Domestic Courtss Engagement with UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies: A Thematic Report for the ILA Study Group on Principles on the Engagement of Domestic Courts with International Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Machiko Kanetake
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring

Ius Humanitatis and the Right to Reparation for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Core Element ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Humanitarian Ethics ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.

The Puzzle of Atrocity Criminalization

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Mark S. Berlin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Qualitative Case Studies ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Quantitative Analyses

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.

The Legal Status of Decisions by Human Rights Treaty Bodies

2020 ◽  
pp. 129-158
Author(s):  
Leonardo Borlini ◽  
Luigi Crema
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Ordinary Meaning ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Legal Position

Academic analysis of pronouncements of human rights treaty monitoring bodies has tended to focus on their contribution to the promotion of human rights in domestic jurisdictions, particularly to convey the desire of scholars to see more use of these pronouncements by domestic courts. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the issue of their legal status in light of the supervisory function of human rights monitoring bodies. This chapter starts with a thorough analysis of a few recent cases by national courts, which commented on the legal value of the work of these bodies. The chapter then challenges two recurring arguments in the legal scholarship: their assimilation to judicial bodies, and the existence of a procedural obligation on states to consider their views. Next, it focuses on the interpretive weight of the pronouncements of these treaty bodies in international law, and, accordingly, in national jurisdictions. The chapter argues that the alleged existence of a general procedural obligation on states to consider the pronouncements of human rights treaty monitoring bodies is controversial, and that their work does not have a specific, or privileged, legal position in defining the ordinary meaning of a treaty. The conclusions point out that supervisory bodies have a specific and important role in the international legal order, different from that of courts, which bears preserving.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 29 Restrictions on the Jurisdiction of Military Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Military Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

Principle 29 deals with restrictions on the jurisdiction of military courts. Under this Principle, the adjudication of human rights violations by military courts is explicitly excluded, and ordinary domestic courts are mandated as the only appropriate venue of judicial oversight. Nevertheless, military courts remain functionally important for the routine and uncontroversial deployment of military law consistent with international law. The chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 29 before discussing its theoretical framework and how military courts are used in various countries such as Ireland and Turkey. Issues arising when civilians find themselves within the jurisdiction of military courts are also examined, along with the difficulties of ensuring fair trials in military courts. This chapter shows that military courts, while certainly serving important functions within the military forces of states, remain subject to human rights and humanitarian law compliance.

scholarly journals State Practice as Element of Customary International Law: A White Knight in International Criminal Law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 784-804
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice

Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.

scholarly journals UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY MONITORING BODIES BEFORE DOMESTIC COURTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Machiko Kanetake
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring

AbstractThis article analyses both cooperative and confrontational interactions between domestic judges and UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies. Based on a number of cases collected through multiple databases, this article addresses the basis on which the monitoring bodies encourage the domestic acceptance of their views, general comments, and reports; how domestic courts engage with these findings; on what basis; and why some courts are more willing to engage with these findings. A key argument is that judicial accommodation is highly selective; domestic judges occasionally avoid, discount, and contest the interpretation put forward by the treaty monitoring bodies and thereby pose a challenge to their legitimacy.

scholarly journals The Role of European Courts in the Development of a Hierarchy of Norms within International Law: Evidence of Constitutionalisation?

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 284-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Value System ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Court Of First Instance

Constitutionalism – Kadi ruling of EU Court of First Instance – Erosion of ‘total’ constitutional order by reallocation of public power – Constitutional vision challenge of networks approach – Emerging human rights hierarchy – Rudimentary international value system – Ius cogens and erga omnes – Barcelona Traction – Core human rights elements – Enforcement through regional and domestic courts – Review of Security Council resolutions

Using Treaties in Canadian Courts

2001 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 3-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gibran van Ert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Reception System ◽  
Comprehensive Manner ◽  
Domestic Law

SummaryIncreasingly, litigants are seeking to rely on international treaties before domestic courts. The difficulties they face, together with the judges hearing these cases, are great. Public international law is unknown territory for the vast majority of Canadian lawyers, both at the bar and on the bench. Moreover, the rules according to which international treaties take effect in Canadian domestic law engage a wide variety of legal sources, including ancient common law jurisprudence, unwritten constitutional rules, federalism, and the provisions of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand other Canadian human rights instruments. The object of this article is to describe in a comprehensive manner how international treaties may be used in Canadian courts. The disparate and seemingly unrelated norms informing the Anglo-Canadian law of treaty reception, including the implementation requirement, the treaty presumption, the rule inLabour Conventions, and the landmark decision inBakerv.Canada, are depicted as internally-consistent manifestations of the guiding principles of the Canadian reception system: self-government and respect for international law.

Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis

2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Lindroos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Environmental Regimes ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Normative Conflicts ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Institutional Fragmentation

AbstractThe increased fragmentation of international law has been accompanied by a more problematic phenomenon: institutional fragmentation that has strengthened the role of specialised regimes (e. g., WTO, EU, human rights and environmental regimes) within the international legal system. "The emergence of seemingly independent subregimes has given rise to a number of legal concerns – among these is the existence of normative conflicts between regimes." In a recent report by the Chairman of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, Martti Koskenniemi, dealt with the role of the lex specialis maxim as a means of addressing the relation between selfcontained regimes and general international law. This article argues that an application of lex specialis, although widely accepted, is impeded by its conceptual vagueness. Lex specialis may be well-suited to resolve certain types of normative conflicts, such as conflicts within sub-regimes, which may be viewed as a more traditional manifestation of normative conflicts. The fragmentation of international law, however, has also created new types of conflicts, namely those between different, seemingly independent normative orders. The article suggests that the lex specialis maxim is a less-suitable approach to normative conflicts between such unrelated normative orders. In a fragmented legal system such as that of international law, these types of conflicts may, accordingly, prove a particular challenge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document