Suchergebnisse

International human rights law offers an overarching international legal framework to help determine the legality of the use of any weapon, as well as its lawful supply. It governs acts of States and non-State actors alike. In doing so, human rights law embraces international humanitarian law regulation of the use of weapons in armed conflict and disarmament law, as well as international criminal justice standards. In situations of law enforcement (such as counterpiracy, prisons, ordinary policing, riot control, and many peace operations), human rights law is the primary legal frame of reference above domestic criminal law. This important and timely book draws on all aspects of international weapons law and proposes a new view on international law governing weapons. Also included is a specific discussion on armed drones and cyberattacks, two highly topical issues in international law and international relations

New imperialism: imperium, dominium and responsibility under international law -- Dominium -- Imperium -- Territorium et titulus -- British Nigeria -- French Equatorial Africa -- German Cameroon -- Ex facto ius oritur? -- A reflection on the nature of international law : redressing the illegality of africa's colonization -- Evaluative summary and conclusion.

Abstract
Based in Montevideo, and most recently valued at US$5 billion, the payments platform DLocal enables companies such as Booking.com, Amazon and Uber to transact in local currencies in 29 countries. It specializes in the "emerging economies" of Latin America, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa. Among international lawyers, however, Montevideo is best known for another form of international infrastructure. That is the 1933 Montevideo Convention, or at least its first article, standardising the template of modern statehood. At the time, as scholars of international legal history have shown, this amounted to a radical reformatting of the fundamentals of international law, driven by semi-peripheral states, as part of a widespread effort of reconstructive codification after the Great War. Today, DLocal's Montevideo is emblematic of a very different kind of international legal reformatting now underway. A digital logic, and associated circuits of value and aggregations of power, are becoming embedded—even predominant—in many of international law's most routine operations. To shed light on this phenomenon, this lecture revisits each component of the Montevideo Convention's well-known formula for statehood—permanent population; defined territory; government; and the conduct of international relations. Taking efforts of so-called digital humanitarianism as illustrative, it examines how each of these Montevideo properties is being rerouted and recomposed digitally, often in tension with an analog logic characteristic of law. And in the ensuing dislocations sometimes in evidence between analog and digital aspects of international legal work, it identifies some possibilities for collective reworking.

The development of feminist jurisprudence in recent years has made a rich and fruitful contribution to legal theory. Few areas of domestic law have avoided the scrutiny of feminist writers, who have exposed the gender bias of apparently neutral systems of rules. A central feature of many western theories about law is that the law is an autonomous entity, distinct from the society it regulates. A legal system is regarded as different from a political or economic system, for example, because it operates on the basis of abstract rationality, and is thus universally applicable and capable of achieving neutrality and objectivity. These attributes are held to give the law its special authority. More radical theories have challenged this abstract rationalism, arguing that legal analysis cannot be separated from the political, economic, historical and cultural context in which people live. Some theorists argue that the law functions as a system of beliefs that make social, political and economic inequalities appear natural. Feminist jurisprudence builds on certain aspects of this critical strain in legal thought. It is much more focused and concrete, however, and derives its theoretical force from immediate experience of the role of the legal system in creating and perpetuating the unequal position of women.

Over the past two decades, the status of customary international law in U.S. courts has been the subject of vigorous debate. On the one hand, proponents of the "modernist" position contend that rules of customary international law are presumptively rules of federal law, which apply directly in U.S. courts and preempt inconsistent state law even in the absence of federal legislative or executive authorization. On the other hand, the "revisionists" argue that, in the absence of congressional legislation or a U.S. treaty, rules of customary international law are generally not matters of federal law, and will therefore generally be governed by state law. This Article argues for an approach that rejects central elements of both the modernist and revisionist positions, while also adopting other aspects of both positions. The Article contends that the text, structure, and objectives of the Constitution, and the weight of judicial authority, require treating all rules of customary international law as rules of federal law, but that such rules will be directly applicable in U.S. courts only when the federal political branches have expressly or impliedly provided for judicial application of a particular rule. This approach would mirror the way in which courts apply U.S. treaties and other international agreements—treating them as matters of federal law but applying their provisions in U.S. courts only to the extent authorized by the political branches. The intentions of the political branches regarding application of particular rules of customary international law by U.S. courts can be deduced from a number of indicia, analogous to those applied to determine whether particular treaty provisions are self-executing; these include the content and character of the relevant rule of international law, statements by the Executive or Legislative branch, and the content, character, and historical treatment of related rules of international law. The position proposed in this Article produces materially different results from either ...

This article argues that tort law has a role to play in holding the British government to account for overseas violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The context of tortious claims for overseas violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law brings to the fore, on one hand, issues of attribution and Crown and foreign acts of State and, on the other hand, issues of private international law. This article describes the approach of UK courts to key issues raised by tortious claims for overseas violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, namely subject-matter jurisdiction and the law applicable to the merits.