International Criminal Law
Hugo Relva and Vito Todeschini critically analyze draft article 10 of the ILC Draft Articles on immunity of state officials, which would require a forum state to notify the official’s state before initiating criminal proceedings or taking coercive measures. The authors argue that this prior notification lacks a legal basis, risks hindering investigations, and enabling impunity. The authors further contrast this with the ILC’s work on Crimes Against Humanity, which mandates notification only after custody, and recommend deleting or significantly revising draft article 10 to align with established treaty law. Read the full post here.
Jérôme de Hemptinne and Helena Szczupak analyze the potential of International Criminal Law (ICL) to protect Indigenous peoples from the destruction of their lands, considering crimes against humanity, genocide, and ecocide. They highlight the anthropocentric limitations of current ICL and the challenges in applying genocide definitions to Indigenous communities. While ecocide offers potential, it doesn’t fully capture the Indigenous connection to land. The authors propose an aggravated form of ecocide within the ICC Statute to specifically protect Indigenous peoples’ rights when environmental damage severely impacts their way of life. Read the full post here.
Miles Jackson and Hannah Woolaver examine the South African High Court’s judgment in the COSAS 4 prosecution, focusing on the direct application of customary international law, including the crime against humanity of apartheid. The court rejected arguments put forward by the accused that the charges had prescribed and violated the principle of legality, asserting that customary international law is directly applicable in South Africa. Jackson and Woolaver discuss the legal basis for this, the point at which apartheid became a crime under customary international law, and the court’s view on the non-applicability of prescription to crimes against humanity. Read the full post here.
Quazi Omar Foysal explores the Sudan v. UAE case at the ICJ, where the UAE argues for the case’s removal due to a “manifest lack of jurisdiction” based on its reservation to the Genocide Convention, the sole jurisdictional basis. Foysal analyzes the ICJ’s precedent for removing cases at the provisional measures stage when jurisdiction is clearly absent, particularly with regard to treaty reservations. Foysal concludes that the ICJ’s decision on the validity and scope of the UAE’s reservation will determine the case’s fate and suggests the Court should clarify its “manifest lack of jurisdiction” standard. Read the full post here.
International Human Rights Law
Cecilia Brocca explores the recent resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group. This group is tasked with elaborating an international legally binding instrument focused on the promotion and protection of the human rights of older persons. Brocca notes that the adoption of this resolution is a historic step forward in addressing the overlooked dimension of older persons’ human rights within the existing, fragmented international legal framework. Read the full post here.
Valentin Martin discusses the International Chess Federation (FIDE)’s policy prohibiting transgender women from competing in women’s chess competitions, arguing that this policy is discriminatory and violates the Olympic Charter. Martin contends that gender-based categorization in sports should be the exception, not the rule. The author proposes a new framework where disciplines are prohibited from distinguishing between men’s and women’s events unless there is a clear scientific basis, suggesting an international agency to implement harmonized legislation against discrimination in sports. Read the full post here.
International Trade
Nicolas Lamp explores the implications of President Trump’s imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs for international trade law. Lamp argues these new tariffs differ significantly from previous ones, as they target nearly all countries, lack a basis in actual trade barriers, and fundamentally undermine the purpose of international trade law by creating insecurity. Lamp suggests that while other nations should treat the U.S. as an outlier in the trade system, they must continue to uphold international trade law among themselves to preserve its integrity. Read the full post here.
More Posts
Stefan Robert McClean examines Greenland’s application for membership in Concacaf, the North American football confederation, after being ineligible for UEFA due to its requirement of UN-recognized statehood. McClean details how UEFA’s constitutive approach to state recognition contrasts with Concacaf’s more flexible criteria, which could allow the autonomous territory of Denmark to join the international football community. McClean argues that these differing membership rules highlight the political complexities of international sports governance and its impact on the sporting aspirations of non-independent entities like Greenland. Read the full post here.
Joshua Joseph Niyo questions whether recent geopolitical events indicate a weakening of the customary international law prohibition against forcible annexation due to inconsistent international responses. Niyo analyzes the situations in Ukraine, Palestine, Western Sahara, and the DRC, suggesting that a lack of strong opposition to territorial acquisitions risks eroding the existing norm. Niyo concludes by stressing the importance of the international community actively reinforcing the prohibition to maintain global stability and the principles of international law. Read the full post here.
