Thema: Menschenrechte

Internationales Menschenrechtsrecht und supranationaler Rechtsschutz durch internationale Gerichte, Verträge und Überwachungsmechanismen. Im Gegensatz zu nationalen Grundrechten liegt der Fokus auf internationalen Rechtsinstrumenten, der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und UN-Menschenrechtsmechanismen.

An Unfortunate Trend of Vagueness

The German Government is planning to change the procedural and substantive legal framework on international criminal law in Germany, with an expert hearing having taken placed on 31 January 2024 before the German Parliament’s (Deutscher Bundestag) Legal Affairs Committee. One aspect appears to have been totally neglected by the current draft proposal: the issue of functional immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction in case of core crime charges. In this post, I highlight an ambiguity regarding the personal scope of functional immunity arising from German case law which the German Government and Parliament should take the opportunity to clarify with the current reform proposal. This is particularly important given that the ambiguity appears to have traveled to other jurisdictions as illustrated by the case of Ziada v. Netherlands.

1. Februar 2024

, , , ,

South Africa v Israel: A Solomonic Decision as »Constructive Ambiguity«

In its wise Order of 26 January 2024, the ICJ managed to make a virtue out of a necessity: Israel was not prohibited from continuing its combat operations but was reminded of its strict compliance with international humanitarian law and its obligation to avoid genocide. At the same time, the ICJ reiterated the requirement to respect the most fundamental rights and the core of humanitarian law to all warring factions. Despite still essentially being a court for inter-state disputes – it put the individual, the human being, at the centre. Henceforth, the ICJ’s order of provisional measures is a Solomonic decision at its best and a further step towards the “humanization of international law”.

31. Januar 2024

, , , , , ,

Intervention auf Irrwegen

Am 29.12.2023 reichte Südafrika Klage vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) gegen Israel wegen Verstößen gegen die Völkermordkonvention im Gazastreifen ein. Zusätzlich zum Hauptsacheantrag begehrte Südafrika im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz den Erlass von vorsorglichen Maßnahmen („Provisional Measures“), auf die sich auch die zweitägige Anhörung der Parteien bezog. Am zweiten Tag der Anhörungen verkündete Deutschland, zugunsten Israels zu intervenieren, mit der Begründung, der Vorwurf des Völkermords entbehre jeder Grundlage. Neben einer Zusammenfassung der Parteivorträge und der Eilrechtsschutzentscheidung des IGH vom 26.1.2024 beleuchtet der Beitrag die deutsche Rolle im Hauptsacheverfahren. Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Entscheidung wie auch der Pluralität deutscher historischer Verantwortung droht die geplante Intervention der Glaubwürdigkeit Deutschlands im multilateralen System weiter zu schaden und die Universalität des Völkerrechts auszuhöhlen.

30. Januar 2024

, , ,

Shielding Frontex 2.0

In Hamoudi v Frontex, the General Court dismissed another action that could have clarified if, when, and how independent or joint human rights responsibility would arise when Frontex is engaged in shared operational conduct with the Member States. This time not on the basis of an obscure re-interpretation of the Applicant’s claim, but instead, on the basis of an unattainably high and unrealistic burden, standard and method of proof. In doing so, the General Court again eschews from clarifying the nature, conditions and consequences of both independent and joint human rights responsibility of Frontex. Taken together, these cases raise the question whether there are any viable forms of judicial recourse for fundamental rights violations committed or contributed to by the EU’s Border and Coastguard Agency.

30. Januar 2024

, , , , ,

Provisional Measures as Tools of American Empire

One could feel the weight of history on her shoulders, as Judge Joan Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, read the provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. Her hand reached several times for the glass of water. Carefully, and with an occasional sip of water, she walked her viewers on the ICJ’s streaming service from one provisional measure to the next. By first zeroing in on the role of the American judge, this post describes how the provisional measures decided upon, ultimately correspond to a larger project of global American governance. As I will argue the US Executive Branch is likely to take a lead role in interpreting the provisional measures, further cementing their place as tools of empire.

29. Januar 2024

, , ,

Measuring with Double Legal Standards

Less than two hours after Israel had closed its pleadings, the German Government released a press statement, announcing its intent to intervene as a third party under Article 63 of the Statute of the ICJ (ICJ Statute). Therefore, it can be assumed that Germany did not take sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive assessment prior to its decision. At all costs, it sought to be perceived as being on Israel’s side. Germany’s decision may not appear startling given that it had previously intervened in both genocide proceedings against Russia (Ukraine v Russia case) and Myanmar (Rohingya case). However, in the latter case, Germany joined Gambia in upholding a purposive construction of Article II Genocide Convention, which would seem to present a serious obstacle to support Israel. Thus, this contribution investigates whether Germany, in its intervention in the "Genocide in the Gaza Strip case", would be able to abandon its previous submissions in the Rohingya case and instead adopt a more restrictive construction of the Article II Genocide Convention.

25. Januar 2024

, , , , , , ,

Counter-Genocidal Governance

The International Court of Justice’s decision regarding South Africa’s request for provisional measures in its genocide case against Israel is expected tomorrow. Whatever the Court decides, it is worthwhile noting that the impact of the process is already evident. And any provisional measures that may be given, will shape a years-long and likely tense dialog between Israel and the Court, as well as third countries. Everything that will happen for the duration of the proceedings, over the next two or three years at least, will continue to build evidence until, finally, the owl of Minerva will spread its wings. My purpose in this post is to provide some provisional reflections on how that may work. In doing so, I will expand a bit on a notion I’ve tried to develop in a previous post, that of counter-genocidal governance.

25. Januar 2024

, ,

Leading the Way

There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective.

18. Januar 2024

, , , , , ,

Rule of Law Abnegated

This year is the second winter that thousands of asylum seekers will spend on the cold streets of Brussels. More than 2700 of them are still without any material assistance and shelter. 869 of them have a domestic court order recognising their right to reception, yet the Belgian government has consistently refused to implement them. This deliberate refusal to secure the human rights of migrants, especially where these are single males, is not only creating a humanitarian disaster in Belgium’s streets but also undermines the raison d’être of Belgian democracy. While the government’s actions have been condemned by human rights experts and courts alike, we argue it is arguably reflective of a worrying wider trend in the EU of the impotence of the law to secure human rights for migrants.

17. Januar 2024

, , , ,

Managed Violence

In its application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa seeks a ceasefire as a provisional measure. However, after the oral arguments, it seems rather unlikely that the entire scope of the provisional measures will be granted. This post seeks to offer some preliminary reflections on what a “softer” provisional measure would mean for the law and politics of the “genocide” category. Initially, such measures would slightly complicate predictions on whether and how Israel will comply, and how it will manage ramifications for its reputation. More importantly, I suggest that such provisional measures would almost inevitably position the Court, for the duration of the proceedings, in a position of quasi-bureaucratic governance. I call this counter-genocidal governance. As shown in other national security contexts, such judicial governance is a double-edged sword. While moderating certain aspects of state violence, it may legitimate others.

15. Januar 2024

, ,