212 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
SYMPOSIUM on REVISITING Israel'S SETTLEMENTS the MISSING ARGUMENT: The ARTICLE THAT CHANGED the COURSE of HISTORY?
In July 1967, one month after Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza
Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, Israel's Military Advocate
General (MAG), Colonel Meir Shamgar, appeared before a Knesset committee to
discuss the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)âs duties in the areas under its
control. Col. Shamgar had led the MAG Corps in the preparations in the event
that a future war would find the army occupying beyond Israel's borders.
Col. Shamgar began his presentation by stating: In terms of the legal background, our point of departure is that we have
to respect both the fundamental pursuits of the State of Israel as its
military forces begin to control an area that has been liberated by the
IDF, and the rules of public international law that apply to the actions
of any military in control of an area that was, until its entry, subject
to the sovereignty of a foreign political entity.The guiding rules in this realm are the rules of public international
law, which are reflected in The Hague Regulations of 1907 ⊠and
in the ⊠Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians
in Times of War.</jats:p
Recommended from our members
Are there any inherently public functions for international law?
In âAre There âInherently Sovereign Functionsâ in International Law?â, FrĂ©dĂ©ric MĂ©gret provides a deeply insightful reflection on âthe essence of the stateâ from the point of view of international law, outlining a theory about the inherently sovereign functions in international law. He carefully identifies existing norms of international law that articulate certain public functions to be performed solely by the state rather than delegating them to private actors. MĂ©gret offers functional and intrinsic rationales, suggesting that individuals have a right to benefit from certain public functions exercised by state authority, such as legislation and adjudication, what perhaps could be termed âthe human right to the state.â In this essay, I suggest that it is indeed possible to derive such demands from the requirements of stable and sustainable governance that are embedded in the concept of sovereign responsibility, as well as from the rights associated with democracy and self-determination. I further argue that MĂ©gret's inquiry can and must be extended also to explore the other side of the coin: the role of international law in facilitating (and possibly limiting) the delegation of public authority to unaccountable international organizations and other global governance bodies.</jats:p
Recommended from our members
The Margin of Appreciation, subsidiarity and global challenges to democracy
Much of the academic debate concerning the function of the Margin of Appreciation (MoA) doctrine is based on the assumption that democracy works more or less well and, therefore, any impugned domestic policy merits respect. The role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should, therefore, be secondary confined to the rare situations when the democratic process fails and the national courts refrain from rescuing it. This debate assumes that the causes of democratic failures are internal, or that domestic decision-making processes are sufficiently resilient to outside pressure. This is obviously wrong, and more so today than in any other time in the history of the modern state. The aim of this essay is to explore these external challenges to democracy and their implications to the role of the ECtHR in protecting human rights. These responses demonstrate the limits of the MoA doctrine and highlight its alternative, subsidiarity, as a superior doctrine to manage the interface between the domestic and the European components of the European human rights regime
Recommended from our members
Beyond the âshamâ critique and the narrative of humanitarianism: A rejoinder to Jochen von Bernstorff
Abstract
We are very grateful to Professor von Bernstorff for taking the trouble to read and comment on our article,1 which is a segment of a larger research project. His feedback will be invaluable in taking this project successfully to its next stage. While we could not address each and every aspect of his critique, the following response addresses four elements: the assertion that we argued that international humanitarian law (IHL) is merely a sham; his description of our historical approach as focused on the domestic; the ramifications of our historical analysis for future interpretation of IHL; and the challenge of oneâs VorverstĂ€ndnis to historical research.</jats:p
Recommended from our members
The WHO - Destined to Fail?: Political Cooperation and the COVID-19 Pandemic
AbstractIn this Essay, I argue that the World Health Organization (WHO) has not been equipped with the necessary authority to adequately fulfill its mission. The WHO was built on the mistaken assumption that attaining adequate global health is a matter of high-level coordination. However, the challenge of global health governance is, crucially, also one of complex political cooperation. I distinguish between different types of cooperation problems faced by the WHO and explain why achieving global health calls for intrusive powers by a governing authorityâpowers that the WHO does not enjoy.</jats:p
Sovereignty and the Politics of Property
The debate whether property is a limit on or the product of sovereignty envisages a tension between âthe individual ownerâ and âthe state.â But âthe stateâ is not more than the aggregate of individuals who define theirs and othersâ property rights through the stateâs political process. The underlying tension between property and sovereignty is thus the tension between the economic market and the political market. Owners and others compete simultaneously at both levels to define, protect or improve the value of property. There are two ways to compete in the political marketplace: by engaging in either âhigh visibility politicsâ or âlow visibility politics.â Diffuse owners rely on high visibility politics promoted by agents such as political parties or trade unions and on elections, referenda and the like, whereas smaller groups of owners prefer the low politics of capturing lawmakers and state executives.
