Nevsun Resources Ltd v. Araya and Others

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 476-572

Human rights — Modern international human rights law — Scope — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Addressing breaches of customary international law prohibitions — Role of national courts — Respondents claiming indefinite conscription through military service into forced labour in Eritrea at mine — Mine owned by Canadian company — Respondents claiming subjection to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment — Respondents bringing class action against Canadian company in Canada — Respondents seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions and domestic torts — Justiciability of claim — Whether Canadian courts lacking subject-matter jurisdiction — Act of State doctrine — Whether claims based on customary international law to be struck — Whether pleadings disclosing no reasonable claim — Whether plain and obvious claims having no reasonable prospect of success Jurisdiction — Subject-matter jurisdiction — Whether Canadian courts having jurisdiction over respondents’ claim — Respondents claiming indefinite conscription through military service into forced labour in Eritrea at mine owned by Canadian company — Respondents claiming subjection to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment — Eritrea’s National Service Program — Whether respondents’ claim concerning sovereign act of foreign government — Act of State doctrine — Whether part of Canadian law — Underlying principles of act of State doctrine — Conflict of laws — Judicial restraint — Whether respondents’ claim barred Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether part of Canadian law — Whether conflicting Canadian legislation — Separation of powers — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Respondents relying on norms of customary international law in claim for damages against Canadian company — Role of national courts in developing international law — Evolution of customary international law — State practice — Opinio juris — Peremptory norms — Jus cogens — Whether customary international law norms applying to corporations — Right to an effective remedy — Canada’s international obligation under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4771966 — Whether plain and obvious Canadian courts could not develop a civil remedy in domestic law for corporate violations of customary international law norms — Whether plain and obvious respondents’ claims against Canadian company could not succeed — Act of State doctrine — Whether part of Canadian law — Extent and scope Damages — Customary international law prohibitions — Forced labour — Slavery — Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Crimes against humanity — Breaches — Civil law remedies — Respondents seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions and domestic torts — Whether claim for damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions under Canadian law possible — Whether norms different from existing domestic torts — Right to an effective remedy — Canada’s international obligation under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether plain and obvious Canadian courts could not develop a civil remedy in domestic law for corporate violations of customary international law norms — Whether respondents’ claims allowed to proceed — The law of Canada

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 148
Author(s):  
Johanis Leatemia

Orderly international community and international law are determined by a national court. Essentially, the national court must be competent to maintain the balance between the national interest which based on the national sovereignty as well as the provisions of international law within the framework of peaceful coexistence. This article reviews the role of national courts in creating and developing the customary international law. As it turns out in practice, however, it has certain weaknesses, particularly in view of the accountability and legitimacy aspects of its establishment. This purpose could be achieved if national courts were able to maintain a balance between the national interest based on the sovereignty of State on the one hand and the provisions of international law on the other. The function of the national court was to maintain a balance between international law and national law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

Many areas of international law developed first as custom and were only subsequently, generally in the course of the twentieth century, subject to codification. Human rights law was different. It was viewed as quintessentially a matter of domestic concern, a subject shrouded in State sovereignty. Only following the Second World War was international human rights law recognised as a source of binding obligations, mainly through the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments of the United Nations as well as the regional systems. Later, jurists began contending that the norms in these instruments might also be customary in nature. They struggled with identifying the two classic elements in the determination of custom, opinio juris and State practice. Most analysis of the content of customary international law was rather perfunctory and also quite conservative, confining itself largely to civil and political rights.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Mark S. Berlin

Why do governments take atrocity offenses, like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, from international law and legislate them into domestic criminal law, empowering national courts to prosecute their own, and sometimes other states’, government and military officials? The question is important, because the international community has constructed an international legal regime to prosecute the most serious human rights violations, but that regime is designed to rely primarily on domestic criminal courts to try offenders. To fulfill this role, domestic courts often require specific legislation that defines and criminalizes these offenses in national law. Yet, the adoption of national atrocity laws is puzzling, since in a number of ways, these laws appear to threaten states’ interests. This introductory chapter highlights the puzzle of atrocity criminalization and discusses its importance for the functioning of the international atrocity regime. It then situates this study in existing literatures and highlights the book’s contributions to research on atrocity justice, human rights, and international law. Next, it summarizes the book’s main arguments and details the study’s multi-method research design, which combines quantitative analyses of new, original datasets with in-depth qualitative case studies of Guatemala, Colombia, Poland, and the Maldives.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 670-675
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Chanaka Wickremasinghe

An initiating Application filed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) against Belgium on 17 October 20001 potentially raises similar issues to those raised by the Pinochet case,2 namely the scope of “universal” jurisdiction in relation to serious international crimes against individuals (in this case “grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols thereto and crimes against humanity”) and the question of immunity where State officials (in this case a Foreign Minister) are accused thereof. As such it may represent an opportunity for the Court to give an authoritative ruling on these highly controversial and sensitive issues of international law, which seem to be raised with increasingly regularity before national courts. However for now such a ruling is a matter for the future, as on 8 December 2000 the Court dismissed the DRC application for provisional measures, and thus made no comment on the substantive issues of the case. Instead it found that certain intervening factual developments had removed from the application for provisional measures the requisite elements of irreparable prejudice to the rights of the applicant and urgency, thus obviating any need for an Order to be made at this stage.


