Search

This study highlights the legal aspects of the right to freedom of opinion in Jordan after the issuance of Jordan's Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2023. First, it discusses the concept of freedom of opinion in theory. Second, it highlights the protection of human rights and its impact on States. Third, it shows how States might limit the protection of freedom of opinion by criminalising cyber activities. This study relies on descriptive and analytical approaches to describe freedom of opinion and analyse its legal basis in accordance with national and international legal rules. It uses a case study of Jordan by analysing the Jordanian Cybercrime Law and its impact on the right to freedom of opinion. This study argues that Jordan's 2023 Cybercrime Law imposes stricter penalties on perpetrators of acts classified as cybercrime, exceeds the general rules in the penal code, and expands the scope of crimes related to freedom of opinion. The study produces several recommendations, the most important of which is that restrictions on the freedom of cyber activities in Jordan must comply with international obligations and that there is a need to amend the Cybercrime Law to conform to these obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law regarding the protection of the right to property, in particular the permitted limitations of this right, the relevant practice of international human rights courts and international criminal tribunals, the connection between the institution of derogation and the law of armed conflicts, as well as problematic issues of the protection of the right to property damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The author considers the provisions of some international treaties, which provide for the protection of the right to own property in peacetime, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights related to the violation of the right of applicants to own their property in accordance with Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with an international armed conflict or a situation of occupation. The author also analyzes the provisions of some sources of international humanitarian law regarding property as an object that must be protected during armed conflicts, in particular in occupied territories, and also provides examples of cases of international criminal tribunals, in whose decisions the destruction of property was recognized as a component of crimes against humanity. The author examines the question of the relationship between the sources of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the context of the protection of the right to peaceful possession of property. The peculiarities of the institution of derogation in the context of the right to property in the conditions of an international armed conflict are analyzed. Ukraine's derogation from its obligations under international human rights treaties, including the right to peaceful possession of property, in the conditions of russian armed aggression, is studied. In addition, in the context of the armed conflict between Ukraine and russia, the objects of property rights and the interested subjects of the right to property, which is violated or limited as a result of military operation, are singled out, and the collective dimension of the right to property, which was damaged during the russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, was investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is crucial for the exercise of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, a binding human rights norm, as it provides them with the opportunity to determine how their lands and resources are developed. While numerous companies have committed to respecting FPIC in their corporate policies, there continues to be a huge disconnect between public rhetoric and actions on the ground, and indigenous peoples generally struggle to have a meaningful voice in decision-making processes that concern them. Even if the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP, 2011) have compelled companies to gain ground with regards to their responsibility to respect human rights, the 'do-no-harm' principle does not require them to take positive actions towards fulfilling human rights. This approach is inconsistent with the moral foundation of human rights, which implies duties, and does not account for the substantial economic and political power that increases companies' potential as guarantors of human rights. Based on the normative and moral legitimacy sustaining the narrative on corporate human rights obligations and the political, moral and legal imperative behind FPIC, this article asserts that companies have a normative obligation to observe FPIC, which they ought to operationalise in the context of heightened requirements regarding their human rights due diligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the obligation of States to co-operate as a duty that stems from two different areas of international law. First, States are obliged to co-operate under the law of State responsibility, the aim of co-operation within this framework being to bring to an end serious breaches of peremptory norms. The second area is international human rights law and, in particular, the European (ECHR) and the American Conventions on Human Rights (ACHR), as these instruments have been interpreted by the respective regional human rights courts to encompass a procedural obligation for States to co-operate with a view to protect human rights. The paper asks whether the obligation to cooperate, as constructed by the two regional human rights courts, has any overlap with the obligation to cooperate under the law of State responsibility, and, if yes, whether it can and does cross-fertilise the interpretation of the latter. The analysis of the relevant case law provides two affirmative answers. First, there is common space between the obligations to cooperate under the law of State responsibility, the ECHR, and the ACHR. Second, analysis also identifies certain features in the relevant human rights case law that enrich the obligation to co-operate under the law of State responsibility. These features are the effectiveness in the protection of the most fundamental norms and interpretation of the duty to cooperate through systemic integration. Systemic integration is necessary to concretise the conduct States are expected to develop as the obligation to cooperate refers to a rather open list of relevant rules of international law applicable to that State. