Liability for killing in war and why there is no ‘licence to kill’

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

The study is back to back by seeing that legal protection against victims of severe human rights violations is necessary, as the weak should be effective in protecting the law. So the author was interested in doing this study that discussed how the implementation of human rights protection against victims of severe human rights violations in the criminal justice system in Indonesia, What is problematic in the study is how victims of major human rights violations are regulated in Indonesia and whether the implementation of legal protection against victims of severe human rights violations in existing regulations could provide legal protection against victims of human rights violations. The method of research used in this study is normatif juridical or search literature. Research has shown that the rights of victims of gross human rights violations in criminal justice systems are regulated in 190 penal code laws laws on criminal events, the rule 26 year 2000 on human rights on the next human rights court is governed by regulations granting protection to victims and witnesses in 2002 government regulation Number 2 year and government regulation Number 3 2002 on compensation ordinances, Restitution and rehabilitation, act Number 27 in 2004 on the commission of truth and reconciliation, and in the 2006 act Number 13 on the protection of witnesses and victims. The implementation of protection of law against victims of severe human rights violations in Indonesia has not been consistent with the current laws. Where victims' rights are not fully satisfied because of any legal obstacles such as his lack of success in proving a perpetrator in a severe human rights violation. The weakness of legal procedures that make compensating and rehabilitation to victims is difficult to realize.

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

This paper is part of a broader research study on access to justice in the European Union for third-country victims of corporate-related human rights violations. It addresses the jurisdictional challenges that third-country victims of human rights violations committed by EU-based multi-national companies (MNCs) face in seeking redress in EU Member State courts. Section two analyses the role of international human rights law in private litigations for human rights violations by MNCs, with particular reference to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Section three compares the allocation of jurisdiction in transnational tort litigations against MNCs in the European Union (EU) and the United States. Section four offers an overview of EU Member State rules of jurisdiction governing third-state defendants in cases of corporate-related human rights violations.

INTRODUCTION. The research analyzes the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles and Guidelines) of December 16, 2005. The Article examines the stages of the adoption of this document, the concept, structure, basic provisions, as well as the importance for the development of modern international law, particularly in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Article provides a detailed analysis of the approach to the central subject of this document, that is, the right to a remedy and reparation, which is expressed in practical application by universal and regional bodies on human rights and in the field of humanitarian law. In this regard, the position of the right to a remedy and reparation in the complex of human rights is determined, as well as their interconnection and relation to each other.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical researches of the Russian and foreign experts in the field of international law have been analyzed in this very Article as well as the normative documents, recommendations, and decisions of the treaty bodies on human rights within the UN system, the law enforcement practice of universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for the protection of human rights and in the field of international humanitarian law have also been studied. Such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, the generalization method, the system-structural method, as well as the historical-legal and legal-technical methods have also been applied in this research.RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article reveals the significance and impact of the mechanism developed in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, on the international human rights system. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are an international document, developed with the best practice of existing legal systems. It was adopted unanimously through the consensus reached by all parties concerned. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are aimed at codifying the provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation enshrined in various international treaties and as well as at developing a unified approach to these rights. Thus, the said international instrument does not create any new rules but classifies and uniforms the set of provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation. This nature of the Basic Principles and Guidelines makes them an attractive tool for international bodies in their law enforcement practice related to ensuring the right to a remedy and reparation. DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSSIONS. The Basic Principles and Guidelines enshrine the responsibility of States in the field of human rights protection, when the second party to the conflict is individual, or individuals whose rights have been or may be violated. Therefore, the Basic Principles are focused on the interests of the victim of a violation of human rights, that is, they are deliberately humanistic and human rights oriented. The document provides a classification of victims to more adequately cover human rights mechanisms that ensure the protection of persons, individually or collectively. Further, it pays special attention to the protection of victims of gross violations of human rights. In addition, the Basic Principles and Guidelines list and describe forms of reparation for the victims of human rights violations.

