Pub Date : 2024-05-21DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10121
Ludovica Di Lullo
The ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (‘CBDRC’) is a traditional yet rather controversial principle of International Law. It stems from the need to establish an equitable approach to global concerns through non-reciprocal obligations. Despite the quasi-universal acceptance of the principle since its first appearance in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, certain legal challenges persist regarding its formal status, the rationale for the differentiation of legal obligations, and its implementation. The CBDRCs principle continues to play a crucial role in the ongoing post-pandemic negotiations aimed at reshaping the international health legal architecture. This article argues that translating the principle of CBDRCs into operational tools for a comprehensive system of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, could address inequalities between the Global North and the Global South, thus changing the narrative on fairness in international health law.
{"title":"Striving for Fairness: A Critical Examination of the ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Capabilities’ Principle in International Health Law","authors":"Ludovica Di Lullo","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10121","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (‘<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">CBDRC</span>’) is a traditional yet rather controversial principle of International Law. It stems from the need to establish an equitable approach to global concerns through non-reciprocal obligations. Despite the quasi-universal acceptance of the principle since its first appearance in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, certain legal challenges persist regarding its formal status, the rationale for the differentiation of legal obligations, and its implementation. The <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">CBDRC</span>s principle continues to play a crucial role in the ongoing post-pandemic negotiations aimed at reshaping the international health legal architecture. This article argues that translating the principle of <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">CBDRC</span>s into operational tools for a comprehensive system of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, could address inequalities between the Global North and the Global South, thus changing the narrative on fairness in international health law.</p>","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141153753","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341493
Masahiko Asada
Nearly two years have passed since the Russian aggression against Ukraine started in February 2022. However, there appears to be no prospect for a ceasefire. The long duration of this situation, which fundamentally undermines the prohibition of the use of force and flatly disregards rules on armed conflict, was unexpected. The international order thus faces a critical situation, but a calm and objective analysis is still necessary. Such a perspective is significant as it helps to maintain the rule of law in the international community over the long run, while simultaneously shedding light on possible constraints that other States have in relation to the aggressor State. This article analyzes the legal aspects of the war in Ukraine, focusing on rules concerning the prohibition of the use of force and the law of neutrality.
{"title":"The War in Ukraine under International Law: Its Use of Force and Armed Conflict Aspects","authors":"Masahiko Asada","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341493","url":null,"abstract":"Nearly two years have passed since the Russian aggression against Ukraine started in February 2022. However, there appears to be no prospect for a ceasefire. The long duration of this situation, which fundamentally undermines the prohibition of the use of force and flatly disregards rules on armed conflict, was unexpected. The international order thus faces a critical situation, but a calm and objective analysis is still necessary. Such a perspective is significant as it helps to maintain the rule of law in the international community over the long run, while simultaneously shedding light on possible constraints that other States have in relation to the aggressor State. This article analyzes the legal aspects of the war in Ukraine, focusing on rules concerning the prohibition of the use of force and the law of neutrality.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598580","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341497
Fujio Kawashima
In the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, around 40 countries/economies, including G7 members, responded to impose a wide range of economic, including trade-related, sanctions on Russia. The question immediately arises as to whether such sanctions violate the WTO agreements or are justified under the relevant national security exceptions. After introducing the material facts of the economic sanctions against Russia as well as the development of WTO jurisprudence on national security exceptions – particularly Article XXI(b)(iii) of the GATT –, this article goes on to analyse the WTO consistency of these trade sanctions against Russia, on a country-by-country and a measure-by-measure basis. From the standpoint of the “war or other emergency in international relations” and “its essential security interests” requirements, countries are categorised according to their geographic proximity and relationship (e.g., military alliances, customs unions, etc) to the belligerents, while measures are categorised by their nature and aim from the standpoint of the “necessary to protect” requirement.
