Exploring the Ambiguity of Operation Sophia Between Military and Search and Rescue Activities

Over the past decade, for the purpose of managing the phenomenon of migration by sea, a wide number of different measures have been adopted by the European Union and its Member States. Notwithstanding the persistent need and the legal obligation to save people's lives at sea, Europe remains stocked on the protection of the security of its internal and external borders and goes ahead with the launch of Eunavfor Med--Operation Sophia, the first naval mission aimed to disrupt the business model of migrant smuggling and human trafficking in the Mediterranean. The following chapter examines the factual and legal background behind the establishment of this military mission and focuses on two sensitive and interrelated aspects: the use of enforcement powers against alleged smugglers and traffickers on the one hand and the rescue of irregular migrants at sea on the other hand. While various challenges prevent the activation of the crucial military phase of Operation Sophia, the operational and legal framework applicable to incidental search and rescue interventions carried out by its naval forces appears rather unclear and problematic under different perspectives of international law, especially if the Operation will continue into Libyan territorial waters in cooperation with its unstable authorities

Military Operations and Host-State Consent

Moderator: Myron Nordquist, Stockton Professor of International Law, US Naval War College Panelists: David Wippman, Associate Professor of Law, Cornell Law School Dr. Christine D. Gray, Lecturer in Law, Saint Hilda\u27s College, Oxford Larry D. Johnson, Principal Legal Officer, Office of the Legal Counsel, The United Nation

The International Criminal Court on trial

This article assesses the structure and operation of the International Criminal Court by setting out a case for the defence of the Court, a case for its prosecution and a verdict. Defenders of the Court suggest it has had a positive impact because: it has accelerated moves away from politics and towards ethics in international relations; it goes a long way towards ending impunity; it is a significant improvement on the previous system of ad hoc tribunals; it has positive spill-over effects onto domestic criminal systems; and because the courage of the prosecutor and trial judges has helped to establish the Court as a force to be reckoned with. Opponents of the Court see it as mired in power politics, too reliant on the United Nations Security Council and on state power to be truly independent; failing to bring peace and perhaps even encouraging conflict; and starting to resemble a neo-colonial project rather than an impartial organ of justice. The verdict on the Court is mixed. It has gone some way to ending impunity and it is certainly an improvement on the ad hoc tribunals. However it is inevitably a political body rather than a purely legal institution, its use as a deterrent is as yet unproven and the expectation that it can bring peace as well as justice is unrealistic

Military Operations and Host-State Consent

Moderator: Myron Nordquist, Stockton Professor of International Law, US Naval War College Panelists: David Wippman, Associate Professor of Law, Cornell Law School Dr. Christine D. Gray, Lecturer in Law, Saint Hilda\u27s College, Oxford Larry D. Johnson, Principal Legal Officer, Office of the Legal Counsel, The United Nation