Max Du Plessis and Andreas Coutsoudis review the salient facts leading up to President Putin’s decision to not attend the recent BRICS summit hosted in South Africa in person. The authors, who seved as counsel for the Democratic Alliance in the urgent application brought before the Pretoria High Court on this matter, shed light on the aforementioned facts. For example, the authors note that while the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not officially disclose whether it had issued cooperation requests, and if so, to which states, an affidavit filed by South Africa to the Court unequivocally disclosed that the ICC had indeed transmited requests for cooperation to all states parties to the Rome Statute with respect to the arrest of President Putin’s and Ms Lvova-Belova.
Read their full analysis here.
In his post titled ‘State and Corporate Homophobia: A Commentary on the Olivera Fuentes v. Peru case,’ Carlos J. Zelada offers insights into the recent ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The author underscores the personal significance the decision holds to Crissthian Olivera, a pioneering defender of LGBTIQ+ rights in Latin America. Importantly, this ruling marks the first instance where the court has embraced the expanded acronym LGBTIQ+. The case addressed three principal issues within the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights. These issues include the use of homophobic stereotypes in judicial decisions, the burden of proof imposed on victims of discrimination by non-state actors, and the extent of anti-discrimination obligations incumbent upon corporations. In his analysis, Zelada arrives at the following conclusion:
‘Olivera Fuentes is a significant addition to the Court’s most relevant decisions concerning the rights of LGBTIQ+ people. Alongside Advisory Opinion 24/17 and the judgments in Atala Riffo and Vicky Hernández, this ruling stands as a testament to the Court’s contribution to the comparative discussion on issues related to LGBTIQ+ sexualities. The Court has shown exceptional leadership in this subject, surpassing its counterparts in the African, European, and universal systems.
Hopefully, Olivera Fuentes will foster more frequent dialogue between academics and practitioners from the English and French speaking worlds and the Inter-American system, as these exchanges have unfortunately become increasingly rare.’
Read the full post here.
Daniel Rosenberg examines the current phase of the ongoing legal dispute surrounding deep-sea mining. Deep-sea exploitation is governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which despite years of trying, has yet to finalize a Code for seabed exploitation. As of July 2021, the Pacific Island State of Nauru invoked Section 1(15) of the UNCLOS Implementation Agreement. This provision establishes a two-year timeframe for the development of a comprehensive set of rules, regulations, and procedures to oversee seabed exploitation. Given that the Mining Code was not finalized within the stipulated window, Section 1(15) dictates that the ISA is obliged to consider and provisionally approve deep-sea mining contracts without regulations. Consequently, paving the way for sponsored companies to conduct deep-sea mining activities without hindrance. Rosenberg delineates advantages and disadvantages pertaining to this state of affairs.
Read his full analysis here.
In his post tited ‘Changes in Treaty Interpretation: The ICRC’s Updated Commentaries to the Geneva Conventions,’ Dapo Akande explores questions of treaty interpretation as prompted by the revised Commentaries published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) pertaining to the Geneva Conventions. Akande’s analysis encompases several pivotal aspects, including the utilization of a subsequent treaty for interpreting an earlier treaty, especially when not all parties to the earlier treaty are signatories to the subsequent one. Additionally, he examines the conceptualization of the use of judicial decisions as a tool for treaty interpretation and its relationship with the methods of treaty interpretation outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Subsequently, Akande proceeds to highlight three specific instances where the ICRC, in its updated Commentaries, adopts an interpretation of the Geneva Conventions that diverges from its own prior stance as articulated in the original Commentaries. He also examins the methodology employed by the ICRC to reach the conclusion that the legal interpretation has evolved from its previous position, along with an examination of the justifications put forth for these divergent views. Furthermore, the author assess how the ICRC’s justifications for these new interpretations align (or diverge) with the established methods of treaty interpretation and examine how the ICRC articulates and communicates its revised positions on treaty interpretation.
Read the full post here.
All recent Events and Announcements can be found here.
The European Journal of International Law has new advanced articles and advanced reviews available to read online.
Related
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
Written byTal Gross
Chuka Arinze-Onyia provides an analysis of the recent decision rendered by the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) concerning the Kabuga case. Kabuga, who faced accusations of committing genocide and inciting genocide in Rwanda, was finally apprehended in 2020. Upon the commencement of his trial at the IRMCT, Kabuga was diagnosed with a degenerative form of dementia, leading the court to the inevitable conclusion that the defendant was unfit to stand trial. In an effort to balance the need for justice and fair trial rights, the Trial Chamber introduced an “alternative findings procedure” for the trial of unfit individuals. However, the decision to institute this alternative procedure was subsequently overturned by the Appeals Chamber. Arinze-Onyia contends that the subsequent decision may potentially mark a positive shift towards safeguarding the rights of defendants within the realm of international justice.
Read the full post here.
Donato Greco undertakes an examination of the impact of Judgment No. 159/2023, delivered by the Italian Constitutional Court with regard to the rights of Greek victims. It is noteworthy that the judgment itself did not explicitly address this aspect. Greco’s specific focus centers on the Greek victims’ entitlement to effective judicial protection within the precincts of Italian courts. In his analysis, Greco draws the following conclusion:
See the full post here.