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies the architecture of the justiciability of the right to a healthy environment, analysing the contribution of national and international regimes in climate litigation. It argues that neither the former nor the latter alone can currently offer a fully implementable set of remedies to the catastrophic consequences of environmental degradation. In all the cases, collectiveness is a parameter that needs to be taken into consideration, and which is shaping the way most of successful environmental claims are framed. This calls for a reflection on what courts can contribute, and maybe also if they should contribute at all, in the absence of explicit political will in the form of a specific binding treaty. It is concluded that through the interaction between domestic and international courts we can envisage a full coverage of the rights involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UN undertakes numerous human rights activities. Various UN entities have been established solely to promote and protect human rights, such as the Human Rights Council and the human rights treaty bodies. Others, such as the Security Council, have mandates intrinsically connected to human rights. Furthermore, a variety of UN specialized agencies, programmes and funds work in areas associated with human rights. However, the work these entities undertake lacks coordination. In his 2020 Call to Action, UN Secretary-General António Guterres spoke of the need to enhance 'synergies between human rights and all pillars of the work of the United Nations' and encouraged the use of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process as a way of doing so. Furthermore, one of the 'principles' of UPR is that it should 'complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanisms'. There has been little exploration of the extent to which UPR does, in fact, complement the UN's other work in human rights. This article seeks to fill that gap. Drawing on data from the first three cycles of UPR, it demonstrates the extent to which states have complemented UN efforts to protect and promote human rights in UPR recommendations. Building on these empirical observations, it explores how UPR recommendations could be used to further coordinate and reinforce the UN's human rights work by avoiding generic references to the UN, expanding their focus beyond the 'core' UN human rights bodies to engage with the work of all UN entities, and encouraging engagement with all aspects of a particular entity's mandate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atrocities do not happen in a vacuum and incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence is one of their main drivers – offline and now online. But states continue to disagree about how to deal with inciting speech. Under international law, there is much debate about whether obligations to prohibit incitement, such as the one found in Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, applies universally to all states. This article finds common ground in the overlooked human right to be free from incitement to discrimination, reflected in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and binding on all states under customary international law. It gives rise to common but differentiated responsibilities to refrain from and protect individuals and groups from different forms of incitement. In the digital age, this right can be protected by a range of online content governance measures that this article explores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of Black Lives Matter movement protests in Summer 2020, questions were raised both within and outside of academic circles about the treatment of black and nonwhite people more broadly at the hands of state and global infrastructure. This discussion has long-pervaded critical legal circles, with eminent theorists such as Crenshaw identifying the fundamental inequalities faced by non-white people within the legal system. When considered from a global perspective, the international human rights law (hereafter IHRL) paradigm can be seen as no different. With theorists largely identifying its founding document as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereafter UDHR), assertions have been made as to the colonialist, neoliberalist foundations of the paradigm. It is logical to identify these features as inherited in later treaties and the broader human rights paradigm springing therefrom. Said hereditary features in the IHRL paradigm function to subordinate the poorest non-white people globally and within nations: whilst simultaneously protecting rights originating from Western, white, and neoliberal actors. The racial injustice within IHRL will be examined from multi-layered perspectives: first, spotlighting the UDHR as the point at which racial injustice was conceived, analysing its authors, conceptual scope, and form. Then, examining the way racial injustice subsequently germinated: through subsequent development of the system of IHRL – across treaties and regional development and enforcement. In turn, this has led to many non-white people and non-Western nations being unconscious of and distant from their human rights: unaware of their scope and unlikely to assert them. I then turn to human rights consciousness as a means to redesign human rights: arguing this can be achieved by combining human rights education with a specific, public acknowledgement of racial injustice inherent in IHRL paradigm by the UN. Moving towards publicly confronting the institutionalised racism within IHRL would encourage, not dissuade, non-white people to re-design IHRL concepts within their communities. I advocate for historical and institutional accountability as well as transparency, to encourage conceptual collaboration to redesign IHRL within the image and active participation of those its current form undermines.

