DOCSLIB.ORG

Guest Lecture Series of the Office of the Prosecutor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guest Lecture Series of the Office of the Prosecutor Philippe Sands QC Immunities before international courts. Guest Lecture Series of the Office of the Prosecutor Professor Philippe Sands QC1* “Immunities before international courts” 18 November 2003 The Hague * Professor of international law (University College London) and barrister (Matrix Chamber, London). Guest Lecture Series of the Office of the Prosecutor. © ICC-OTP and individual authors 2003. Summary of lecture The issue of the entitlement of a serving or former head of state (or other high ranking government official) to claim immunity before national and international courts has arisen with increasing frequency, and may one day come to the International Criminal Court. Within the past five years cases have reached the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (Pinochet), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Blaskic, Milosevic) and the International Court of Justice (Yerodia). It is not immediately apparent that the approach taken by the various courts is based upon the same premised and foundations. The case currently pending before the Special Court for Sierra Leone (Taylor) may present an opportunity for that Court to seek to reconcile differing approaches. By way of background I have attached to this outline the Submission I prepared as Amicus Curiae appointed by the Appellate Chamber. The Taylor case raises a number of important issues, including: • Is a claim to immunity to be treated differently before an international court as opposed to a national court? • Is there ever a right to claim head of state immunity before an international court, or can such a right only be lost where the relevant state has waived immunity (e.g. by treaty) or where the Security Council has acted to remove any entitlement to claim immunity? • Before an international court does the former head of state have a right to claim immunity in respect of no acts, or only acts which may be treated as official (or governmental acts)? • Is there a distinction to be drawn between (1) an international court’s exercise of jurisdiction (e.g. by issuing an indictment or arrest warrant) only lose a right entitled to claim immunity in respect of public acts and (2) its entitlement to require the cooperation of third states or other parties (e.g. by requiring an indicted person to be transferred)? • Is the mere issuance of an indictment or an arrest warrant (by an international court) in respect of a serving head of state of a country which is not a party to a treaty establishing the court an affront to the dignity of a state such as to give rise to a violation of its entitlement to immunity? These and other questions may well arise – at some time in the future – where the ICC is faced with the issuance of an indictment or arrest warrant in respect of a serving (or former) head of state (or other high ranking official) of a country which is not a party to the 1998 Rome Statute. In such circumstances the provisions of Articles 27 and 98 of the ICC Statute may have to be interpreted and applied in the context of the rules of general international law. This in turn gives rise to issues concerning the relationship between the various international courts (including issues of hierarchy, if any) and the nature of the international legal order. 2 THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE THE APPEAL CHAMBER THE PROSECUTOR v CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR CASE SCSL-2003-01-I ___________________________________________ SUBMISSIONS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ON HEAD OF STATE IMMUNITY ___________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. These Submissions are addressed in four Parts: Part I addresses the rules of international law under which a serving head of state may be the subject of an indictment and/or arrest warrant issued in respect of one or more international crimes issued by (a) an international criminal court or tribunal and (b) a national court of another State (paras. 2-57); Part II considers whether, for the purposes of the rules of international law on head of state immunity, the Special Court for Sierra Leone is to be treated as a national court or as an international court or as a hybrid (paras. 58-77); Part III addresses, in the light of Parts I and II, whether it was lawful under international law for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to issue an indictment and circulate an international arrest warrant in respect of Charles Taylor 3 while he was serving as head of state of Liberia, for the offences listed in the indictment (paras. 78-102); and Part IV considers the consequences for the position under international law arising from the fact that Charles Taylor is no longer the head of state of Liberia (paras. 