Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn May 2017, the Egyptian armed forces conducted airstrikes against non-State targets in the neighbouring State of Libya in response to a series of attacks perpetrated against groups of Coptic Christians on Egyptian territory, killings later claimed by the self-styled Islamic State. In justifying its use of armed force, resort to which is generally impermissible in international law, Egypt purports to rely upon two exceptions to this general rule, namely: (i) authorisation on the part of the United Nations Security Council; and (ii) self-defence, while also invoking the doctrine of military assistance on request (or intervention by invitation). This article tests the legality of Egypt's airstrikes—which have yet to be subjected to scholarly attention—in light of the three foregoing justifications. In so doing, the article evaluates the implications of this use of force for the jus ad bellum, particularly the law regulating resort to force by way of response to an armed attack for which not another State, but a non-State actor, is responsible.

Abstract
This article examines the human rights implications of the asset freezing processes available to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. It does so through the lens of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, from whose jurisprudence, although not uniform, a number of principles can be distilled. By scrutinising a series of cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights and American Convention on Human Rights, respectively, the article demonstrates that the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property and to respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence are necessarily implicated by the execution of asset freezing measures in criminal and administrative contexts. The article concludes that, considering the human rights constraints placed on the exercise of their powers, both the International Criminal Court and United Nations Security Council, as well as States acting at their request, must pay attention to this case law with a view to respecting the human rights of those to whom asset freezing measures are applied.