{"title":"Trade Sanctions against Russia and their WTO Consistency: Focusing on Justification under National Security Exceptions","authors":"Fujio Kawashima","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341497","url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, around 40 countries/economies, including G7 members, responded to impose a wide range of economic, including trade-related, sanctions on Russia. The question immediately arises as to whether such sanctions violate the <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> agreements or are justified under the relevant national security exceptions. After introducing the material facts of the economic sanctions against Russia as well as the development of <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> jurisprudence on national security exceptions – particularly Article <jats:sc>XXI</jats:sc>(b)(iii) of the <jats:sc>GATT</jats:sc> –, this article goes on to analyse the <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> consistency of these trade sanctions against Russia, on a country-by-country and a measure-by-measure basis. From the standpoint of the “war or other emergency in international relations” and “its essential security interests” requirements, countries are categorised according to their geographic proximity and relationship (e.g., military alliances, customs unions, etc) to the belligerents, while measures are categorised by their nature and aim from the standpoint of the “necessary to protect” requirement.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598582","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341496
Kazuhiro Nakatani
As the most powerful measure of economic sanctions against Russia which invaded Ukraine, the Western States froze the assets of the Russian Central Bank and the Oligarchs which are situated in their States. This article attempts to clarify the legality of the freezing, confiscation, and management of assets under international law. The freezing of assets is a legal countermeasure against aggression. Confiscation is lawful only if certain conditions are satisfied. Management is a realistic option which avoids the legal risks which might arise from confiscation.
{"title":"Freezing, Confiscation and Management of the Assets of the Russian Central Bank and the Oligarchs","authors":"Kazuhiro Nakatani","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341496","url":null,"abstract":"As the most powerful measure of economic sanctions against Russia which invaded Ukraine, the Western States froze the assets of the Russian Central Bank and the Oligarchs which are situated in their States. This article attempts to clarify the legality of the freezing, confiscation, and management of assets under international law. The freezing of assets is a legal countermeasure against aggression. Confiscation is lawful only if certain conditions are satisfied. Management is a realistic option which avoids the legal risks which might arise from confiscation.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598584","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341495
Mika Hayashi, Akihiro Yamaguchi
Despite the apparent aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the legality of the autonomous (‘non-UN’) economic sanctions against Russia remains uncertain. Measures adopted as sanctions are generally assumed to be lawful by those states imposing such sanctions. The same sanctions are denounced as illegal by Russia and also by a number of other states. The question of legitimacy of these sanctions is also divisive. As the main criticism of these sanctions pertains to their ‘unilateral’ nature, an initial response to such criticism is to attempt to present sanctions as actually being collective UN sanctions. However, assimilating autonomous economic sanctions to collective sanctions under UN auspices is an untenable argument. Another justification proposed is labelling the sanctions as so-called ‘third-party countermeasures.’ However, the debate on the entitlement of third states to take countermeasures remains inconclusive. Moreover, there is no evidence that states imposing sanctions against Russia rely on such legal justification.
{"title":"Economic Sanctions against Russia: Questions of Legality and Legitimacy","authors":"Mika Hayashi, Akihiro Yamaguchi","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341495","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the apparent aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the legality of the autonomous (‘non-UN’) economic sanctions against Russia remains uncertain. Measures adopted as sanctions are generally assumed to be lawful by those states imposing such sanctions. The same sanctions are denounced as illegal by Russia and also by a number of other states. The question of legitimacy of these sanctions is also divisive. As the main criticism of these sanctions pertains to their ‘unilateral’ nature, an initial response to such criticism is to attempt to present sanctions as actually being collective UN sanctions. However, assimilating autonomous economic sanctions to collective sanctions under UN auspices is an untenable argument. Another justification proposed is labelling the sanctions as so-called ‘third-party countermeasures.’ However, the debate on the entitlement of third states to take countermeasures remains inconclusive. Moreover, there is no evidence that states imposing sanctions against Russia rely on such legal justification.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598578","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341498
Satoru Taira
The requirements for invoking WTO security exceptions as expounded in recent WTO dispute settlement cases are notably stricter than previously thought by WTO members. Consequently, not all WTO members who have imposed trade sanctions against Russia will be able to invoke these exceptions to justify their actions when accused by Russia of violations of their WTO obligations. This article considers whether WTO members who may be unsuccessful in invoking security exceptions may nonetheless be able to justify their measures within the context of WTO dispute settlement under the customary international law on third-party countermeasures. It does so by exploring the scope of the relevant provisions within the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) as well as competence of WTO adjudicative bodies (i.e., WTO panels and the Appellate Body) to look beyond the four corners of the WTO covered agreements.
