International Law in Greek

There has been a continuous presence and contribution of Greek jurists in the discipline of international law ever since the interwar years. Undoubtedly, Nicholas Politis and Stylianos Seferiades were the most prominent Greek international lawyers of the interwar period; the former a government lawyer and diplomat with substantial contribution in almost every aspect of the development of international law both in and out of the institutional context of the League of Nations and the latter an academic who held the first Chair of Public International Law at the Faculty of Law of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. They were followed in the 1950s to 1970s by Jean Spyropoulos, professor of international law (Thessaloniki and Athens, member of the International Law Commission, and International Court of Justice (ICJ) judge; Konstantin Eustathiades, professor of international law (Thessaloniki and Athens), member of the International Law Commission, and member of the European Commission of Human Rights; and George Tenekides, professor of international law at the Panteion School of Political Science, member of the European Commission of Human Rights, and member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Following the restoration of democracy in 1974 a new cohort of international lawyers has dominated the discipline of international law to the present day: Argyrios Fatouros, Christos Rozakis, Konstantin Economides, Emmanuel Roukounas, and Krateros Ioannou. They have each in their own capacity inspired a large number of their students to specialize in international law, a lot of which succeeded them as faculty teaching this subject, and have pursued and are still pursuing distinguished careers in international law both in Greece and abroad. Most of the Greek international lawyers are prolific authors of books and articles and even though the tendency among a growing number of them is to publish their research in English or French an equally large number publish in Greek. They tend to publish textbooks and monographs. As far as the latter are concerned, they cover areas of the law of particular interest for Greece, such as the law of the sea, international environmental law, and human rights law as well as classical subjects, such as the settlement of disputes, international institutions, and the law of armed conflict.

Recent Developments of International Law Commission Work on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

Immunity is a well bedded concept within international law and mainly within the principle of sovereign equality of states. There are different procedural implications of the concept of immunity – diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, State jurisdictional immunities and also immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Article focuses on the latter one and portrays on recent developments of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction as it is elaborated by the UN International Law Commission (‘ILC’). The author frames (in the introduction) the concept of immunity and especially the immunity of State officials and puts it in a large theoretical structure of international law and in the work of ILC. Then, he focuses his attention on the phenomenon of progressive development of international law (2) and how it is used with respect to the topic considerated by the ILC. He then presents main ILC conclusions regarding limitations and exceptions to immunity of State officials (3) and finally outlines latest development (4) of the ILC work dealing mainly with relationship between foreign criminal jurisdiction and international criminal jurisdiction and other procedural questions.

Judicial specialisation in a generalist jurisdiction: Is commercial specialisation within the High Court justified?

<p>In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and judicial discussion, the government introduced legislation to Parliament to replace the existing High Court commercial list with a specialist commercial panel. Whilst this panel would bring New Zealand into line with many comparable common law jurisdictions, this paper argues that the case for specialisation has not been established. In particular, it notes that there is no publically available evidence to support the claim that the High Court is losing its commercial jurisdiction, or that commercial parties are choosing to resolve their disputes offshore or through alternative dispute resolution. Accordingly, this paper argues that future research by the Law Commission, or other research agency, is required before specialisation can be justified. In reaching this conclusion it also examines the issues that may arise if the government decides to continue with its proposed reform under clause 18 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, suggesting changes along the way.</p>

Judicial specialisation in a generalist jurisdiction: Is commercial specialisation within the High Court justified?

<p>In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and judicial discussion, the government introduced legislation to Parliament to replace the existing High Court commercial list with a specialist commercial panel. Whilst this panel would bring New Zealand into line with many comparable common law jurisdictions, this paper argues that the case for specialisation has not been established. In particular, it notes that there is no publically available evidence to support the claim that the High Court is losing its commercial jurisdiction, or that commercial parties are choosing to resolve their disputes offshore or through alternative dispute resolution. Accordingly, this paper argues that future research by the Law Commission, or other research agency, is required before specialisation can be justified. In reaching this conclusion it also examines the issues that may arise if the government decides to continue with its proposed reform under clause 18 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, suggesting changes along the way.</p>

