Safety in the Air: Air Carriers' Rights and Responsibilities at National and International Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-303
Author(s):  
Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Passenger Screening ◽  
Air Transport Industry ◽  
Potential Offender ◽  
Air Disaster ◽  
Machine Readable ◽  
Air Carriers ◽  
Legal Consequences

Several air disasters involving loss of lives of passengers and others on the ground have illustrated the key role expected of airlines in ensuring the security of aircraft and the safety of those affected by the contract of carriage by air. The culmination of these expectations came immediately after 11 September 2001 when aircraft were used as weapons of mass destruction against passengers of the aircraft concerned and those on the ground. Sustained debate followed between the air transport industry and regulators as to whether airlines could justifiably be expected to bear full responsibility for the safety of those on board and on the ground who may be affected by an air disaster. The international community now recognizes that the airlines have to bear some responsibility in the decision-making process regarding persons boarding their aircraft. Modern techniques for passenger screening include the use of machine readable travel documents (MRTDs) and advance passenger information (API). In addition, the practice of passenger profiling is not uncommon among some carriers who cooperate with customs and immigration authorities to identify possible offenders, with a view to preventing them from boarding their aircraft. The process of refusal to board, however, may entail legal consequences, particularly in the context of the contract which has already passed between the air carrier and passenger prior to boarding. Although usually a contract can be frustrated thus affecting the performance of that contract, the instance of a potential offender is unique in that refusal of carriage is based on conjecture rather than empirical evidence. This article examines this issue with a focus on developments in some European and United States jurisdictions.

The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Treaties

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Vital Part ◽  
Health And Economic Development ◽  
Global War

The United Nations is a vital part of the international order. Yet this book argues that the greatest contribution of the UN is not what it has achieved (improvements in health and economic development) or avoided (global war or the use of weapons of mass destruction). It is, instead, the process through which the UN has transformed the structure of international law to expand the range and depth of subjects covered by treaties. The book offers the first sustained analysis of the UN as a forum in which and an institution through which treaties are negotiated and implemented. Chapters are written by authors from different fields, including academics and practitioners, lawyers and specialists from other social sciences (international relations, history, science), professionals with an established reputation in the field, and younger researchers and diplomats involved in the negotiation of multilateral treaties and scholars with a broader view on the issues involved. The volume provides unique insights into UN treaty-making. Through the thematic and technical parts, it also offers a lens through which to view challenges lying ahead and the possibilities and limitations confronting this understudied aspect of international law and relations.

Military Enforcement of Arms Control in Iraq

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-511
Author(s):  
Guido den Dekker ◽  
Ramses A. Wessel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
The Many

The effects of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait are felt strongly up to the present day. On numerous occasions, the inspection teams of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) have encountered serious problems and opposition by the Iraqi government when verifying the non-production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Among the many legal questions raised by the Iraqi-Kuwait war's aftermath, a fundamental issue is whether – in the absence of an explicit Security Council decision – compliance by Iraq with its obligations may be enforced by military means. In this article, this question is addressed by examining whether military enforcement action can be based on Security Council resolutions adopted earlier in the course of the conflict, especially Resolutions 678 (1990), in which the Council authorised the use of ‘all necessary means’, and 1154 (1998), in which the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the UN and Iraq was endorsed. It is argued that without a further mandate from the Security Council, military enforcement of arms control in Iraq under the present circumstances is prohibited by international law.

Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing Down the Deliberative Deficit

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Financing Of Terrorism ◽  
Set Up

Critiques of decision making in international organizations are often framed in terms of the democratic deficit. Leveled against the United Nations Security Council, the charge has become more pointed in light of recent quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial acts—most notably the adoption of Resolutions 1373 and 1540 on the financing of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, respectively, and the Resolution 1267 sanctions regime, which targets individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism. With the first two resolutions, the Security Council imposed general obligations on all states for an indefinite period; with the third, it set up a sanctions committee that has courtlike powers to identify and freeze the assets of individuals, groups, and corporations. Despite broad sympathy among the UN membership for collective counterterrorist action in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, a degree of skepticism accompanied these initiatives from the start and grew with the diplomatic debacle surrounding the war in Iraq. Some critics asked whether an “imperial” Security Council had become an instrument for the imposition of “hegemonic international law.” The Council has moved to address these concerns, but they remain serious enough that the regimes established under Resolutions 1267, 1373, and 1540 are at risk of collapsing.

The Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-Defence

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 963-972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wilmshurst
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Level ◽  
Clear Statement ◽  
Self Defence

There are few more controversial questions in international law than the proper limits of the right of self-defence. The rules are being challenged in the light of what are seen as new threats from terrorism and from the possession of weapons of mass destruction. The UN High-level Panel, in its report to the Secretary-General of 2004, concluded that in all cases relating to decisions to use military force ‘we believe that the Charter of the United Nations, properly understood and applied, is equal to the task’.4 The Principles that follow are intended to provide a clear statement of the rules of international law ‘properly understood’ governing the use of force by states in self-defence.

Debating Targeted Killing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Meisels ◽  
Jeremy Waldron
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

In this “for and against” book, Jeremy Waldron and Tamar Meisels defend competing positions on the legitimacy of targeted killing. The volume begins with a joint introduction, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short historical overview of the practice—i.e. what is targeted killing, and how has it been used in which conflicts and by whom. The debate opens with Meisels’ defense of targeted killing as a legitimate and desirable defensive anti-terrorism strategy, in keeping with both just war theory and international law. Meisels unreservedly defends the named killing of irregular combatants, most notably terrorists, during armed conflict. Additionally, she offers a possible moral justification for rare instances of assassination outside that framework, specifically with reference to recent cases of nuclear scientists developing weapons of mass destruction for the Iranian and Syrian governments. The debate continues with Waldron’s arguments focusing on the dangers and the inherent wrongness of governments’ having the right to maintain death lists—lists of named individuals who are to be hunted down and killed. Waldron notes the many differences between individualized targeting and ordinary combat, and he resists the attempt to assimilate targeted killing to killings in combat. Waldron also cautions us to consider carefully what a world of targeted killings will be like, the many abuses it is liable to, and why we should be very cautious, morally and strategically, in our thinking about it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document