This article examines the relationship between international trade and the growth of human rights abuses. It offers dispute resolution, contract law, and a corporate social agreement to resolve these human rights issues. This article aims to present solutions to the growing human rights abuses in international trade because, throughout history, international trade has been a pillar in uniting societies, cultures, and peoples. With the growth of international trade, international trade law also grew. A key feature of the post-Modern era is the infusion of transnational corporations into every element of international society and culture. A direct result of this influence is a drastic rise in international human rights violations where individuals cannot find protection under international human rights laws or foreign domestic courts because such laws and courts do not have jurisdiction over transnational corporations, creating a perpetual cycle of human rights violations in international trade. This article presents a potential option to remedy these violations through alternative dispute resolution, contract law, and a corporate social agreement. This article employs qualitative and comparative research methodologies. The article includes an overview of historical and philosophical literature to establish how international trade and human rights development have consistently been connected. Additionally, the article analyzes international and state laws to delve into the gaps created by modern-day legal precedents to curtail human rights violations in international commercial trade. Through studying human rights violations within the context of international commercial trade and the existing, relevant international law, this article finds that a combination of alternative dispute resolution, contract law, and corporate social offers an innovative approach to resolving human rights issues faced by the international community. The significance of this article is to draw attention to the human rights violations occurring in the post-modern era due to international trade. Specifically, this article aims to present a workable solution to international human rights violations that can be implemented where international law fails to protect individuals in these situations.

In the absence of international law holding multinational corporations accountable, the only recourse available to many victims of human rights violations may be domestic tort law in the multinational’s home country courts. Existing barriers preventing access to this forum of last resort for victims from countries which lack adequate legislation or fail to provide access to local courts or justice, allow multinationals to operate largely with legal impunity. This paper will analyse and compare the court access available in Canada and the United Kingdom to foreign victims of human rights violations committed by mining companies based in these countries, as well as how these countries are meeting their obligations under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As Canadian courts have the greatest potential to provide justice to the most victims and have been criticised widely for failing to do so, including by the UN, this forum will be the primary focus.Specifically, the history and current state of UK and Canadian legislation and case law is explored under which mining companies operate overseas, and the divergence of UK and Canadian courts on granting home court access and remedy. Particular attention is directed to key Canadian and UK court cases involving the mining sector and human rights in developing countries, with emphasis on the precedence setting Choc v. Hudbay rulings and the impact of this case on Canadian jurisprudence in the areas of forum non conveniens, parent company duty of care, doctrine of limited liability, and the application of international law. The paper recommends approaches Canadian lawmakers may pursue to guarantee access to Canadian courts for foreign human rights victims at the hands of Canadian mining companies, which includes eliminating forum non conveniens as a defence in human right cases, guaranteeing home court access in bilateral trade agreements, recognising international human rights law in Canadian courts, and removing the shield of the doctrine of corporate limited liability in human rights cases, especially where companies have knowingly established operations in areas of conflict or weak rule of law.

The contribution argues that facticity of the human rights impacts of economic globalisation increasingly undermines the normativity of the state-centred conception of international human rights law. The exposure of the international legal order of states to the operations of global business entities leads to a collusion of sovereign state interest and globalised corporate power at the expense of protecting the rights of victims of human rights violations in the global market economy. The contribution scrutinises two prominent attempts to address this lacuna of protection: transnational tort litigation and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are not only an expression of the present crisis of international human rights law but also risk contributing to its perpetuation. While the ‘escape into tort’ results in the privatisation of public human rights in the global market economy, the UN Guiding Principles entrench their territorialisation in the state legal order in the face of global economic challenges. The concluding section reflects on the future pathways of international human rights law by positing a choice between, on the one hand, a more radical departure from human rights’ state-centred heritage and, on the other hand, a transformation of the international legal order of states by virtue of human rights. It highlights the importance of extraterritorial human rights obligations in recovering the state’s legal accountability for human rights violations committed in the course of global business operations.KeywordsHuman rightsBusinessGlobalisationExtraterritorialUN guiding principles on business and human rightsGovernanceTort

The contribution argues that facticity of the human rights impacts of economic globalisation increasingly undermines the normativity of the state-centred conception of international human rights law. The exposure of the international legal order of states to the operations of global business entities leads to a collusion of sovereign state interest and globalised corporate power at the expense of protecting the rights of victims of human rights violations in the global market economy. The contribution scrutinises two prominent attempts to address this lacuna of protection: transnational tort litigation and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are not only an expression of the present crisis of international human rights law but also risk contributing to its perpetuation. While the ‘escape into tort’ results in a privatisation of public human rights in the global market economy, the UN Guiding Principles entrench their territorialisation in the state legal order in the face of global economic challenges. The concluding section reflects on the future pathways of international human rights law by positing a choice between, on the one hand, a more radical departure from human rights’ state-centred heritage and, on the other hand, a transformation of the international legal order of states by virtue of human rights. It highlights the importance of extraterritorial human rights obligations in recovering the state’s legal accountability for human rights violations committed in the course of global business operations.

