Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10027
Tarja Långström
{"title":"K. Creutz, State Responsibility in the International Legal Order A Critical Appraisal","authors":"Tarja Långström","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"253-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49503756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10008
Inger Österdahl
This article analyses the content of the mutual defence obligation contained in the EU Treaty Article 42(7) in relation to the Swedish constitutional rule on the sending of armed forces abroad and the emerging ’deepened defence cooperation’ between Sweden and Finland. The article tries to understand the prevailing Swedish position in legal terms and suggests an alternative flexible way on Sweden’s part of conceiving the binding force of Article 42(7). The question is whether the EU Treaty contains an international obligation of a quality to activate a provision in the Swedish Constitution entitling the government to decide on its own, without having to seek the otherwise necessary approval by Parliament, to send Swedish armed forces to other countries for instance on a mission of collective self-defence. The possibility of looking at the EU Treaty and the Swedish Instrument of Government in this way is not considered in any of the Swedish official inquiries into the Swedish security and defence policy of which there have been quite a few recently.
{"title":"Sweden’s Collective Defence Obligations or this is Not a Collective Defence Pact (or Is It?): Considerations of International and Constitutional Law","authors":"Inger Österdahl","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article analyses the content of the mutual defence obligation contained in the EU Treaty Article 42(7) in relation to the Swedish constitutional rule on the sending of armed forces abroad and the emerging ’deepened defence cooperation’ between Sweden and Finland. The article tries to understand the prevailing Swedish position in legal terms and suggests an alternative flexible way on Sweden’s part of conceiving the binding force of Article 42(7). The question is whether the EU Treaty contains an international obligation of a quality to activate a provision in the Swedish Constitution entitling the government to decide on its own, without having to seek the otherwise necessary approval by Parliament, to send Swedish armed forces to other countries for instance on a mission of collective self-defence. The possibility of looking at the EU Treaty and the Swedish Instrument of Government in this way is not considered in any of the Swedish official inquiries into the Swedish security and defence policy of which there have been quite a few recently.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47792510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10025
Xinxiang Shi
Diplomatic immunity ratione materiae covers not official acts in general but merely acts performed in the exercise of diplomatic functions. Consequently, crimes in international law cannot be protected by this immunity because Article 3(1) of the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations (vcdr) in general should accord with international law, although certain functions under the Article do not contain a ‘legal’ element. Further, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae cannot be upheld for jus cogens violations because Article 3(1) must not contradict a jus cogens prohibition. The dividing line between the procedural rule of immunity and the substantive rule of jus cogens is blurred by the fact that the scope of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae essentially hinges upon the contents a substantive treaty provision setting out diplomatic functions.
{"title":"Diplomatic Immunity Ratione Materiae and Crimes in International Law","authors":"Xinxiang Shi","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Diplomatic immunity ratione materiae covers not official acts in general but merely acts performed in the exercise of diplomatic functions. Consequently, crimes in international law cannot be protected by this immunity because Article 3(1) of the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations (vcdr) in general should accord with international law, although certain functions under the Article do not contain a ‘legal’ element. Further, diplomatic immunity ratione materiae cannot be upheld for jus cogens violations because Article 3(1) must not contradict a jus cogens prohibition. The dividing line between the procedural rule of immunity and the substantive rule of jus cogens is blurred by the fact that the scope of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae essentially hinges upon the contents a substantive treaty provision setting out diplomatic functions.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"228-252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43318862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10023
Felix E. Torres
The Chorzów Factory standard of reparation has been consolidated in the mind-set of international actors since the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility were adopted in 2001. This article analyses to what extent the recent case law of the International Court of Justice and other international practice concerning injury to aliens and property rights, especially expropriations, reflect the Chorzów Factory standard. It does so by considering whether ‘full reparation’ is the central issue in international disputes that involve state responsibility, if restitutio in integrum prevails over other forms of redress, and if the amount of compensation is established in light of the principle of ‘full reparation’. The interaction between the secondary rules of state responsibility and the primary rules of expropriation will be considered in investor-state disputes. In addressing these questions, the role that adjudicating bodies understand they play in international law and the interests pursued by stakeholders – states and private investors – are examined.
