Search result: 68 articles

x
Artikel

Access_open Revisiting the Humanisation of International Law: Limits and Potential

Obligations Erga Omnes, Hierarchy of Rules and the Principle of Due Diligence as the Basis for Further Humanisation

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords humanisation, constitutionalism, legal positivism, human rights, erga omnes, due diligence, positive obligations, normative hierarchy, proportionality
Authors Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos
AbstractAuthor's information

    The article critically evaluates the theory of the humanisation of international law. First, it argues that despite human rights having impact on (other areas of) international law, this trend has in the past been somewhat inflated. A number of examples are given where human rights have been tested against other objectives pursued by international law, with humanisation revealing its limits and actual dimensions. The second argument consists in identifying and highlighting obligations erga omnes (partes) and the principle of due diligence as two ‘systemic’ tools, that are central to the humanisation of international law. Both these tools form part of modern positive law, but may also make a positive contribution towards the direction of deeper humanisation in international law, having the potential, inter alia, to limit state will, establish occasional material normative hierarchy consisting in conditional priority in the fulfilment of human rights, give a communitarian tone to international law and invite states to be pro-active in the collective protection of their common interests and values. In its conclusions, the article offers a plausible explanation about the paradox it identifies of the limits of the humanisation on the one hand, and its potential for further development on the other. For, it is inherent in international law that the line separating the law from deontology is thin. The process of humanisation needs to be balanced with the other objectives of international law as well as reconciled with the decentralised and sovereignist origins of the pluralistic international legal system.


Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos
Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Hull Law School; Attorney, Athens’ Bar. PhD and M.Res, European University Institute; MA, European Political and Administrative Studies, College of Europe; DEA Droit international public et organisations internationales, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne; LLB, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Artikel

Access_open International Criminal Law and Constitutionalisation

On Hegemonic Narratives in Progress

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords hegemony, constitutionalism, constitutionalisation, international criminal law
Authors Marjan Ajevski
AbstractAuthor's information

    As we move towards constructing narratives regarding the future outlook of global governance, constitutionalisation among them, the hope is that whatever shape this world order takes it will, somehow, forestall or hinder the possibility of a hegemonic order. This article tries to deconstruct the notion of hegemony and claims that as it currently stands it is useless in doing its critical work since every successful narrative will end up being hegemonic because it will employ the ‘hegemonic technique’ of presenting a particular value (or value system), a particular viewpoint, as universal or at least applying to those who do not share it. The only way for a narrative in this discourse not to be hegemonic would be for it to be either truly universal and find a perspective that stems from nowhere and everywhere – a divine perspective – or purely descriptive; the first being an impossibility for fallible beings and the other not worth engaging with since it has nothing to say about how things should be structured or decided in a specific situation.


Marjan Ajevski
Post-Doctoral research fellow part of the MultiRights project – an ERC Advanced Grant on the Legitimacy of Multi-Level Human Rights Judiciary – <www.MultiRights.net>; and PluriCourts, a Research Council of Norway Centre of Excellence – <www.PluriCourts.net>, Norwegian Centre of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. I can be contacted at marjan.ajevski@nchr.uio.no.
Article

Access_open Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Treaty-Based Settlement of Terrorism-Related Disputes in the Era of Active United Nations Security Council Involvement

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2013
Keywords Terrorism, inter-state dispute, international treaties, the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice
Authors Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
AbstractAuthor's information

    The United Nations Security Council has become a crucial actor in international counterterrorism by not only spurring the taking of preventive and suppressive measures against terrorist individuals and groups, but also by taking actions against states that are said to stand in the way. The Security Council's actions against such states invariably arise from accusations by other states, such as accusations of refusal to extradite suspects of terrorism or responsibility for supporting terrorists. Meanwhile, most such issues of dispute are covered under international treaties relating to terrorism, which provide for political (negotiation) and judicial (arbitration and adjudication) mechanisms of dispute settlement. The Security Council's actions against states in connection with terrorism, therefore, involve (explicit or implicit) factual and legal determinations that affect the legal positions of the disputing states under the applicable international treaties relating to terrorism. The point of departure of this paper is that, in this respect, the Security Council effectively becomes an alternative to the treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms. The article centrally contends that the Security Council effectively acts as a more attractive alternative to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms for pursuing terrorism-related (legal) disputes between states, without providing a meaningful platform of disputation that is based on equality of the parties. And the Security Council's relative attractiveness, arising from the discursive and legal superiority its decisions enjoy and the relative convenience and expediency with which those decisions are delivered, entails the rendering of resort to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms of little legal consequence. The point of concern the article aims to highlight is the lack of platform of disputation some states are faced with, trapped between a hostile Security Council that makes determinations and decisions of legal consequence and an unhelpful treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanism.


Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
PhD Candidate in public international law, Erasmus School of Law. E: ali@law.eur.nl. I would like to thank Prof. Xandra Kramer and Prof. Ellen Hey for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.

Lilla Farkas
Lilla Farkas is a member of the Budapest Bar Association, holds an LLM from King's College, London and is a PhD candidate at Lóránd Eötvös University's Faculty of Law in Budapest, Hungary. She is collaborating with the Budapest-based Chance for Children Foundation and the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group. She serves as president of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Authority's Advisory Board and as a race (Roma) ground coordinator for the European Network of Independent Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field.

Charles Vlek
Charles Vlek is professor emeritus of environmental psychology and decision research in the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Groningen University, Groningen The Netherlands; <c.a.j.vlek@rug.nl>. The author has profited from a three-year period of chairing an advisory committee of the Health Council of The Netherlands (see Health Council, ‘Voorzorg met Rede’ [Precaution with Reason] no. 2008/18 (The Hague: Gezondheidsraad 2008)). Special thanks are due to staff members Wim Passchier, Nienke van Kuijeren, and Harrie van Dijk, and to the various committee members. However, since the views and conclusions in the present paper also result from substantial additional work, they are the personal responsibility of the author.

Matthias Borgers
Both authors are Professors of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the VU University in Amsterdam. This article is based on M.J. Borgers, De vlucht naar voren (The way forward) VU inaugural lecture (The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2007) and E. van Sliedregt, Tien tegen één (Ten to One), VU inaugural lecture (The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2009).

Elies van Sliedregt
Both authors are Professors of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the VU University in Amsterdam. This article is based on M.J. Borgers, De vlucht naar voren (The way forward) VU inaugural lecture (The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2007) and E. van Sliedregt, Tien tegen één (Ten to One), VU inaugural lecture (The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2009).

Judith van Erp
Judith van Erp is senior researcher at the department of Criminology at the School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. She is currently carrying out a research project on naming and shaming, which is funded by the Dutch Council for Scientific Research. The author wishes to thank Henk van de Bunt for his valuable comments on an earlier draft.

Roel de Lange
Dr. Roel de Lange is Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law and Director of the Human Rights Research Programme, School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The author is grateful to Dr. K.A.M. Henrard and to an anonymous reviewer for the Erasmus Law Review.
Showing 61 - 68 of 68 found texts
1 2 4 »

Sign up for email alert

If you sign up for the free email alert from Erasmus Law Review, you will automatically receive a message when a new article is published on the website.

Subscribe

You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.