Reckoning With the Paradox of Regulating the Arms Industry: The Context of Palestine

Метою цієї статті є вивчення теоретичних підходів до визначення правового статусу норм міжнародного права у правовій системі України.
 Наукова новизна полягає у системному дослідженні питань взаємодії міжнародного та внутрішньодержавного права, імплементації міжнародно-правових норм в Україні з огляду на посилення договірних засад сучасного міжнародного правопорядку, активізацію діяльності держав-членів міжнародного співтовариства щодо виконання своїх міжнародно-правових зобов’язань, а також виходячи з формування та прояву нової форми глобалізації – правової.
 Висновки.
 - гармонічно узгоджені нормативні приписи обох юридичних систем – міжнародного та внутрішнього права, є гарантією сумлінного дотримання державами своїх міжнародних зобов’язань. Феноменологія самого узгодження сприяє позитивному розвитку і вдосконаленню самих правових систем;
 - міжнародне право об’єктивно не змогло б здійснювати свою регулятивну функцію без наявності норм внутрішнього права, що фактично продовжують і втілюють його нормативні настанови в національному правовому просторі. Держава за допомогою ВП створює (повинна створювати) необхідні правові умови для забезпечення виконання міжнародних договорів;
 - взаємодія норм МП і ВП охоплює важливі конституційно-правові, інституційно-структурні і нормативно-технологічні аспекти існування норм МП в національній правовій системі, а саме: а) проголошення та законодавче закріплення принципу безумовного дотримання міжнародних договорів; б) правове супроводження і забезпечення виконання міжнародних договорів, включно з державною санкцією за невиконання договорів і невнесення до ВП змін та доповнень, необхідних для виконання зобов’язань за договорами;
 - міжнародному публічному праву для його існування та виконання своїх функцій необхідне ВП і його організаційні і нормативно-технологічні механізми здійснення нормативних приписів; водночас і ВП необхідне МП, яке встановлює нормативну основу для узгоджених дій різних держав у різних сферах, у тому числі для вирішення можливих колізій і суперечностей між правовими системами держав-членів міжнародного співтовариства, а також для зовнішньополітичної діяльності держав.

The article deals with the case “Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. The Russian Federation)”, initiated by the Application of Ukraine of 16 January 2017. On November 8, 2019, as a result of the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation on September 12, 2018, on the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the claim, the UNs International Court of Justice rejected the preliminary objections of the Russian Federation in favor of Ukraine. In the judgment, the Court identified the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties and established its jurisdiction in accordance with art. 24.1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and art. 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In the article, particular attention is paid to both the analysis of the findings of the ICJ on the determination of the dispute subject-matter (disputed issues that will form the basis of the case merits) and the examination of the Court’s jurisdiction in the case. Ukraine v. Russia case has been brought by Ukraine after the events that have taken place in the east of our state and in the south – in the Crimea since the spring of 2014 and on which parties have different views. The Court noted that issues of purported “aggression” of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, or “unlawful occupation” of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, as well as the proclamation of the status of the Crimea by the Court are not within the subject-matter of dispute in the present case. In respect of the events in eastern Ukraine, the applicant initiated proceedings only under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In Crimea, Ukraine’s claims are based solely on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Based on established jurisdiction, the Court will be able to make a final determination solely on whether by its actions (inaction) the Russian Federation has breached its international legal obligations under the conventions mentioned above – within the limits set out in the claim of Ukraine. In view of the subject-matter determined by the Court, the ICJ deciding on the merits of the case will, first, establish whether under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism the Russian Federation was required to take measures and cooperate in the prevention and suppression of alleged terrorism financing in the context of events in eastern Ukraine and, if so, whether the Russian Federation has breached such obligations. Secondly, the Court will determine whether the respondent violated its international legal obligations by discriminatory measures applied, based on Ukraine’s position, against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in the Crimea. The Court’s finding on the violations of the abovementioned international treaty rules will result in the Russian Federation being held liable, including in the forms of immediate termination of these violations, the resumption by the Russian Federation of the fulfillment of its international obligations under the discussed conventions, as well as compensation for losses, including those of financial kind – as it was claimed by Ukraine. Keywords: Ukraine, Russian Federation, United Nations International Court of Justice, the subject-matter of the dispute, jurisdiction, convention, terrorism financing, racial discrimination, eastern Ukraine, Crimea.