{"title":"Revisiting the Chorzów Factory Standard of Reparation – Its Relevance in Contemporary International Law and Practice","authors":"Felix E. Torres","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The Chorzów Factory standard of reparation has been consolidated in the mind-set of international actors since the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility were adopted in 2001. This article analyses to what extent the recent case law of the International Court of Justice and other international practice concerning injury to aliens and property rights, especially expropriations, reflect the Chorzów Factory standard. It does so by considering whether ‘full reparation’ is the central issue in international disputes that involve state responsibility, if restitutio in integrum prevails over other forms of redress, and if the amount of compensation is established in light of the principle of ‘full reparation’. The interaction between the secondary rules of state responsibility and the primary rules of expropriation will be considered in investor-state disputes. In addressing these questions, the role that adjudicating bodies understand they play in international law and the interests pursued by stakeholders – states and private investors – are examined.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46034814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10024
G. Milios
The present article deals with the issue of family unity in the field of international protection, with a special focus on the European Union (EU) rules and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) standards. In particular, the scope of the article is limited to family transfers of seekers of international protection under the Dublin system and to family reunification procedures for refugees, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. After examining the legal framework at EU and domestic level, the present study focuses on two rather controversial issues, from a human rights perspective: on one side, the regulation of the right to family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and, on the other side, the different treatment between pre- and post-flight families in the field of international protection. The article concludes that the current rules regarding these two issues are not compatible with Article 8 of the echr taken together with Article 14 of the echr, and with Article 8 of the echr taken alone. It suggests that while the EU and domestic legislature remains inactive in order to correct these inequalities, the non-discrimination clauses may become directly applicable.
{"title":"Family Unity and International Protection – EU Regulation and its Compatibility with the echr","authors":"G. Milios","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The present article deals with the issue of family unity in the field of international protection, with a special focus on the European Union (EU) rules and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) standards. In particular, the scope of the article is limited to family transfers of seekers of international protection under the Dublin system and to family reunification procedures for refugees, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. After examining the legal framework at EU and domestic level, the present study focuses on two rather controversial issues, from a human rights perspective: on one side, the regulation of the right to family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and, on the other side, the different treatment between pre- and post-flight families in the field of international protection. The article concludes that the current rules regarding these two issues are not compatible with Article 8 of the echr taken together with Article 14 of the echr, and with Article 8 of the echr taken alone. It suggests that while the EU and domestic legislature remains inactive in order to correct these inequalities, the non-discrimination clauses may become directly applicable.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"161-189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43881766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10009
N. Tan
This contribution discusses the recent ‘paradigm shift’ in Danish refugee policy towards temporary protection and return in light of the law of cessation. The article provides an overview of cessation standards drawing on the 1951 Refugee Convention, complementary protection under human rights law and the concept of temporary protection, before setting out the legislative changes making up the Danish ‘paradigm shift’. The Danish case reveals a structural gap in the law of cessation as it regards to complementary protection. The lack of a comprehensive complementary protection framework in some jurisdictions leaves the law open to governments wishing to instrumentalise and minimise protection obligations. Finally, the article analyses legal and policy implications of the policy turn, discussing Denmark’s potential role as a forerunner in temporary protection and cessation; gaps in the law of cessation vis-a-vis complementary protection; and calling for increased scholarly focus on the law of cessation.
{"title":"The End of Protection: The Danish ‘Paradigm Shift’ and the Law of Cessation","authors":"N. Tan","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10009","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution discusses the recent ‘paradigm shift’ in Danish refugee policy towards temporary protection and return in light of the law of cessation. The article provides an overview of cessation standards drawing on the 1951 Refugee Convention, complementary protection under human rights law and the concept of temporary protection, before setting out the legislative changes making up the Danish ‘paradigm shift’. The Danish case reveals a structural gap in the law of cessation as it regards to complementary protection. The lack of a comprehensive complementary protection framework in some jurisdictions leaves the law open to governments wishing to instrumentalise and minimise protection obligations. Finally, the article analyses legal and policy implications of the policy turn, discussing Denmark’s potential role as a forerunner in temporary protection and cessation; gaps in the law of cessation vis-a-vis complementary protection; and calling for increased scholarly focus on the law of cessation.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"60-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43411670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.1163/15718107-90010001
Mona Samadi
{"title":"K. R. Bashir, International Islamic Law: Historical Foundations and Al-Shaybani’s Siyar","authors":"Mona Samadi","doi":"10.1163/15718107-90010001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-90010001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"123-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46954234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.1163/15718107-BJA10022
Yoshifumi Tanaka
An environmental impact assessment (eia) can have a valuable role in effectuating substantive rules of international law of the environment, such as the obligation of due diligence and the precautionary approach. Thus this article seeks to examine the interlink between an obligation to perform an eia, the obligation of due diligence, and the precautionary approach, focusing on temporal elements of international law of the environment. First, this article examines the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the obligation of due diligence. Second, this article addresses the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the precautionary approach. Third, the timing of triggering the obligation to conduct an eia must be considered. Finally, this article examines the issues of breach of the obligation to conduct an eia, before offering conclusions.
