scholarly journals Selling international law enforcement: Elite justifications and public values

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095678
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Lee ◽  
Lauren Prather
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Support ◽  
International Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Values ◽  
Norm Enforcement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Order Increase

International law enforcement is an understudied but indispensable factor for maintaining the international order. We study the effectiveness of elite justifications in building coalitions supporting the enforcement of violations of the law against territorial seizures. Using survey experiments fielded in the USA and Australia, we find that the effectiveness of two common justifications for enforcement—the illegality of a country’s actions, and the consequences of those actions for international order—increase support for enforcement and do so independently of two key public values: ideology and interpersonal norm enforcement. These results imply elites can build a broad coalition of support by using multiple justifications. Our results, however, highlight the tepidness of public support, suggesting limits to elite rhetoric. This study contributes to the scholarship on international law by showing how the public, typically considered a mechanism for generating compliance within states, can impede or facilitate third-party enforcement of the law between states.

From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Occupation ◽  
Self Defence

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

Interstitial rules and the contested application of human rights law and the laws of war in counterterrorism

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL E. NEWELL
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
The Law

Abstract:The laws of war and international human rights law (IHRL) overlap, often with competing obligations. When two or more areas of the law overlap, political agents attempt to address these areas of ambiguity with interstitial rules. However, a lack of consensus on interstitial rules can destabilise the law, leading to increased contestation of legal norms and principles. Such is the case for international law in counterterrorism. Prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks (9/11), international agreements and US domestic practices placed counterterrorism within the framework of law enforcement. After 9/11, the Bush Administration replaced law enforcement with armed conflict and the laws of war as the dominant paradigm for counterterrorism, but this decision, among other legal justifications in the War on Terror, has been contested by the international legal community. As IHRL still applies in law enforcement operations, international law in counterterrorism now sits within a contested overlap of IHRL and the laws of war. The contestation of US policies in the War on Terror, including the use of drone strikes in particular, is a product of this unresolved overlap and the lack of clear interstitial rules. Lacking these rules, US counterterrorism policies risk undermining the rule of law.

scholarly journals General issues of the exercise of jurisdiction in the process of application of law enforcement measures at sea

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-118
Author(s):  
A. P. Glazova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Research Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law

INTRODUCTION. Currently, states can apply a whole range of law enforcement measures at sea in order to prevent such unlawful phenomena as piracy, slave trade, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, etc. However, the problem of the exercise of jurisdiction by states within various maritime areas is the main sticking point during the implementation of these measures. In an attempt to exercise the law enforcement function at sea, the state can't ignore the fact that its ability to create legal norms and ensure their effective implementation depends not only on its will as a sovereign, but also on the restrictions imposed by international law. Therefore, maintaining a balance between limiting the “territorialization” of maritime areas and the need to carry out a law enforcement function logically entails the need to determine the nature and content of the concept of “jurisdiction of the state” within different maritime areas, as well as to identify specific features of this legal category. The present article focuses on this and other related issues.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Historical and comparative analysis along with dogmatic research approach were used in the research process and the entire research is well grounded in focusing on the norms of international treaty law and customary law. In addition to that this research focuses on the norms of national law governing issues related to the application of law enforcement measurement at the sea. Apart from those given material and methodical inputs, the doctrinal works of the relevant jurists have been used in this research.RESEARCH RELULTS. The author comes to an alternative conclusion that territorial jurisdiction within the maritime territory is not absolute, which is due, apparently, the principle of freedom of the high seas which have a longer support by the international community. The definition of jurisdiction as extraterritorial is not self-sufficient, since in case of conflict of jurisdictions, additional legal criteria are required to resolve such a conflict. The classification of extraterritorial jurisdiction depending on the principles on which it is based also does not solve the problem, since some principles, such as protective or universal, in turn, require additional criteria in order to become a self-sufficient tool to overcome legal uncertainty. The author notes that the ability to exercise territorial jurisdiction within maritime areas, as a rule, determines the ability to exercise legislative and executive jurisdiction, which are also not absolute. The exercise of extraterritorial legislative or executive jurisdiction at sea is potentially permissible only on the basis of international law to solve a specific function, for example, law enforcement.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The main problem of the varieties of jurisdiction proposed by in- ternational legal science is that each of them only supplements each other, describing a possible choice, but not explaining why a particular choice should be preferred in case of conflict. It is obvious that current uncertainty has created some severe impacts upon the institution of law enforcement measures at sea as a result of the absence of standards for enforcement measures that could make a balance to the mechanism. Hence the law enforcer has to be cautious with a number of factors in deciding the implementation of law enforcement measures within the sea.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol): issues of legal ideology