News Media Regulation: A Mixed Membership Model Approach

<p>The traditional platform-centric approach to media regulation is no longer tenable with the distinct line between broadcast and print media being blurred by mainstream media combining text and video via the internet. To address platform convergence, the Law Commission recommends a universal news media regulator, the News Media Standards Authority, which encompasses broadcasters, the press and onlineonly providers. The Commission endorses a voluntary membership model with a range of incentives to entice entities to join. This paper will critique the efficacy of the Commission’s incentives before undertaking a first principles analysis of news media regulation to illustrate the need for an element of compulsion in the membership model of the News Media Standards Authority. This paper argues that a mixed membership model, whereby a matrix of factors is used to determine the entities that will be required to join, is more appropriate for the News Media Standards Authority.</p>

News Media Regulation: A Mixed Membership Model Approach

<p>The traditional platform-centric approach to media regulation is no longer tenable with the distinct line between broadcast and print media being blurred by mainstream media combining text and video via the internet. To address platform convergence, the Law Commission recommends a universal news media regulator, the News Media Standards Authority, which encompasses broadcasters, the press and onlineonly providers. The Commission endorses a voluntary membership model with a range of incentives to entice entities to join. This paper will critique the efficacy of the Commission’s incentives before undertaking a first principles analysis of news media regulation to illustrate the need for an element of compulsion in the membership model of the News Media Standards Authority. This paper argues that a mixed membership model, whereby a matrix of factors is used to determine the entities that will be required to join, is more appropriate for the News Media Standards Authority.</p>

Protecting the Environment During and After Armed Conflict, the International Law Commission and an Overdue Due Diligence Duty for Corporations

Recent years have seen a rising global consensus on the need to ensure appropriate protections for the environment during and after armed conflict. In this context, the International Law Commission provisionally adopted 28 draft principles on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts in July 2019. With stakeholder consultation having concluded in June 2021, this article investigates what practical impacts the corporate due diligence and liability provisions in the draft principles are likely to have on the protection of the environment during and after armed conflict, should the principles be implemented as currently drafted.

Rebellions and Civil Wars

This book analyses all relevant questions of State responsibility and attribution arising from the conduct of rebels and governments in the context of civil wars and rebellions aiming at the establishment of a new government or the creation of a new State. Based on a comprehensive analysis of both old and recent State practice, and case law, including investment awards, as well as the works of scholars and the International Law Commission, the book identifies ten basic rules which can be used by States and international tribunals. It explains the history, content and scope of application of the specific solutions adopted in Article 10 of the International Law Commission Articles on State responsibility to address particular problems. The book also critically revisits some of the solutions that have been put forward by tribunals and scholars, and examines a number of questions which have never been addressed by them before.

Invocation of State Responsibility for Violation of Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole

The article discusses the features of the application of paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, developed by the UN International Law Commission and taken into consideration by the UN General Assembly by its resolution 56/83 of December 12, 2001. The norm of this article enshrines the right of any state that is not a victim to call to international legal responsibility state that has committed a breach of an obligation owed to the international community as a whole. This rule contributes to the establishment in modern international law of the ancient Roman theory of actio popularis, according to which any citizen could file a claim in the public interest. The UN International Law Commission is considering paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility as a result of the progressive development of International Law. This is manifested primarily in a new approach to the interpretation of concepts such as “the international community as a whole” and “obligation owed to the international community as a whole”. The article notes that the concept of "the international community as a whole" should no longer be considered as a community of sovereign states, since it already presupposes a more active participation in maintaining international legitimacy of all participants of international relations – subjects of international law. In addition, attention is drawn to the fact that the concept of “obligation owed to the international community as a whole” is a new category proposed by the International Law Commission as a part of the progressive development of the theory of erga omnes and jus cogens norms. The author compares these types of obligations and points out a number of problems that may arise while interpreting this concept in order to apply this rule in practice.

Provisional Application of Treaties and Other Topics: The Seventy-Second Session of The International Law Commission

The International Law Commission (ILC) held its seventy-second session from April 26 to June 4 and from July 5 to August 6, 2021 in Geneva, under the chairmanship of Mahmoud Hmoud (Jordan). This session was originally scheduled for the summer of 2020, but had to be postponed due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic continued in 2021 to present health risks and travel difficulties for certain members; consequently, the Commission for the first time in its history held its session in a hybrid manner, with many members physically present in Geneva, while others participated online by means of Zoom. That approach required certain adjustments to the Commission's methods of work, but allowed the Commission to move forward in addressing the several topics on its current program of work.