103-117). A summary of our submissions is set out paragraph 118. PART I (A) Head of State Immunity before International Criminal Courts and Tribunals 2. In respect of the jurisdictional immunities2 of serving heads of state international law and practice has generally distinguished between proceedings before national and international courts. As regards the international courts and tribunals which have been established – all in the 20th century – practice has been consistent, 2 The term immunity covers two distinct types of immunity, explained by one leading commentator in the following terms: ‘There are two categories of immunities. The first embraces the so-called immunities ratione materiae, also referred to as functional immunities. They cover activities performed by every State official in the exercise of his functions, regardless of where they are discharged. They do not come to an end when the relevant State organ relinquishes his official position […] the rationale behind this rule is that those activities are not performed by the State official in his private capacity but on behalf of the State; hence they are attributable to the State to which he belongs so that – as a matter of principle – the individual cannot be held accountable for them. The other category of immunities, which are only granted to some specific classes of individuals performing State functions abroad, is that of immunities ratione personae, also referred to as personal immunities. […] These immunities cover all acts performed by the State official, whether or not performed during or prior to assumption of his official function, within or outside the territory of the relevant foreign State. […] [T]hese immunities are forfeited when the person enjoying them terminates such functions abroad, with the exception of immunities relating to official acts (i.e. immunities ratione materiae) that continue even after the State official relinquishes his post.’ Paolo Gaeta, ‘Official Capacity and Immunities’, in Cassese, Gaeta and Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Oxford, 2002), pages 975-7, emphasis in original. 4 in that no serving head of state has been recognised as being entitled to rely on jurisdictional immunities. 3. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) was the first occasion on which a former head of state was indicted to be prosecuted before an international tribunal. Article 227 provides that: “The Allied and Associated Powers publicly arraign William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties. A special tribunal will be constituted to try the accused, thereby assuring him the guarantees essential to the right of defence. It will be composed of five judges, one appointed by each of the following Powers: namely, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan. In its decision the tribunal will be guided by the highest motives of international policy, with a view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the validity of international morality. It will be its duty to fix the punishment which it considers should be imposed. The Allied and Associated Powers will address a request to the Government of the Netherlands for the surrender to them of the ex- Emperor in order that he may be put on trial.” 4. Nearly thirty years later, the Statutes of the Nuremburg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals confirmed that no person was entitled to claim immunity before the jurisdiction of those Tribunals. Article 7 of the Charter of the Nuremburg Tribunal provided that: “The official position of defendants, whether heads of state or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.”3 In similar terms Article 6 of the Statute of the Tokyo Tribunal provided that: 3 82 U.N.T.S. 279. 5 “Neither the position, at any time, of an accused, nor the fact that an accused acted pursuant to order of his government or a superior shall, of itself, be sufficient to free such accused from responsibility for any crime with which he is charged …”4 5. These emerging principles of international criminal law relating to the jurisdiction of international tribunals were restated in the Principles of International Law Recognised in the Charter of the Nuremburg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, adopted in 1950 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations5 and approved by the UN General Assembly.6 Principle III states that: “The fact that an author of an act which constitutes a crime under international criminal law has acted in his capacity as head of state or of government does not release him of his responsibility under international law.” The International Law Commission reaffirmed the principle in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust
    Glasses of those murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau Nazi German concentration and death camp (1941-1945). © Paweł Sawicki, Auschwitz Memorial 2021 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF COMMEMORATION IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST Programme WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2021 11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M. EST 17:00–19:00 CET COMMEMORATION CEREMONY Ms. Melissa FLEMING Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications MASTER OF CEREMONIES Mr. António GUTERRES United Nations Secretary-General H.E. Mr. Volkan BOZKIR President of the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly Ms. Audrey AZOULAY Director-General of UNESCO Ms. Sarah NEMTANU and Ms. Deborah NEMTANU Violinists | “Sorrow” by Béla Bartók (1945-1981), performed from the crypt of the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris. H.E. Ms. Angela MERKEL Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany KEYNOTE SPEAKER Hon. Irwin COTLER Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Canada H.E. Mr. Gilad MENASHE ERDAN Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations H.E. Mr. Richard M. MILLS, Jr. Acting Representative of the United States to the United Nations Recitation of Memorial Prayers Cantor JULIA CADRAIN, Central Synagogue in New York El Male Rachamim and Kaddish Dr. Irene BUTTER and Ms. Shireen NASSAR Holocaust Survivor and Granddaughter in conversation with Ms. Clarissa WARD CNN’s Chief International Correspondent 2 Respondents to the question, “Why do you feel that learning about the Holocaust is important, and why should future generations know about it?” Mr. Piotr CYWINSKI, Poland Mr. Mark MASEKO, Zambia Professor Debórah DWORK, United States Professor Salah AL JABERY, Iraq Professor Yehuda BAUER, Israel Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2018/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2018 Public sitting held on Monday 3 September 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2018 Audience publique tenue le lundi 3 septembre 2018, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, sur les Effets juridiques de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965 (Demande d’avis consultatif soumise par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Republic of Mauritius is represented by: H.E. