HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS

The present contribution deals with the issue of human rights in armed conflicts versus the concept of war. This distinction was made in Article 2, and the same in all four Geneva Convention of 1949. In this article, the distinction is made between the universal system of human rights and the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts (IHLAC). The difference of application between these two sets of law relies on the fact, that the universal agreements of human rights always apply, both in armed conflict and peace when the IHLAC applies only in times of armed conflicts. There is a difference between them in the regulation. Human rights regulate the relationship between the state and persons under its jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and the IHLAC applies to states and individuals or armed groups distinguishing between a civilian or a veteran. About the compliance control, it is a different system too, for the IHLAC, it is the ICRC and criminal tribunals, and for human rights, there are different committees of tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The exam of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows, that it does not make a distinction between a state of war and peace, which is called the humanization of the law of armed conflicts. Also, the very important question of the fragmentation of international law is examined, based on the jurisprudence of the ICJ.

Ecological sustainability in investment-State dispute settlement: Risks of legal pluralism in practice

Due to the fragmentation of International Law, Investor-State dispute settlement is usually an area in which tension are felt between investment protection and public policy space, especially in matters concerning the environment, public health or human rights. This tension is even more dangerous in health emergencies, such as the covid-19 syndemic, and has a deeper impact on low and middle-income countries. In light of the above, this article aims to identify and analyse three investor-State disputes involving low and middle-income countries, in which the collision between investment protection and ecological sustainability sets of norms evidences the risks of legal pluralism in International Law.

Farewell to the f-word? fragmentation of international law in times of the COVID-19 pandemic

The proliferation of international legal regimes, norms, and institutions in the post-Cold War era, known as the ‘fragmentation’ of international law, has sparked extensive debate among jurists. This debate has evolved as a dialectical process, seeing legal scholarship shifting from grave concern about fragmentation’s potentially negative impacts on the international legal order to a more optimistic view of the phenomenon, with recent literature suggesting that the tools needed to contain fragmentation’s ill-effects are today all at hand, thus arguing that the time has come ‘to bid farewell to the f-word.’ Drawing on the COVID-19 crisis as a test case and considering the unresolved problems in existing fragmentation literature that this crisis brings to the fore, this article asks whether such calls have perhaps been premature. Existing works on fragmentation, the article submits, including those bidding farewell to the f-word, have mainly focused on the problems of conflicts between international norms or international institutions, especially conflicts between international courts over competing jurisdictions and interpretations of law. But, as the COVID-19 case – and, particularly, the deficient cooperation marked between the numerous international organizations reacting to the crisis – shows, the fragmentation of the international legal order does not only give rise to the potential consequences of conflicts of norms and clashes between international courts. Fragmentation also gives rise to pressing challenges of coordination when a proactive and cohesive international response is required to address global problems like COVID-19, which cut across multiple international organizations playing critical roles in the creation, administration, and application of international law. By foregrounding cooperation between international organizations as a vital-yet-deficient form of governance under conditions of fragmentation, the article argues, the COVID-19 crisis not only denotes that the time is not yet ripe to bid farewell to the f-word. It further points to the need to expand the fragmentation debate, going beyond its conflict- and court-centred focus, while probing new tools for tackling unsettled problems that arise from the segmentation of international law along sectoral lines.

Part I Context, Ch.5 Fragmentation

This chapter examines fragmentation within the field of international environmental law. There is long-standing scholarly engagement with the fragmentation of international law into largely self-contained ‘regimes’ such as trade, investment, the law of the sea, and human rights. Such regimes are of fundamental importance to the governance of environmental matters. Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) covering specific issues and sectors now number in the hundreds, and at times their aims and methods may be in opposition, while gaps remain especially in implementation. The chapter begins with a discussion of the functional conception of law-making within ‘regimes’, which has origins in both international relations and international law, and argues that the governance of environmental matters does not always (or even most often) happen in the context of environmental treaties and environmental institutions but also within norms and institutions that are constituted to pursue other functions, such as trade liberalization or investment protection. It then considers how international adjudication and the proliferation of international courts and tribunals have special salience for environmental matters. The chapter also looks at coordinating initiatives, including the proposal for a Global Pact for the Environment.

Global Regulatory Standards in Environmental and Health Disputes

Potentially global regulatory standards are emerging from the environmental and health jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and investor-state dispute settlement. Most prominent are the three standards of regulatory coherence, due regard for the rights of others, and due diligence in the prevention of harm. These global regulatory standards are a phenomenon of our times, representing a new contribution to the ordering of the relationship between domestic and international law, and inferring a revised conception of sovereignty in an increasingly pluralistic global legal era. However, considered with regard to jurisprudential theory on relative authority, the legitimacy of the resulting ‘standards-enriched’ international law remains open to question. Procedurally, although they are well-placed to provide valuable input, international courts and tribunals should not be the only fora in which these standards are elaborated. Substantively, challenges and opportunities lie ahead in the ongoing development of global regulatory standards. Debate over whether regulatory coherence should go beyond reasonableness and rationality requirements and require proportionality in the relationship between regulatory measures and their objectives is central. Due regard, the most novel of the emerging standards, may help protect international law’s legitimacy claims in the interim. Meanwhile, all actors should attend to the integration rather than the fragmentation of international law, and to changes in the status of private actors.

