Search results

26 páginas ; Some say that we live in a post-national world, in which affiliations are not solely or even primarily based on identities founded on nationality but rather on ideological, religious, and even economic considerations, sometimes related to transnational actors such as religious groups or multinational structures.1 Furthermore, the global social landscape challenges States in different ways. Among other things, States face challenges of actors as varied as transnational corporations, drug cartels, or terrorist and rebel groups, many of which have something that States do not: territorial and political flexibility. Indeed, many non-state actors focus on narrower issues while States have a myriad of responsibilities, and are also freer to pursue their aims across borders, ignoring territorial constraints, while States and their power are still largely determined by the territories they exert jurisdiction over.2 To this, it must be added that non-state actors sometimes have considerable power that rivals even the power of some States. We can think, among others, of some transnational corporations and multinational groups whose economic resources surpass those of developing countries, or armed and criminal groups that are able to fight against States, sometimes even controlling part of their territories.

26 páginas ; Some say that we live in a post-national world, in which affiliations are not solely or even primarily based on identities founded on nationality but rather on ideological, religious, and even economic considerations, sometimes related to transnational actors such as religious groups or multinational structures.1 Furthermore, the global social landscape challenges States in different ways. Among other things, States face challenges of actors as varied as transnational corporations, drug cartels, or terrorist and rebel groups, many of which have something that States do not: territorial and political flexibility. Indeed, many non-state actors focus on narrower issues while States have a myriad of responsibilities, and are also freer to pursue their aims across borders, ignoring territorial constraints, while States and their power are still largely determined by the territories they exert jurisdiction over.2 To this, it must be added that non-state actors sometimes have considerable power that rivals even the power of some States. We can think, among others, of some transnational corporations and multinational groups whose economic resources surpass those of developing countries, or armed and criminal groups that are able to fight against States, sometimes even controlling part of their territories.

In its advisory opinion, OC-24/17 (Advisory Opinion), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) addressed globally debated issues concerning gender identity, same-sex relationships, and the rights of LGBTI persons. As discussed below, the Court reached conclusions more progressive than those of its European counterpart, due to its finding that the principle of individual autonomy is embedded in the foundations of human rights law and permeates individual self-determination, the free development of one's personality, and the protection of different models of the family. In line with an apparent trend in the Court's case law, the Advisory Opinion rejects the idea that domestic societies are sometimes entitled, by virtue of a margin of appreciation, to choose among different possibilities for protecting human rights, provided that certain international legal limits are observed—an idea addressed in the dissenting opinion.

28 páginas ; Non-state actors can contribute to shaping customary law indirectly, through inspiration and pressure, or formally when so empowered by States. Decisions on granting non-state actors customary law-making capacities must be critically decided on a case-by-case basis, in light of the legal interests at stake, risks of making regulation subservient to their interests, and legitimacy and effectiveness considerations. Since non-state involvement in the formation or change of customary law is not limited to direct law-making capacities, different strategies can be used to both receive their input and promote their acceptance of and respect of customary law. Internal and international democratization of State decisions and collective law-making are essential if the (currently) mostly-State-centric system of custom determination is to be fair. This demands a duty to examine non-state proposals in good faith.

32 páginas ; Giving preeminence to military interests over humanitarian considerations in international law may encourage attacks that violate the jus ad bellum because the generation of an armed attack will entitle targeting individuals in order to further the goals of entities carrying out the attacks. If this happens, individuals will be treated as means, and their human dignity will be violated. Thus, attacks on life in the mentioned circumstances violate the foundational value of both human rights and humanitarian law norms. Therefore, in order to discourage resorting to war and tweaking the law, depriving humanitarian guarantees of their effectiveness, a prevalent human rights law approach that acknowledges the arbitrariness and ensuing unlawfulness in those conducts is necessary. International Humanitarian Law can also be understood as violated, but even if it is not considered to be breached, an autonomous understanding of human rights law not subject to IHL is possible. Apart from the previous concerns, there is the issue of non-state uses of force. A State-centered conception of international law is inadequate to answer to reality and protect international legal goods. This is felt in jus ad bellum and jus in bello, because the impact of non-state actors cannot be dealt with properly in its light. In this regard, there are problems concerning the possibility of resorting to self-defense against non-state armed groups located in the territory of another State or in the regulation of armed conflicts in which non-state actors participate. Some of these challenges can be met with existing norms although there are gaps that call for regulation de lege ferenda.

