A History of Maritime Piracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 115-127
Author(s):  
Masha Fedorova ◽  
Piet Hein van Kempen

Masha Fedorova and Piet Hein van Kempen eschew explorations of the nature of piracy to focus on whether there is some legal basis for an obligation in conventional and customary international law on states to criminalize piracy, concluding that such an obligation is absent. But the main thrust of the chapter is an historical survey which tries to decipher why this is the case.

Author(s):  
De Wet Erika

This chapter explores potential formal requirements that may affect the validity of consent to direct military assistance. Customary international law only imposes two specific, formal limitations on the legal construct of military assistance on request. The first would be that the request for or consent to military assistance must be issued (and withdrawn) by the highest officials of a state, namely, the head of state and/or government. Where these two positions are not combined within the same person and there is disagreement between them as to whether consent exists, the domestic law of the country in question may be decisive in determining who has the final say in the matter. However, such disagreement between the two highest state officials is likely to be an indication of the political fragility of the consent, which should caution against relying exclusively on consent as the legal basis for the forcible measures. The second constraint imposed by customary international law concerns the requirement that ex ante consent as expressed in pro-invasion treaty clauses must be complemented by ad hoc consent at the time of the forcible measures. Apart from these two constraints, customary international law does not seem to impose any particular formal requirements on states expressing consent to forcible measures on its territory.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
VAIOS KOUTROULIS

AbstractThe equal application of international humanitarian law (jus in bello) to all parties to an international armed conflict is a cornerstone principle of jus in bello. In his article, Professor Mandel casts doubt on the legal basis of this principle. Reacting to this claim, this contribution demonstrates that the ‘equality of belligerents’ is a principle firmly grounded in both conventional and customary international law. Moreover, its legal force withstands the test of international jurisprudence, including the International Court of Justice's controversial Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion.


Grotiana ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-44
Author(s):  
Francesca Iurlaro

This article tackles the issue of whether and how Hugo Grotius conceives of custom as a formal source of the law of nations. The main claim of it is that not only custom plays a fundamental role in Grotius’s thought, but that his reflections mark a fundamental turning point for the history of customary international law. A crucial role in this process of re-conceptualization is played by Grotius’s reading of Dio Chrysostom, whose oration On custom provides him with an integrated account of custom as a ‘normative practice’ based on rhetorical judgment (as opposed to the Scholastic interpretation of custom as reiteration of voluntary acts). Consequently, I argue that Dio Chrysostom’s text helps Grotius to transpose the question of the normative legitimacy of custom from a moral to an interpretative level. To conclude, I will show that Grotius adopts two different rhetorical strategies to prove the existence of customary norms of ius gentium.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Papillon

AbstractOn 4 March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the incumbent Head of State of Sudan. This article's purpose is to suggest a legal basis for reconciling the well established rule on personal immunities under customary international law with the prosecution of Heads of State from non-parties to the ICC Statute. While arguing for the legality of Al Bashir's warrant as well as the legality of the warrant's enforcement, this article explores the basis upon which the UN Security Council can remove immunities. By giving special attention to the concept of waivers, the article suggests that the UN organ implicitly removed Al Bashir's immunity when it referred the situation of Sudan to the ICC in 2005.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-378
Author(s):  
Rebecca Barber

AbstractThis article seeks to make sense of two seemingly contradictory aspects of the General Assembly's practice: its history of recommending to States that they impose unilateral sanctions; and its series of resolutions denouncing unilateral coercive measures as illegal. It examines the seeming discrepancy between the customary international law position regarding unilateral sanctions, and the position asserted by the Assembly, and argues that on a nuanced reading of the Assembly's resolutions, these positions are not so divergent as is often supposed. The article concludes by examining the scope for the Assembly to make future sanctions recommendations, consistently with its prior condemnation of unilateral coercive measures.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Blackmore

