scholarly journals Transparency of Approaches to International Law: A Short Story of an Unsung Hero

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-320
Author(s):  
Michał Stępień

Abstract This article is about the problem of non-disclosure of an assumed method and approach to international law. That makes some real and current issues of international more difficult to grasp – and how to debate about something if there is a misunderstanding of the basics? The problem is depicted with two examples: the attitude of international law toward the statehood of Taiwan along with the on-going development of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Both reveal the clash between so-called black-letterism and a policy-approach to international law. Meanwhile the doctrinal method is fully functional and mostly accepted in domestic law, though often contested in international law. But after all, international law being sui generis law is not just an instance of the domestic-type law which is the effect of particular features of the international community.

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOUISE ARBOUR

AbstractThis discussion focuses on the content of the responsibility to protect the norm. It specifically addresses the historical roots and development of the norm by describing its fundamental differences from the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The legal heart of the responsibility to protect concept and questions of when and how the norm is engaged are also examined. Finally, the discussion explores the role that the UN institutions can play in interpreting and applying the norm, as well as the mechanisms of cooperation in protection available to the international community.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-450
Author(s):  
Simon Adams

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.


2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAIN HAMPSHER-MONK

Burke's justification for intervention in French internal affairs in the name of the international community has formed a powerful strand of thought in both diplomacy and international relations theory. However, the strength and openness of Burke's advocacy, traced here, changed according to his target audience, the domestic, and the international political context. Crucially, when he came to justify the case openly, the arguments changed completely. Beginning with a Grotian argument drawn from Vattel and premised on states as isolated rights-holders in a pre-social ‘state of nature’, Burke always struggled to draw a justification for intervention in the case, allowed by Vattel, of irrevocable political disunion. This conflicted both with Burke's general conception of states as corporate wholes and his linked policy aspiration to restore the totality of French ancient institutions. Ultimately abandoning this, his final argument, fully set out only in the Letters on a regicide peace, is completely new. It is premised not on modern international law but on remedies to be found in Roman domestic law, invocation of which he justifies by claiming Europe to be a single juridical enclave, drawing on an eighteenth-century discourse of shared manners, law, and culture as constitutive of political identity and community.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-67
Author(s):  
Irawati Handayani