It is an undeniable fact that corporations participate in human rights abuses throughout the world. Yet there is disagreement among scholars, politicians and business actors about the best approaches to preventing and responding to those abuses and whether it would be feasible to adopt a treaty on the matter. This book explores the potential adoption of a treaty on business and human rights, first proposed by Ecuador and South Africa. Would such a treaty be practicable and what should its content be - should it regulate direct corporate obligations or extraterritorial obligations? How can experiences of other international legal regimes and developments in regional systems inform the global debate on business and human rights? The Future of Business and Human Rights informs the reader - academics, practitioners and policy makers - about the current debate that is at centre of legal and diplomatic discussion. JERNEJ LETNAR CERNIC is Associate Professor of Human Rights Law at the Graduate School of Government and European Studies and Senior Research Fellow at the University Institute of European Studies in Turin, Italy. NICOLÁS CARRILLO-SANTARELLI, is Professor of International Law at La Sabana University, Colombia and has experience as a clerk in the Colombian Constitutional Court. 2 Intersentia Intersentia 3

La película La increíble historia de la Isla de las Rosas (2020), basada en la historia real de aquel micro-Estado, es el puntapié para un doble ejercicio pedagógico y crítico. En una primera sección se estudian aspectos acerca de lo relativo al aprendizaje de instituciones y pilares básicos del derecho internacional, principalmente en cuanto a la subjetividad, aunque no solo ella. En la segunda, observamos cómo el análisis del filme también permite poner de manifiesto realidades y tensiones con una carga histórico-política que son inherentes al derecho internacional de forma central e incluso constitutivas del mismo. El "estatocentrismo" del derecho internacional queda patente en la época en que transcurre la narración, y vemos que, aún hoy día, buena parte de lo concerniente a las instituciones internacionales y su formación depende del filtro de los sujetos identificados con los entes colectivos construidos socialmente que llamamos Estados. En ambos análisis se puede observar cómo la estatalidad sigue constituyendo una figura muy atractiva, en la medida en que constituye la base de privilegios de actuación. ; The film Rose Island (2020), based on the true history of this micro-State, is the starting point for a double pedagogical and critical exercise. We first study aspects related to the teaching of institutions and the basic pillars of international law, mostly - though not exclusively - regarding issues connected to subjectivity. Then, we look at how the analysis of the film also reveals historically and politically-charged realities and tensions that are inherent and even constitutive of international law. The "state-centrism" of international law is evident in the period in which the narrative takes place, and we can see that, even today, much of what concerns international institutions and their formation depends on the will of the subjects identified with the socially constructed collective entities we call States. In both analyses, we can see how statehood continues to be a very attractive figure, insofar as it constitutes the basis for privileges of action. ; Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales

The filmRose Island(2020), based on the true history of this micro-State, is the starting point for a double pedagogical and critical exercise. We first study aspects related to the teaching of institutions and the basic pillars of international law, mostly - though not exclusively - regarding issues connected to subjectivity. Then, we look at how the analysis of the film also reveals historically and politically-charged realities and tensions that are inherent and even constitutive of international law. The "state-centrism" of international law is evident in the period in which the narrative takes place, and we can see that, even today, much of what concerns international institutions and their formation depends on the will of the subjects identified with the socially constructed collective entities we call States. In both analyses, we can see how statehood continues to be a very attractive figure, insofar as it constitutes the basis for privileges of action. ; La película La increíble historia de la Isla de las Rosas (2020), basada en la historia real de aquel micro-Estado, es el puntapié para un doble ejercicio pedagógico y crítico. En una primera sección se estudian aspectos acerca de lo relativo al aprendizaje de instituciones y pilares básicos del derecho internacional, principalmente en cuanto a la subjetividad, aunque no solo ella. En la segunda, observamos cómo el análisis del filme también permite poner de manifiesto realidades y tensiones con una carga histórico-política que son inherentes al derecho internacional de forma central e incluso constitutivas del mismo. El "estatocentrismo" del derecho internacional queda patente en la época en que transcurre la narración, y vemos que, aún hoy día, buena parte de lo concerniente a las instituciones internacionales y su formación depende del filtro de los sujetos identificados con los entes colectivos construidos socialmente que llamamos Estados. En ambos análisis se puede observar cómo la estatalidad sigue constituyendo una figura muy atractiva, en la medida en que constituye la base de privilegios de actuación.

The control of conventionality is a doctrine, developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its case law, according to which State agents are required to strive to make sure that domestic norms and practices are consistent with what Inter-American and other human rights law standards require. The doctrine as it has been developed posits that not only judges, but also any other State authorities must take these standards into account. The Court has made clear that its own pronouncements are to be considered too, not only in contentious cases but also in advisory opinions. Some argue that the Court has gone too far; others contend that the doctrine simply reaffirms the States' obligation to adjust domestic practices and norms to international obligations and make internationally recognized human rights effective. Moreover, as long as a multi-level dialogue is permitted and some risks of fragmentation or unreasonable impositions are avoided, the doctrine may help to achieve the objectives of preventing both the congestion of the regional system and repetitive violations, and the legitimacy of the Court may be further strengthened if it admits some latitude in State decisions. Finally, the doctrine requires State authorities to consider extra-American developments, UN developments included; and can help actors from other human rights systems identify developments and principles positively applied throughout the Americas, which may serve as examples.