{"title":"WTO Dispute Settlement and Trade Sanctions as Permissible Third-Party Countermeasures under Customary International Law","authors":"Satoru Taira","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341498","url":null,"abstract":"The requirements for invoking <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> security exceptions as expounded in recent <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> dispute settlement cases are notably stricter than previously thought by <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> members. Consequently, not all <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> members who have imposed trade sanctions against Russia will be able to invoke these exceptions to justify their actions when accused by Russia of violations of their <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> obligations. This article considers whether <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> members who may be unsuccessful in invoking security exceptions may nonetheless be able to justify their measures within the context of <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> dispute settlement under the customary international law on third-party countermeasures. It does so by exploring the scope of the relevant provisions within the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (<jats:sc>DSU</jats:sc>) as well as competence of <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> adjudicative bodies (i.e., <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> panels and the Appellate Body) to look beyond the four corners of the <jats:sc>WTO</jats:sc> covered agreements.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598554","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341494
Dai Tamada
At the time of writing, the war in Ukraine was the subject of ICJ proceedings in the Allegations of Genocide case. As the case title suggests, however, the key issue before the ICJ is not Russia’s use of force, but the question of genocide. Restrictions on its jurisdiction have led to the ICJ facing a serious dilemma between, on the one hand, having to meet unprecedented high levels of expectation and political pressure to stop Russia’s military action and, on the other, inherent legal constraints in maintaining its judicial character. This article elucidates how the ICJ has overcome procedural hurdles, including the requirements for provisional measures and intervention, to reach conclusions in favour of Ukraine. It also highlights the procedural challenges arising from the acrobatic reasoning adopted by the ICJ in the present case.
{"title":"War in Ukraine and the International Court of Justice: Provisional Measures and the Third-Party Right to Intervene in Proceedings","authors":"Dai Tamada","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341494","url":null,"abstract":"At the time of writing, the war in Ukraine was the subject of <jats:sc>ICJ</jats:sc> proceedings in the <jats:italic>Allegations of Genocide</jats:italic> case. As the case title suggests, however, the key issue before the <jats:sc>ICJ</jats:sc> is not Russia’s use of force, but the question of genocide. Restrictions on its jurisdiction have led to the <jats:sc>ICJ</jats:sc> facing a serious dilemma between, on the one hand, having to meet unprecedented high levels of expectation and political pressure to stop Russia’s military action and, on the other, inherent legal constraints in maintaining its judicial character. This article elucidates how the <jats:sc>ICJ</jats:sc> has overcome procedural hurdles, including the requirements for provisional measures and intervention, to reach conclusions in favour of Ukraine. It also highlights the procedural challenges arising from the acrobatic reasoning adopted by the <jats:sc>ICJ</jats:sc> in the present case.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"12 9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598512","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 : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341499
Dai Tamada
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has sent shockwaves across the international community, not least the international investment community and the arbitration world. A flurry of disputes has arisen not only in connection to harm to the interests of foreign investors in Ukraine and Russia but also in relation to sanctions – including asset freezing measures – imposed by many western and aligned states. This article outlines the typology of arising cases, and discusses the principal arguments, outcomes and challenges of means of redress (typically, arbitration) that appear to be at play.
{"title":"War in Ukraine and Implications for International Investment Law","authors":"Dai Tamada","doi":"10.1163/18719732-12341499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341499","url":null,"abstract":"Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has sent shockwaves across the international community, not least the international investment community and the arbitration world. A flurry of disputes has arisen not only in connection to harm to the interests of foreign investors in Ukraine and Russia but also in relation to sanctions – including asset freezing measures – imposed by many western and aligned states. This article outlines the typology of arising cases, and discusses the principal arguments, outcomes and challenges of means of redress (typically, arbitration) that appear to be at play.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140598313","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 : 2023-12-01DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10111
Maria Oluyeju, Olufemi Oluyeju
This article challenges the contemporary negative and dismissive narratives about distressed debt hedge funds (DDHFs), a subset of holdout creditors. A soft normative framework for regulating this category of creditors and other holdout creditors is however proposed to address their disruptive activities in the sovereign debt market. It is proposed that the Basel III framework be a conduit for enforcing the proposed normative framework because hedge funds are customers of institutions subject to Basel III oversight. One of the characteristics of these funds is their relatively sophisticated and high use of leverage. The authors therefore envisage the Basel III framework being expanded to provide for enforcement in this context. Finally, the normative framework proposed in this article differs from previous proposals including the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) and contractual solutions including Collective Action Clauses (CACs) and exit consents as it proposes the Basel III framework as an enforcement mechanism and is not a contractual solution.