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-89
Author(s):  
A. I. Klimenko ◽  
A. A. Solukov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Discourse ◽  
Present Moment ◽  
Functional Potential ◽  
Legal Ideology ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Policies

INTRODUCTION. The article is devoted to the problem of identifying the ideological and legal foundations of international cooperation of the criminal police. The paper considers International law as a special ideological form of law. One of the functions of this law is the function of organizing cooperation in combating crime at the international level. The segment of international law governing criminal police cooperation within an organization such as Interpol is primarily involved in the implementation of this function.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using a socio-axiological approach, which studies the law not as a set of norms, but as a system of conventional values based on needs and interests of social actors in the process of legal discourse, the authors analyse the legal values and ideas that underlie the activities of Interpol. The paper studies international regulations of the Interpol activities as well as the regulations of the activities of the National Central Bureau of Interpol of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, also studies theoretical materials (articles and studies), that could shed light on the aspects of formation and development of these ideas and values on the doctrinal level. The paper undertakes functional and structural analyze of the legal ideology of Interpol. It utilizes dialectical, system, formal-logical and comparative law methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. The authors build the theoretical model of the legal ideology structure and determine its basic functions. Its contents, i.e. values, ideas and principles, could formally manifest themselves in legal documents on both international and/or national levels, or informally emerge in the public legal discourse in the law enforcement field. On the functional level, the legal ideology of Interpol creates ideological foundations for law enforcement, including legal data base for combating crime and co-operation in law enforcement field and law enforcement practices, legitimizes international co-operation in combating crime, brings together international eff ts in combating crime, and strengthens international co-operation in this field. It also facilitates the universalization of the international law order and creation of legal policies in combating crime.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The legal ideology of Interpol is a complex system employing functional potential, that remains to be studied in details. The unique nature of ideas and values (law values), that lay ground for the legal ideology of Interpol, their high effi ency, derive from its particular functions, proven to be valuable on the modern stage of international co-operation in law enforcement field. The legal ideology of Interpol, in terms of its contents, tends to be very specific on the values level, because it encompasses legal values of conventional nature, as well as legal ideas supporting these values, and principles directed at them. Its contents never stop transforming accordingly to ever changing realities of international relations in the process of uninterrupted public legal discourse in law enforcement field. At the present moment, both its flexibility in terms of contents and functional potential allow us to see it as an important factor contributing to the development of the international law.

scholarly journals PENEGAKAN HUKUM ILLEGAL FISHING

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-130
Author(s):  
Elvinda Rima Harliza ◽  
Tomy Michael
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Large Area ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Illegal Fishing ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