It is indicated that the problems of the interaction of international humanitarian law and international human rights law lie in the different historical origins, evolution and application of these two branches of law. The complexity of the interaction between the IHL and the ICRC lies in their extraterritorial action and different personal spheres of application. IHL undeniably applies to international and non-international armed conflicts, regulating the conduct of states and armed groups, while the IHL is recognized as the basis of law in peacetime, but also applies in periods of conflict. Finding the points of intersection between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in the context of armed conflicts is the main objective of this section. The merger of these two legal fields, traditionally divided into separate areas of responsibility in peacetime and wartime, has gained unprecedented importance in the legal analysis of modern conflicts. The impetus for the development of the new paradigm was the rapid evolution of the nature of war, characterized by the emergence of asymmetric warfare and the blurring of the boundaries between state and nonstate actors. Such transformations in the theater of war require a nuanced understanding of the legal instruments used in this context, which emphasizes the need for this analysis. The urgency of the issue is emphasized by the changing dynamics of international practice. The recognition by the International Court of Justice of the continued applicability of IHRL in conflict and the definition of IHL as lex specialis emphasizes that the legal landscape is in constant flux. At the heart of this analysis is the difficulty of determining the applicability of IHL, a task that is complicated by the problems of classifying conflicts as international or non-international. The principle of derogation - whereby states may temporarily suspend certain human rights obligations - creates an additional layer of complexity, affecting the interpretation and application of laws during armed conflict. Many provisions of international human rights conventions define the protected interest and then provide that any restrictions must be justified by reference to a list of aims, which varies from article to article and treaty to treaty, that are necessary for the achievement of the aim in question and are proportionate to its achievement. In this way, the IHRL provides a mechanism for balancing the requirements of individuals with those of others or the community itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the critical issue of detainee protection in the complex landscape of contemporary non-international armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. It examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, highlighting the challenges in their application and interpretation. The article delves into the contemporary challenges faced in protecting detainees, including the involvement of non-state armed groups, extraterritorial detention practices, administrative detention, and the impact of counterterrorism measures. It proposes a multifaceted approach to enhancing detainee protection, encompassing strategies for strengthening compliance with the legal framework, addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and promoting best practices and capacity-building. The article argues that a comprehensive and contextualised approach, grounded in the principles of humanity and human dignity, is essential to effectively safeguard the rights and well-being of detainees in these challenging contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the study of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a hypothetical court of human rights. Two questions guide the theoretical reflection and aim of this study: first, can the activities of the Court be viewed through the paradigm of human rights, and second, can the ICJ be considered a functional court of human rights? To answer these questions, the broad concept of a "court of human rights" is used, which refers to an institutionalized judicial mechanism intended to take necessary legal measures to record relevant human rights violations and to protect and restore such rights, regardless of who may be the claimant in such a case (a state or a person). The study demonstrates that it is appropriate to consider the activities of the ICJ through the paradigm of human rights, as evidenced by the Court's jurisprudence and numerous academic studies in the West. However, after analyzing the relevant arguments and counterarguments, the assumption that the Court can be regarded as a court of human rights is refuted. While many human rights conventions assign a special role to the ICJ in resolving disputes, human rights have never been the sole object of dispute in these proceedings; instead, they have always been part of an interstate dispute. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly shown an ambiguous attitude towards methods of recording violations of human rights conventions, fact-finding methodology in such cases, and criteria for compensating victims of such violations, which has not contributed to the protection of human rights in relevant cases. The article also emphasizes the importance of the human factor in shaping the Court's jurisprudence and expresses hope for an evolution of quality in the ICJ's treatment of human rights, should a majority of judges adopt a human-centred approach to international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Supreme Court of Justice recently overturned the precedents that legalized abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. This article analyzes whether this decision is consistent with the current status of abortion as established in International Human Rights Law (IHRL), according to its classical sources (treaties and customary law). Since no treaty includes a right to abortion and there is no consistent practice among states to legalize abortion, various soft law instruments are discussed to clarify the consensus on this issue. These instruments include the agreements reached at the World Population Conferences, the Fourth World Conference on Women of 1995, and the pronouncements and case law of human rights mechanisms (treaty monitoring bodies and regional courts). This analysis shows that the arguments and conclusions in the Dobbs case are consistent with what states have agreed to internationally on the matter.

