Sentencing Children Who Kill: One Giant Leap for the US Supreme Court, One Small Step for International Human Rights Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 801-813
Author(s):  
B. Malkani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Small Step ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Giant Leap ◽  
International Human

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

scholarly journals REPUTATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM THE US AND SOUTH KOREA

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-238
Author(s):  
Matthew Dale Kim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
International Human

AbstractPast studies suggest that domestic public support for compliance with international human rights law can constrain governments to comply with human rights law. But the question remains: Why does the public care about compliance? Using a series of survey experiments in South Korea and the United States, this study finds that constituents are concerned about compliance in one issue area—such as human rights—because they believe it will affect the country's reputation in other domains of international law. Cross-national survey experiments demonstrate that past noncompliance negatively affects the South Korean public's second-order beliefs about the likelihood of future compliance across different issue areas. However, past noncompliance has a limited impact on the US public's first-order beliefs across different domains.

scholarly journals Involuntary Sterilisation as a Form of Violence against Women in Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 721-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebenezer Durojaye
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Emotional Trauma ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Violation

This article examines the meaning and nature of sterilisation. It equally discusses the historical context of involuntary sterilisation and its likely human rights implications. More importantly, it discusses the decision of the Namibian Supreme Court in Government of Namibia v LM and argues that the court fails to consider involuntary sterilisation as a form of human rights violation, particularly violence against women. The article contends that given the attendant mental, physical and emotional trauma a woman may suffer upon undergoing forced sterilisation, this would amount to an act of violence against women as recognised under international human rights law.

scholarly journals Assessing U.S. Targeted Killings Under An International Human Rights Law Framework

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Michael Ramsden
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Us ◽  
International Human ◽  
Post Hoc

The US practice of targeted killings provokes difficult questions concerning the appropriate legal framework and the standards that govern such strikes. This article will argue that, in certain cases, it is necessary to examine the legality of targeted killings under international human rights law (IHRL). An explicit IHRL justification for targeted killings is important and, at present, often ignored by the US. IHRL requires any use of lethal force to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of safeguarding life and a necessary measure with no other reasonable means available to address the threat. It is possible, following a survey of human rights decision-makers, that targeted killings in exceptional circumstances are justifiable under IHRL. It is also incumbent on the US to pass domestic legislation that provides a legal basis for strikes disconnected to September 11, and also the provision of administrative and judicial review in order to provide a post-hoc check on targeted killing decisions.

scholarly journals Case of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-574
Author(s):  
Jorge Contesse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
Alberto Fujimori ◽  
International Human ◽  
Set Up

On May 30, 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) ordered Peru to review the presidential pardon granted to former president and dictator Alberto Fujimori, who had been convicted and imprisoned for his role in serious human rights violations. The Peruvian Supreme Court obliged and, after examining the merits of the presidential pardon through a special procedure set up to assess the pardon's conformity with international human rights law, invalidated the pardon, effectively reinstating Fujimori's imprisonment for crimes against humanity.

scholarly journals What Human Rights Law Could Do: Lamenting the Absence of an International Human Rights Law Approach in Boumediene & Al Odah

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 562-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona de Londras
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
International Human ◽  
The U.S

In December 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its latest Guantánamo Bay cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States. Interestingly, the argumentation offered in this litigation was almost exclusively domestic—international human rights law did not feature in spite of its capacity to add significantly to the weight and persuasiveness of the arguments petitioners' In respect of both the geographic scope and the content of constitutional standards, international human rights law has a well-developed body of jurisprudence that, this Article argues, ought to have been advanced by counsel for the petitioners. This Article both exposes the potentially significant international human rights law arguments that could have been advanced, and explores some possible reasons for the marginalization of this body of law. The Article concludes that this strategic decision on the part of counsel for the petitioners robbed the U.S. Supreme Court of an opportunity to assert the relevance of human rights law to the “War on Terrorism,” and to expand on the relationship between international and domestic constitutional standards and, for those reasons, is to be lamented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document