15 December 2011
At Lawfare, Robert Chesney notes an decision of the UK Court of Appeals (Civil Division) of 14 December that raises interesting questions of shared responsibility. The case is Yunus Ramhmatullah v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et ano. The Court, by an opinion of the Master of the Rolls, held that a Pakistani man (Yunus Rahmatullah) held by the US military in Afghanistan may pursue a habeas corpus petition against the UK’s Secretary of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. (more…)
25 November 2011
The principle of joint liability in undeveloped in international law. Though some treaties refer to it, and several scholarly articles that have recognized its importance for situations where multiple actors cause injury, the scope and contents of the principle remain uncertain. It is therefore of some importance that the Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS on Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (1 February 2011) discussed the principle. In his presentation at the SHARES Seminar on Shared Responsibility in Environmental Law, held at ACIL on 7 November 2011, Judge Treves provided further insight into these, until now somewhat neglected, aspects of the Opinion. (more…)
18 November 2011
Yesterday in Amsterdam was the first day of the SHARES Conference on the Foundations of Shared Responsibility in International Law. The afternoon started by a non-exhaustive overview by Professor André Nollkaemper and Dov Jacobs of the ‘Concept Paper‘ they drafted for the SHARES Project and which serves as a theoretical guideline for the Project. Insisting on the Project’s interest in participants critical views on the Concept paper, they presented some of the main aspects developed in the paper. (more…)
8 November 2011
Cross-posted from EJIL:Talk!
On 31 October 2011, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO) approved the bid of Palestine for full membership with the necessary two-thirds majority. Although 107 UNESCO States voted in favor of Palestinian membership, the approval also faced notable opposition by 14 States. The overall number of 173 votes cast included 52 abstentions. Among the States voting against the bid were the United States, Canada and several EU member States, including Germany and the Netherlands. While the diverging positions of EU member States thus reveals once again the lack of unanimity in EU external relations policy, the US disapproval of the Palestinian UNESCO membership may have more serious consequences at the level of US-UNESCO relations. For after the approval of Palestine’s membership bid, the US immediately announced that it would cut off its funds to UNESCO, which amount to 60 million USD annually. (more…)
30 October 2011
Refugees are legally and morally entitled to some form of protection. This is generally undisputed. The disagreement begins when we ask the question which state will be called upon to provide that protection? (more…)