AbstractHuman rights issues have become a common topic that continuously being discussed around the world. The major concern of international community on the protection of basic human rights leads to a challenge for the nation state to fulfill its commitment to protect the basic rights of their people from the possibility of harm that comes from internally or externally. Meanwhile, the principle of mutual understanding and respect among states and non-interference to domestic affairs of particular state has been generally recognized as the main principle in international law. Sometimes, a conflict that occurred inside a state, which is theoretically becomes a domestic issue, could be escalated and become a mutual concern of international society. When a human right violation occurred inside a state, ideally international community can not only ‘sit and watch’. Especially when the violations are classified as grave breaches of human rights. The world community has a moral obligation to offer an assistance and search a solution to end that violations.It is cleary noted that Article 2 (4) and Article 2 (7) United Nations (UN) Charter should not be regarded as an absolute prohibition of interference. Those articles are the limitation so that the intervention should not endangered territorial integrity, political independence and not contrary to the purposes of UN. However, the territorial integrity would be broken if the state lose their territory permanently, and in the context of humanitarian intervention there is no taking over a territory, since the main purpose is only to restore the condition as a result of human rights violation that occurred. Based on this assumption so intervention not contrary to UN Charter. One thing should be emphasized is that the requirements for intervention have to be very clear.Following an unsettled debate on criterion of humanitarian intervention, a few years ago there were a new concept which is believed as an improvement or a ‘new face’ from humanitarian intervention. It called the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. Generally, both of these concepts have similarity, especially with the main purpose on guarantee basic human rights and provide such protection when the authorized government is unable and unwilling to do so. However, the RtoP doctrine can not also avoid its controversy. The main discussion on this doctrine particularly questioning the legal status of this doctrine in international law and whether RtoP is only a new form of humanitarian intervention.Keywords: humanitarian internvention, responsibility to Protect (R2P), duty to protect, non intervention, customary international law.AbstrakIsu mengenai HAM telah menjadi topik umum yang terus menerus didiskusikan diseluruh dunia. Perhatian utama dari komunitas internasional dalam hal perlindungan mendasar HAM selanjutnya menantang negara-negara untuk melakukan pemenuhan komitmen mereka agar melakukan perlindungan hak-hak mendasar dan tindakan yang dapat mengancam baik secara internal maupun secara eksternal. Sementara itu prinsip salaing pengertian dan penghargaan antar negara, prinsip non-intervensi dalam hubungan domestik telah diakui sebagai prinsip utama dalam hukum internasional. Kadang, konflik yang lahir di dalam negeri, yang secara teori adalah konflik domestik, dapat menjadi perhatian bersama masyarakat internasional. Pada saat terjadi pelanggaran HAM didalam suatu negara, seharusnya komunitas internasional tidak hanya ‘duduk dan melihat’. Khususnya pada saat terjadi pelanggaran yang dikategorikan sebagai pelanggaran berat terhadap HAM. Komunitas negara mempunyai kewajiban moral untuk menawarkan bantuan dan mencari solusi untuk mengakhiri pelanggaran tersebut.Seperti yang dijelaskan dalam Pasal 2 (4) dan Pasal 2 (7) Piagam PBB, pasal-pasal ini tidak dapat diangap sebagai larangan absolut interfensi. Pasal-pasal tersebut adalah pembatasan sehingga intervensi tidak membahayakan inegritas wilayah, indpendensi politik dan tidak bertentangan dengan tuujuan PBB. Meskipun demikian, integritas wilayah dapat hilang apabila negara kehilangan wilayahnya secara permanen, dan dalam konteks intervensi kemanusiaan tidak ada pengambil alihan wilayah, karena tujuan utamanya hanya untuk mengembalikan kedaaan pada saat terjadinya pelanggaran HAM. Berdasarkan asumsi tersebut, maka intervensi tidak bertentangan dengan Piagam PBB. Hal lain yang harus diperjelas bahwa alasan intervensi haruslah jelas.Mengikuti perdebatan yang tidak kunjung sellesai tentang kriteria intervensi kemanusiaan, beberapa tahun yang lalu dibuatlah suatu konsep yang dianggap sebagai wajah baru dari intervensi kemanusiaan. Secara umum, kedua konsep ini mempunyai kesamaan, terutama dengan tujuan utama dalam menjamin HAM dan menyediakan sejumlah perlindungan pada saat pemerintah yang berwenang tidak mampu dan tidak dapat memberikan jaminan HAM. Meskipun demikian, Doktin RtoP tidak dapat terhindar dari kontroversi. Diskusi utama dari doktrin ini adalah pertanyaan tentang status hukum dari doktrin hukum internasional dan apakah RtoP merupakan bentuk lain dari intervensi kemanusiaaan. Kata kunci: intervensi kemanusiaan, tanggung jawab untuk melindungi (R2P), kewajiban perlindungan, non intervensi ̧ hukum kebiasaan internasional.


Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams

The interaction between international law and domestic (or national or ‘municipal’) law demonstrates the struggle between State sovereignty and the international legal order. While the international legal order seeks to organise international society in accordance with the general interests of the international community, State sovereignty can be used to protect a State against the intervention of international law into its national legal system. This chapter discusses theories about the relations between international law and national law; national law on the international plane; international law on the national plane; and examples of international law on the national plane.


