- Security Council Treaty Action: Stefan A G Talmon University of Oxford - Faculty of LawRevue Hellénique de Droit International, Vol. 62, pp. 65-116, 2009
This paper examines the way in which the Security Council has used its powers under the UN Charter to take certain treaty actions. In particular, it asks whether there are any legal limits to the Security Council adapting existing treaties to a particular situation, and whether it can prescribe pre-existing treaty provisions to non-State parties. It also examines the consequences if the Security Council formally endorses a certain treaty, and the role it plays in the enforcement and interpretation of treaties.
- Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law, Gregor Noll, Lund University - Faculty of Law
The author argues that casualties are perceived as necessary preconditions for peace in an international community, introduces a theory explaining how the causation of incidental death of civilians, rather than the willed death of enemy combatants, plays a pacifying role in the symbolic order of international law. He wishes to explore targeting norms as part of a contemporary victimisation ritual, offering the civilian casualty in exchange for divine appeasement of an international community. This approach draws on the work of René Girard explaining how communal violence is contained through ritual acts of sacrificial killings.
- Treaties in the Supreme Court: 1946-2000, Paul B. Stephan III, University of Virginia School of Law
This paper, a chapter in a forthcoming book on International Law and the Supreme Court, examines the treaty decisions of the Court during the postwar era, up until the second Bush Administration. Three patterns stand in the many (roughly 130) decisions. First, the Court acted as if the immediately preceding period – the New Deal, then the War – created a sharp break with the past, freeing the Court to address many questions as novel rather than rooted in settled practice. Second, the Court largely resisted the invocation of treaties as authority contradicting congressional statutes and executive practice regarding matters of public law, but gave greater effect to treaties that addressed what the Court perceived as matters of private interest
- The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity, Darryl Robinson, Queen's University (Canada)
This paper examines the way in which the Security Council has used its powers under the UN Charter to take certain treaty actions. In particular, it asks whether there are any legal limits to the Security Council adapting existing treaties to a particular situation, and whether it can prescribe pre-existing treaty provisions to non-State parties. It also examines the consequences if the Security Council formally endorses a certain treaty, and the role it plays in the enforcement and interpretation of treaties.
- Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law, Gregor Noll, Lund University - Faculty of Law
The author argues that casualties are perceived as necessary preconditions for peace in an international community, introduces a theory explaining how the causation of incidental death of civilians, rather than the willed death of enemy combatants, plays a pacifying role in the symbolic order of international law. He wishes to explore targeting norms as part of a contemporary victimisation ritual, offering the civilian casualty in exchange for divine appeasement of an international community. This approach draws on the work of René Girard explaining how communal violence is contained through ritual acts of sacrificial killings.
- Treaties in the Supreme Court: 1946-2000, Paul B. Stephan III, University of Virginia School of Law
This paper, a chapter in a forthcoming book on International Law and the Supreme Court, examines the treaty decisions of the Court during the postwar era, up until the second Bush Administration. Three patterns stand in the many (roughly 130) decisions. First, the Court acted as if the immediately preceding period – the New Deal, then the War – created a sharp break with the past, freeing the Court to address many questions as novel rather than rooted in settled practice. Second, the Court largely resisted the invocation of treaties as authority contradicting congressional statutes and executive practice regarding matters of public law, but gave greater effect to treaties that addressed what the Court perceived as matters of private interest
- The Mysterious Mysteriousness of Complementarity, Darryl Robinson, Queen's University (Canada)
This article explores an unusual interpretive disconnect in the discourse on complementarity, and shows how that disconnect is obscuring the most important questions about the relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and national systems. Several Chambers of the ICC have held that, in the absence of national proceedings, a case is admissible before the ICC. Many commentators regard this position as a ‘gloss’, an ‘invented’ prong, and a departure from the Statute. Interestingly, such critiques are rooted in a sincere, firmly-held and widely-shared belief that Article 17 contains a one-step test requiring either ‘unwillingness’ or ‘inability’. This article demonstrates that, contrary to the popular simplification of the complementarity test, Article 17 expressly provides not a one-step test, but a two-step test, the first explicit question of which is whether a State is investigating or prosecuting the case or has done so. Thus, admissibility-due-to-inaction is not a creative inference or an imaginative gloss; it arises from the literal, unambiguous text of Article 17.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése