Suchergebnisse
Filter
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 115, Heft 1, S. 107-114
ISSN: 2161-7953
In Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to dismiss a series of customary international law claims brought by Eritrean refugees against a Canadian mining corporation for grave human rights abuses committed in Eritrea. In doing so, the Supreme Court opened the possibility of a novel front for transnational human rights litigation: common law tort claims based on customary international law. Under the doctrine of adoption, customary international law is directly incorporated into the Canadian common law. However, Canadian courts have not yet upheld a private right of action for violations of customary international law. Writing for a divided court (5–4), Justice Abella allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, finding that it is not "plain and obvious" that the plaintiffs' customary international law claims are bound to fail under either Canada's burgeoning "transnational" or "foreign relations" law, or international law itself. In reaching this conclusion, she offered a unique and overdue reflection on the role of national courts in identifying, adopting, and developing custom. A larger majority of the court (7–2) also rejected outright the application of the act of state doctrine in Canada, tracking several common law systems in limiting the doctrine in favor of human rights litigants.
Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya
In: 115 American Journal of International Law, Issue 1, 2020
SSRN
Duties Owed: Low-Intensity Cyber Attacks and Liability for Transboundary Torts in International Law
In: 126 Yale Law Journal, Issue 5
SSRN
Jus ex bello and International Humanitarian Law: States' Obligations When Withdrawing from Armed Conflict
In: International Review of the Red Cross 2021
SSRN
Jus ex bello and international humanitarian law: States' obligations when withdrawing from armed conflict
In: International review of the Red Cross: humanitarian debate, law, policy, action, Band 102, Heft 914, S. 923-958
ISSN: 1607-5889
AbstractThis article considers the international legal obligations relevant to States when withdrawing from situations of armed conflict. While a growing literature has focused on precisely when armed conflicts come to a legal end, as well as obligations triggered by the cessation of active hostilities, comparatively little attention has been paid to the legal implications of withdrawals from armed conflict and the contours of the obligations relevant to States in doing so. Following in the wake of just war scholarship endeavouring to distil jus ex bello principles, this article examines States' obligations when ending their participation in armed conflicts from the perspective of international humanitarian law (IHL). It shows that while it is generally understood that IHL ceases to apply at the end of armed conflict, this is in reality a significant simplification; a number of obligations actually endure. Such rules act as exceptions to the general temporal scope of IHL and continue to govern withdrawing States, in effect straddling the in bello and post bellum phases of armed conflict. The article then develops three key end-of-participation obligations: obligations governing detention and transfer of persons, obligations imposed by Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions, and obligations relating to accountability and the consequences of conflict.