ASIL 2019 Recap: Regional Human Rights Bodies as Instruments of International Law: Contradiction and Fragmentation

By Caitlin Hunter

ASILRegional Human Rights Organization of American States.JPG

Organization of American States

In Regional Human Rights Bodies as Instruments of International Law: Contradiction and Fragmentation, panelists discussed fragmentation among the three major regional human rights courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR). Elena Abrusci provided insights from her research at the University of Essex’s Human Rights Centre. Silivia Serrano Guzmán and moderator Christina Cerna drew on their experiences working for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Finally, Thomas Antkowiak drew on his work advocating before the IACtHR and ACtHPR as director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law. The panelists provided detailed, meticulously researched analysis of what fragmentation is; why and when it happens; and its impact.

  1. What is fragmentation?

Fragmentation occurs when international tribunals reach conflicting decisions on how to apply international law to similar scenarios.

  1. Why does fragmentation happen?

Abrusci identified two primary reasons:

  • Different judges. Abrusci’s data suggested that judges on the IACtHR and the ACtHPR are worldlier than their counterparts on the ECtHR. 70-80% of ACtHPR judges and 50-60% of IACtHR judges had received their legal education on another continent, mostly in Europe. In contrast, less than 10% of ECtHR judges had received their legal education outside of Europe. Similarly, 10-20% of ACtHPR and IACtHR judges had worked for a UN human rights body but less than 4% of ECtHR judges had done so.
  • Different deference standards. The ECtHR applies the margin of appreciation doctrine, which allows states some flexibility in applying the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention) and takes into account the current consensus among European states. In contrast, the IACtHR applies the conventionality control doctrine, which requires all states to fully comply with the American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention).
  1. When does fragmentation happen?

Rarely. Panelists agreed that convergence is the norm and fragmentation is the exception. The IACtHR routinely looks to ECtHR jurisprudence and the ECtHR has looked to IACtHR jurisprudence in areas where it is more developed, as when the ECtHR adjudicated forced disappearances in Kosovo. However, panelists identified several notable examples of fragmentation:

  • Same-sex marriage. The ECtHR observed that most European states do not allow same-sex marriage and, applying the margin of appreciation, declined to interpret the right to marriage to include the right to same-sex marriage.[1] In contrast, the IACtHR explicitly rejected the ECtHR’s reliance on consensus and suggested that the right to marriage also applies to same-sex couples.[2]
  • The right to a criminal appeal. A protocol to the European Convention explicitly states that the right to a criminal appeal does not apply if the defendant is convicted by the country’s highest court or after an acquittal is overturned.[3] In contrast, the IACtHR has held that the right to an appeal applies in both of these situations.[4]
  • Indigenous property rights. The ECtHR has repeatedly failed to acknowledge indigenous collective property rights, ignoring not only well-developed IACtHR jurisprudence, but also an ILO convention and UN resolution.[5]
  • Reparations to victims. The ECtHR provides only a limited set of primarily financial remedies, while the IACtHR employs holistic remedies such as ordering the state to build medical centers, provide victims with scholarships, and formally apologize. Generally, panelists preferred the IACtHR’s approach but acknowledged that the IACtHR had sometimes ordered reparations so broad that they were effectively impossible to implement, as when the IACtHR ordered Honduras to ensure that all of its hundreds of prisons complied with all international human rights laws.

There are also notable examples where the courts have fragmented and then re-converged:

  • Access to information. The IACtHR interprets the right to freedom of expression to include a right to access to information.[6] The ECtHR initially rejected this view[7] but has gradually moved towards it, invoking the margin of appreciation and the growing consensus of European states in favor of access to information.[8] Paradoxically, although the ECtHR’s margin of appreciation typically causes fragmentation, here it permitted the ECtHR to converge towards the IACtHR.
  • The right to life. Under the IACtHR’s vida digna (dignified life) doctrine, the right to life incorporates social, economic, and cultural rights, such as the rights to food, shelter, and work. Although the UN Human Rights Committee has adopted the vida digna doctrine,[9] the ECtHR has generally ignored it and the ACtHPR has explicitly rejected it.[10] Advocates for social, economic, and cultural rights argue that treating them as a subset of the right to life subordinates them to civil and political rights and hinders their individual conceptual development. The IACtHR has begun to converge with the other two courts, applying the vida digna doctrine only to especially vulnerable groups, such as homeless children,[11] and finding alternative strategies to incorporate social, economic, and cultural rights.[12]
  1. Is fragmentation bad or good?