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, G.C.S.K., K.C.M.G., Q.C., Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues of the Republic of Mauritius, as Head of Delegation (from 3 to 5 September 2018); Mr. Nayen Koomar Ballah, G.O.S.K., Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service, Mr. Dheerendra Kumar Dabee, G.O.S.K., S.C., Solicitor General, H.E. Mr. Jagdish Dharamchand Koonjul, G.O.S.K., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations in New York, Ms Shiu Ching Young Kim Fat, Minister Counsellor, Prime Minister’s Office, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust Awareness Week
    HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK JANUARY 23-26, 2017 The College of Social Sciences and Humanities, the Holocaust Awareness Committee, and the Northeastern Humanities Center invite you to a series of commemorative and educational events that reflect on the Holocaust's legacy in the 21st century. Personal Confrontations With the Past northeastern.edu/hac ABOUT HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK The Holocaust Awareness Committee at Northeastern University publicly remembers the Holocaust each year, not only as historical fact and a memorial to its millions of victims, but also as a warning that the horrors of the past must never be repeated. The programs that we present bear witness to the Holocaust's events and explore issues arising out of the war of extermination against Jews and other groups targeted by the Nazis. Speakers ask how lessons learned from the Holocaust can be applied to our own historical moment. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Northeastern Holocaust Commemoration The Portraitist: Wilhelm Brasse and Photography Ethics in Auschwitz Alison Campbell The Search for Meaning: Survivors' Children and Their Choice of a Life in the Law Rose Zoltek-Jick Monday, January 23 4:30 - 6 p.m. Cabral Center 40 Leon Street Reception to follow. Philip N. Backstrom, Jr. Survivor Lecture Series A Talk with Holocaust Survivor Anna Ornstein Tuesday, January 24 12:30 - 2 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Lunch will be served. Bill Giessen Film Screening What Our Fathers Did: A Nazi Legacy Followed by Q&A with Philippe Sands, Screenwriter Moderated by Professor Natalie Bormann Wednesday, January 25 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Hors d'oeuvres will be served during the film.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Better Protection for Conflict-Affected Populations: Legal Action Against UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia for Use I
    HPG briefing note Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations Legal action against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict Gemma Davies July 2021 Lessons learned Partnerships and collaboration within and outside the humanitarian sector are critical in strengthening advocacy for better protection of civilians affected by conflict, through leveraging respective expertise and sharing risk. Where litigation is part of a broader advocacy campaign there should be coherence in legal and advocacy strategies, with trade-offs identified at the outset. A theory of change with scenario mapping would support this. Strategic litigation can be an effective advocacy tool for humanitarian actors. Renowned legal expertise, a well-evidenced and well-resourced strategy and a persuasive case are central to maximising the chances of success. Risks can be mitigated and shared through collective advocacy once the potential risks have been jointly assessed. About the author Gemma Davies is a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at ODI Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. How to cite: Davies, G. (2020) ‘Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations: UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict’.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism. International
    INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ‘WAR ON TERRORISM’: POST 9/11 RESPONSES BY THE UNITED STATES AND ASIA PACIFIC COUNTRIES 43 International Law and the ‘War on Terrorism’: Post 9/11 Responses by the United States and Asia Pacific Countries Stephen P Marks* Introduction Terrorism is not a new challenge to international order,1 although the influence of the United States has resulted in significant rethinking of the international law and politics of terrorism since the attacks on the US of 11 September 2001, which has had ramifications in all regions, including the Asia Pacific. An unresolved issue of international law is whether and to what extent those attacks have justified the claim that there is a ‘new paradigm’ in international law. The following pages will examine responses to terrorism under the traditional paradigm with particular reference to the Asia Pacific region, and under the so-called new paradigm proposed by the government of the United States in the context of its ‘war on terrorism.’ I. The International Law and Politics of Responses to Terrorism under the Traditional Paradigm Under international law, the phenomenon of terrorism has been defined in various treaties; the rules governing the use of force have been applied to regimes and * François-Xavier Bagnoud Professor of Health and Human Rights, Harvard University, and Visiting Professor, City University of Hong Kong. This article is based on a lecture given on 9 March 2006 at City University of Hong Kong in the Eminent Speakers Lecture Series. The research assistance of Mr Ronald Yu for the section on the Asia Pacific region is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2019/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2019 Public sitting held on Thursday 12 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2019 Audience publique tenue le jeudi 12 décembre 2019, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Gambie c. Myanmar) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Judges ad hoc Pillay Kress Registrar Gautier - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges Mme Pillay M. Kress, juges ad hoc M. Gautier, greffier - 4 - The Government of the Republic of The Gambia is represented by: H.E. Mr. Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Republic of The Gambia, as Agent; Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia, Mr. Philippe Sands, QC, Professor of International Law at University College London, Barrister-at-Law, Matrix Chambers, London, Mr. Payam Akhavan, LLM, SJD (Harvard), Professor of International Law, McGill University, member of the Bars of New York and the Law Society of Ontario, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Ms Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of New York and the District of Columbia, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond East West Street Personal Stories and Political Directions
    BEYOND EAST WEST STREET PERSONAL STORIES AND POLITICAL DIRECTIONS EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL 26 AUGUST 2017 I began to write East West Street late in 2010, after I first visited the city of Lviv. I travelled to the city in response to an invitation to deliver a lecture, on my work as an academic and as a barrister, on the law and cases of mass killing. This work touched on ‘genocide’ (concerned with the protection of groups) and ‘crimes against humanity’ (concerned with the protection of individuals). I accepted the invitation because I hoped to find the house where my grandfather Leon Buchholz was born in 1904. I wanted to understand the recesses of an unspoken family history and recover my hinterland and sense of identity. I found a remarkable city and, eventually, Leon’s house. 1 The Polish poet Józef Wittlin describes the essence of the city, and ‘being a Lvovian’, in his wonderful, slim volume Móy Lwów, first issued in 1946 and last year published in English for the first time by Pushkin Press – with wonderful photographs by Diana Matar – as City of Lions. To be a Lvovian, he wrote, is ‘an extraordinary mixture of nobility and roguery, wisdom and imbecility, poetry and vulgarity.’ He reminds his readers that ‘nostalgia even likes to falsify flavours too, telling us to taste nothing but the sweetness of Lwów today . but I know people for whom Lwów was a cup of gall.’ East West Street was published six years later, in late May 2016, by which time I had come to understand why Lviv was a cup of gall for my grandfather, a place of which he never spoke to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Want to Talk About the Book and Some of the Concepts
    International Affairs Forum Interview January 20th 2006 By Dimitri Neos and Anna Larnefeldt IA-Forum speaks with Professor Philippe Sands QC about international law issues and his latest book, Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules (Viking). Mr. Sands is an international lawyer, professor at University College London, and a practicing barrister at London’s Matrix Chambers. He has been involved in many recent high-profile cases in the World Court and elsewhere, including the interests of British detainees in Guantanamo and the efforts to extradite Augusto Pinochet to Spain. He has also written for the Los Angles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post, has taught at NYU and Boston College, and appears regularly on CNN and the BBC. IA-Forum: In your book, you discuss America’s historical record of supporting international law then you describe a current “exceptionalist” America - a view that international law is for others but not the U.S. Do you think this ambivalence towards international law has always existed in the U.S.? Is exceptionalism a new phenomena or has this view always existed, but is now stronger than before? Philippe Sands: America has been a positive force in contributing to the modern system of international laws. If you go back to the beginning of the twentieth century and look at Woodrow Wilson and the creation of the League of Nations, you see there’s an American instinct there for a rules- based system. But even then, Wilson was not able to persuade Congress to ratify the League of Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of UK-Manufactured Arms in Yemen
