Part I The International Law of Tainted Money, 6 International Legal Sources V—the UN Security Council Delisting Procedure

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant Tom
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
National Level ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
International Level ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Individual

This chapter considers a particular aspect of the UN Security Council sanctions regime: the procedure for removing individuals or entities from the Sanctions List. The novelty of the delisting procedure justifies considering it in some detail. The delisting procedure is the main response at the international level to the human rights question raised by the Security Council sanctions regime. Because certain consequences for an individual follow at the national level from the fact of the individual having been listed, a procedure that goes to the listing itself holds particular interest for those to whom the regime might apply. The chapter concludes that the delisting procedure will continue to evolve as the Security Council grapples with procedural fairness and individual rights with which it has not historically had much to do.

Intervention by Invitation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

This chapter examines the debate concerning a state’s intervention in internal armed conflicts based on invitation, either from the government or from a rebel group fighting against the government. It looks at the issues that arise from intervention by invitation, particularly those relating to the territorial integrity of the state, the status of the actors involved, the nature of the consent, and implications for international law in general and for politics and human rights in particular. The chapter first considers the traditional view of intervention by invitation and the recent challenges to that view. It then discusses the negative equality principle as it applies to intervention in civil wars, as well as the link between intervention by invitation and democratic legitimacy. It also analyses the position of the UN Security Council on intervention by invitation.

Between the Margins and the Mainstream

2019 ◽  
pp. 205-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Charlesworth ◽  
Christine Chinkin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Women's Rights ◽  
Women’S Rights ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Human Rights Standards

This chapter investigates the conceptual limits of the field of women’s rights. It identifies two main currents of activity in the field: the elaboration of human rights standards, particularly through the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979; and the development of the ‘Women, Peace and Security’ agenda by the UN Security Council since 2000. Both areas are limited in their understandings of the diverse lives of women. The chapter argues that campaigns for the recognition of women’s rights shuttle between the mainstream and the margins of international law and that the structural bases of women’s disadvantage remain obscured in both locations.

scholarly journals State Immunity, Individual Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Crimes, and Future Prospects

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-157
Author(s):  
Stefan Kadelbach
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThis chapter first recapitulates the state of affairs as to the principle of state immunity and why exceptions from jurisdictional immunity for gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law are not recognized. It explores customary law and the global compensation treaty between Germany and Italy. Both indicate that Italy would be obligated to indemnify Germany from individual claims raised before Italian courts.In a second step, the development towards individual rights in public international law will be taken up. It appears that human beings are increasingly recognized as holders of individual claims but, apart from human rights treaty systems, lack the capacity under international law to invoke their rights before courts. Instead, they depend on their home states, which have standing but are not entitled to waive the individual rights of their citizens.In order to reconcile the seemingly antagonistic regimes of state immunity and claim settlement, prospects for a friendly solution of the present dilemma will be assessed. Against the background of cases pending before Italian courts, it will be examined whether the distinction between jurisdictional immunity and immunity from execution opens up a way out of the impasse, which the two states and private capital could pursue, and whether this solution would create a precedent for other similar constellations.Lastly, some concluding remarks will address lessons to be learnt for future conflicts. They will deal with elements of a general regime of compensation, drawing from the experience of both past reparation schemes and the experience of reconciliation in post-totalitarian societies. Such elements could be a duty to seek bona fide settlements, possible consequences of violations for domestic court proceedings, methods of assessing damages inspired by mass claim processing, the categorization of claims according to the gravity of violations, rules on evaluating evidence, procedures to give victims a say, and appropriate forms of monetary and non-pecuniary compensation including the necessary institutional framework.

scholarly journals Use of Force in Cyberspace

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-191
Author(s):  
Jozef Valuch ◽  
Ondrej Hamuľák
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Self Defence

Summary The ban on the use of force in current international law is of mandatory character. The only exceptions are actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council and self-defence. The article addresses the issue of the use of force, with particular emphasis on cyberspace. As the nature of the conflicts has changed in recent years as well as the space where the individual operations have been moving, a number of fundamental questions arise in this context, which the authors will try to answer.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Fate of the Rohingya

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-450
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council

The failure of the international community to adequately respond to patterns of discrimination against the ethnic Rohingya minority in Myanmar (Burma) eventually led to a genocide. The so-called “clearance operations” launched by Myanmar’s military in August 2017 tested the resilience of the international community’s commitment to defending human rights and upholding its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Two years later the UN Security Council has still not adopted a single resolution to name the crime committed against the Rohingya, or to hold the perpetrators accountable. Nevertheless, Rohingya survivors and international civil society have continued to campaign for justice under international law, and to advocate for targeted sanctions to be imposed on those responsible for atrocities. Faced with an inert Security Council, some UN member states have adopted inventive diplomatic measures to uphold their responsibility to protect.

The Legitimacy of Humanitarian Interventions

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONALD JANSE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
Rule Out

According to many international lawyers, humanitarian interventions without authorization by the UN Security Council are unlawful, but are sometimes morally justified. This discrepancy between legality and legitimacy has led to proposals for making international law more congruent with morality. This article examines the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions by discussing the major justifications by Walzer, Rawls, and Tesón. It argues that these justifications are open-ended: they fail to show that intervention should be limited to cases of violation of basic human rights, and do not categorically rule out intervention in the name of liberal and democratic rights. This is one more reason for being cautious with attempts to establish a law of humanitarian intervention.

Legal Protection Against the UN-Security Council Between European and International Law: A Kafkaesque Situation?

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Ley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Court Of First Instance

Constitutionalism beyond the state concerns itself with the relation among various legal levels and the position of the individual in a multilevel legal system. The question how human rights are protected against international organizations who increasingly take on executive powers cannot be thoroughly answered without confronting a fundamental debate in international law theory: the constitutionalism-fragmentation debate. The European Court of First Instance as well as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to deal recently and are still dealing with this complex in a number of cases.

Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
General Decline ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Way

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.

Revisiting Security Council action on terrorism: New threats; (a lot of) new law; same old problems?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
David McKeever
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
New Type ◽  
Recent Activity ◽  
Legislative Activity ◽  
Recent Action ◽  
Organizing Principles ◽  
Law Making

Abstract The devastating events of 9/11 triggered the adoption of Resolution 1373 (2001) by the UN Security Council, a contentious development which was much debated and was widely seen as presaging a new type of activity by the Security Council – legislating for all UN member states. And yet, in the counter-terrorism sphere at least, the Council’s legislative activity in the years following 9/11 was relatively modest. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, that activity has been far exceeded by the Council’s response to the emergence of ISIL in 2014. This more recent activity is of interest beyond the confines of counter-terrorism, but has received far less scrutiny to date. This article will remedy this gap, revisiting, in light of the recent activity, the relative merits and disadvantages of making counter-terrorism law through Security Council resolutions. It makes two main contentions. The first is that – due to some factors which were anticipated in the early 2000s and many which were not – Security Council resolutions on terrorism constitute a distinctive category of international law-making and pose serious challenges for the application of organizing principles and processes of general international law. The second is that, for these reasons as well as doubts as to the necessity and efficacy of recent action, making counter-terrorism law through Security Council resolutions should be the exception rather than the norm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document