The problem of human rights protection is particularly acute during armed conflicts, when the most widespread and serious human rights violations occur. International humanitarian law is a reliable tool for countering such violations, specifically through the implementation of its norms alongside the European Convention on Human Rights in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of this study was to make some generalisations about the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights to determining the relationship and correlation between the European Convention on Human Rights and inter- national human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the limits and conditions of application of international humanitarian law by the European Court of Human Rights. The study employed a combination of methods of cognition to collect, analyse, and interpret information, namely: documentary, statistical, legal, historical, and critical. The chosen methodology ensures the objectivity and reliability of the study. The study was based on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, which examine, analyse, and apply international humanitarian law, as well as on academic publications, recommendations and explanations of international institutions, experts, and human rights organisations regarding the relationship between inter- national human rights law, the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law, and the possibility of their simultaneous application. The study summarised a range of legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, which helped to identify the principal approaches and trends in the applica- tion of international humanitarian law in the consideration of complaints of human rights violations in armed conflicts, including the expansion of the practice of applying international humanitarian law, strengthening the protection of human rights in armed conflict, and attention to new challenges associated with armed conflicts. The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that it contributes to a better understanding of international humanitarian law and the legal positions of the Court, and to the development of additional mechanisms for ensuring respect for human rights and international humanitarian law

Climate litigation against states is increasingly based on international human rights law. As a result, more climate cases are filed at international human rights courts and treaty bodies. Strict standing requirements pose significant hurdles, however, for individuals and communities to access such courts and treaty bodies, especially for those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This article argues that an intersectional perspective aids in overcoming procedural hurdles and can help international and regional human rights courts and treaty bodies to provide access to justice in climate cases, thus enforcing international human rights standards. Intersectionality unveils how climate change exacerbates pre-existing injustices and how society's most vulnerable are structurally hit the hardest by climate change. It thus offers courts a more complete view of the impact of the climate crisis on human rights. Moreover, it illuminates how certain individuals are particularly affected by the climate crisis, aiding them in meeting standing requirements such as victim status and individual concern requirements. Examining recent cases brought on by generational groups, the article illustrates how intersectionality uncovers how the intersection of age and climate make certain generations particularly susceptible to climate change-induced human rights violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ASBU Law Journal is the property of Social Sciences University of Ankara and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The potential of the principle of solidarity as an interpretative guide for the realisation of ESCR has, to date, been largely overlooked. Solidarity mediates between the individual and the community, and it has a collective dimension in relation to both burden- and benefit-sharing. The recognition of ESCR creates not only positive legal obligations on the state but also civic responsibilities on individuals to contribute, within their means, to the progressive realisation of ESCR. While the state is ultimately accountable for making progress on ESCR, taking these rights seriously will have implications for individual rights and responsibilities. We argue in this article that the principle of solidarity within society underpins ESCR as a whole and is essential for achieving sustainable progress on ESCR. This is because their progressive realisation requires not only that states' legal obligations are fulfilled but also that individual and collective contributions are made for the common good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though inter-state forced displacement is heavily concentrated in the Third World and predominantly constituted of massive migration flows