Aleydis Nissen examines the South Korean Constitutional Court’s landmark 2024 ruling in D.H. Kim et al v Korea, which found the government’s lack of concrete long-term emissions reduction targets beyond 2030 violated the constitutional rights of future generations to a healthy environment. The court creatively linked the constitutional principle of ‘statutory reservation’ to the international law principle of intergenerational equity, emphasizing the legislature’s responsibility to enact specific climate plans. Nissen concludes that this case, influenced by international climate agreements and part of a global trend in climate litigation, sets a significant precedent for judicial involvement in environmental governance and climate accountability. Read the full post here.
EJIL:Talk! Symposium on ‘Expanding Human Rights Protection to Non-Human Subjects
The recent EJIL:Talk! Symposium explores the expansion of human rights protection to non-human subjects from African, Inter-American, and European perspectives. The symposium features contributions from various authors examining topics such as the protection of non-human subjects from an ECtHR judge’s viewpoint, the intersection of science, technology, human dignity, and rules, and the coherence of robot rights with human rights. Other articles delve into emerging animal rights, the ‘rights of nature’ in human rights courts, and the role of corporate human rights in international law accountability. Read Patricia Wiater’s introduction to the Symposium here.
Michael Waibel and Rebecca McMenamin examine the relationship between granting human rights to corporations and holding them accountable for human rights violations, finding no automatic connection and significant differences in approach across regional human rights systems. They argue that the scope of corporate human rights is a matter for legislative, not judicial, determination, pointing to ongoing UN efforts to establish binding corporate accountability standards. Read the full post here.
Monica Feria-Tinta examines the role of human rights courts in environmental protection, focusing on the Inter-American Court’s recognition of nature’s intrinsic legal interests, as seen in Advisory Opinion 23 and the La Oroya case. Contrasting this with the European system’s focus on corporate rights, she explores the potential for granting legal standing to natural entities, referencing national examples like the Atrato River case in Colombia. Feria-Tinta advocates for a shift towards recognizing the inherent rights and interconnectedness of nature and human well-being in legal frameworks. Read the full post here.
Saskia Stucki examines the emerging legal recognition of animal rights, noting their increasing presence in domestic courts, particularly in the Global South. Stucki argues that the justifications for these rights are pluralistic, encompassing anthropocentric (human benefits), zoocentric (animal-centered intrinsic value), and ecocentric (environmental context) rationales. She contends that this diverse foundation, while sometimes criticized as weak, actually provides a stronger and more widely palatable basis for the advancement of animal rights alongside human and environmental rights, ultimately benefiting all three. Read the full post here.
Patricia Wiater explores the arguments for granting human rights to robots and AI, examining both the coherence argument based on the treatment of corporations and the moral argument grounded in AI’s potential human-like qualities. 1 Wiater expresses skepticism towards morally based robot rights due to AI’s lack of inherent characteristics and dependence on humans, suggesting a functional-political perspective is more persuasive. 1 She concludes that while AI regulation is evolving and legal personhood for AI might emerge, there is currently no strong moral or functional justification for extending autonomous human rights to AI entities, as human-centered protections are sufficient. Read the full post here.
Verónica Gómez discusses human dignity as a foundational principle for legal obligations in the context of rapid scientific and technological advancements. She emphasizes the historical recognition of human dignity after World War II and its connection to equality, particularly for historically marginalized groups like Indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants in the Americas. Gómez also explores the intergenerational dimension of dignity, highlighting the responsibility of current generations to protect the environment for future ones, referencing the Inter-American Court’s stance in the La Oroya v. Peru case on the importance of environmental protection for human survival across generations. Read the full post here.
Tim Eicke discusses the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its approach to non-human subjects. The ECHR extends some protection to legal persons, such as corporations, granting them rights like fair trial, respect for home, and freedom of expression. While the ECHR doesn’t explicitly protect animal welfare, it acknowledges animal protection as a general interest. The article explores the complexities of granting standing to animals or nature in court, particularly when national laws recognize them as legal persons, and it questions the justification for extending human rights to robots or AI, suggesting a human-centric approach where their protection is derived from human interests. Read the full post here.
EJIL: The Podcast!
Listen to EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 33: Owning the Future? International Law and Technology as a Critical Project here.
