Samenvatting Public International Law, Hoorcolleges + Werkgroepen + arresten (eigen cijfer 8)
8 views 0 purchase
Course
Public International Law (22014028)
Institution
Universiteit Leiden (UL)
De Hoorcolleges, Werkgroepen en Arresten die bij dit vak behoren zijn allemaal in dit document samengevat. Deze zijn overzichtelijk per week te lezen. Belangrijke artikelen en Arresten zijn daarbij ook nog eens extra gemarkeerd.
Hoorcollege 1 Introduction
International Dispute settlement fundamentals
- Types of adjudicatory bodies -> standing (permanent) or ad hoc
- Contentious jurisdiction: methods of consent ICJ art. 36 jo. 38.5
o Special agreement -> small treaty
o Compromissery clause -> article in a treaty -> prospective
o Optional clause -> only ICJ -> prospective
o Forum protogatum -> only ICJ -> restrospective
- Advisory jurisdiction (UN art. 96) ->non-binding
- Discretion to decline (ICJ art. 65) -> when advisory is inappropriate
▪ There is no obligation to resolve disputes -> obliged to do so peacefully
▪ NGO don't have rights/ obligations under international law ->no legal personality -> get by attribution
▪ Clean state principle: new state isn't bound by treaties that were concluded by the predecessor state
▪ States are free to enter reservations to treaties -> other states are not obliged to accept
▪ S.S. Lotus Case: a state may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state
▪ Subjective territoriality: crime is completed in another state // Objective territoriality: crime started in
another state
▪ ICJ is only court with general jurisdiction to deal with interstate disputes -> members UN is member ICJ
Dispute settlement methods: states must consent by special agreement or compromissery clausule
- Diplomatic (non-binding)
o Negotiations -> middle way
o Mediation -> third party with active role
o Inquiry -> clarify facts
o Conciliation -> third party makes recommendations
- Legal methods of dispute settlement (legally enforceable)
o Arbitration -> chosen decision-makers -> temporary
o Adjudication -> standing judicial bodies
Sources of International law -> ICJ art. 38
- Treaties and customary international law
o State practice -> widespread + consistent + representative -> objective
o Opinio Juris -> practice out of sense of legal obligation -> subjective
Statehood criteria -> all people have the right to self-determination
- Montevideo convention
o Permanent population (effectief gezag over grondgebied met bevolking)
o Defined territory (legaliteit)
o Goverment (zelfbeschikking)
o Capacity to enter into relations with other states
- Recognition= eenzijdige handeling waarbij een staat aanvaardt dat een nieuwe entiteit voldoet aan de
vereisten voor staatsvorming en daarom een zelfstandige staat is
Hierarchy of sources: jus cogens -> erga omnes -> UN Charter
Chagos Archipelago v. Mauritius
- Decolonization (customary law)
- Chagos identified as a good military base -> UK agreed to return it after no longer needed
- The people were forcible removed and prevented from returning
, - No jurisdiction for contentious case -> they gave advisory opinion
- Bilateral dispute between Mauritus and UK -> UK hasn't consented by the court
- Chagos could not enter into relations with other states (montevideo)
- ICJ: no real agreement about detachment -> Mauritus council was under effective control of UK
- ICJ: UK's continued administration is a wrongfull act -> attribution + breach (forward and backward)
- The decolonization of Mauritus was not lawfully -> contrary to the right to self-determination
Hoorcollege 1 Human rights
▪ Legal personallity of individuals -> without distinction -> European court of human rights -> binding
▪ Individuals bear right, states bear obligations
▪ Created as a reaction to the Holocaust -> right to life (6) as a basis -> not absolute
▪ Found in UN articles, 1 jo. 55 jo. 56.