The Usuthu River forms part of the international boundary between South Africa and Mozambique. In 2002, this River breached its south bank within the Ndumo Game Reserve and established a new channel within the protected area. In response to the breach, Mozambique proposed the excavation of the floodplain and the establishment of berms to force the flow of the river back into its original alignment. Analysis of the origin and associated history of this portion of the international boundary indicates that it is unlikely that the international boundary has moved with the breech. Furthermore, customary international law pertaining to avulsion or mutation alvei of rivers supports the notion that the international boundary remained in the original channel of the Usuthu River. Finally, case history of a similar circumstance in Africa affirms that this boundary is unlikely to have shifted with the avulsion of the Usuthu River. The Mozambican proposal brings to the fore an array of public trust considerations which are founded in South Africa’sConstitution, and environmental and biodiversity conservation legislation. These considerations prohibit the excavation of the Ndumo Game Reserve. The concept of the state acting as a trustee for, inter alia, biodiversity and protected areas, is reinforced by various water and biodiversity-orientated multilateral agreements to which South Africa is a signatory. Within these, the ones adopted by the Southern African Development Community are the most profound in that they, and specifically the Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement, enjoin state parties from taking decisions that may cause damage to the trust entity beyond the limits of their sovereignty.


Author(s):  
Salacuse Jeswald W

Since the inception of international investment, foreign investors have sought assurances from the sovereigns in whose territory they invest that their interests will be protected from negative actions by the sovereign and local individuals. This chapter begins with a historical background of the treatification process, which came about due to the perceived weaknesses of customary international law applying to foreign investments. It then discusses the objectives of the movement to negotiate investment treaties; the primary and secondary objectives of investment treaties; long-term goals of investment treaties; the treaty negotiation process; and the consequences of investment treaties, including the growth in investor–state arbitration cases to settle investment disputes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 290-320
Author(s):  
Tamara Wood

Abstract Africa’s expanded refugee definition – article I(2) of the 1969 Convention – provides the legal basis of protection for a significant number of the world’s refugees. It is a gateway to a host of rights aimed at protecting refugees from future harm and preserving their dignity until a durable solution can be found. The expansive nature of the African definition has seen it praised for being more humanitarian, more reflective of current causes of displacement, and an exemplar for the development of refugee protection regimes elsewhere. Despite this, the scope of the definition and the meaning of its terms remain poorly understood in both literature and practice. Attempts to interpret the definition to date have been largely superficial and often lacking in any principled interpretative framework. This undermines its implementation in practice, potentially risking the lives and security of those entitled to protection as refugees in Africa. This article sets out a principled framework for interpreting and applying Africa’s expanded refugee definition. The framework is drawn from international law principles of treaty interpretation, as set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law. However, this article goes beyond merely reciting the relevant principles: it analyses their scope, applicability to Africa’s expanded refugee definition, and implications for the interpretation of the definition’s terms. It also identifies, and describes in detail, four key principles for interpreting the expanded refugee definition. These four key principles are critical to addressing the shortcomings of existing understandings of the definition and some of the main controversies that arise in its interpretation and application. They also provide a practical and accessible source of guidance for refugee status decision makers and others that could assist in promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in refugee status determination within African States.


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 789-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachezar Yanev ◽  
Tijs Kooijmans

The concept of co-perpetration and its proper construction continues to be a topic that causes controversy and fragmentation in the field of international criminal law. The latest proof of this is the Lubanga Trial Judgment in which the three judges disagreed on whether this mode of liability should be based on the theory of joint control over the crime. The present article examines and further develops Judge Fulford’s arguments against the adoption of this theory in cases brought before the International Criminal Court. It analyses the Rome Statute and its drafting history, as well as customary international law and domestic jurisprudence, in order to review the contention that there is no legal basis for applying the joint control paradigm in ICC proceedings. In addition to this, several recent ICC cases are examined to underscore the practical weaknesses of the control over the crime approach to co-perpetration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document