Netherlands International Law Review最新文献

Specific situational pictures are interfaces centralising continuously updated information about the situation at the external borders of the EU and dedicated to being shared with third countries. Frontex operates them and shares them through working agreements with third countries. On the basis of the information received, third countries may engage in refoulement contrary to European and international law, for which the responsibility of Frontex as the sharer of critical information must be examined. Building upon the law of non-contractual liability of the EU, this paper aims at pinpointing the technical characteristics of specific situational pictures that hamper holding Frontex responsible for the refoulements carried out by third countries on the basis of information shared. This paper argues that the principle of non-refoulement in EU law contains the obligation not to share information susceptible of leading to refoulement. Compensating the damage of people undergoing refoulement by third countries informed by specific situational pictures operated by Frontex is challenging, as the multiplicity of actors, the automation of data updates and the lack of transparency of these situational pictures blurs the lines of the attribution of responsibility.

Around the world, externalised migration controls continue to proliferate, leading to host of human rights harms for migrants. Migrants (and citizens) are being contained in states of origin and transit and denied their fundamental right to leave. However, externalisation is typically understood as preventing migrants entering state territory and accessing asylum, which has shaped litigation efforts and the rights and obligations that are invoked. Accordingly, this article seeks to demonstrate that the right to leave any country remains a largely overlooked avenue for challenging harmful externalisation practices and to highlight the important role it can play in remedying accountability gaps. It provides a broad overview of the right to leave in international law and its main contours as a starting point for considering the applicability of the right to externalisation measures. It examines the key jurisprudence concerning externalisation and the cases invoking the right to leave, including with respect to pushbacks, offshore processing, safe country arrangements, visa regimes, carrier sanctions and pullbacks, illustrating missed opportunities and positive developments. The article calls for a change in approach that recognises the great potential of the right to leave in tackling externalisation and containment, suggesting future opportunities for the right to be litigated and developed across different fora.

The externalization of migration control undermines the protection of victims of trafficking in human beings. Pushbacks and pullbacks at sea, as well as simplified or accelerated identification procedures, exacerbate the risk of trafficking and retrafficking and prevent victims from accessing the protection to which they may be entitled in European States. In this scenario, the European Court of Human Rights can play a crucial role among international bodies and courts in ensuring effective remedies for victims in case of repatriation to their countries of origin and transit. This study examines the applicability of the prohibition of slavery, servitude and forced labour enshrined in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights—whose scope now undisputedly includes trafficking in human beings—in the context of the externalization of migration control. It demonstrates that litigating unlawful refoulements under Article 4 ECHR might be very worthwhile to raise awareness of migration-related risks for victims, to strengthen the legal framework of positive obligations in trafficking cases, and to ascertain violations of anti-trafficking international obligations by European States.

Externalisation and the human rights violations it entails have received much attention in recent years from both advocates and academics. Since a key aspect of externalisation consists in people on the move staying in the Global South, the locus of litigation has broadened from externalising states in the Global North to also include accountability mechanisms in the Global South. Therefore, this article seeks to answer the following question: to what extent do the international and regional human rights regimes provide accountability mechanisms for violations of the human rights of people on the move in the context of externalisation? It does so through a comparison of externalisation policies in three different regions: the Mediterranean, North America and the Pacific. In each region, the analysis focuses on cooperation between an externalising state in the Global North and a neighbouring state in the Global South to illustrate the differences and similarities between the various contexts: Australia and Indonesia, the United States and Mexico, and Italy and Libya. For each context, the analysis examines the policies implemented by externalising states and their effect on the human rights of people on the move as well as states’ substantive and procedural human rights commitments under the applicable international and regional human rights regimes. While there is no ‘one size fits all’, it shows that there are only limited accountability mechanisms available to people on the move affected by the externalisation of migration control.

This article delves into the critical aspect of exclusive jurisdiction in Vietnamese law, particularly focusing on disputes emerging from international commercial contracts relating to immovable property. The main objective is to demystify the types of disputes that are encompassed under this exclusive jurisdiction and to propose a requisite level of connection to Vietnamese immovable property for such jurisdiction to be applicable. Through a comprehensive analysis, the study reveals varying interpretations by Vietnamese courts regarding the scope of this jurisdiction rule. A notable finding is the contrasting jurisdictional approaches between domestic and foreign arbitrators in handling disputes connected to international commercial contracts involving immovable property. This discrepancy highlights the urgency for Vietnam to align its legal framework with global standards. The paper emphasizes the significance of this harmonization, not only for legal clarity and consistency but also for enhancing the attractiveness of Vietnam’s legal environment for international investors.

Armed conflict has devastating environmental consequences, adversely impacting critical ecosystems and natural resources. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has been ongoing since February 2022, has significantly affected Ukrainian wetlands, jeopardising their vital ecosystem services. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (‘Ramsar Convention’), which focuses on conserving and sustainably using wetlands, thus stands as a valuable tool for addressing environmental emergencies during armed conflict. With both Russia and Ukraine as Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention and their armed conflict causing a negative environmental impact, the effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention during such a conflict is being tested. The centrepiece of this article is a Resolution entitled ‘Environmental emergency in Ukraine relating to the damage of its wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Sites) stemming from the Russian Federation’s aggression’ recently adopted by the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention. This article assesses the effectiveness of the mechanisms within the Ramsar Convention and this Resolution in addressing the environmental challenges faced by Ukrainian Ramsar Sites during armed conflict. This case study provides broad insights into the overall challenges to implementing international environmental law treaties in times of armed conflict. Furthermore, it highlights the potential of leveraging the Ramsar Convention and similar environmental agreements to effectively safeguard the natural environment and ecosystems in times of armed conflict.

Abstract

The current pandemic response system under the International Health Regulations has been considered unsatisfactory in controlling world pandemic outbreaks. Opinions are voiced that a legal evolution incorporating other sources of international law is imperative to meet the system’s primary deficiency: the uneven degree of State compliance with the ‘core capacity’ requirements. Against this background, this paper aims to examine the potential application of transboundary harm rules in world pandemic prevention, where existing treaty obligations are insufficient or ineffective in addressing future obstacles. By comparing their conceptual characters and legal elements, this paper seeks to reveal the inherent link between the two domains, which may further demonstrate an existing manifestation of transboundary harm rules as emerging customary international law in current pandemic prevention practice. Based on the structure of transboundary harm rules, this paper aims to provide an innovative legal framework that justifies the differentiated standards among States with uneven capacity and underlines the obligation of cooperation. Such a framework is designed to improve the level of States’ prevention and response towards future global health emergencies raised by world pandemics. Moreover, it hopes to provide practical ideas for formulating the new international instrument on pandemic prevention, which is currently being drafted by the Member States of the World Health Organization.