Two Weeks in Review, 21 April – 4 May 2025
Written by Tal GrossInternational Criminal Law
Hugo Relva and Vito Todeschini critically analyze draft article 10 of the ILC Draft Articles on immunity of state officials, which would require a forum state to notify the official’s state before initiating criminal proceedings or taking coercive measures. The authors argue that this prior notification lacks a legal basis, risks hindering investigations, and enabling impunity. The authors further contrast this with the ILC’s work on Crimes Against Humanity, which mandates notification only after custody, and recommend deleting or significantly revising draft article 10 to align with established treaty law. Read the full post here.
Jérôme de Hemptinne and Helena Szczupak analyze the potential of International Criminal Law (ICL) to protect Indigenous peoples from the destruction of their lands, considering crimes against humanity, genocide, and ecocide. They highlight the anthropocentric limitations of current ICL and the challenges in applying genocide definitions to Indigenous communities. While ecocide offers potential, it doesn’t fully capture the Indigenous connection to land. The authors propose an aggravated form of ecocide within the ICC Statute to specifically protect Indigenous peoples’ rights when environmental damage severely impacts their way of life. Read the full post here.
Miles Jackson and Hannah Woolaver examine the South African High Court’s judgment in the COSAS 4 prosecution, focusing on the direct application of customary international law, including the crime against humanity of apartheid. The court rejected arguments put forward by the accused that the charges had prescribed and violated the principle of legality, asserting that customary international law is directly applicable in South Africa. Jackson and Woolaver discuss the legal basis for this, the point at which apartheid became a crime under customary international law, and the court’s view on the non-applicability of prescription to crimes against humanity. Read the full post here.
Quazi Omar Foysal explores the Sudan v. UAE case at the ICJ, where the UAE argues for the case’s removal due to a “manifest lack of jurisdiction” based on its reservation to the Genocide Convention, the sole jurisdictional basis. Foysal analyzes the ICJ’s precedent for removing cases at the provisional measures stage when jurisdiction is clearly absent, particularly with regard to treaty reservations. Foysal concludes that the ICJ’s decision on the validity and scope of the UAE’s reservation will determine the case’s fate and suggests the Court should clarify its “manifest lack of jurisdiction” standard. Read the full post here.
International Human Rights Law
Cecilia Brocca explores the recent resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group. This group is tasked with elaborating an international legally binding instrument focused on the promotion and protection of the human rights of older persons. Brocca notes that the adoption of this resolution is a historic step forward in addressing the overlooked dimension of older persons’ human rights within the existing, fragmented international legal framework. Read the full post here.
Valentin Martin discusses the International Chess Federation (FIDE)’s policy prohibiting transgender women from competing in women’s chess competitions, arguing that this policy is discriminatory and violates the Olympic Charter. Martin contends that gender-based categorization in sports should be the exception, not the rule. The author proposes a new framework where disciplines are prohibited from distinguishing between men’s and women’s events unless there is a clear scientific basis, suggesting an international agency to implement harmonized legislation against discrimination in sports. Read the full post here.
International Trade
Nicolas Lamp explores the implications of President Trump’s imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs for international trade law. Lamp argues these new tariffs differ significantly from previous ones, as they target nearly all countries, lack a basis in actual trade barriers, and fundamentally undermine the purpose of international trade law by creating insecurity. Lamp suggests that while other nations should treat the U.S. as an outlier in the trade system, they must continue to uphold international trade law among themselves to preserve its integrity. Read the full post here.
More Posts
Stefan Robert McClean examines Greenland’s application for membership in Concacaf, the North American football confederation, after being ineligible for UEFA due to its requirement of UN-recognized statehood. McClean details how UEFA’s constitutive approach to state recognition contrasts with Concacaf’s more flexible criteria, which could allow the autonomous territory of Denmark to join the international football community. McClean argues that these differing membership rules highlight the political complexities of international sports governance and its impact on the sporting aspirations of non-independent entities like Greenland. Read the full post here.
Joshua Joseph Niyo questions whether recent geopolitical events indicate a weakening of the customary international law prohibition against forcible annexation due to inconsistent international responses. Niyo analyzes the situations in Ukraine, Palestine, Western Sahara, and the DRC, suggesting that a lack of strong opposition to territorial acquisitions risks eroding the existing norm. Niyo concludes by stressing the importance of the international community actively reinforcing the prohibition to maintain global stability and the principles of international law. Read the full post here.