Like the panelists on the earlier Fragmentation in International Data Protection Law panel, panelists did not believe that fragmentation was inherently bad. In fact, panelists argued that some fragmentation among the regional human rights courts could help propel the development of new theories in international human rights law.

 

[1] Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, App. No. 30141/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-99605; Chapin and Charpentier v. France, App. No. 40183/07, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163436.

[2] State Obligations Concerning Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights Derived from a Relationship Between Same-Sex Couples, Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 24 (Nov. 24, 2017), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/cf/Jurisprudencia2/busqueda_opiniones_consultivas.cfm?lang=en.

[3] Article 2(2) of the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No.117, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/117.

[4] Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 206 (Nov. 31, 2009), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_206_ing.pdf; Mohamed v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 255 (Nov. 23, 2012), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_255_ing.pdf.

[5] Elena Abrusci, Judicial Fragmentation on Indigenous Property Rights: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, 21 The International Journal of Human Rights 550–564 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1307830.

[6] Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 151 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf.

[7] Leander v. Sweden, App. No. 9248/81, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1987), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57519.

[8] Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, App. No. 18030/11, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167828.

[9] General Comment 36, para. 3 (2018), https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CCPR_C_GC_36_8785_E.pdf.

[10] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, App. No. 006/2012, Judgement, 26 May 2017, para. 154, http://www.african-court.org/en/images/Cases/Judgment/Application%20006-2012%20-%20African%20Commission%20on%20Human%20and%20Peoples%E2%80%99%20Rights%20v.%20the%20Republic%20of%20Kenya..pdf.

[11] Villagrin-Morales et al. v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 63 (Nov. 19, 1999), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_63_ing.pdf.

[12] Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 340 (Aug. 31, 2017), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_340_esp.pdf.

ASIL 2019 Recap: Fragmentation in International Data Protection Law

By Caitlin Hunter

In Fragmentation in International Data Protection Law, panelists discussed the rapidly spreading and often contradictory laws protecting consumer data, incorporating the perspectives of corporations (Geff Brown, Microsoft), consumer activist groups (Carolina Rossini, Access Now), academia (Peter Swire, Professor of Law and Ethics at Georgia Tech), and government (Justin Antonipillai, formerly of the Department of Commerce and currently of WireWheel). Here are five key take-aways:

  1. Data protection laws have gone from a parochial European phenomenon to a global trend.

Traditionally, European countries have been particularly active in pushing for data protection, as shown most recently in the EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, laws are spreading rapidly, with over one hundred countries implementing some sort of protections. All four of the BRICs countries have adopted or are considering data protection laws and the U.S. Congress is increasingly debating the issue. U.S. states are also passing data protection laws, including the recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act and initiatives to pass laws in Vermont, Washington, and Massachusetts.

ASILFragmentation AccessNow homepage.PNG

Website of AccessNow, a consumer activism group, where panelist Carolina Rossini works.


2. Data’s move into the cloud means that data protection laws anywhere affect data everywhere.

Today, users anywhere may be accessing data on a server located anywhere and, as a result, domestic or regional data protection laws impact the entire world. U.S. organizations scrambling to comply with the EU’s GDPR are familiar with this, but the impact flows in the opposite direction, too. Before the recent passage of the U.S. CLOUD Act, a police officer who was investigating a local crime in the EU but needed evidence from a server in the U.S. might have to wait a year or more to get a warrant form a U.S. judge under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. These concerns are not hypothetical- as a Belgian audience member heatedly complained, Microsoft’s Skype is currently fighting for its right not to provide wiretaps ordered by Belgian courts.

ASILFragmentation GDPR.PNG

GDPR website

 

 

  1. Fragmentation between data protection laws stems from different regions’ fundamentally different privacy frameworks.

European countries view privacy as a basic human right, enshrined in their Constitutions, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This contrasts sharply with the U.S.’s strong emphasis on freedom of information. Typically, Americans assume that personal data can be used, unless there is a justification for prohibiting it, while Europeans assume that personal data cannot be used, unless there is a justification for permitting it. One panelist reported that an EU official privately confided that big data is probably illegal under the GDPR. If this conflict is not resolved, it will upend industries that have premised their future on massive use of big data.

ASILFragmentation WireWheel homepage.PNG

Website of WireWheel, where panelist Justin Antonipillai works.

