Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model for Combatting Aviation Terrorism

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Tomasz Aleksandrowicz

The article deals with the issue of the Beijing reform of international criminal aviation law. The author analyses the relevant applicable international law and confronts it with the new legal regulations adopted at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) conference in Beijing in 2010. As a result, the author states that the basic change involves the expansion of the catalogue of acts subject to criminalisation as well as the expansion of the circle of persons participating in or supporting actions involving the commission of acts that pose a threat to the safety of civil aviation; the system also specifies the responsibility of collective entities (the so-called ‘Al Qaeda’ clause). The author is deeply convinced that the development of the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal-Beijing system, which is part of the whole international legal system of combatting terrorism, including its financing, is fully justified. The new regulations also make this system more coherent. It is also worth adding that the adoption of the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol is part of the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the United Nations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 246-249
Author(s):  
Ioannis Konstantinidis

The settlement of inter-state disputes is an integral part of the international legal system. The obligation of States to settle their disputes peacefully is enshrined in Article 2(3) of the Charter of United Nations. In turn, Article 33 of the Charter identifies different means that can be employed by United Nations Member States with a view to peacefully resolving inter-state disputes, including, inter alia, “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement”.


2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lefkowitz

As traditionally conceived, the creation of a new rule of customary international law requires that states believe the law to already require the conduct specified in the rule. Distinguishing the process whereby a customary rule comes to exist from the process whereby that customary rule becomes law dissolves this chronological paradox. Creation of a customary rule requires only that states come to believe that there exists a normative standard to which they ought to adhere, not that this standard is law. What makes the customary rule law is adherence by officials in the international legal system to a rule of recognition that treats custom as a source of valid law. Confusion over this distinction arises because in the international legal system the same agents whose beliefs give rise to a customary rule are the legal officials whose adherence to the rule of recognition leads them to deem that rule legally valid. The proposed solution to the chronological paradox employs H.L.A. Hart’s analysis of the concepts of law and a legal system, and in particular, the idea of a rule of recognition. Yet Hart famously denies the existence of a rule of recognition for international law. Hart’s denial rests on a failure to distinguish between the ontological and authoritative resolution functions of a rule of recognition, however. Once such a distinction is drawn, it can be argued that customary international law rests on a rule of recognition that serves the ontological function of making customary norms legal, though not the authoritative resolution function of settling disputes over the alleged legality of particular norms.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-132
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy

AbstractInternational law has not traditionally recognised individuals as victims of the crime of aggression. Recent developments may precipitate a departure from this approach. The activation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression opens the way for the future application of the Court's regime of victim participation and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. The determination by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 that any deprivation of life resulting from an act of aggression violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights serves to recognise a previously overlooked class of victims. This article explores these recent developments, by discussing their background, meaning and implications for international law and the rights of victims.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p189
Author(s):  
Maher Gamil Aboukhewat

The archipelagic States, which attempt to extend their control over the waters surrounding their islands, are demanding the establishment of a legal system for archipelagos in order to preserve their interests, their maritime wealth and their regional security. On the other hand, there are the great maritime States that hold on to the freedom of the sea and international navigation.The problems raised by the islands constituting the archipelago did not stand at the end of sovereignty disputes and their right to their own maritime areas, but many other problems were associated with the presence of archipelagic islands. The measurement of marine areas of archipelagic islands requires a description of how the baselines from which these areas are measured are to be drawn. Also, the measurement of marine areas of the islands of individual problems is different from those raised by the presence of the islands in the form of an archipelago. Drawing baselines also varies according to the archipelagic islands site, and whether they are located in front of the coast regions or at the entrances to the bays in these coasts, or were located in the sea or ocean.These problems remained subject to international controversy and tension until a new system of archipelagic State was adopted under Part IV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, which represents a very important renewal of the international law of the sea.


2021 ◽  

The “international rule of law” is an elusive concept. Under this heading, mainly two variations are being discussed: The international rule of law “proper” and an “internationalized” or even “globalized” rule of law. The first usage relates to the rule of law as applied to the international legal system, that is the application of the rule of law to those legal relations and contexts that are governed by international law. In this context, the term international rule of law is often mentioned as a catchphrase which merely embellishes a discussion of international law tout court. The international rule of law is here mainly or exclusively used as shorthand for compliance with international law, a synonym for a “rule based international order,” or a signifier for the question whether international law is “real” law. This extremely loose usage of the term testifies its normative and symbolic appeal although it does not convey any additional analytic value. The second usage of the rule of law in international contexts covers all other aspects of the rule of law in a globalizing world, notably rule of law promotion in its widest sense. The increasing interaction between national and international law and between the diverse domestic legal orders (through law diffusion and reception, often again mediated by international law) is a manifestation of the second form of the rule of law. The structure of this bibliography roughly follows this bifurcation of the Rule of Law Applied to the International Legal System and the Rule of Law in a Globalizing World. Next to these two main parts, three further, separate sections discuss questions that arise at the intersection of the two variants or are of crosscutting importance to the rule of law as a whole. This includes sections on the Rule of Law as a UN Project: A Selection of UN Documents on the Rule of Law, the Interaction between the International and Domestic Rule(s) of Law, and the (International) Rule of Law: A Tool of Hegemony?.


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

International law is a description of an entire legal system: the international legal system. It is an international legal system by which legal rules are created in order to structure and organise societies and relationships. It acknowledges the influence of political, economic, social and cultural processes upon the development of legal rules. This chapter discusses the relevance of international law; the international community and international law; theories of international law; and the practice of international law.


Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of the international legal system. The premise is that the structure of the international legal system is fundamentally different from that of national legal order: contrary to the vertical structure encountered in domestic settings, in international law the structure is horizontal. States enjoy sovereign equality, while both international law-making and international adjudication are based on the consent of the States. There are various theories that have attempted to describe the nature of the international law, including naturalism, positivism, formalism, and realism. Also significant is the existence of a certain hierarchy in the international legal system, in the sense that there are some peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, to which there is no derogation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document