linked to objective and structural socio-economic factors, the protection provided by International Refugee Law remains based on a liberal Euro- and state-centric definition of refugees, culminating in a de facto exclusion of the great majority of the world's refugees. This article advocates the need to conceptually challenge the 1951 Convention refugee definition, proposing the Cartagena Declaration as a Third World human rights alternative to it. The delegitimization of the socio-economic refugee sustains and is sustained by the Western liberal and state-centric logic under which International Refugee Law functions. The recognition of socio-economic rights per se as a basis for refugee status under the Cartagena Declaration constitutes a rupture with that dysfunctional logic. Consequently, the Cartagena 'Spirit' provides, in theory, a comprehensive and up-to-date human rights refugee protection regime capable of encompassing all types of refugees. To materialise the discussion, the article critically analyses the Brazilian application of the Cartagena refugee definition to Venezuelan socio-economic refugees. It concludes that the Brazilian approach does not fully materialise the Cartagena 'Spirit' radical potential, putting into question the 'Spirit' practical feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency granted the first regulatory approval for genome therapy for sickle cell disease. This approval brings hope to those suffering from this debilitating genetic disease. However, several barriers may hinder global patient access, including high treatment costs, obtaining informed consent for minors, inadequate public health infrastructure, and insufficient regulatory oversight. These barriers reflect the structural inequalities inherent in global health governance, where patient access often depends on social and institutional arrangements. This article addresses concerns around informed consent, treatment costs, and patient access, and proposes corresponding policy reforms. We argue that these discussions should be framed within a broader global context that considers social and institutional structures, global research priorities, and a commitment to health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' judgment in Manuela and Others v El Salvador represents a missed opportunity for advancing abortion access and sexual and reproductive health and rights in international human rights law (IHRL). Even though this case is representative of the multiple human right violations arising from El Salvador's complete criminalisation of abortion and active prosecution of those suspected of having had the procedure, the Court shied away from engaging in a critique of El Salvador's abortion legislation. Instead, it focused on issues relating to pre-trial detention, due process, and medical confidentiality. Despite growing consensus in IHRL that abortion must be decriminalised at a minimum in certain circumstances; indications that the inter-American human rights system subscribes to this position; and extensive evidence that El Salvador's abortion legislation is resulting in human rights violations, the Court failed to use this judgment to articulate a clear and assertive position on the need for abortion access to realise sexual and reproductive health and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to be present at trial is under threat following the decision of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals' Trial Chamber to continue proceedings against Félicien Kabuga after finding him mentally unfit to stand trial. The Trial Chamber opted instead to hold an "alternative finding procedure", resembling a trial as closely as possible, albeit without the possibility of concluding with a verdict. This article engages with that decision through the lens of whether this approach complies with the accused's right to be present at trial. It concludes that the proceedings would be little more than a de facto trial that does not adequately respect the accused's right to be present. It also finds that should other international criminal courts and tribunals follow a similar approach the right to be present would be deprived of any real meaning. This could also, in turn, threaten overall fairness of the proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Legal & Comparative Jurisprudence Studies (LCJS) / Mağallaẗ al-Duwaliyyaẗ Li-&-Dirāsāt al-Qānūniyyaẗ Wa-al-Fiqhiyyaẗ al-Muqāranaẗ is the property of Refaad for Studies, Research & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, I will examine the legal standards of gender persecution and the evolving descriptor gender apartheid as a way to describe the status of women in Afghanistan. The paper also examines other complementary forms of legal accountability procedures to vindicate Afghan women’s rights and hold perpetrators accountable under crimes against humanity. Although the current locus of the paper is focused on Afghan women, it has larger implications for all other crimes of gender persecution.

