International law and immigration detention: between territorial sovereignty and emerging human rights norms

2011 ◽  
pp. 119-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Wilsher
Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah

This chapter recaps the main themes of the volume, ie that the international law of the global economy is in a state of disorder. Claims about the justice, fairness, or benefits of the current state of international law as it relates to the global economy are fanciful. A more credible picture emerges when one considers who is protected, against what, and those relations that are valued and those that are not. Moreover, these claims above all require a suspension of a reflective attitude about what international law actually says and does. When it comes to international economic law, power is masked behind a veil of neutrality when it certainly is not neutral in the interests it protects and offends. As for international human rights law, it overlooks the ways in which it props up extreme capitalism foreclosing the possibility of transformative structural change to neoliberal capitalism. In its most radical areas, human rights norms have been blocked from making demands on the design of the global economy precisely because of their transformative potential. Among the central critiques of international law presented in this book is that international law must be justifiable to those who are subject to it.


Author(s):  
Valentin Aichele

This chapter analyses the use and interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in sixty-nine decisions of German federal courts between 2009 and mid-2016. German courts’ failure to be proactive in demonstrating ‘friendliness towards public international law’ when dealing with international human rights norms has been criticised. The National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism addressed problems in the application of the law. This chapter investigates the courts’ understanding of basic CRPD concepts, judicial techniques, interpretation methods and specific CRPD provisions. The importance of the concepts of self-executing provisions and direct effect is discussed. In quantitative terms, German courts have referred to the CRPD more often than any other UN international human rights instrument. Furthermore, in qualitative terms, federal courts have become more receptive towards the CRPD. However, it is clear that much of the potential for courts to use the CRPD in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities remains untapped.


2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoltán I. Búzás

AbstractThe most important international human rights norms are legalized or codified in international treaty law. Yet pernicious practices at odds with these norms endure and sometimes even increase after legalization. According to conventional wisdom, this is because agents commit to but do not comply with international law and the underlying norms. I develop a theory of evasion to explain why norm violations persist even when states technically comply with the law. Because legalization transposes social norms into international law imperfectly, it creates gaps between laws and underlying norms. Because of these norm-law gaps, legality and normative appropriateness will diverge. States caught between opposing pressures from pro-violation and pro-compliance groups exploit this gap through what I call evasion—the intentional minimization of normative obligations that technically complies with international law but violates underlying norms. I demonstrate the theory's empirical purchase in the cases of the French expulsion of Roma immigrants and the Czech school segregation of Roma children. Under the cover of technical compliance with the law, these states violated the norm of racial equality. The argument cautions that the good news about law compliance is not necessarily good news about norm compliance, broadens our understanding of norm violators' agency, and has practical implications for human rights advocacy.


Author(s):  
Keitner Chimène I

This article examines the issues of jurisdiction and immunities in transnational human rights litigation. It discusses the bases of asserting jurisdiction and highlights the problem in achieving consensus about the rules governing foreign official immunity. It analyses several relevant court cases including claims against foreign states, against current or former foreign officials and against non-state actors. This article argues that the horizontal enforcement of human rights norms by national courts carries the potential for both salutary and disruptive effects. It explains that while it can provide an avenue for victims of human rights abuses to obtain redress for their injuries, it can also interfere with the conduct of foreign relations with states that do not recognize the validity of national proceedings.


ICL Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-118
Author(s):  
Laura-Stella Enonchong

Abstract This article discusses the idea of international human rights law as ‘constitutional law’. It applies the French concept of Le contrôle de conventionnalité des lois, to demonstrate the constitutional potentials of international human rights law in the domestic sphere. In most monist constitutional systems based on the French civilian model, international law takes precedence over acts of parliament and other domestic legislation. Due in part to that hierarchy, conventionnalité permits the courts to review domestic law for compatibility with international law. From that perspective, international human rights norms can be said to have assumed a ‘para-constitutional’ function. Using two case studies from francophone Africa, this article argues that conventionnalité has the potential to play a significant role in the domestic implementation of international human rights and ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive domestic human rights regime.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

In February 2012, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that opposition groups fighting against the Assad regime are bound by human rights obligations constituting peremptory norms of international law. This finding is innovative for two reasons. First, human rights obligations apply generally to the vertical relation between States and their subjects. Second, whereas is seems accepted that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations when they control territory, the Commission of Inquiry was unable to confirm that Syrian opposition forces exercised such control over territory. This article examines whether the finding that non-state armed groups are bound by peremptory human rights norms is supported by contemporary international law. Moreover, recent trends in the practice of the United Nations with regard to human rights obligations of non-state actors will be analysed. Even though this article argues that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations in other situations of violence, it points out particular challenges to their practical application.


2009 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEYLA BENHABIB

The status of international law and transnational legal agreements with respect to the sovereignty claims of liberal democracies has become a highly contentious theoretical and political issue. Although recent European discussions focus on global constitutionalism, there is increasing reticence on the part of many that prospects of a world constitution are neither desirable nor salutary. This article more closely considers criticisms of these legal transformations by distinguishing the nationalist from democratic sovereigntiste positions, and both, from diagnoses that see the universalization of human rights norms either as the Trojan horse of a global empire or as neocolonialist intentions to assert imperial control over the world. These critics ignore “the jurisgenerativity of law.” Although democratic sovereigntistes are wrong in minimizing how human rights norms improve democratic self-rule; global constitutionalists are also wrong in minimizing the extent to which cosmopolitan norms require local contextualization, interpretation, and vernacularization by self-governing peoples.


Author(s):  
Siamak Karamzadeh ◽  
Massoud Alizadeh

The relationship between International Human Rights and Islamic Law has been always an arguable debate at the international level. This issue can be considered by jurists in two aspects. First, from National Law perspective, especially in the countries in which the law, to some extent is affected by Islamic rules. Second, by view of International Law to see that to what extent, there would be compatibility or likely contradiction between human rights norms and Islamic Law.Considering the historical aspect of the issue, this article is suggesting that although from the outset, International Law tried to separate religion from policy, but this historical fact would not prevent theoretical conciliation between religion and Human Rights rules. The review of the content of International Human Rights Law reveals that the rules in the systems in most part are compatible. However, in some cases the incompatibility between these two group pf rules is observed. The existence of different basis under Islamic Law and International Law makes the least difference unavoidable. The constant dialogue between Islamic scholars and publicists can decrease this difference in future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document