Suchergebnisse

While a significant number of states have deposited declarations under article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognizing the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction over their disputes, the United Kingdom is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that maintains such a declaration. However, the UK's recent reservations undermine its declaration's ability to ensure compulsory jurisdiction over the UK's disputes. This article first interrogates whether the UK's reservations exclude in practice the jurisdiction of the Court, such that none of the permanent members of the Security Council are subject to compulsory jurisdiction under the optional clause. Second, it contemplates the reasons underlying the UK's new approach to its declaration, exploring whether these are peculiar to the UK, or are rather indicative of a broader backlash against international courts and tribunals.

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court operating in the international legal order. Its judgments are not given direct effect in national law. In this sense we have a system of legal pluralism between international and national law. But the ECtHR has constitutional effects in national law through the weight placed on the Court's practice by national courts. Therefore, constitutional principles are applicable in the interaction between the ECtHR and national courts. This article discusses the transnational constitutional aspects of the Court, and how this should guide the roles of, respectively, the ECtHR and national courts.

Abstract:The Internationalistsis a fascinating book. The authors present a clear proposition about the significance of the 1928 Pact for the Renunciation of War for a more peaceful world. My focus is on the role of what the authors call outcasting, as an alternative to war. I argue that outcasting is hardly new. It has been known as reprisals or self-help, and currently as countermeasures. It is essential that such measures are brought under international control. What is more, the current US administration is a threat to the current world order. Other states and civil society need to continue to develop internationally controlled sanctions against violations of international law – also in the absence of the USA.

There exist today a number of conventions aimed at combating terrorism. These treat acts of terrorism as criminal acts. However, the events of 11 September 2001 introduced a new dimension into the debate on the use of force in addressing the problem of terrorism. This article discusses whether the UN Security Council has given its approval for the USA's use of force in the wake of 11 September 2001 and whether this use of force can be justified under the right of self-defence. The article's conclusion is that the Security Council has not given its approval. Nevertheless, the USA may invoke the right of self-defence on the basis of the Taliban's support for the terrorists. However, it is important to remember that acts of terrorism ought as far as possible to be addressed through criminal prosecution. Furthermore, any use of force ought to take place under the control of the UN. And we must be on our guard against any erosion of the prohibition against the use of force in international law.

The arms of international courts are long. Follesdal and Ulftsein bring together renowned experts to ask whether the benefits of global governance, the rule of law, and protection of the rights of individuals outweigh the compromising of national sovereignty and the lack of democratic accountability.--