Suchergebnisse

The development of international organisations and the increasing significance of their role in a wide range of fields, has put at issue the adequacy of the rules governing their operation, with regard to the needs of modern justice. In particular, the question of the scope of the immunity from jurisdiction of international organisations is the subject of some debate, as the multiplication of disputes involving international organisations has led courts to address this topic with increasing frequency.1

Introduction : non-state actors, changing actors, and subjects of international law / Charles-Emmanuel Côté -- Sovereignty's accommodations : quasi-states as international lawmakers / Kathleen Claussen -- Quasi-States and sport : building a case for statehood / Ryan Gauthier -- Self-determination claimant groups and the creation of international norms / Amy Maguire -- Indigenous peoples as actors in international law-making : focusing on international environmental law / Yuko Osakada -- Legally sculpting a melting arctic : states, indigenous peoples and justice in multilateralism / Sabaa Ahmad Khan -- Legitimacy, participation, and international law-making : 'fixing' the restitution of cultural property to indigenous peoples / Shea Elizabeth Esterling -- Procedural barriers to indigenous peoples' participation in international lawmaking : extended continental shelf delimitation in Inuit Nunaat / Zhannah Voukitchevitch -- Non-state actors as invisible law makers? Domestic Implementation of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Standards / Mari Takeuchi -- Reorienting the role of nonstate actors in global climate governance / Jason MacLean -- The influence of the individual and the corporation on the state's exercise of jurisdiction under international law : the case of business and human rights arbitration / Sarah Castles -- Beyond the state : individual civil responsibility for violations of international law / Miriam Cohen -- Asymmetrical legal conflicts / Shiri Krebs -- Reconsidering the classification of extraterritorial conflict with armed groups in international humanitarian law / Shin Kawagishi -- The status of rebels in non-international armed conflict : do they have the right to life? / Kentaro Wani -- Non-state actors in international dispute settlement : the case of domestic investment statutes / Jarrod Hepburn.

AbstractTransitional justice systems generally aim to achieve two goals. One is to bring the perpetrators of past atrocities to justice to ensure that they do not go unpunished, which involves the State fulfilling its duty to investigate, prosecute and punish serious human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL). The other is to bring about reconciliation to heal a divided society and achieve peace and stability. This normally requires the adoption of measures of clemency, such as granting amnesty, so that those who took part in the country's violent past can return to civilian life. The use of IHL is relevant in attaining both these goals because its complex nature means that it provides the legal basis for their implementation. However, this very complexity can mean that there are contradictions or complementarities between its characteristics. This article looks at the case of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) in Colombia, showing how this transitional jurisdiction has used IHL as a legal basis both for investigating, prosecuting and punishing serious violations committed during the Colombian armed conflict and for granting amnesty to those who took part in the hostilities. These different uses by the JEP demonstrate that IHL is a flexible tool that can facilitate the process of delivering both justice and peace after a conflict has ended.

While I agree with the action taken by the Court and consider that, in view of the unsatisfactory and contradictory provisions of the special agreement by which the parties have submitted this case to the Court, it is perhaps the only course by which the Court could, under its Statute, aid the parties in arriving at a wholly satisfactory solution of their dispute, nevertheless, in view of certain language used in the order, which might be the source of doubt as to the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and might serve as a basis of argument that it is within the competence of this Court, with the consent of the parties, to take jurisdiction of and decide purely political questions upon considerations of expediency without regard to the legal rights of the parties, I feel it incumbent upon me to make the following observations:In my opinion the question of the competence of this Court which has been raised by the present case and a direct decision of which the Court has avoided, for the moment at least, by the making of the present order, is, from the point of view of the future of this Court and the development of the judicial settlement of international disputes, by far the most important question which has ever been brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. I feel, therefore, that I would be derelict in my duty if I allowed the question to be passed over in silence or left any doubt as to my opinion in regard thereto.