Search

Ukraine has faced ongoing armed conflict within the eastern parts of its territory since 2014. The state witnessed the annexation of Crimea, de facto occupation of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the shooting down of Flight MH-17, and numerous human rights violations in the eastern parts of the country. Since the Russian aggression in 2022, Ukraine has faced armed conflict throughout the country. At the same time, Russia and Ukraine had been states parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022, due to its expulsion from the Council of Europe (CoE) six months earlier. All the applications against the Russian Federation filed to the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) before this date should – and will – be examined by the Court. This research mainly aims to analyse the Court's existing case-law concerning the events in Ukraine after 2014, and the ECtHR jurisprudence concerning armed conflicts. The purpose of such analysis is to examine the possibilities and challenges the Court will face in its forthcoming judgments in inter-state applications filed by Ukraine against Russia. It should be stressed that the execution of these future judgments may also be an issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Proposal of the Directive regarding the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence provides new judicial protection for environmental damages and climate litigation caused by corporations, even in an extraterritorial context, considering the Directive's scope of application. This prompts a discussion about the exercise of an extraterritorial jurisdiction by Member States' courts. At European Union level, the titles of jurisdiction, identified in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, allow foreign victims to proceed before the court of a Member State, but only if the parent company is established in that specific Member State. Otherwise, these criteria are generally considered inadequate and insufficient. The proposed Directive seems to be a new opportunity to reform the European private international law, aligning it with the right to access to justice, as provided by Article 10 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ideal of the European Union (EU) as a global peace and security actor is increasingly clashing with the reality of a multipolar world defined by militarised conflict, and a loosening of the formerly close trans-Atlantic relationship with the United States. European policy-makers have identified strategic autonomy as a possible remedy in the face of a growing number of internal and external security threats. This paper adds to the conceptualisation of strategic autonomy by contextualising its current usage and political genealogy. Empirically, European strategic autonomy is examined concerning the efforts to preserve the Iranian nuclear deal after the Trump administration had ceased US participation in May 2018. In particular, the paper assesses the European response to counter the re-imposed unilateral United States (US) sanctions against European individuals and entities by updating the so-called blocking regulation, and setting up a special purpose vehicle (spv) for facilitating trade with Iran. The results show that the European struggle toward achieving strategic autonomy has largely failed, but that it holds valuable lessons to approximate this ideal in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increase in numbers of children travelling unaccompanied to Europe has provoked a sensitive debate as to how to treat their family members. While EU Member States generally grant family reunification for unaccompanied minors, the UK has opted to permit reunion in only 'exceptional circumstances'. Widely criticised, the UK government counters that child-sponsored family reunification creates incentives for unaccompanied migration that place children at risk. This article explores both policies from a human rights perspective. It suggests that, as regards children reaching Europe, EU policy is more consistent with human rights norms. However, UK policy raises legitimate questions about obligations towards children beyond Europe's borders. A rights-based justification for either EU or UK policy can be constructed, but requires recourse to additional principles on the balancing of rights among different groups of children. Clearer articulation and scrutiny of these principles could strengthen the rights rationale for child-sponsored family reunification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the limits of extraterritorial criminalisation under international law in the context of a recent legislative proposal by the government of Sweden to impose criminal measures against the purchase of sexual services abroad. The article first presents the proposal and then a specific legal objection raised against it, namely that allowing Swedish courts to try purchases committed abroad irrespective of local law is inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention under international law. The substance of this objection is discussed against the background of general descriptions of the concepts of jurisdiction and non-intervention under international law. It is concluded that the meaning of the principle of non-intervention may have been overstated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are the main investors in farm animal production outside their territory, prompting a mass-adoption of concentrated animal feeding operations in investment-importing states like Iran and Pakistan. Global actors like the International Finance Corporation and the Food and Agriculture Organization espouse the Middle Eastern states' investment strategy by generously supporting it with direct payments and feed. Because intensified animal agricultural production systems are known to cause environmental pollution, threaten public health and food security, and pose a moral hazard for animals, this article makes use of existing crossborder relationships to the Middle East to counter the growing agricultural trend towards intensification. Specifically, the article examines whether and how international investment standards, export credit standards, bilateral investment treaties, and bilateral free trade agreements can be used to encourage responsible investment and trade flows that factor in the interests of animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rationale behind the applicability of human rights treaties to foreign surveillance is the subject of debate. Presented with the opportunity to weigh in on this issue in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v The United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights simply assumed (and rightly so) that the European Convention on Human Rights applies, providing no further reasoning. This article explores the challenges that arise with establishing jurisdiction over foreign surveillance under human rights treaties, and argues for an alternative base for extraterritorial jurisdiction grounded in the moral and theoretical principles underlying the human rights regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea of establishing centres for the "external processing" of asylum claims -- already supported by some European Union (EU) Member States, and actually realized in the Caribbean by the United States and in the Pacific area by Australia -- has recently come to the fore again in European debates. The recent proposals -- which tend to create offshore centres in Turkey and probably in African countries too -- envisage various levels of involvement of EU Member States and of the EU itself. The present contribution aims to analyse, in particular, which of the various actors implicated would be responsible, and to what extent, in cases of violation of asylum seekers' human rights. The scenario that could be envisaged is extremely complex. Disentangling the web of action/attribution/responsibility is very difficult and the risk of "blame shifting" or "passing the buck" among the various actors is high. The possibility of the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights will also be explored, in order to assess to what extent individuals would have access to a remedy before the European Court of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Application of internal law by a state beyond its own territory is an extraordinary action in international law. It requires not only a solid justification but is also subject to many restrictions. It often comes to conflicts against this background that is why extraterritorial