This paper clarifies how human rights and refugee rights are protected by international human rights legislation. It explains the background of human rights principles and refugee legislation. Human rights breaches continue to be a threat to refugees' safe return, having historically played a significant factor in their departure. The essay demonstrates how human rights and refugee law are both protected by international human rights law. Publications on human rights and refugee law as well as relevant resources can be located on numerous academic websites using the secondary data collecting method. Between 2019 and 2024, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct have been used to conduct literature searches. Selected secondary data make clear that refugee protection must drastically change to focus more on problem solving. The study's findings clarify that, in contrast to international human law, which is only relevant in times of armed conflict, human rights law is always applicable, regardless of whether there is a state of peace or war. Based on the findings of this study, it is concluded that a human-rights based interpretation of refugee law implies that it is time to make a concerted effort to balance receiving states' legitimate interests with the ongoing need of refugees to be guaranteed access to safety and a dignified existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International criminal law (ICL) has traditionally overlooked sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and struggles to understand it. Prosecutions have been largely inefficient and not reflective of gender harms. The Rome Statute requires interpreting SGBV as a social construction (article 7(3)), in consistency with international human rights law (IHRL) and without discrimination (article 21(3)). There is, however, little guidance to implement these approaches. This article argues that intersectionality, an IHRL-based approach that reveals compounded discrimination, is an efficient tool to interpret SGBV and, therefore, should be integrated in ICL. The article traces the origins of intersectionality in feminism and its recognition by IHRL dealing with violence against women. It establishes the applicability of intersectionality in ICL that it demonstrates with a comparative analysis of the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases. The findings show that intersectionality suits ICL's specific needs which allows labelling and explaining some of those contributions throughout the judicial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding universities' many laudable aims, incidents of serious bullying, academic harassment and sexual harassment in academic settings are reported with increasing regularity globally. However, the human rights violations involved in bullying and academic harassment have not received attention by the literature. In this article, we pierce the veil of silence surrounding university environments and provide a systematic account of the breaches of international and European human rights law involved in academic bullying and harassment. By adopting a socio-legal lens, we shed light onto such practices and tactics, the breaches of specific human rights and norms and the reluctance of states and regulators to intervene in what is perceived to be universities' 'sovereign' sphere of jurisdiction in order to prevent human rights' violations and to protect the victims of human rights abuse. We call for a multi-faceted and multi-agency approach to tackle academic bullying and harassment, and make a number of institutional and policy recommendations to ensure universities' compliance with human rights standards and the effective protection of academics under attack. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will examine the legal standards of gender persecution and the evolving descriptor gender apartheid as a way to describe the status of women in Afghanistan. The paper also examines other complementary forms of legal accountability procedures to vindicate Afghan women's rights and hold perpetrators accountable under crimes against humanity. Although the current locus of the paper is focused on Afghan women, it has larger implications for all other crimes of gender persecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The climate crisis will continue to affect human and natural systems across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Undoubtedly, this jeopardizes entire communities' enjoyment of human rights. In that context, the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) is expected to respond, particularly since its organs have jurisdiction to order remedies over most LAC countries, provided they determine a rights violation. Despite the growing number of domestic human rights-based climate cases in the region, the organs of the IAHRS have yet to adjudicate and order remedies in a case concerning the climate crisis. Against this backdrop, this article inquires how to understand climate remedies from a political ecology perspective to capture the LAC climate litigation experience. Additionally, the article asks what the challenges of implementing such remedies may be. To answer these questions, first, it compares the remedial approaches of domestic courts in six finally decided climate-related cases with those of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in 'anti-extractivist' cases. Second, it applies a political ecology lens to understand the elements that might hinder the implementation of the identified remedies. The article argues that the socioeconomic cost for States largely determines remedial compliance in domestic climate litigation and the IACtHR's anti-extractivist litigation. Ultimately, the aim is to anticipate the future of climate remedies and their effectiveness at the IACtHR based on present climate litigation in LAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After reducing their humanitarian presence at sea, States have begun to interfere with Search and Rescue (SAR) operations led by NGOs aimed to render assistance to migrants in distress. In Italy, the recent Law-Decree 1/2023 on NGOs' SAR activities constitutes an important development grounding States' efforts to interfere with activists' operations. In this article, I first describe the practices of delay and/or denial of disembarkation that Italy has implemented. Second, I consider whether these strategies stemming from national legislation are compliant with the State's international obligations under the law of the sea. I show how the law of the sea provides some regulation but also leaves crucial gaps which amplify the State's discretion in interpreting legal duties. Third, I assess how the new Law interferes with the rights of rescuers. I conclude that Italy's interference with the human rights of rescuers operating at sea is not fully compliant with international legal obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Süleyman Demirel Law Review / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Telos is the property of Revista Telos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The surge in international sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marks a new development in international law in general and international investment law in particular. This article examines this recent development and the interplay between international sanctions and international investment law. Furthermore, the article discusses whether investment tribunals will rely on WTO jurisprudence when applying 'essential security' provisions in individual cases. By providing an examination of sanctions laws in the context of international investment law, the article highlights the complex dynamic between the right of states to limit investments on the basis of national security vis-á-vis the right of investors to enjoy investment protection as prescribed in numerous International Investment Agreements (IIAs). