‘Within or outside Canada’: The Charter’s application to the extraterritorial activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah West
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Intelligence Operations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Intelligence Service

Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take ‘reasonable and proportionate’ measures to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so long as they are judicially authorized by the Federal Court. As new threats proliferate around the world, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out this mandate overseas. Yet review bodies tasked with monitoring CSIS’s use of threat reduction measures (TRMs) report that CSIS has never sought judicial authorization to conduct a TRM. Why? One answer may be that CSIS has concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out abroad, and, as such, their extraterritorial conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court. Whether the Charter applies to CSIS’s overseas conduct ostensibly lies in the Supreme Court of Canada’s leading case on the extraterritorial application of the Charter, R. v Hape. This article canvasses domestic and international law, as well as intelligence law theory, to explain why that presumption is wrong. Wrong, not least because the majority opinion in Hape is deeply flawed in its analysis and application of international law. But also, because intelligence operations are so distinguishable from the transnational criminal investigations at issue in Hape, the Court’s findings are inapplicable in the former context. In short, this article demonstrates that applying Hape to the actions of CSIS officers not only leaves their actions beyond the scrutiny of Canadian courts but also creates a significant human rights gap.

Under the Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Educational Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The right to an education is guaranteed by international law in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, UNESCO’s Constitution sets out the right to an education as necessary to “prepare the children of the world for the responsibilities of freedom.” No such right is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, though. Perhaps Congress or the Supreme Court would be sympathetic, however, to an argument for educational rights based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the rights of citizenship.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

scholarly journals ABORTION IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: REFLECTIONS FROM THE UK SUPREME COURT

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-494
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne ◽  
Aisling McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

AbstractOn 7 June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSCt) issued its decision on, inter alia, whether Northern Ireland's near-total abortion ban was compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This article critically assesses the UKSC's treatment of international law in this case. It argues that the UKSCt was justified in finding that Northern Ireland's ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA was a violation of Article 8, but that the majority erred in its assessment of Article 3 ECHR and of the relevance of international law more generally.

scholarly journals Mr. Suresh and the Evil Twin

Refuge ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Audrey Macklin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Security ◽  
September 11 ◽  
The State ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Substantial Risk

In Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Ahani v. MCI, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that removing a refugee accused of terrorism to a country where he or she would face a substantial risk of torture or similar abuse would virtually always violate the individual’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Court deserves praise for vindicating fundamental human rights over competing claims of national security, coming so close on the heels of September 11, the victory is in certain respects more apparent than real. Given the strong endorsement of judicial deference to the exercise of Ministerial discretion in national security matters, the Court leaves the state wide scope to circumvent the spirit of the judgment while adhering to its letter.

DUAL ATTRIBUTION OF ACTS COMMITTED BY A UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE: AN EMERGING NORM OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW? THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENTS IN NUHANOVIÇ AND MUSTAFIĆ

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Bakker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

In two cases lodged by victims (or their relatives) of the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has taken a progressive stance on the interpretation of international law on the responsibility of States and international organizations for wrongful acts. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions of The Hague Court of Appeal, confirming that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death and injuries of these victims, despite the fact that the Dutch troops employed to protect this enclave were part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. By accepting the possibility of dual attribution of an internationally wrongful act to both the UN and the troop-sending State, it has departed from the restrictive approach adopted in current judicial practice, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. In this note, the Supreme Court’s judgments are discussed, focusing on (i) the question of dual attribution of an international wrongful act, and (ii) the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. It concludes that, although the Supreme Court’s reliance on two sets of Draft Articles of the International Law Commission without referring to any State practice is surprising, these judgments should be welcomed as significant precedents, which may contribute to the development of a norm of customary international law. They also constitute an important step towards ensuring access to justice and reparation for the victims of gross human rights violations, such as those committed in Srebrenica.

scholarly journals CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE OBJECTIONS OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 665-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uta Kohl
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