 

  1. Compromises have broken down.

For years, U.S. companies and European countries accommodated their conflicting frameworks through a deal in which U.S. companies publically pledged to comply with EU data protection laws, allowing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to take action against the companies for misrepresentation under U.S. law if the companies violated EU law. However, the future of this deal is in doubt, as the EU grows increasingly concerned with privacy. In 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck down the original version of the deal, called the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor, in Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14. Although the U.S. Department of Commerce quickly negotiated a new deal, now dubbed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, Schrems challenged the new deal, too, and it is again headed back to the ECJ, its future dubious. If the ECJ decides that U.S. privacy protections remain inadequate, this will impact not only tech companies in the U.S. but in any country that does not share the EU’s high level of privacy protection.

  1. Consistent laws are needed- but not necessarily uniform laws.

The fragmentation of data protection law has left tech companies scrambling to reconcile hundreds of conflicting laws. Within the U.S., many now advocate for a single, national data protection law, including the Chamber of Commerce and panelist Justin Antonipillai. However, even panelist Geff Brown of Microsoft believed that it was not only unlikely but undesirable to push for uniform laws internationally. Instead, he encouraged countries to develop a global forum that would allow them to create laws that reflect their own values but are consistent enough to be interoperable.

ASIL 2019 Recap: The Law (and Politics) of Displacement

By Meredith Capps

ASILdisplacement.jpg
On Thursday, March 28, Jill Goldenziel of Marine Corps University moderated a discussion on legal and political challenges surrounding forced displacement, which is at an all-time high. Panelists included Itamar Mann of the University of Haifa; Daniel P. Sullivan of Refugees International; Alice Farmer, the Legal Officer for UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)in Washington, D.C.; and Kristina Campbell, a clinical faculty member at the University of the District of Columbia.

Mann discussed some history of international law governing displaced persons, including the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which, in part, facilitated population exchange and redistribution between Greece and Turkey. In the human rights era following the World Wars, the forced movement of groups of persons became “the paradigm of a criminal act,”  with freedom of movement established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and forced movement of populations prohibited in the Geneva Conventions. Mann identified the movement of Syrians out of Greece as a current challenge, and climate change as the impetus for movement a future issue.

Sullivan discussed the displacement of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh, where roughly 1 million people now reside in camps. Rendered stateless in Myanmar as “illegal Bengalis,” the Rohingya are also not protected as refugees in Bangladesh (who has considered moving some to a disaster prone island in the Bay of Bengal). Despite clear evidence of criminal activity by Myanmar officials, an ICC referral may be blocked by Russia and China, and fact-finding missions and target sanctions have failed to impact change.

Farmer noted that with only 1/4 to 2/3 of displaced persons presently returning to their home state, traditional displacement solutions are no longer viable. Though some characterize migration north from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador as economic migration, current patterns suggest a forced displacement, and UNHCR takes the position that many of those fleeing violence in these regions satisfy refugee criterion. The number of families migrating is particularly significant, and suggests that deterrence is ineffective. These changes in the nature of persecution test of weaknesses in international law, with adjudicators inconsistent in their approach to defining “refugee,” and burden sharing conversations amongst states fraught. While UNHCR is working to increase capacity in the Mexican asylum system and facilitate local integration, its capacity remains vastly below that of the U.S.

Campbell discussed U.S. immigration family detention centers, a new concept established during the mid-2000s. Per the Flores settlement agreement regarding detention conditions for minors, immigration authorities should preference release of minors to parents, and maintain humane, non-secure facilities. She described the few family detention centers in the U.S., and her clinic’s work assisting families in those centers, including credible fear reviews. Campbell said that the Trump administration’s June 2018 executive order did not, in fact, alter its zero tolerance policy that facilitated family separation, and it has no plan to reunite families separated as a result.

The panelists discussed several recurring, fundamental issues during the question-and-answer period. One was the idea of repatriation, with efforts to repatriate Rohingya during the 1970s cited as an effort that failed due to lack of political will, and safety concerns on the part of the group itself; when root causes remain unaddressed, repatriation is not a viable option. Domestic courts do, at times, enforce international norms to protect displaced persons, citing the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant case, but judicial enforcement can generate a backlash. Terminology used to characterize a situation can also either boost or diminishing political will. For example, when an NGO or state uses “ethnic cleansing,” rather than genocide or “crimes against humanity,” public sense of urgency may diminish. Conversely, frequent use of the term “crisis” or “surge” by advocacy groups and the media may desensitize the public.

Goldenziel also discussed the Global Compacts for Refugees and Migration, nonbinding agreements negotiated by many states, including the U.S., and adopted by the UN General Assembly, but whose status under international law is unclear. Negotiations resembled those for a treaty, with some states lodging statements similar to RUDs, and some states appear to consider it forceful despite its nonbinding status. The U.S. withdrew from the compact, citing sovereignty concerns.