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foreign shareholders can avail themselves of legal protection under three different legal regimes: diplomatic protection, international investment law and international human rights law. Adopting a historic and comparative approach, this article tracks the faded role of diplomatic protection for protecting shareholders. It identifies the legal instruments that protect shareholders under international investment law and international human rights law, and examines how each regime protects shareholders to assess whether there is a genuine conflict in terms of protection. It uses the nationalization of the British bank Northern Rock as a case study to demonstrate the differing levels of protection each regime provides. Investment law gives shareholders the greatest protection: it protects a wider range of shareholders and, critically, allows shareholders to claim for reflective loss. While there is no genuine conflict, investment law and human rights provide remarkably different levels of protection to shareholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Introduction to this Special Issue gives an overview of the contributions that were gathered after the Conference 'International Human Rights and International Economic Law: Interfaces, Challenges, Visions' that took place in Vienna, in November 2022. The contributions explore the numerous interfaces between International Human Rights Law and International Economic Law which have become particularly evident in present times, among others, due to an increasingly interconnected economy, in light of the climate crisis, and as a consequence of the distortions caused by Russia's aggression against Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real estate prices in the 2020s reached record figures for purchases in the Republic of Croatia, Europe and beyond, and with the increase in real estate prices on the market, apartment rents also rose. The cost of living is extremely high, loans are more and more expensive and unattainable, interest rates are high, recession and inflation dominate, all of which affects real estate prices that are too high for an increasing number of citizens. The focus of the work is not the most vulnerable groups of the population who already live below the poverty line and are fully exposed to state and social assistance, but mid-income groups who are often unjustifiably ignored on the scale of those whose rights to housing are threatened. The paper contributes to the understanding of the problem of affordable housing, the terminological determination and definition of the term affordable housing, but also the clarification of the specific international legal obligations of states regarding the realization of the right to affordable housing, and the providing a basis for innovative legal solutions and models for realizing affordable housing in the Republic of Croatia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of international human right treaties is particularly challenging, especially when they entail obligations that apply at the subnational level. In this article, we examine how international law intermediaries translate and use international treaties in subnational policymaking processes. We develop a dedicated analytical framework, and we derive a typology, characterizing different types of intermediaries and systematizing the ways political‐administrative actors use international law at the subnational level. On this basis, our empirical analysis shows how the implementation of a crucial treaty—the Istanbul Convention (IC) on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—is shaped by subnational actors and eventually used in policy processes in Swiss cantons. International law is seen not only as a constraint but also as an opportunity and a resource that can be mobilized for different purposes by a variety of intermediaries, including local public officials, MPs, and members of civil society organizations, in collaboration and sometimes in competition with each other. Specifically, our findings indicate that international law intermediaries use these treaties through bottom‐up dynamics of engagement according to their agenda and interests and their anticipation of what they can do in their cantonal context, resulting in iterative chains of intermediation. Furthermore, we observe a blurring of the boundaries between rule‐makers, intermediaries, and targets, that is, the same actors may perform different roles in a given policy process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently in June 2022, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict expressed that the ongoing use and recruitment of children in armed conflict globally warrants "international concern". Notwithstanding the existence of proscriptive norms in terms of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), international legal violations are nevertheless committed by states and non-state actors. A systematic analysis of the respective normative systems identifies a lacuna between specific provisions thereof. Consequently, violations are committed in armed conflicts for the purposes of IHRL but not IHL, it is contended that this inconsistency in the law perpetuates ongoing child soldiering. It is further contended that this inconsistency establishes a genus of children who are legally unprotected as they fall between the cracks of international law. Based on recent progressive jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, an approach which will bridge the lacuna between these norms is proposed. Contrary to the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross and with due consideration for the lex specialis principle, it is proposed that the IHL and IHRL instruments should apply in a complementary fashion, as opposed to the separate legal regimes under which they have developed.

