Search

The territorial integrity of States has come to be accepted as a fundamental principle of international law. The secession of a region from an existing State will be accepted in very special circumstances, but the acquisition of a territory that is included within the national borders of a State is strictly prohibited. The territorial integrity of Palestine is the central theme of this Article. The establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestine and the construction of a wall/fence by Israel within Palestinian territories has been condemned in terms of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, respectively. In January 2020, former President of the United States, Donald Trump, with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by his side, announced a "peace plan" in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that will constitute a "win-win opportunity for both sides." The "peace plan" included Israeli control of a unified Jerusalem as its capital, the annexation of Palestinian land with the Jordan River as its Eastern border, and sovereignty of Israel over Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. It is argued that the Trump/Netanyahu proposal is not a "peace plan" since Palestinian authorities were not included in its design and that the taking of Palestinian land by Israel clearly constitutes a blatant violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine. Palestine has been recognized as a State by 138 Member States of the United Nations, has been admitted as a Member State of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and although the Prosecutor of the ICC has raised certain concerns about the territorial confines of Palestine, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC recently decided that its territorial jurisdiction extends over the entire Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay focuses on the circumstances that international criminal courts must consider in determining an appropriate sentence following the conviction of an accused. Topics covered include the significance of classifying all factors that have a bearing on the severity of a sentence as either aggravating or extenuating circumstances, the confusion in the jurisprudence of international tribunals and the basic norm of criminal justice reflected in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This Article is focused on efforts to accommodate, within the confines of international humanitarian law, militant responses to acts of cross-border terror violence, as exemplified in most recent times by atrocities committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and its successor, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Since World War I (1914-1918), the international community of States sought to commit itself to settle international disputes by peaceful means and not through the power of the sword. The Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter) seemingly confined legitimate armed interventions to those authorized by the Security Council to bring to an end situations that constitute a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression (Article 42), and instances of self-defense where a Member State has been attacked (Article 51). However, over time jus ad bellum has extended legitimate armed interventions well beyond the confines of the U.N. Charter to also include armed interventions authorized by the General Assembly in very special circumstances--wars of liberation, pre-emptive self-defense action, and humanitarian intervention. It has also come to be accepted that a government confronted by insurgents can invite other States to come to its assistance. Iraq has indeed done so, and therefore the airstrikes against ISIS strongholds by, for example, American forces in Iraq, are lawful under the norms and customs of contemporary international humanitarian law. However, the United States has also launched airstrikes against al-Qaeda and ISIS targets in Syria while not having been requested by the Syrian government to do so. In order to afford legality to those airstrikes, members of the Obama Administration have proposed a new rule of humanitarian law, the "unwilling or unable rationale," proclaiming that armed forces of State A can take military action against terrorist groups located in State B if the government of State B is either unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being a launching pad for acts of terror violence. Although some proponents of the unwilling or unable rationale attempted to bring the legality of such military action within the confines of self-defense action or humanitarian intervention, this Article argues that the unwilling or unable rationale does not fit the standard conditions of legitimate self-defense or the essential objectives of humanitarian intervention. The Article concludes that the unwilling or unable rationale is a new norm of jus ad bellum in the making. A side issue of the Article addresses the question of why spokespersons of the Obama Administration persist in referring to ISIL in spite of the fact that the organization in June 2014 changed its name to ISIS. It is noted that al-Qaeda was part of ISIL but is not part of ISIS, that the Obama Administration did not receive congressional approval for the airstrikes in the Middle East, and that the Obama Administration relies on congressional approval of the post 9/11 war against terror that was focused on the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq to afford constitutional legality to the airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Since al-Qaeda was part of ISIL but not of ISIS, referring to ISIL is most likely intended to bring these airstrikes within the reach of the congressional approvals of yesteryear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the traditional and constitutional principle of sphere sovereignty of religious institutions in Germany. It analyzes the judgments of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and their impact on the internal sphere sovereignty of churches in Germany. It also informs that the status of churches and other religious institutions in Germany is administrated by the Church Clauses in the Weimar Constitution of August 11, 1919.

An obituary for law professor David J. Bederman is presented.

An essay is presented on developments of international environmental law in the U.S. It highlights the Stockholm Declaration that stressed the need to protect the heritage of wildlife and its habitat and safeguard natural resources of the earth. It discusses the environmental provisions that reflects a developing international consciousness and a sense of responsibility which forms and declares the rules of customary international law.

The article analyzes the conformations of religious liberty in South Africa. According to the author, the political transformation of the state in 1994 to democratic society brought about radical changes in regard to almost every aspect of freedom of religion or belief. He notes that, as far as religion and religious diversity are concerned, the current Constitution can be described,, as one of profound toleration and accommodation. Other matters that have some relevance are also discussed.

The article focuses on the ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is based on a package of reservations, understanding and declarations (RUD) in the U.S. Senate. The ratification has been connected to the enactment of the 1988 Genocide Convention Implementation Act which prohibits genocide. The laws which prosecute perpetrators of genocide or those who commits crime against the international community are explored.

The article reports on the observance of legal obligations of state parties to the convention on the rights of the child base on the South African Model. It is vital for state parties to acknowledge the inherent right to life of every child and to give the needs for the development of the child. Among the rights of the child includes the right of the child to a name and a nationality from birth, fight against the unlawful transfer and non-return of children from abroad.

Deals with international laws on limitations of freedom of religion or belief. General directives of religious freedom; Several international instruments that deal with the religious rights of the child; Restrictions on the right to self-determination of people.

The article focuses on morality, human rights and foundations of the law. But not all rights are "human rights" within the meaning of the doctrine of human rights. Human rights are essentially confined to those rights that transcend, and are protected against, the exercise of political power. Human rights within that meaning are thus essentially the flipside of the limitation of the legislative and executive powers vested in the repositories of state authority. The essence of the legal idea is justice, which in one of its many manifestations requires persons in authority to apply political power to protect the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons under their domain.