United Nation Bodies (2020)

The article analyses developments relevant to disaster law which occurred within generalist and specialised United Nations (UN) bodies during the course of 2020. In particular, it will address 1) the adoption by the UN Security Council (SC) of Resolution 25321 on the COVID-19 pandemic, through which the Council has for the first time called for a global ceasefire in connection with an international health emergency; 2) the discussion within the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly (GA) on the 2016 Draft Articles (DAs) prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC) on the protection of persons in the event of disasters; and 3) the adoption by UNGA of Resolution 75/216 on ‘Disaster Risk Reduction’. All of the documents analysed provide interesting insights on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the practice of states and international organizations which have had to confront this formidable calamity

Attentati di Parigi: la Francia deroga alla Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo

Il pezzo analizza le misure emergenziali poste in essere dallo stato francesce all'indomani degli attacchi terroristici del novembre 2015, valutandone la legalità alla luce della Convenzione Europea per i Diritti Umani

When climate change and human rights meet: A brief comment on the UN Human Rights Committee’s Teitiota decision

The article explores a decision adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) concerning an individual complaint filed by a citizen of Kiribati - Ioane Teitiota - against New Zealand. The applicant maintained that, due to the devastating effects of climate change on is country of origin, New Zealand should not deport him back to Kiribati, as his right to life would be seriously endangered. While the HRC found in favour of the respondent state, the ruling is considered as a major breakthrough for people displaced by the effects of climate change, as it explicitly acknowledged the possibility that hosting states might have a non-refoulement obligation vis-a-vis individuals fleeing from the consequences of sea-level rise

The ‘2018 Global Compact for Migration’ and the Political and Electoral Rights of Migrants. A missed opportunity?

On 19 December 2018, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 73/195 endorsing the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Global Compact for Migration or GCM). Despite its non-binding status, the GCM has raised strong expectations and attracted criticism on various grounds, much of which has been commented upon elsewhere. One of the most overlooked, yet crucially relevant, aspects is the lack of attention devoted to migrants’ exercise of their political rights. The granting of these rights is an essential tool to both promote inclusion and integration of migrants in the receiving societies and also to ease their future voluntary return to their home countries. The GCM represented a unique occasion to stress the importance of these rights in the interest of both States and the migrants themselves. A closer look at the content of the GCM highlights that, unfortunately, this important opportunity was missed

The Rationale and the Perils of Failing to Invoke State Responsibility for Cyber-Attacks: The Case of the EU Cyber Sanctions

Malicious cyber activities are on the rise. States and other relevant actors need to constantly adapt to the evolving cyber threat landscape, including by setting up effective deterrence mechanisms. This is what the European Union (EU) has done through the adoption of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Decision 2019/797, which allows it to impose targeted sanctions to deter and respond to cyberattacks that constitute an external threat to the EU or its member states. However, in contrast to other horizontal regimes of restrictive measures in force within the EU, foreign governments are not included as potential targets of cyber sanctions. Moreover, the recital of the Decision specifies that the adoption of restrictive measures does not involve attribution of international responsibility for cyber-attacks to a third State. This article aims at identifying the rationale behind the inclusion of these distinctive features. It starts by considering the legal uncertainty that surrounds attribution of international responsibility for cyber operations. Next, it explains why the EU is not well placed to invoke third-State responsibility, and the reasons behind its reluctance to do so. It will then illustrate the risks inherent in the lack of a clear legal framework to attribute the responsibility of cyber-attacks to third countries. This may have serious consequences in terms of legal certainty when a cyber-attack amounts to a breach of the prohibition on the use of force in international relations. Then, we explore recent developments in EU legislation in the area of cyber security and the possibility to strenghten the powers of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). We draw two conclusions: first, the Union might develop the capacity to attribute cyber attacks to specific actors and there is an interest to do so. However, Member States are probably still reticent to take this step. Two, despite the advantages of establishing a reliable attribution mechanisms, it is submitted that the majority of States prefers to take advantage of a regulative gap that allows them to react to cyber incidents as they see fit

Human rights law and Disaster risk reduction

The purpose of the article is to highlight the scope of the overlap between existing commitments in the area of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and legal obligations prevailing under International Human Rights Law. It initially describes the emergence of DRR as a discrete area of disaster management and brings to the fore some of the commitments that States have undertaken by negotiating and adhering to the DRR framework. These commitments are then compared to the practice and case law of universal and regional human rights treaty monitoring bodies that have addressed alleged violations of human rights connected to natural or human-made disasters.The concluding paragraph briefly reviews the similarities between the political obligations contained in the most recent DRR instruments and the legal obligations imposed on States by the human rights instruments they have signed and ratified

YIDL Dialogues with Practitioners #2, Dr Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

The authors conducted an interview with Dr. Volker Türk, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In the interview, the High Commissioner responded to questions regarding his personal role as a senior legal advisor within the UN system in advancing the protection of human rights, with a special emphasis on disaster situations. Additionally, he commented on the prospect of adopting a new treaty on pandemic prevention, as well as on the ongoing negotiations concerning a comprehensive treaty on disaster prevention and response