刑事法院的决议，并废除了将国际犯罪定为刑事犯罪的国内立法，理由是肯尼亚需要恢复主权，抵制新殖民主义。虽然这一撤回并不影响法院目前审理的案件，但它肯定使同肯尼亚合作进行进一步调查变得更加困难。Karim A.A. Khan, QC, Muthaura的前辩护律师，目前Ruto的首席辩护律师，在肯尼亚第一案开庭陈述前一周的一次采访中提出了这些问题。2013年12月，肯尼亚二号案件的首席检察官Adesola Adeboyejo也提出了同样的问题和关切。
{"title":"A Practitioner's Perspective on the Kenya I and Kenya II Cases Before the ICC","authors":"B. M. Leyh","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CO","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CO","url":null,"abstract":"On 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against William Ruto, Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but has since been postponed until October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the first against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly, they have not been without controversy. These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-colonialism. Although this withdrawal does not affect the current cases before the Court, it certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more difficult. Karim A.A. Khan, QC, formerly the defense counsel of Muthaura and currently the lead defense counsel of Ruto, raised these issues in an interview taking place one week before his opening statements in the Kenya I case. These same issues and concerns were also raised with Adesola Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2014-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70726584","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：