jurisdiction is considered as a dangerous but yet an effective instrument of foreign politics. The article not only provides a concise definitions of extraterritoriality but also points to its acceptable bases (liaisons) and restrictions. Moreover, a review of interesting, representative doctrine stances has been done. Controversies and dangers related to the discussed institution are explicitly emphasized. In contrast, the selected examples of conflicts resulting from extraterritorial application of internal law will be discussed in the upcoming second part of the reflections. The entire article is not meant to be a comprehensive overview but rather a basis for a more detailed analysis and discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU Member States are updating their anti-money laundering (AML) regimes by implementing a fourth anti money laundering directive (4th AMLD). However, an assessment of various AML enforcement regimes reveals that not European, but USA regulations are the most effective. The USA'S AML legislation grants the USA authorities extraterritorial power, which allows them to impose USA requirements on any foreign financial institution that has a correspondent relationship with a USA bank. This long-arm approach is mainly based on Section 319 of the patriot Act. Despite the clear success of Section 319, EU legislators have avoided introducing a similar norm into the latest EU directive. The author analyses why the usa' effective extraterritorial practice has not been introduced into the 4th amld. Arguing for the adoption of extraterritorial AML practice by the EU, the author then goes on to outline which reforms the EU should introduce if it wishes to follow the path already taken by the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crimes against humanity have recently been the object of significant examination in contemporary analytical philosophy. Yet several theoretical issues are still up for grabs. What exactly is a crime against humanity? How are crimes against humanity different from domestic offences? What does humanity stand for in this notion? And who is entitled to define and prosecute these crimes? This article provides a concise, critical overview of the main positions available in the literature. It seeks to isolate the key conceptual and normative issues that surround this debate, and to assess the different answers currently available. It concludes that although all the answers available face significant objections and difficulties, they have made increasingly clear what the philosophical questions surrounding the notion of crimes against humanity are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article re-examines externalisation -- direct migration control by Member States of the EU, within third states, i.e., States which are not members of the EU. The nature and extent of this control is considered. The instruments of externalisation examined are carrier sanctions and immigration liaison officers. State responsibility for these externalised migration controls is assessed. The jurisdiction of the ECtHR is the trigger for Member State responsibility. ECtHR jurisprudence has made it clear that it is the exercise of physical power and control over a person by the State, which is pivotal to deciding jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is engaged where the Court finds that physical power and control to have been 'effective'. This threshold of 'effective' control which has emerged from the Court's jurisprudence is a demanding hurdle. If State control is found to be 'effective', then the State is responsible for the flail range of rights contained within the Convention. The question then stands whether or not the ECtHR can keep abreast with these controls which can lead to States evading jurisdiction and thus avoiding fundamental rights responsibilities. One possible interpretation of recent jurisprudence is that the ECtHR is moving toward a broader interpretation of jurisdiction. It is in this context that 'externalised' controls have come under renewed scrutiny. A prevailing opinion is that the ECtHR will be able to protect those asylum seekers who encounter extemalised control. This article questions any such assumption. The author argues for an alternative reading of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR with regard to jurisdiction. The conclusion reached is that the hurdle of extraterritorial jurisdiction is so demanding that States avoid it despite exercising extensive control over migrants. It is asserted that despite this considerable control, examination by the ECtHR will result in a failure to satisfy the 'effective' control threshold. Responsibility can thus be avoided while extraterritorial control is retained. The control level held by the State is still capable of guaranteeing a denial of access to individuals in need of international protection. If jurisdiction is not engaged then this externalised migration control represents a divergence between State control and State responsibility. Taking the threshold for jurisdiction of the ECtHR as a starting point, the author suggests a distinction between externalisation on the one hand and the external dimension on the other. States, oftentimes with facilitation from the Union, pursue one of these two alternatives. Externalisation affords the State stronger and more direct control over the entry of the migrant into the territory of a Member State than the external dimension, where the control is indirect and weaker. This distinction allows for a refined understanding of externallsation and applies it to verifying Member State responsibility for externalised migration control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports of the NGO Global Witness in which the implication of the Dutchman Kouwenhoven in the civil war in Liberia was exposed served as the lead for the Dutch Prosecution Office to start a criminal case against this national. In June 2006, the Dutch businessman Guus Kouwenhoven was convicted in first instance for the violation of an arms embargo, but acquitted of the count on war crimes. On appeal, Kouwenhoven was fully acquitted of all charges. In its judgment quashing the prior conviction, the Dutch Court of Appeal heavily criticized the Public Prosecutor and observed that the case against Kouwenhoven was built on quicksand. Even though not based on universal jurisdiction, the case does illustrate the inherent complexities of exercising extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. A remarkable aspect of the case is that the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence presented in a fundamentally different way than the Court of First Instance had done. This might be related to the inherent difficulties of assessing “foreign evidence”. In this note, it is argued that when adjudicating such foreign cases, national judges being unfamiliar with the historical and cultural setting in which the alleged crimes took place, should call upon experts on the region to assist in the evaluation of the evidence. In terms of substance, the case leads to interesting questions as to how charges of illegal arms trade do and should relate to charges of complicity in war crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What duties do states have to individuals who suffer as a result of armed conflict? While the International Court of Justice has stated that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, it has not provided any clarity on how this is to be interpreted. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the duty of a state to guarantee human rights to persons in whose territory the state is engaged in armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses one specific aspect of the long and complicated proceedings in which the Russian oil company Yukos was involved: the question of jurisdiction relating to the application that Yukos made to a court in Houston, Texas, to open bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and thus grant protection against the creditors to permit restructuring of the company. Yukos being a Russian company burdened by massive debt connected with taxes owed to the Russian authorities, and virtually the totality of its as-sets being located on Russian territory, the first question that arises is how it is possible for a court in the United States to have jurisdiction in this case. This article examines the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction in civil cases, from the point of view of both private and public international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]