Introduction

The reasoning of international adjudicatory bodies in regulatory disputes is gradually producing a set of ‘global regulatory standards’ conditioning the exercise of States’ regulatory freedom and obligations. Global regulatory standards sit at the meeting point between domestic and international authority in a wide range of regulatory fields. Their emergence is the result of the increasing interdependence among States reflected in international law at the present time in history. This book enquires into the legitimacy of this new ‘standards-enriched’ international law, examining the part played by international courts and tribunals in its articulation, the interpretive techniques employed and the influence of the pleadings. These analyses point to the need for political attention to the emerging global regulatory standards, particularly if the relationship between international and domestic authority is to be governed through requirements for proportionality in domestic decision-making. The book goes on to examine a range of further challenges and opportunities arising in connection with the emergence of global regulatory standards. These include the accompanying reconception of sovereignty as conferred power, the need to address the fragmentation of international law, and the potential for developments in the status of private actors within international law.

Russia and the Right to Self-Determination in the Post-Soviet Space

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its lack of clarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, that is to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since, the distinction was made, been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This book situates Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘Western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the book analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation, illustrated by a total of seven case studies on the conflicts over Abkhazia, Chechnya, Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Tatarstan, and Transnistria. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the right to self-determination, it is suggested that Russia’s approach may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.

Final Conclusions

The book concludes with the suggestion that Russia’s approach to the right of peoples to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of Russian power politics disguised as legal rhetoric but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law. Even basic agreement on what self-determination as a concept of international law means and what role related concepts such as territorial integrity, secession, referendum, or the prohibition of the use of force do or should play in that context seems almost unattainable, to the effect that international law as a single epistemological frame is arguably in a similar danger as during Soviet times. Today, apart from Lauri Mälksoo’s work and occasional contributions by a handful of other scholars in the West, analyses of Russia’s post-Soviet state practice and doctrine in the international legal discourse usually confine themselves to assess the legality of Russia’s actions in terms of positive international law. Such a limited approach fails to attempt to understand diverging views on international law, something which was perceived as self-evident during the Cold War period.

FRAGMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A FACTOR OF FORMATION OF THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW ORDER

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the formation of the international legal order in the process of evolution of international law. The development of international law is directly determined by the specifics of civilizational development and changes that occur in the international environment under the influence of globalization and regionalization. Globalization and regionalization are manifested respectively in the processes of unification and fragmentation of international law, becoming the content of the specifics of the processes in international legal relations at the current stage. The analysis of modern international legal relations, formed as a result of the principles and norms of international law in the context of globalization and regionalization, gives grounds to identify the manifestations of localization in international legal relations as a model of fragmentation of international law. The concept of fragmentation enters the science of international law at the beginning of the XXI century. Thanks to the discourse initiated by the UN Commission on International Law and is gradually gaining paradigmatic significance. Paradigmatic transformations of the science of international law are inevitable in the conditions of intensive development of international legal relations and provide further progress of science. The starting point of this process was the rejection of the unequivocally negativism interpretation of fragmentation as the opposite of integration and unification, which contradicts globalization. Therefore, today, in addition to the widely developed general international treaty and legal unification of domestic law, its regional unification is becoming more and more developed. Regional unification is also international, but it has a regional aspect, primarily related to the level of regional interstate integration. Integration practices are reflected in the relevant international treaties, especially those governing the establishment and operation of regional international associations. These associations are the organizational and legal shell for the development of regional international legal unification processes. Regionalization of international law, as well as its fragmentation in treatyformed international regions, is associated with the level and depth of relevant regional integration, which is a priority for states, and international law provides integration processes as a necessary tool for their regulation. Fragmentation is a natural process in the evolution of international law and is seen as a factor in the creation of modern international law. The international legal order has a contractual nature and a complex multicomponent structure. The process of forming the structure of the international legal order on the basis of a complex intertwining of uneven processes of regionalization and fragmentation is not yet complete. In the doctrine of international law, the complexity of the international legal order is determined from the standpoint of the number of elements and components, as well as their number and the relationship between them and the environment in which the legal order exists. It is obvious that the current stage of civilizational development is characterized by complexity and multidimensionality, which are reflected in the practices of creating a new international legal order based on the changes taking place in international legal relations. Therefore, fragmentation as a factor in the development of international legal relations becomes a factor in the formation of modern international legal order and determines its features.