AbstractThe almost two decade-long bonanza of civil litigation concerning gross human rights violations committed by corporations under the US Alien Tort Statute 1789 was scaled back by the US Supreme Court in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum in April 2013. The court restricted the territorial reach of human rights claims against transnational corporations by holding that the presumption against extra-territoriality applied to the Act. Thus Shell, the Dutch/British defendant, and the role it played in the brutal suppression by the Nigerian military of the Ogoni peoples' protest movement against the environmental devastation caused by oil exploration, lay outside the territorial scope of the Act. Legal accountability must lie in a State with a stronger connection with the dispute. While this article briefly engages with the Supreme Court decision, its main focus is on the attitude of Western governments to the corporate human rights litigation under the ATS as articulated in their amicus briefs. In these briefs they objected to the statute's excessive extraterritoriality and horizontal application of human rights to artificial non-State actors. In these two respects corporate ATS litigation created significant inroads into the conventional State-centric approach to human rights and thus provided an opportunity for more effective human rights enjoyment. This article tests the validity of the objections of Western governments to corporate human rights obligations under the ATS against the norms of public international law and against the substantive demands arising out of the shortfalls of the international human rights enforcement.

scholarly journals An Exemption for Sincere Believers: The Challenge of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-750
Author(s):  
Sara Weinrib
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
General Application ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Strict Reading

In Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada reconfigured its approach to section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms by holding that the final step of the R. v. Oakes test—the requirement of proportionality between a measure’s salutary and deleterious effects—provided the critical framework for its analysis. The author suggests that the Court’s emphasis on the last step of the Oakes test was not the most appropriate response to the specific minimal impairment argument Alberta presented. Alberta argued that the reason it could not safely offer an exemption from its licence photo requirement to Hutterites who objected to photos on religious grounds was because Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem restricted government inquiries into the sincerity of religious beliefs. Ontario intervened in support of Alberta’s concerns. Although the Court did not address this minimal impairment argument, the author argues that it reflects an unnecessarily strict reading of how Amselem’s guidelines would apply in this context. In support, the author presents an exemption that would have cohered with Amselem and achieved Alberta’s safety objectives. The author then argues more broadly that the provinces’ concerns in Hutterian Brethren demonstrate the critical role the minimal impairment step of the Oakes test plays in generating solutions to clashes between laws of general application and minority religious practices. The Court’s new emphasis on the proportionate effects test, in contrast, may unfortunately discourage both parties from formulating potentially innovative alternatives.

scholarly journals A Decade Later: The Legacy of the Supreme Court of Canada's Health Services Decision on Workers' Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Walchuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Financial Penalty

The year 2017 marked the ten-year anniversary of the Health Services case, a precedent-setting decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled collective bargaining is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This article explores the impact and legacy of BC Health Services, and finds that while workers’ constitutional rights have been expanded under the Charter over the past decade, governments nevertheless continue to violate these rights. It concludes that the legacy of the case is not an enhanced level of protection for these rights to be enjoyed fully, but rather that the default option has been and will continue to be a financial penalty for the state in instances in which they violate workers’ rights.  KEYWORDS  labour rights; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; human rights; health services

The Expanding Role of the Supreme Court of Canada in International Law Issues

1997 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 89-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gérard V. La Forest
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World

SummaryThe rapid globalization that marks our era has resulted in increasing demands for the legal resolution of disputes arising out of interstate activities. National courts throughout the world have been significantly affected by this development. This article describes the recent expansion of the work of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to transnational legal issues, including issues of public and private international law, human rights, admiralty law, and issues of private law having international ramifications. It traces the Court's evolving approach to international law issues and its willingness to reformulate its principles to meet modern conditions and to foster compliance with its norms. The more cosmopolitan attitude thereby generated has worked in concert with the Court's increasing willingness to rely on comparative law techniques in assuting in the resolution of issues of a localized character.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Rules that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's Expropriation Exception Does Not Extend to Domestic Takings

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-558
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a country's taking of property from its own nationals does not fall within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exception for “rights in property taken in violation of international law.” The case involved a claim that Nazi officials coerced a consortium of three art firms owned by Jewish residents of Germany to sell a collection of “medieval relics and devotional objects known as the Welfenschatz” to Prussia for “approximately one-third of their value.” The plaintiffs—descendants of the members of the consortium—argued that the coerced sale constituted genocide, thus bringing their claim within the FSIA exception. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights” and that international law does not bar a state's taking of the property of its own nationals. The Court declined to reach Germany's alternative argument that international comity required dismissal of the case, and it vacated and remanded a companion case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, that also posed the comity question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document