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 HC 688 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 September 2016 HC 688 Published on 15 September 2016 by authority of the House of Commons The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Crispin Blunt MP (Conservative, Reigate) (Chair) Mr John Baron MP (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Ann Clwyd MP (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes MP (Labour (Co-op), Ilford South) Stephen Gethins MP (Scottish National Party, North East Fife) Mr Mark Hendrick MP (Labour (Co-op), Preston) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Andrew Rosindell MP (Conservative, Romford) Nadhim Zahawi MP (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/facom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • How the War on Crime Helped Make the War on Terror Possible James Forman, Jr.*
    EXPORTING HARSHNESS: HOW THE WAR ON CRIME HELPED MAKE THE WAR ON TERROR POSSIBLE JAMES FORMAN, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION During the Bush administration, opponents of the prosecution of the war on terror routinely denounced it as a betrayal of American values. The narrative went like this: the United States has a long-standing commitment to human rights and due process, reflected in its domestic criminal justice system's expansive protections, but after September 11, 2001, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and their allies dishonored this tradition. Consider the argument of Neal Katyal, the lead civilian lawyer for Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. Katyal describes meeting his client for the first time, when Hamdan asked him, "Why are you doing this?" Katyal responded: The reason that I am here is that my parents came to America with eight dollars in their pocket.... They came to America for a simple reason: they could land on its shores and they'd be treated fairly and their children would be treated fairly. And when the president issued this military order, which said, "If you're one of them, if you're a green card holder"-as my parents were-"or if you're a foreigner ... you get the beat-up Chevy version of Justice. You get sent to Guantanamo. But if you're an American citizen, accused of the most heinous crime imaginable, the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction, you get the Gold Standard. You get the American Civilian Trial." I told him that's why I was so offended.
    [Show full text]
  • LAWLESS WORLD: INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 and IRAQ* International Law After September 11, 2001 and Iraq PHILIPPE SANDS QC†
    FEATURE LAWLESS WORLD: INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 AND IRAQ* International Law after September 11, 2001 and Iraq PHILIPPE SANDS QC† CONTENTS I Introduction II The Development of International Law — The Beginnings of a Rules-Based System III The Adequacy of the Existing Rules IV Australia and Britain — Following the Tough Guys A Riding Pillion on the Road to War B A Change of Mind C The Shock of the New V The Things that Matter I INTRODUCTION Until recently, the subject of international law remained in the margins. It would not have been an area which would have detained many lawyers who trained at this Law School, at least in their day-to-day practice. When I was invited to give this year’s Melbourne Law School Alumni lecture, late in 2004, issues of international law were already much in the air, certainly in Britain, and also in Australia. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,1 the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change2 and the legality of the war in Iraq are issues that were receiving considerable attention. But I doubt that anyone could have imagined that the run-up to Britain’s May 2005 General Election would be defined by arcane issues of international law: did the authorisation to use force against Iraq under Security Council Resolution 6783 of 1991 revive in March 2003? Was the British Prime Minister entitled to determine that Iraq was in material breach of its * This article is based on the Law School Alumni Lecture, delivered at the University of Melbourne Law School on 15 June 2005, and on the Mischon Lecture given in London on 12 May 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Islands 14Th March 2019
    The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Islands 14th March 2019 On 18th March 2019, BIICL hosted an event on the Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (25 February 2019). The panel, chaired by Jill Barret (Queen Mary University of London and Six Pump Court), included Dr Stephen Allen (Queen Mary University of London), Professor Philippe Sands QC (Matrix Chambers and University College London) and Nicola Peart (Three Crowns LLP). Jill Barret introduced the topic by contextualizing the case. She summarised the content of the Advisory Opinion, whereby the ICJ ruled that the separation of the Chagos islands from the British colony of Mauritius was contrary to the right to self-determination and that the decolonization of Mauritius had thus not been completed in accordance with international law. As a result, Barret continued, the Court found that the UK's continuing administration of the Chagos islands, was a continuing internationally wrongful act, which must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible. Dr Stephen Allen provided a historical background of the Advisory Opinion, addressing the series of Bancoult litigation before the Courts of the UK and the arbitration case commenced under UNCLOS. Dr Allen looked over the landmark events that led to the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius. He remarked that the archipelago became a pressing issue in Mauritius domestic politics throughout the 1970s. In 1982, following a change in government, an enquiry in the legislative assembly was conducted on the circumstances of the detachment of the Chagos.
    [Show full text]