scholarly journals Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law. By Anne Peters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pp. xxxv, 602. Index.

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 654-664
Author(s):  
Tara J. Melish
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
The Individual

Book Reviews

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 801-833
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Oxford University Press

Onuma Yasuaki: International Law in a Transcivilizational World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017 Andrzej Jakubowski/Karolina Wierczyńska (eds.): Fragmentation vs the Constitutionalisation of International Law: A Practical Inquiry. Routledge, London and New York 2016 Rosalyn Higgins/Philippa Webb/Dapo Akande/Sandesh Sivakumaran/James Sloan: Oppenheim’s International Law: United Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017 Nobuo Hayashi/Cecilia M. Bailliet (eds.): The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017 Christine Chinkin/Mary Kaldor: International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017 Marina Lostal: International Cultural Heritage Law in Armed Conflict: Case-Studies of Syria, Libya, Mali, the Invasion of Iraq, and the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017 Brian D. Lepard (ed.): Reexamining Customary International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017 Anne Peters: Beyond Human Rights. The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2016 C. J. Jenner/Tran Truong Thuy (eds.): The South China Sea: A Crucible of Regional Cooperation or Conflict-making Sovereignty Claims? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2016 Daniel Bodansky/Jutta Brunnée/Lavanya Rajamani: International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017 Andreas Kulick (ed.): Reassertion of Control over the Investment Treaty Regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017

Remarks by Sean D. Murphy

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Interstate System ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Individual

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?

5 Combatants and Non-Combatants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ipsen Knut
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Individual Protection ◽  
The Many ◽  
Enemy Combatant ◽  
The Individual

This chapter examines the regulation of combatant status in treaty law and the many challenges for combatant status in recent armed conflicts. The primary status under international law of persons in an international armed conflict will be one of two categories of persons: ‘combatants’ and ‘civilians’. Combatants may fight within the limits imposed by international law applicable in international armed conflict, that is, they may participate directly in hostilities, which members of medical or religious personnel and ‘non-combatants’ may not do because they are excluded—by international law and by a legal act of their party to the conflict—from the authorization to take a direct part in hostilities. The chapter then discusses ‘unlawful combatants’, or what may be considered the better term: ‘unprivileged belligerents’. The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ was particularly used after 11 September 2001, to introduce a third category of persons which under existing law may be either combatants or civilians, but are denied such status as not fulfilling essential conditions. To use this third category in order to reduce the individual protection below the minimum standard of human rights is under no circumstances legally acceptable.

Contesting Self-determination in the Wake of Empire: Sovereignty, Human Rights and Economic Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-93
Author(s):  
Miriam Bak McKenna
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Historical Accounts ◽  
East West ◽  
Individual Human

This article considers the ways in which geo-political and legal concerns materialised in debates over self-determination in the years following decolonisation, and how they impacted on its’ possibilities, objectives and conception. During this period, self-determination was not, as some scholars have argued, a declining norm, but one central to the competing visions of reinventing international law after empire. These varying articulations were largely shaped by the experience of colonialism and its ongoing effects, along with the ideological confrontation between East-West and North-South. One articulation stressed the primacy of political and economic sovereignty, prominently seen in calls for the establishment of a New International Economic Order. The other sought to integrate self-determination into the elevation of democratic governance and individual human rights protection. Examining these alternative formulations of self-determination, underlines the incompleteness of mainstream historical accounts, and may throw light upon continuing anxieties over its current legal status.

scholarly journals Kiobel and the New Battle Over Congressional Intent

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
David H. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Transnational human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been plagued by the overarching question of the domestic legal status of customary international law (CIL). Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is the Supreme Court's second installment on the ATS. Like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machainbefore it, Kiobel does not expressly address the domestic legal status of CIL, but it does provide clues. Those clues suggest two insights: the Court views CIL as external to U.S. law, rather than as part of federal common law, and the role of CIL in future cases may be affected less by arguments about CIL's status as federal common law than by arguments about congressional intent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document