Suchergebnisse

According to the United Nations Secretary-General, Yemen today constitutes the worst man-made humanitarian crisis in the world. It is fuelled by extensive third-state involvement, with none of the warring parties championing respect for international human rights and humanitarian law (to put it mildly). Conversely, primary rules of international law already prohibit arms transfers from the moment there is a significant risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate grave breaches, with the recipient's past and present record of respect for international law qualifying as the crucial factor to predict future transgressions. From that perspective, it appears deeply disingenuous for western states to continue transferring military equipment to members of the multilateral coalition in Yemen while maintaining adherence to the international legal framework. This article thus aims to examine whether the legal framework lives up to its noble goals or rather serves to defend state decisions that primarily serve their economic interests. It is structured as follows: Section 1 starts with an overview of the facts, and the focus and aim of this article. Section 2 then sets out the international legal framework as it applies to the trade in conventional arms with states that are involved in a non-international armed conflict. Section 3 analyses key domestic judgments (in the UK, Canada, Belgium and France) to test the available facts against the legal framework as elaborated. Finally, Section 4 concludes.

AbstractOn 26 March 2015, a Saudi-led coalition launched 'Operation Decisive Storm' on the territory of the Republic of Yemen following a request by that country's beleaguered government. Although it received no prior fiat from the UN Security Council and took place amidst a civil war, the intervention met with approval from numerous States, with only few critical sounds. Closer scrutiny nonetheless reveals that the self-defence justification, which is primarily relied upon, does not provide a convincing legal basis for the operation. Moreover, the intervention is problematical from the perspective of the intervention by invitation doctrine and undeniably exposes its indeterminacy and proneness to abuse.

Few topics of international law speak to the imagination as much as international immunities. Questions pertaining to immunity from jurisdiction or execution under international law surface on a frequent basis before national courts, including at the highest levels of the judicial branch and before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, international immunity law is and remains a challenging field for practitioners and scholars alike. Challenges stem in part from the uncertainty pertaining to the customary content of some immunity regimes said to be in a 'state of flux', the divergent - and at times directly conflicting - approaches to immunity in different national and international jurisdictions, or the increasing intolerance towards impunity that has accompanied the advance of international criminal law and human rights law. Composed of thirty-four expertly written contributions, the present volume uniquely provides a comprehensive tour d'horizon of international immunity law, traversing a wealth of national and international practice