▪ Derogation: treaties allow states to momentarily suspend some of their human rights obligation in case of
emergency (ICCPR 4) -> fulfill procedural and substantive requirements (-> treatens the life of the Nations)
o Principles as necessity and proportionality
o Never violate a jus cogens
o Never affect non-derogable rights
o International notification requirement
▪ State is only obliged by human rights in its own territory -> provision 2.1 ICCPR
▪ Derogate human rights -> public emergency + actual/ imminent + strictly required by the situation
Civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights
- ICCPR -> obligation of result (Art 2.1) -> immediate -> more negative formulated
- ICESCR -> obligation of conduct (Art 2.1) -> progressive -> more positive formulated
▪ Tripartite typology
• Respect: refrain from interference
• Protect: prevent third parties form interfering
• Fulfill: take action to facilitate enjoyment
Institutional framework
- UN Charter based
o Human rights council -> replaced commission
▪ 47 representatives for 2x3 years -> 2/3 vote to suspend
▪ Functions -> monitoring and reviewprocess (every 4 years)
▪ They cannot sanction
- Treaty-based bodies (human right committee) 28 ICCPR
o Monitors implementations of states
o 18 individuals independents -> elected by state parties for 4 years
o Monitoring function + role of enforcement (individual claims -> exhausted domestic remedies)
o Examinate state reports and handle individual complaints (non-binding)
o Can also issue general comments and decide on interstate complaints
o Can authorize an expert
- European Court of Human Rights: binding -> individual complaints -> exhausted all domestic remedies
Extraterritorial application
- Art 2.1 ICCPR -> subject to its jurisdiction (and art. 1 ECHR)
- Factual question about actual authority and control
- Personal model: physical power and control over person
- Spatial model: effective control over an area
Billy et al v Autstralia
, - Art. 6 ICCPR (right to life) -> climate change
- Did they breach art. 6 ICCPR? (and 17)
o No one had died
o Absence of real of reasonably forceeable risk of exposure to situation of physical endangerment or
extreme precarity that could threaten their right to life.
- No violation was concluded by the European Court
Jaloud v Netherlands
- Art. 6 ICCPR (right to life)
- Control of the Netherlands over personnel at checkpoint
o Netherlands also held and retained authority/ control over persons passing
- Did this occur within jurisdicton art. 2 ICCPR?
- Problem: it didn't happen on dutch territory
- Extra territoriality
o Personal model: physical power -> applied
o Special model: control the area
- This case expands the Courts jurisdiction in armed conflicts
Werkgroep 1
Vraag 1: Is Belarus accountable under human rights law for the treatment of migrants present in the territories of
Belarus and Lithuania?
Issue: do the migrants fall withing the jurisdiction of Belarus when there are now in Belarus and also after they corss
the border into Lithuania?
Rule: (explain the rules and cases)
- Art. 1 jo. 2.1 jo. 6 ICCPR
- Jaloud v The Netherlands (spacial and personal model)
Application:
- Territorial application (ICCPR)
- Extra territorial application (Jaloud v Netherlands)
o Spatial model (physical power and control over the victum/ violated person)
o Personal model
Conclusion: in both situations the migrants fall under the jurisdiction of Belarus
Vraag 2: If the General Assembly were to request advice from the ICJ on the Belarussian migrant crisis, could the ICJ
provide the advice, and would the ICJ consider it to be appropriate to do so?
Issue: Would the ICJ have jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion about the Belarussian migration crisis, and would
the request be admissible?
Rule:
- UN Art. 96
- ICJ Art. 65
- ICJ Art 56 -> they can deny but they've never done that so they probably won't do that
- Mauritius AO: ICJ can only be involved if states consent.
Application:
- Jurisdiction
- Admissebility: circumvention of consent -> 2 groups are asking for advice
- Comparison with Mauritius AO.
Conclusion: The ICJ has jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion about the Belarussian situation, and the request
would likely be admissible based on Mauritius AO
Multiple Choice Questions
Vraag 1: B -> Art 6 Belly v Australia -> don't have to die to breach
- A X -> has nothing to do with immunity
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller velemanskaylee8. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.54. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