Author(s):  
Zemanek Karl

When the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties confirmed the existence of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) they were conceived, like Roman jus publicum, as absolute law that could not be altered by the will of individual States. Scholars then transformed the concept into the manifestation of public policy (ordre public). They also argued for widening the scope of its application to unilateral legal acts and customary international law. A recent trend in academic theory assigns jus cogens an essential role in the constitutionalization of international law, postulating it either as hierarchically higher order or as embodying the constitutional principles. In view of the rashness of scholars in proclaiming the peremptory character of norms and also of the inexpertness of the European and national courts in applying supposedly peremptory international norms in their decisions, it seems better to keep jus cogens at its original task.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 179-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky

Customary international law often seems like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. According to Manley O. Hudson, even the drafters of the International Court of Justice Statute “had no very clear idea as to what constituted international custom.” The situation has not changed much since then.I got my first taste of the difficulties in identifying custom when I was a junior attorney at the U.S. Department of State and was assigned the task of preparing the U.S. submission in a juvenile death penalty case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The juvenile death penalty is prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights, but the question in the Inter-American Commission case was whether it is also prohibited as a matter of customary international law.


2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-52
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Cataldi

In judgment No. 238 of 22 October 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the legitimacy of certain norms of the Italian legal order which relate to the implementation of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgment in theJurisdictional Immunities of the State case. In this case the Court found that customary international law concerning State immunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity could not enter the Italian legal order, as it was incompatible with the basic principles of the Italian Constitution. Judgment No. 238/2014 thus reveals a key connection between domestic fundamental values and internationally recognized values. If this connection exists, national courts should decline to give effect to an international decision if it contravenes a fundamental obligation under national as well as international law. Thus, domestic courts may play the role of defenders of the international rule of law from international law itself. According to international law, as well as Italian law, there is no doubt that enforcement of an ICJ decision is mandatory for the State to which the decision is directed. In the case under review, however, the requirement to implement the ruling of the ICJ was set aside in order to defer to the requirement to respect the fundamental values of the Italian legal system, in accordance with the theory of “counter-limits” as developed by the Constitutional Court. This conclusion appears also consistent with the German order, which renders quite weak any possible reaction, or protest, by that State.


1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 837-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Reichert-Facilides

Over the last 30 years, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties1 has emerged as one of the most influential instruments of modern international law. The Convention, which was adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980 and has meanwhile been ratified by more than 80 States.2 Yet, as it does not operate retroactively,3 the scope of application is growing only slowly and its practical importance stems, rather, from the fact that the Convention is widely considered a restatement of customary international law. As early as 1971 the International Court of Justice referred to the articles governing termination for breach of treaty as a codification of the existing law on the subject.4 Since then both international tribunals and national courts have more and more habitually relied on the material provisions of the Convention to ascertain traditional rules of the law of treaties.5


Law Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Fransiska Ayulistya Susanto

<p><em>Refugee problems become global problems not only for destination country but also for the transit or non-parties country on Status of Refugees Convention 1951. The problem arises when the transit or non-parties country ignore the existence of the refugees in their territory consequently, many refugees could only depend on their protection under UNHCR help. Even if, the territorial state is not the party of 1951 convention, however, they still have responsibility under another Human Rights Convention to give protection to the refugees. Therefore, how far the refugees shall be protected under the transit territory? This article will have analyzed minimum protection under Human Rights instruments and Customary International Law that could give to the refugees. Under the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention on The Rights of the Child and Customary International Law, the state territory shall give protection without any discrimination to the refugees, even if they are not the party of 1951 convention. Even though, the protection that refugees get from transit state slightly different than protection from state parties, however, they shall get to be protected.</em></p><p><strong>Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: </strong>Masalah pengungsi sudah menjadi permasalahan global yang tidak hanya berpengaruh terhadap negara tujuan saja, namun juga pada negara transit atau negara yang bukan merupakan negara anggota Konvensi Status Pengungsi 1951. Masalah timbul saat negara-negara transit atau negara non-anggota mengabaikan keberadaan pengungsi di teritori negara mereka, sehingga banyak pengungsi yang hanya menyandarkan nasibnya di tangan bantuan UNHCR. Meskipun negara teritorial bukan merupakan negara anggota Konvensi Status Pengungsi 1951, namun mereka seharusnya tetap memberikan perlindungan kepada pengungsi. Pertanyaannya, seberapa jauh negara harus memberikan perlindungan kepada pengungsi? Artikel ini akan menganalisis perlindungan minimal di bawah Hak Asasi Manusia yang harus diberikan negara non-anggota kepada pengungsi yang ada di wilayahnya. Menurut Konvenan tentang Hak-Hak Sipil dan Politik, Konvenan Hak-Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya, serta Konvensi Perlindungan Anak dan juga hukum kebiasaan internasional, negara teritorial haruslah memberikan perlindungan tanpa diskriminasi kepada pengungsi, meskipun negara teritorial tidak menjadi para pihak dari Konvensi Status Pengungsi 1951. Meskipun perlindungan yang diberikan kepada pengungsi oleh negara transit sedikit berbeda jika dibandingkan perlindungan dari negara anggota konvensi, mereka tetap harus mendapatkan perlindungan.</p>


Author(s):  
Larissa van den Herik ◽  
Emma Irving

This chapter analyses the due diligence component of the duty to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. It examines the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment in the Bosnia Genocide case of 2007 and outlines the system of differentiated obligations based on a state’s ‘capacity to influence’ events in another state set out in the judgment. Furthermore, the chapter argues that developments under customary international law, which are buttressed and specified by the International Law Commission (ILC), support the existence of an obligation to prevent crimes against humanity of an equivalent character to the obligation to prevent genocide. The chapter examines the role that due diligence plays in delimiting the nature and scope, the content, and the temporal elements of the obligations to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. Taking a future-oriented approach, the chapter enquires how new technologies inform state’s due diligence and whether non-state actors (including social media companies) can have the necessary ‘capacity to influence’, thus extending the preventive obligation’s potential reach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document