{"title":"Normative Framework for the Regulation of Holdout Creditors in the Sovereign Debt Market","authors":"Maria Oluyeju, Olufemi Oluyeju","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10111","url":null,"abstract":"This article challenges the contemporary negative and dismissive narratives about distressed debt hedge funds (<jats:sc>DDHF</jats:sc>s), a subset of holdout creditors. A soft normative framework for regulating this category of creditors and other holdout creditors is however proposed to address their disruptive activities in the sovereign debt market. It is proposed that the Basel <jats:sc>III</jats:sc> framework be a conduit for enforcing the proposed normative framework because hedge funds are customers of institutions subject to Basel <jats:sc>III</jats:sc> oversight. One of the characteristics of these funds is their relatively sophisticated and high use of leverage. The authors therefore envisage the Basel <jats:sc>III</jats:sc> framework being expanded to provide for enforcement in this context. Finally, the normative framework proposed in this article differs from previous proposals including the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (<jats:sc>SDRM</jats:sc>) and contractual solutions including Collective Action Clauses (<jats:sc>CAC</jats:sc>s) and exit consents as it proposes the Basel <jats:sc>III</jats:sc> framework as an enforcement mechanism and is not a contractual solution.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138508384","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 : 2023-11-22DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10113
Maciej Oksztulski, Maciej Perkowski, Wojciech Zoń
The European acquis on the protection of human rights is indisputable. This also applies to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, this acquis is not extensive enough to cover all the problems Europeans have. The aim of this article is to establish the status quo in the area of anti-discrimination against persons on the autism spectrum in the labour market, taking into account the related Strasbourg jurisprudence in question, as a starting point for potential proceedings (in this area) before the European Court of Human Rights. Currently, the body of doctrine in this area is not extensive, and the increasing number of diagnosed cases of autism may in the future necessitate a deeper reflection on the guarantees provided by international law. The article will generally characterise autism, discuss ECtHR jurisprudence relating to persons with disabilities and (briefly) the right to work, discuss the labour market participation of persons on the autism spectrum in selected countries as a challenge to jurisprudence, and present a conclusion.
欧洲在保护人权方面的成就是无可争辩的。这也适用于欧洲人权法院的判例法。然而，这种收购还不足以涵盖欧洲人面临的所有问题。本文的目的是确立劳动力市场上反歧视自闭症患者领域的现状，同时考虑到相关的斯特拉斯堡判例，作为欧洲人权法院(European Court of Human Rights)在这一领域进行潜在诉讼的起点。目前，这一领域的理论体系并不广泛，而且越来越多的自闭症诊断病例将来可能需要对国际法提供的保障进行更深入的反思。这篇文章将概括地描述自闭症的特征，讨论欧洲人权法院与残疾人和(简要地)工作权有关的判例，讨论某些国家自闭症患者参与劳动力市场对判例的挑战，并提出结论。
{"title":"Autistic Persons in the Labour Market in the Light of ECtHR Case-law","authors":"Maciej Oksztulski, Maciej Perkowski, Wojciech Zoń","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10113","url":null,"abstract":"The European acquis on the protection of human rights is indisputable. This also applies to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, this acquis is not extensive enough to cover all the problems Europeans have. The aim of this article is to establish the status quo in the area of anti-discrimination against persons on the autism spectrum in the labour market, taking into account the related Strasbourg jurisprudence in question, as a starting point for potential proceedings (in this area) before the European Court of Human Rights. Currently, the body of doctrine in this area is not extensive, and the increasing number of diagnosed cases of autism may in the future necessitate a deeper reflection on the guarantees provided by international law. The article will generally characterise autism, discuss ECtHR jurisprudence relating to persons with disabilities and (briefly) the right to work, discuss the labour market participation of persons on the autism spectrum in selected countries as a challenge to jurisprudence, and present a conclusion.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"26 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138508387","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号