Search

In this contribution we reflect on two recent high-stakes cases before domestic courts on state responsibility for the actions and omissions of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping forces. Both cases are the result of efforts by surviving relatives of, respectively, victims of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and victims of the Srebrenica genocide in 1995, to obtain reparation from troop-contributing states for the harm caused by UN peacekeeping troops’ failure to protect civilians. While the facts of both cases display some striking similarities, the courts reached opposite conclusions, with the Dutch Court holding the Netherlands responsible, and the Belgium Court rejecting any responsibility of the Belgium state. We critically review the two cases, and analyse in particular the approach of each court regarding attribution of conduct, paying particular attention to the specific factual circumstances of transition and withdrawal in both cases, and to the issue of attribution of legal omissions. We further present observations as to the question of shared responsibility in the context of peacekeeping operations.

This chapter is an analysis of how audio-visual representations of the work of international criminal tribunals create narratives around victims. It highlights one important aspect of those narratives: they do not merely reflect and represent, they also create. More specifically, victims and victimhood are not pre-given categories, but are instead constituted via acts of representation, including audio-visual ones. Viewing this material through the lens of a typology of modes of representation in documentary film theory, this chapter argues that audio-visual productions have created different types of victims. Whereas advocacy documentaries have produced ‘ideal’ victims, critical documentaries ‘argumentative victims’, and observatory documentaries ‘translated victims’, audio-visual materials produced by the International Criminal Court itself have presented ‘bureaucratized victims’.

In this article, I study the role of prefatory texts in international law. Based on Gerard Genette’s analysis of paratexts, I examine how prefaces shape the expectations of the reader through indications of genre, method and authorship. The first section introduces the notion of ‘paratext’ and provides some illustrations in treaties and documents of the International Court of Justice. The second section focuses specifically on a work that has broadly been regarded as foundational for the discipline of international law: Vitoria’s De Indis Et De Iure Belli. Through its analysis of paratext, this article provides a new lens on textual products and the creation of authorship in international law.

On 9 October 2018, The Hague Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance judgement rendered in the world-famous Urgenda case: the Dutch State commits a tort by setting a goal for greenhouse gas emissions reduction of only 20% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels. The State is ordered to raise this goal to at least 25%. Both judgments are heavily criticised by constitutional and administrative law scholars. Most of this critique is ultimately linked to the objection that the Courts overstepped their task in the constitutional separation of powers. With this objection the State also takes the case to the Supreme Court. This annotation analyses the appellate court’s decision step by step, pointing out where it differs from the lower court’s decision and engaging with the various critiques. The Court of Appeal directly applies Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR, finds that these rights cover climate change related situations, and on the basis of Dutch civil procedure determines that 25% reduction is the factual minimum to prevent ECHR violations. Although parts of the decision could have been motivated in more detail, the authors conclude that the Court applied the law correctly and that neither the separation of powers, nor the political question doctrine were infringed.

In this article, I study the role of prefatory texts in international law. Based on Gerard Genette’s analysis of paratexts, I examine how prefaces shape the expectations of the reader through indications of genre, method and authorship. The first section introduces the notion of ‘paratext’ and provides some illustrations in treaties and documents of the International Court of Justice. The second section focuses specifically on a work that has broadly been regarded as foundational for the discipline of international law: Vitoria’s De Indis Et De Iure Belli. Through its analysis of paratext, this article provides a new lens on textual products and the creation of authorship in international law.

I have always felt ambivalent about coaching teams for moot courts competitions. While these competitions offer very valuable experiences for students and a lot of fun in the preparation stage, they also force teams and their supervisors to focus on a very particular form of competition. The competition takes place in an artificial environment that often has little to do with how international law is most often applied in practice. What is more: students are trained to compete; as if winning is the most important part of the exercise. In this chapter, I explore my ambivalence about moot court competitions. To that end, I treat those competitions as theatrical exercises in two different ways: (a) as theatrical re-enactments and dress rehearsals at the same time (see section ‘Moot courts as representations of past and future’); as a series of rehearsals in preparation for a performance (see section ‘Moot courts and rehearsal traditions’). Building on two traditions in theater rehearsal, I develop a critical take on moot courts and sketch some possible avenues for alternative ways of rehearsing legal practices.

This chapter considers the screen as an object of international law. Screens fulfil two dual and paradoxical functions: They simultaneously disclose and conceal information; they create both co-presence and distance. The revealing screen conceals the selective process of exclusion, editing, assemblage, and adaptation, and the concealing screen silences dissent. A discussion of the dual function of screens in international law foregrounds the political implications, which are hidden when screens are presented as (merely) neutral media. The dual functions of screens and its political significance are demonstrated through two examples from international criminal law: The screening of the Kony 2012 advocacy film in Northern Uganda and the screening of Judge Sow’s ‘dissent’ at the Charles Taylor trial.

This chapter explores the different roles that material objects play in international law. It utilizes the ambiguity in the phrase ‘objects of international law’. First, this means that the objects concerned are somehow produced by international law; that they exist by virtue of the practices, scripts, and traditions in international law. The chapter develops this idea in section one, building on theories of attributes or properties (props) in theatre. Just like props in theatre, objects in law fulfil different functions, including the construction of subjectivity, setting in motion a chain of action, and symbolizing larger social–political topics. Second, the phrase ‘objects of international law’ refers to the signalling function of the objects concerned; they tell something about international law and its histories. This point is elaborated on in section two, based on museum and exhibition theories.

Het advies gaat met name in op de verhouding tussen immuniteit en (individuele) rechtsbescherming en doet aanbevelingen terzake.