Indonesia is a country that has a large area in the waters, so that foreign fishermen always escape illegal fishing activities. This theft occurred because of the lack of attention from the water inspectors. Until now, fish theft is still common. Because of this, Indonesia must suffer a huge loss of up to Rp 30 trillion each year. When viewed with a percentage reaching 25% with the amount of 1.6 million tons annually. These problems have resulted in many parties being harmed because of illegal fishing, so law enforcement is needed to regulate these actions. This is the reason the author writes a journal with the title Illegal Fish Enforcement. With the formulation of the problem as follows: "What are the arrangements for the enforcement of Illegal Fishing in Indonesia?". And "What is the legal arrangement of Illegal Fishing in international law?". This study uses a normative method that has been well applied by Indonesia today, also applied internationally. In this study the law is enforced by applying the reference of the 2009 Law on Fisheries contained in No. 45. This can be seen from all aspects starting from the investigation, its investigation, to the re-hearing. This is also explained in the Criminal Procedure Code issued in 1981 in Law No. 8. Under UNCLOS international sea law regulated by the United Nations regarding fishing sovereignty is only permitted if at any time it has obtained a shipping and fishing permit. And between the two countries must have bilateral agreements on sea territories.Indonesia merupakan sebuah negara yang punya wilayah besar dalam perairan, hingga membuat para nelayan asing selalu lolos dalam kegiatan illegal fishing. Terjadinya pencurian ini karena tidak adanya perhatian dari para pengawas perairan. Sampai saat ini, pencurian ikan ini masih sering terjadi. Karena hal ini, Indonesia harus mengalami kerugian yang besar mencapai Rp 30 triliun di tiap tahunnya. Jika dilihat dengan persenannya mencapai 25% dengan jumlah 1,6 juta ton setiap tahunnya. Persoalan-persoalan ini mengakibatkan banyak pihak yang dirugikan karena perbuatan Illegal Fishing, maka sangat diperlukan penegakan hukum yang mengatur tentang perbuatan tersebut. Inilah alasan penulis menulis jurnal dengan Judul Penegakan Hukum Illegal Fish. Dengan rumusan masalah “Bagaimana pengaturan penegakan hukum Illegal Fishing di Indonesia ?” dan “Bagaimana pengaturan hukum Illegal Fishing dalam hukum internasional ?”. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif yang telah diberlakukan dengan baik oleh di Indonesia saat ini, juga diberlakukan di Internasional. Di dalam penelitian ini hukum ditengakkan dengan memberlakukan acuan dari Pasal 45 Undang-Undang Tahun 2009 tentang Perikanan. Ini dapat dlihat dari segala aspek mulai dari penyidikannya, penunututannya, hingga dilakukannya siding ulang. Hal ini dijelaskan juga dala Hukum Acara Pidana yang dikeluarkan tahun 1981 di Undang-Undang di Nomor 8. Berdasarkan hukum laut internasional UNCLOS yang diatur oleh PBB tentang kedaulatan pengkapan ikan hanya diperbolehkan jika kapan tersebut telah mendapatkan sebuah izin pelayaran dan penangkapan ikan. Dan antar kedua negara harus memiliki perjanjian bilateral tentang teritorial laut.

Utilitarian International Order

2019 ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Gerald J. Postema
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Order ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The Law

International politics was integral to Bentham’s comprehensive jurisprudential project. His perspective on international law was that of a legislator, an engineer of global order, not that of expositor or theorist of the existing law. He articulated a (quasi-) cosmopolitan principle for the governance of a state-pluralist global order: the ultimate aim of international law, he argued, is the greatest common and equal utility of all nations. This principle articulates a standard of equal, mutual benefit and builds in a proviso that permits derogation from arrangements or laws that work greatly to the disadvantage of any given nation. He envisioned the global order as a loose affiliation of equal sovereign states, each of which participates on an equal basis in a common congress accorded legislative authority through their participation and is subject to judgments of a common tribunal. Bentham’s ultimate solution to the problem of war was threefold: (i) the law was to be put on a clear, authoritative, and fully public basis in a carefully drafted and systematic code; (ii) all disputes arising in international relations were to be directed to this code and a common tribunal was empowered to resolve the disputes in an impartial way; (iii) judgments of the tribunal were to be enforced by the soft power of Public Opinion Tribunal consisting of both nations and individuals.

scholarly journals Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Nollkaemper ◽  
Jean d’Aspremont ◽  
Christiane Ahlborn ◽  
Berenice Boutin ◽  
Nataša Nedeski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission

Abstract It is common in international practice that several states and/or international organizations contribute together to the indivisible injury of a third party. Examples thereof are aplenty in relation to climate change and other environmental disasters, joint military activities and cooperative actions aimed at stemming migration. Such situations are hardly captured by the existing rules of the law of international responsibility. In particular, the work of the International Law Commission, which is widely considered to provide authoritative guidance for legal questions of international responsibility, has little to offer. As a result, it is often very difficult, according to the existing rules of the law of international responsibility, to share responsibility and apportion reparation between the states and/or international organizations that contribute together to the indivisible injury of a third party. The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law seek to provide guidance to judges, practitioners and researchers when confronted with legal questions of shared responsibility of states and international organizations for their contribution to an indivisible injury of third parties. The Guiding Principles identify the conditions of shared responsibility (including questions of multiple attribution of conduct), the consequences of shared responsibility (notably, the possibility of joint and several liability) and the modes of implementation of shared responsibility. The Guiding Principles are of an interpretive nature. They build on the existing rules of the law of international responsibility and sometimes offer novel interpretations thereof. They also expand on those existing rules, backed by authoritative practice and scholarship, to address complex questions of shared responsibility.

The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation Under International Law

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. I. Lukashuk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
International Order ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Law

The principle that treaty obligations must be fulfilled in good faith is one aspect of the fundamental rule that requires all subjects of international law to exercise in good faith their rights and duties under that law.In the sociopolitical sphere, this fundamental principle may be seen as manifesting the need perceived by states for an international legal system that can ensure international order and prevent arbitrary behavior and chaos. In the legal sphere, the principle is confirmation of the character of international law as law. Subjects of international law are legally bound under the principle to implement what the law prescribes.

Guests with Guns: Public Support for “No Carry” Defaults on Private Land

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (S4) ◽  
pp. 183-190
Author(s):  
Ian Ayres ◽  
Spurthi Jonnalagadda
Keyword(s):  
Public Support ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Parking Lot ◽  
The Law ◽  
Concealed Carry ◽  
Nationally Representative

A nationally representative survey of 2000 American adults shows broad support for prohibiting gun-possession on private land without the landowner's explicit permission. Many states have laws which permit concealed weapon carry unless explicitly prohibited by the landowner, but our survey suggests statistically-significant majorities would prefer “no carry” defaults with regard to homeowners, employers, and retailers. While respondents who are Republican, male, or gun owners are more likely to support “carry” defaults, we find that the majoritarian rejection of “carry” defaults does not tend to vary by region or state. However, our survey does find majority support for a default right to possess guns in rented property and on an employer's parking lot. Respondents across all contexts also report substantial ignorance or misinformation about the law. Landowners who don't know or mistakenly believe that concealed carry is, by default, prohibited on their land may be less able to protect themselves by explicitly prohibiting such third-party possession.

Targeted Killings in International Law: Considering Extra-judicial Killings on Canadians Abroad

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Esmail
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Military Force ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Law Of War ◽  
The Us ◽  
Islamic Terrorism ◽  
The Law ◽  
Global War

The use of targeted killings has become more typical since the US declaration of a “Global War on Terror”. States such as the US and Israel have employed targeted killings as a means to combat the growing threat of international Islamic terrorism; the US has transitioned from a law enforcement paradigm to a law of war paradigm, through the Congress’ Authorization on the Use of Military Force. Although the legality of targeted killings is still contested in the international community, I argue that while the law enforcement paradigm is ineffective at containing the growing threat of terrorism, the law of war paradigm disregards international law and risks the protections of civilians unnecessarily. More constraints are needed through international law in order to maintain the core principles of the international humanitarian framework, while still combating terrorism and expanding the existing framework to cover non international armed conflicts such as that between al-Qaeda and the US. This can be done through the establishment of a new paradigm, called the continuous hostilities paradigm. If the existing international principles such as distinction, proportionality, military necessity and humanity are considered, targeted killings can be legal under international law. However, the indiscriminate killing of suspected terrorists by States cannot be considered legal, and it is crucial to consider the necessity of the protection of civilians

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document