When economic markets became global at the end of the Cold War, so did the political markets: property rights increasingly became defined by international agreements, by decisions of international organizations, and by the exercise of âlow politicsâ in foreign, weaker states. The global political markets were dominated by the executive branches of a handful of relatively strong states that, in turn, were responsive to the âlow politicsâ of special interests. The high transaction costs of cooperation among diffuse owners inhibited the parallel rise of âhigh politicsâ at the global level. The skewed global political market for property continues to favor special interests, but there are budding attempts to reclaim the space for âhigh politicsâ by national regulators and courts. Current negotiations over the so-called âMega Regionalâ agreements between the United States and its trading partners will, if successful, nip these buds as they render certain property rights almost immune to the subsequent challenges of high politics.European Research Council (Advanced Grant ID: 323323
Embracing the tension between national and international human rights law: The case for discordant parity
Individual human rights are secured by both constitutional law and international law. The coexistence of constitutional and international law norms is inevitably a source of conflict: which (if any) provision should have the upper hand? This article argues that the conviction that one system is superior to the other is false. Instead, we embrace competition between constitutional and international norms, what we call the âdiscordant parity hypothesis.â To establish the discordant parity hypothesis, we explore the arguments for the internationalistsâ and for constitutionalistsâ positions. The overriding power of international law is based on the importance of the stateâs publicly recognized duty to protect individual rights. The overriding power of constitutional law stems from its promise to individuals of being the masters of their destiny. Both claims are compelling and we embrace their equal standing and the inevitably resulting conflict. The constant tensions between international norms and state norms are ideally suited to ensure individual liberty.European Research Council Advanced Grant (Grant ID: 323323
The One-State as a Demand of International Law: Jus Cogens
This article provides the initial contours of an argument that uses International Law to challenge the validity of Israeli apartheid. It challenges the conventional discourse of legal debates on Israelâs actions and bordersand seeks to link the illegalities of these actions to the validity of an inbuilt Israeli apartheid. The argument also connects the deontological doctrine of peremptory norms of International Law (jus cogens), the right of self-determination and the International Crime of Apartheid to the doctrine of state recognition. It applies these to the State of Israel and the vision of a single democratic state in historic Palestine
Activism and Legitimation in Israel's Jurisprudence of Occupation
Colonial law need not exclude the colonized in order to subordinate them, and âactivistâ courts can advance the effect of subordination no less than âpassiveâ courts. As a case study, this article examines the jurisprudential legacy of the Israeli Supreme Court in the context of the prolonged Israeli occupation of Palestine. Applying insights from legal realist, law and society, and critical legal studies scholarship, the article questions the utility of using the activist and passive labels. It illustrates how the Israeli activist court, through multiple legal and discursive moves, has advanced and legitimated the colonization of Palestine; that the court is aware of its role; and that arguments that focus on the courtâs informal role do not mitigate this legitimating effect. Unlike other scholars, the article shows that the Israeli courtâs roleâby extending the power of judicial review to the militaryâs actions in the occupied areasâis neither novel nor unique or benevolent, as the British colonization of India and the US colonization of Puerto Rico show
- âŠ