{"title":"Obligation to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) in International Adjudication: Interaction between Law and Time","authors":"Yoshifumi Tanaka","doi":"10.1163/15718107-BJA10022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-BJA10022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000An environmental impact assessment (eia) can have a valuable role in effectuating substantive rules of international law of the environment, such as the obligation of due diligence and the precautionary approach. Thus this article seeks to examine the interlink between an obligation to perform an eia, the obligation of due diligence, and the precautionary approach, focusing on temporal elements of international law of the environment. First, this article examines the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the obligation of due diligence. Second, this article addresses the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the precautionary approach. Third, the timing of triggering the obligation to conduct an eia must be considered. Finally, this article examines the issues of breach of the obligation to conduct an eia, before offering conclusions.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"86-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48547508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-12DOI: 10.1163/15718107-89030011
Valentin Jeutner
The text casts doubt on the utility of proportionality tests to resolve conflicts between peremptory norms of public international law with reference to an argument advanced by João Ernesto Christófolo. Responding to Christófolo, the text maintains that subjecting conflicts between peremptory norms to a proportionality analysis entails judicial law-making, does not safeguard the interests protected by peremptory norms and that the use of proportionality tests cannot be justified with reference to the desired completeness of international law. Instead, the text argues that conflicts between peremptory norms should be dealt with head-on by openly acknowledging the existence of an irresolvable norm conflict and that, if at all, proportionality tests must be applied with utmost care to avoid that the interests of those undertaking a proportionality analysis prevail over the interests of those whose interests the balanced norms in questions are intended to protect.
案文参照jo o Ernesto Christófolo提出的论点，对比例检验是否适用于解决国际公法强制性规范之间的冲突表示怀疑。在答复Christófolo时，案文坚持认为，对强制性规范之间的冲突进行相称性分析涉及司法立法，不能维护受强制性规范保护的利益，而且不能以国际法所期望的完整性为依据，证明使用相称性检验是合理的。相反，案文认为，应通过公开承认存在无法解决的规范冲突来正面处理强制性规范之间的冲突，如果有的话，必须极为谨慎地适用相称性检验，以避免进行相称性分析的人的利益凌驾于所涉平衡规范旨在保护的人的利益之上。
{"title":"Rebutting Four Arguments in Favour of Resolving ius cogens Norm Conflicts by Means of Proportionality Tests","authors":"Valentin Jeutner","doi":"10.1163/15718107-89030011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-89030011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The text casts doubt on the utility of proportionality tests to resolve conflicts between peremptory norms of public international law with reference to an argument advanced by João Ernesto Christófolo. Responding to Christófolo, the text maintains that subjecting conflicts between peremptory norms to a proportionality analysis entails judicial law-making, does not safeguard the interests protected by peremptory norms and that the use of proportionality tests cannot be justified with reference to the desired completeness of international law. Instead, the text argues that conflicts between peremptory norms should be dealt with head-on by openly acknowledging the existence of an irresolvable norm conflict and that, if at all, proportionality tests must be applied with utmost care to avoid that the interests of those undertaking a proportionality analysis prevail over the interests of those whose interests the balanced norms in questions are intended to protect.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718107-89030011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41536684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-12DOI: 10.1163/15718107-89030006
M. Mckenna
Foregrounding standards like ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ have come to assume a central place in the international legal vocabulary for assessing the legitimacy of war. In both ethical and practical terms, the shift towards common standards provides a useful vernacular to assess military operations. But the question remains: how should these terms be interpreted and applied and by whom? Simultaneously, debates over the definitional boundaries of the legal concept of war and its attendant categories (e.g. lawful military objects, protected zones, combatants, civilians) have arisen in many contexts, leaving room for different and conflicting interpretations, often to the detriment of marginalised groups and weaker States. This article examines the ambivalences, complexities and contestations that have arisen in the move towards broader and subjective discourses of law and war, through the lens of proportionality. (Less)
{"title":"The Discourse of Proportionality and the Use of Force: International Law and the Power of Definition","authors":"M. Mckenna","doi":"10.1163/15718107-89030006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-89030006","url":null,"abstract":"Foregrounding standards like ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ have come to assume a central place in the international legal vocabulary for assessing the legitimacy of war. In both ethical and practical terms, the shift towards common standards provides a useful vernacular to assess military operations. But the question remains: how should these terms be interpreted and applied and by whom? Simultaneously, debates over the definitional boundaries of the legal concept of war and its attendant categories (e.g. lawful military objects, protected zones, combatants, civilians) have arisen in many contexts, leaving room for different and conflicting interpretations, often to the detriment of marginalised groups and weaker States. This article examines the ambivalences, complexities and contestations that have arisen in the move towards broader and subjective discourses of law and war, through the lens of proportionality. (Less)","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"89 1","pages":"364-382"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718107-89030006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45453732","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：