The article argues that the facticity of the human rights impacts of economic globalisation increasingly undermines the normativity of the state-centred conception of international human rights law. The exposure of the international legal order of states to the operations of global business entities leads to a collusion of sovereign state interest and globalised corporate power at the expense of protecting the rights of victims of human rights violations. The article scrutinises two prominent attempts to address this lacuna of protection: transnational tort litigation and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are not only an expression of the present crisis of international human rights law but also risk contributing to its perpetuation. While the ‘escape into tort’ results in the privatisation of public human rights in the global market economy, the UN Guiding Principles entrench their territorialisation in the state legal order in the face of global economic challenges. The concluding section reflects on the future pathways of international human rights law by positing a choice between, on the one hand, a more radical departure from human rights’ state-centred heritage and, on the other hand, a transformation of the international legal order of states by virtue of human rights. It highlights the importance of extraterritorial human rights obligations in recovering the state’s legal accountability for human rights violations committed in the course of global business operations.

Victims of crimes, victims of abuse of power and victims of gross and systematic human rights violations have had little relevance to international law. However, since 1985, international human rights law has taken an interest in them and has created four instruments, which establish different notions of victim, as well as a catalogue of rights. Since then, victims have become increasingly prominent in processes involved in seeking justice, truth and reparation. Recently, victim’s testimonies are used as one of the indicators, although not the only one, for measuring compliance and protection of human rights rules in the United Nations system.

Over the past decades, transnational corporations (TNCs) have come under increasing public scrutiny for their involvement in human rights violations, particularly in developing countries. One may think of child and slave labour in the supply chain, cooperation with violent or corrupt regimes, and grand scale environmental pollution. Legal protection for victims of human rights violations against TNCs is poor. Public international law protects the freedom of trade but does not regulate the way companies use this freedom. Moreover, it is disputed whether international human rights law can impose obligations on companies. This has triggered the question what role national tort laws can play to fill this protection gap. This article first paints the factual background and the lack of international rules protecting victims of human rights violations (Section I). Section II lists the practical and legal problems victims face if they want to hold a TNC to account (such as fact-finding, forum, and applicable law). Section III provides an overview of tort law claims filed against TNCs in the United States and Europe. Finally, Section IV analyses the standard of care in tort law for a TNC to prevent its involvement in human rights violations, particularly through its subsidiaries and suppliers.

This chapter provides an overview of the means through which international human rights law is translated into domestic law, policy, and practice. To have an influence on public health, international human rights law must be translated into domestic action. As international human rights law is largely state centered, it relies upon national and subnational governments to implement it—to promote and protect human rights and to provide remedies to victims of human rights violations. Based upon international rules on domestic implementation, there are four general approaches to translate international law into domestic action: human rights education, policymaking, judicial actions, and engagement with international human rights mechanisms. National and subnational governments use these four approaches to translate international human rights law into domestic law, policy, and practice for health, while nongovernmental organizations and international human rights mechanisms play important roles in monitoring these processes.

This chapter provides an overview of the means through which international human rights law is translated into domestic law, policy, and practice. To have an influence on public health, international human rights law must be translated into domestic action. As international human rights law is largely state centered, it relies upon national and subnational governments to implement it—to promote and protect human rights and to provide remedies to victims of human rights violations. Based upon international rules on domestic implementation, there are four general approaches to translate international law into domestic action: human rights education, policymaking, judicial actions, and engagement with international human rights mechanisms. National and subnational governments use these four approaches to translate international human rights law into domestic law, policy, and practice for health, while nongovernmental organizations and international human rights mechanisms play important roles in monitoring these processes.