In the modern science of international law and European law, insufficient attention is paid to the problem of protecting the rights and freedoms of convicts, their typology. Especially in the conditions of modern threats and challenges, there are numerous violations of various categories of the population, including the vulnerable, who are in the temporarily occupied territories. This causes the attention of scientists, as well as representatives of authorized authorities, to be drawn to certain theoretical and practical problems of protecting the rights and freedoms of convicts, their varieties, effective mechanisms of protection, restoration of violated rights.
 Therefore, the purpose of the article is to analyze the existing doctrinal sources and relevant approaches, criteria for the classification of international legal obligations on the rights and freedoms of convicts, to highlight their special varieties, effective mechanisms for the protection of the rights and freedoms of convicts.
 There are many types of international legal obligations on the rights and freedoms of convicts, as well as criteria and approaches to their classification. Along with international legal obligations, other related categories are used in the science and practice of international law – international legal mechanisms, international legal standards. Undoubtedly, they also concern the rights and freedoms of convicts, they are interacting but not identical concepts. The analyzed classification groups of international legal mechanisms, standards and obligations to ensure the rights and freedoms of convicts are based on established approaches to the typology of human rights and freedoms, existing international legal norms and principles in this field. At the same time, the penitentiary systems of specific states, including Ukraine, are characterized by specificities, features of national legislation, national penitentiary policy, institutional and other mechanisms.
 Reports of international experts and monitoring measures demonstrate certain problems in the way of fulfilling international legal obligations regarding the rights and freedoms of convicts in Ukraine. Therefore, further systematic studies of the European penitentiary concept, the best foreign practices of compliance with such obligations, decisions of the ECtHR, the strengthening of a human-centered approach in the activities of penitentiary authorities, the functioning of an effective legal system that would protect human rights and freedoms regardless of the conditions in which she stays without being discriminated against, without additional restrictions caused by the fact of isolation.

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...

Roadblocks to Remedies: Recently-Developed Barriers to Relief for Aliens Who Suffer Harm by U.S. Officials' Illegal Acts, Contrary to the Founders’ Desires and International Law Obligations

The Khmer Rouge under their leader Saloth Sar (“Pol Pot”) were in power in Cambodia between April 1975 and January 1979.1 They came into control of the country after a long and brutal civil war2 an...

The Right to a Remedy for Enforced Disappearances in India: A Legal Analysis of International and Domestic Law Relating to Victims of Enforced Disappearances

“When we first came back, the people did not want us. But now it is OK. Now it is good. They like the projects we are doing for the village.” INTRODUCTION Reparatory justice is an integral part of transitional justice and builds on the obligation of states to make restitution whenever international legal obligations have been violated. The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, form the basis of what today is considered a framework for reparations – defining that victims of human rights and humanitarian law violations have the right to “adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparation.” In addition: Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one's place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property. The Basic Principles and Guidelines further state that compensation should consider the circumstances for each case and be provided in proportion to the severity of the violation. Reparatory justice includes many dimensions and forms: reparations, services, damages, remedies, redress, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, official apology, tribute. In transitional contexts, reparatory justice enables recognition of individual rights violations and the harm that followed, and the fact that someone did wrong, in addition to a commitment for non-repetition of the crime. This element looks back at what the violations were, and even if it is not the same actor who repairs, the obligation remains. It also looks forward in a political and transitional sense, repairing so as to be able to move forward. Key legal questions that are covered in this chapter include: – What does reparatory justice mean in the context of recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts? How can we ensure that reparations are in the best interests of the child? – What legal protection is accorded to children ensuring that this element of transitional justice is accorded the necessary importance? – What lessons have been learned from reparatory justice processes relevant to the recruitment and use of children, and how can those inform how this element fits into a broader transitional justice approach? – Who repairs?

The article is devoted to the study of challenges and prospects for strengthening contemporary international law and ensuring its effectiveness. It is analysed that the 21st century poses both significant challenges and prospects for international law. One of the main challenges is the contradiction between the principle of state sovereignty and the need for effective global governance. The traditional understanding of sovereignty is increasingly being questioned due to the growing influence of non-state actors. It is argued that this tension has been exacerbated by the emergence of new technologies, such as cyber warfare, which create new security threats that are difficult to address within the framework of existing international law. Another problem facing international law is the lack of enforcement mechanisms. It has been analysed that, unlike domestic law, which is backed by state power, international law relies heavily on voluntary compliance by states, but states often disregard their international legal obligations with impunity, undermining the trust and effectiveness of the international legal system. It is emphasised that contemporary international law also faces a number of other pressing challenges in the 21st century, including the growing threat of terrorism and transnational crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the increasing impact of climate change. It was argued that addressing these challenges will require concerted efforts by the international community to strengthen and adapt the existing international legal system. It is also important to strengthen the mechanisms for enforcing international law, which may involve strengthening the role of international organisations such as the UN and the ICC, as well as enhancing cooperation and coordination between states to ensure compliance with international legal obligations. It was emphasised that there is a need for greater cooperation and coordination between states to address common challenges and promote respect for international law, such as intensifying diplomatic efforts, expanding the exchange of information and intelligence, and developing new mechanisms for conflict resolution and dispute settlement.