Aleydis Nissen examines the South Korean Constitutional Court’s landmark 2024 ruling in D.H. Kim et al v Korea, which found the government’s lack of concrete long-term emissions reduction targets beyond 2030 violated the constitutional rights of future generations to a healthy environment. The court creatively linked the constitutional principle of ‘statutory reservation’ to the international law principle of intergenerational equity, emphasizing the legislature’s responsibility to enact specific climate plans. Nissen concludes that this case, influenced by international climate agreements and part of a global trend in climate litigation, sets a significant precedent for judicial involvement in environmental governance and climate accountability. Read the full post here.
EJIL:Talk! Symposium on ‘Expanding Human Rights Protection to Non-Human Subjects
The recent EJIL:Talk! Symposium explores the expansion of human rights protection to non-human subjects from African, Inter-American, and European perspectives. The symposium features contributions from various authors examining topics such as the protection of non-human subjects from an ECtHR judge’s viewpoint, the intersection of science, technology, human dignity, and rules, and the coherence of robot rights with human rights. Other articles delve into emerging animal rights, the ‘rights of nature’ in human rights courts, and the role of corporate human rights in international law accountability. Read Patricia Wiater’s introduction to the Symposium here.
Michael Waibel and Rebecca McMenamin examine the relationship between granting human rights to corporations and holding them accountable for human rights violations, finding no automatic connection and significant differences in approach across regional human rights systems. They argue that the scope of corporate human rights is a matter for legislative, not judicial, determination, pointing to ongoing UN efforts to establish binding corporate accountability standards. Read the full post here.
Monica Feria-Tinta examines the role of human rights courts in environmental protection, focusing on the Inter-American Court’s recognition of nature’s intrinsic legal interests, as seen in Advisory Opinion 23 and the La Oroya case. Contrasting this with the European system’s focus on corporate rights, she explores the potential for granting legal standing to natural entities, referencing national examples like the Atrato River case in Colombia. Feria-Tinta advocates for a shift towards recognizing the inherent rights and interconnectedness of nature and human well-being in legal frameworks. Read the full post here.
Saskia Stucki examines the emerging legal recognition of animal rights, noting their increasing presence in domestic courts, particularly in the Global South. Stucki argues that the justifications for these rights are pluralistic, encompassing anthropocentric (human benefits), zoocentric (animal-centered intrinsic value), and ecocentric (environmental context) rationales. She contends that this diverse foundation, while sometimes criticized as weak, actually provides a stronger and more widely palatable basis for the advancement of animal rights alongside human and environmental rights, ultimately benefiting all three. Read the full post here.
Patricia Wiater explores the arguments for granting human rights to robots and AI, examining both the coherence argument based on the treatment of corporations and the moral argument grounded in AI’s potential human-like qualities. 1 Wiater expresses skepticism towards morally based robot rights due to AI’s lack of inherent characteristics and dependence on humans, suggesting a functional-political perspective is more persuasive. 1 She concludes that while AI regulation is evolving and legal personhood for AI might emerge, there is currently no strong moral or functional justification for extending autonomous human rights to AI entities, as human-centered protections are sufficient. Read the full post here.
Verónica Gómez discusses human dignity as a foundational principle for legal obligations in the context of rapid scientific and technological advancements. She emphasizes the historical recognition of human dignity after World War II and its connection to equality, particularly for historically marginalized groups like Indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants in the Americas. Gómez also explores the intergenerational dimension of dignity, highlighting the responsibility of current generations to protect the environment for future ones, referencing the Inter-American Court’s stance in the La Oroya v. Peru case on the importance of environmental protection for human survival across generations. Read the full post here.
Tim Eicke discusses the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its approach to non-human subjects. The ECHR extends some protection to legal persons, such as corporations, granting them rights like fair trial, respect for home, and freedom of expression. While the ECHR doesn’t explicitly protect animal welfare, it acknowledges animal protection as a general interest. The article explores the complexities of granting standing to animals or nature in court, particularly when national laws recognize them as legal persons, and it questions the justification for extending human rights to robots or AI, suggesting a human-centric approach where their protection is derived from human interests. Read the full post here.
EJIL: The Podcast!
Listen to EJIL: The Podcast! Episode 33: Owning the Future? International Law and Technology as a Critical Project here.
Share this:
Related
Categories
Tags
Leave a Comment
Comments