2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Österdahl

The responsibility to protect was invoked by the United Nations (UN) Security Council in support of its authorization of a military intervention in Libya in 2011. In the wake of the intervention, Brazil approached the UN with a new doctrine: the responsibility while protecting. The responsibility while protecting implies a greater degree of caution on the part of the international community in its exercise of the responsibility to protect. Intentionally or unintentionally, Brazil mixes aspects of the jus ad bellum with aspects of the jus in bello in the new doctrine. This is controversial and potentially detrimental to both areas of law. An additional layer of limitations on the use of armed force in multinational peace operations is introduced beyond the existing restrictions on warfare following from international humanitarian law. A lack of clarity pertaining to the use of force and to the respective roles of the Security Council and the General Assembly in this respect in the exercise of the responsibility to protect contribute to making the responsibility while protecting seem increasingly enigmatic. Interpreted constructively, however, the responsibility while protecting simply urges the international community to follow international law. This would be good.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-103
Author(s):  
Jenna Uusitalo

Summary Responsibility to protect (R2P) and human security are controversial doctrines which reflect the international politics rather than purely defend their original legal aims. Simultaneously both doctrines demonstrate the change in the international law and politics as well as challenge the classical perception of the sovereignty. Through the practical examples the present article illustrates how these doctrines are affecting to sovereignty and discusses some selected problems attached to the interventions applied under these principles. Essentially the article argues that, despite their noble ideology, doctrines of R2P and human security are too extensive to be applied coherently by the international community, but that they can nevertheless have potential to strengthen sovereignty.


2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 713-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Dannenbaum

AbstractThis article analyses two nearly identical lawsuits regarding the actions of UN peacekeepers during the Srebrenica genocide. The decisions are of importance as a matter of international law for three reasons. First, the Court applied human rights obligations abroad, not by holding that the relevant treaties have extraterritorial effect, but by finding the ICCPR to have been incorporated into the domestic law of the host state (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and determining that the standards codified in the relevant provisions of the ICCPR and ECHR were rules of customary international law that were binding extraterritorially (whether or not the treaty obligations themselves would extend abroad). Second, in finding those obligations to have been breached, the Court relied on the Dutch battalion's eviction of the victims from its UN compound, not on any responsibility to protect those already outside the compound. Finally, on the issue of attribution, the Court of Appeal developed the doctrine of ‘effective control’ in several key respects. I argue that the Court was largely correct in its attribution analysis and that this may prove to be a landmark in the development of international law on attribution in such contexts. Most important among the issues addressed in the Court's discussion of attribution are its findings that: (i) the ‘effective control’ standard applies equally to the contributing state and the receiving international organization; (ii) ‘effective control’ includes not just giving orders, but also the capacity to prevent the wrongdoing; and (iii) troop-contributing states may sometimes hold that ‘power to prevent’ by virtue of their authority to discipline and criminally punish their troops for contravening UN orders.


Author(s):  
Anastasiya Tabatchikova ◽  

The contemporary world often sees a contradiction between the actions of states to advocate their own interests and the interests of the international community in combating the most dangerous crimes. In the field of international criminal law, the problem of imbalance between interests of particular states (‘private’ interests), and the interests of the international community in general ‘public’ interests) is especially evident. This imbalance indirectly manifests in the occurrence of contentious situations during the criminalisation of international crimes in national law. This article covers the problem of the imbalance of interests, from its general philosophical underpinnings to specific manifestations in criminal law. This objective mediates the construction of the article according to the principle ‘from the general to the particular’: from the general problem of the relation of the interests of the state and the global community through the prism of international criminal law to the specific problems of criminalisation in domestic law. The article was prepared with the use of historical, comparative-legal, and formal-juridical methods. The ain provisions of the article are illustrated with examples from international and national law, supported by quotations from philosophers and contemporary scholars of the philosophy of international law. The author begins by exploring the development of ideas of sovereignty as a private interest of the state. Upon establishing that the evolution of sovereignty ideas has not led to its uniform understanding and consistency with the interests of international law, the author delves into the problems of international criminal law. The author adresses the problems occurring during the criminalisation of international crimes in the framework of domestic law. The author makes a conclusion regarding the possible ways of national law refinement for strengthening the interaction of states in the field of international criminal law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document