Reflections on BDS

This article discusses the scope of international obligations of international organizations, considering different formal sources of public international law. Neither the practice nor the doctrine of international law, have shown much interest in this topic until recently. This was mainly due to a widely spread perception of international organizations, which were seen as protectors, not as violators of international law. However, when it became apparent that international organizations could be implicated in abuses of international legal rules as was the case of the UN peace missions in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo the topic of international obligations and international responsibility of international organizations became pertinent. The general principle of international law is that every internationally wrongful act entails international responsibility. This principle is also to be applied to international organizations as subjects of international law. In order for internationally wrongful act to exist there need to be a conduct attributable to international organizations which constitutes a breach of its international obligation, regardless of its source. However, most international obligations were established in respect of states. Thus, when working on the rules on international responsibility of international organizations, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) was facing a challenge which did not exist when they were dealing with the responsibility of states. Namely, the small number of international obligations to be applied to international organizations meant that the rules drafted by ILC were not substantiated by much practice. This is one of the reasons why the present article tries to shed some light on the situation with regard to international rules that are to be applied to international organizations. As the International Court of Justice has stated, international organizations are bound by obligations under general rules of international law (international customary law), their constitutions, or international agreements to which they are parties. However, if one were to apply, for example, international customary rules to international organizations, one would face many difficulties. This is due to the specific nature of international organizations as subjects of international law, which is reflected in their limited and functional international personality that is quite different than the personality of states. With these challenges in mind, this article analyses the practice of international law in order to identify treaty and customary law obligations applicable to international organizations. Moreover, it gives a special attention to unilateral acts as a possible source of international obligations of international organizations. Firstly, it discusses whether international law criteria for unilaterally binding commitments of states may be applied to international organizations. Secondly, it presents instances of unilateral declarations by the UN in which these criteria were met (statements of the Secretary-General of the UN). Thirdly, the article discusses rules of international organizations as sources of their international obligations, using the examples of Security Council resolutions and acts based on them (UNMIK regulations). The article concludes that although the scope of international obligations of international organizations is substantially narrower than in the case of states, the practice shows the tendency towards their broadening, especially in the field of international human rights law.

Some environmental issues are purely national in scope. Many others, however, have an international dimension. Thus, to the extent that law has a role to play in dealing with environmental issues, international law as well as national law is required. The aim of this paper to look at the development and implementation of a number of selected areas of international environmental law in relation to the United Kingdom (UK). The UK's international legal obligations are an important factor, although only one of several factors, in shaping the domestic environmental policy and legislation of the UK. At the same time domestic policy considerations also affect the degree to which the UK is prepared to assume international legal obligations and, as we shall see, the assumption of such obligations is almost entirely voluntary. The paper thus has a double focus looking both at the contribution the UK has made and is making to the development of international environmental law and at the impact of international environmental law on domestic environmental policy and law in the UK. The remainder of this introductory section will explain, particularly for the benefit of readers without any knowledge of international law, how international environmental law (a branch of international law) is developed, and then list the areas of international environmental law which have been chosen for examination and explain the reasons for this choice. The rest of this paper will then examine the areas chosen from the point of view of the double focus just referred to.

The article explores the various possible sources of international obligations of the States and the grounds for the binding effect of international rules upon the States. It is demonstrated that the States, although being sovereign actors at the international plane, are not only becoming subject to the international rules when they express their consent, but they are bound by the rules to which their acquiescence is assumed. The latter type of rules are mostly developed within international customary law. The international legal obligations can have varying scope of the addressees and some of them override any other commitment, such as ius cogens, or may affect the whole of international community, such as erga omnes obligations. The practical relevance of the international obligations for ensuring a functioning international regime can be assessed from the perspective of compliance of the States with their commitments. It goes without saying that the international society is not an ideal place when it comes to the adherence to the rules, but the States usually adhere to the majority of their obligations. Unlike a limited number of special cases, the international institutions, both judicial and political, are not always offering the direct enforcement venues for ensuing the full compliance with the international obligations and preventing any unlawful conduct. Nonetheless, international law is widely perceived as a viable tool for regulating international relations and transactions at the international plane.

Seeking a Rational Approach to a Regional Refugee Crisis: Lessons from the Summer 2014 “Surge” of Central American Women and Children at the US-Mexico Border

Transboundary environmental problems pose a specific challenge to the international legal system, as they often demand instruments providing for collective and far-reaching measures on a global scale. Such measures may interfere with other areas of international law, including trade law, human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL), which may permit conflicting behaviour. The interference creates tensions between contradictory international legal obligations. Traditional legal tools have proven unable to respond satisfactorily to solve the tensions because they need a political solution going beyond law in many cases. In this chapter, I argue that the particular structure of environmental treaties, also referred to as multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), allows their treaty institutions to adopt a ‘reconciliatory approach’. The approach describes how normative and institutional interactions take place under MEAs for the purpose of avoiding conflicts and tensions with other international legal obligations but at the same time furthers the common concern to mitigate global environmental problems. Such an approach contributes to overcome fragmentation of international law. This is possible because of the MEAs’ capability to go beyond treaty interpretations and adopt more practical and political oriented strategies to further their objectives. In the application of the World Heritage Convention (WHC), activities interfering and reconciling with obligations in IHL and the UN Charter have been noted to protect natural world heritage sites in the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). (Less)