The article concerns the convergence of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law and human rights law converge and permeate each other because both these disciplines of public international law are founded on natural law. Although international humanitarian law constitutes a lex specialis, the general rules on the interpretation of treaties clearly indicate that international human rights law must be interpreted in the context of other rules of international law, and its derogations, if any, must be compatible with other international obligations of the state, including with humanitarian law. Where a conflict arises between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the mechanism for resolving conflicts between norms has been supplemented by the International Court of Justice by applying an interpretation based on the principle of systemic integration, resulting in the “humanization” of international humanitarian law. As regards the application of universal and regional instruments of international human rights law, we face a “humanization” of them. That is why more and more attention is paid in practice to the complementarity of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and this is confirmed in United Nations discussions and resolutions on the situation in armed conflicts.

This paper discusses the practice of court interpreting in Rwanda. It examines the existing legal framework for court interpreters, their practical and professional challenges as well as the strategies towards improving court interpreting practice. Using qualitative methods, this study identified a number of challenges including the selection of court interpreters, the equipment used in court interpreting, the language proficiency of court interpreters, misconceptions of the general public towards court interpreters as well as lengthy court proceedings. The paper further shows the consequences of using unprofessional interpreters, which include miscarriage of justice due to inaccurate interpretation or delayed proceedings. The paper argues, therefore, that Rwanda needs professional court interpreters who are not only equipped with the required skills in judicial interpretation through high level training and qualification in relevant fields but who also demonstrate a high command of court working languages. It is also suggested that in order to comply with the legal standards of international human rights law, Rwandan Judiciary should equip its courts with adequate facilities and equipment for interpreters.

The unambiguous incorporation of international human rights into many national constitutions demonstrates that legal systems throughout the world are becoming increasingly open to customary international law. Although there is still much disagreement on the "universality" of human rights, most courts across the globe accept the more easily defendable IHRL principles, such as the right to life and freedom and the prohibition of torture. The propensity of national courts, especially in dualist systems like Bangladesh's, to view international human rights legislation as being purely ‘inspirational’ or ‘persuasive’ remains, despite the fact that international law-based judicial thought and activity appear to be on the rise. This paper puts out this argument against the background of recent developments in the use of IHRL principles in Bangladeshi courts. The paper also attempts to evaluate the judicial standpoint, both progressive and conservative, in referencing IHRL by briefly referencing prevailing theories impacting the domestic implementation of international law, discussing the status of IHRL in the Constitution of Bangladesh, and looking at relevant case law.

Dr Marja Lehto is Ambassador for International Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, and Adjunct Professor of International Law at the University of Helsinki. She was a member of the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) and served as the Special Rapporteur for the topic "Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts" from 2017 to 2022. Dr Lehto is also a member of the Council of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law since 2019. She has formerly served, inter alia , as Legal Adviser to the Finnish UN Mission in New York (1995–2000), as Head of the Unit for Public International Law (2000–09), and as Finland's Ambassador to Luxembourg (2009–14). For most of her career, she has worked on issues related to international peace and security, including international criminal justice and international humanitarian law (IHL), and she has published on a broad range of international legal questions related to the law of the sea, international environmental law (IEL), State succession, use of force, armed conflicts, terrorism and cyber security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]