Book Review: Reexamining Customary Law

By Jessica Pierucci

ReexaminingCustomaryLaw.jpgBrian D. Lepard (ed.), Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017). 438 p. Hardcover $125.00.

Reexamining Customary International Law starts with a forward by Michael Wood, the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Special Rapporteur for “Identification of customary international law.” Wood discusses the need for a reexamination of customary international law (CIL) and how this book fits with the ILC’s work on identifying CIL. The opening leads nicely into the introduction by the editor describing the sweeping use of CIL across topic areas and beginning discussion of some of the ways scholars are interrogating issues within the often complex world of defining and demonstrating CIL.

The book then turns to Part I Reexamining Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on Customary International Law. J. Patrick Kelly focuses on the historical aspect by problematizing how CIL was a development of the most powerful Western states, ignoring the practices of non-Western and less powerful Western states and seeming to justify colonial expansion by situating European norms as CIL. Kelly then describes how the persistent objector principle is a relatively recent phenomenon appearing in the ninth edition of Oppenheim’s International Law, not in the first eight editions (p. 79). He argues that this principle makes CIL inconsistent by allowing demonstrations of non-consent to have value despite CIL generally being a set of norms applicable to all nations. The next three chapters all make theoretical arguments surrounding some of the complicated aspects of CIL. Fernando R. Tesón explores fake custom, listing myriad ways fake custom can be perpetuated and why this is a concern. Neils Peterson uses examples and charts to demonstrate the impact of consent in CIL and discuss benefits of rethinking how CIL works in practice. Thomas Kleinlein delves into the murky waters of the relationship between CIL and general principles. Each chapter is filled with dense analyses of this complex area of international law.

Parts II-IV reexamine CIL in different contexts, all interrogating the evidence used to demonstrate CIL and proposing ways to effectively show CIL in each topic area. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Els Debuf discuss the International Committee of the Red Cross Customary International Humanitarian Law study and Customary IHL database, including how these resources have been used in practice and their impact on shaping the discussion of international humanitarian law. This provides an interesting glimpse into the impact of a nongovernmental organization laying out its take on the rules of CIL in a topic area. Noora Arajärvi discusses examples of international criminal tribunals invoking CIL, examining how opinio juris and state practice show up, or fail to do so, in tribunal judgments.

Turning to human rights, Brian D. Lepard examines the important question of whether human rights norms can be considered CIL given that so many states regularly violate human rights norms, thus challenging the state practice component of CIL. Lepard advocates for a new formulation of CIL in the human rights context. Anne Williams Shavers uses Lepard’s new formulation as a jumping off point to argue for a complementary approach in upholding women’s human rights.

Turning to the skies, Sofia Michaelides-Mateou reviews the evolution of international aviation law, giving particular attention to the relationship between air law treaties and CIL in the context of aviation, and some parallels with law of the sea. Frans G. von der Dunk turns to outer space law arguing that CIL plays a lesser role in outer space law than in other areas of international law with treaty law playing a central role in outer space law.

Part V concludes the book with reflections by Brian D. Lepard connecting the essays to one another and explaining how they collectively contribute to reshaping understanding of CIL. The conclusion brings the book’s title into full view by sharing the big picture of how Lepard believes CIL can and should be reexamined in light of the essays and how the editor believes CIL will move into the future.

CIL is a crucially important but often opaque component of international law. This book is a good, but dense, read for someone seeking to elucidate how CIL is used in different areas of law and understand critiques of that use. This book would fit well in any library looking to build their international law collection.

 

Locating UK and EU Guidance on Brexit

By Alison Shea

Brexit
Over the past week, two things happened which inspired me to write this post.  First I read this story on how the Dutch government had set up a website to provide guidance to its citizens on how to prepare for Brexit, and of course I immediately imagined how awesome it would be if the Dutch Brexit monster featured in the story teamed up with Gritty for a buddy comedy.  Second, I read FCIL-SIS Chair Catherine Deane’s column in the FCIL Newsletter asking for people to volunteer to write a blog post for Diplawmatic Dialogues.

As much as I know you were hoping to read my script ideas for the Gritty/Brexit monster buddy comedy, I began wondering if any other countries had created a comprehensive guidance site for its citizens and businesses in advance of Brexit (and especially a no-deal Brexit).  It had previously occurred to me that teaching an EU and/or UK research classes this semester would be very challenging given the timing of Brexit, and I figured the best thing I could recommend to students given this uncertainty would be to look for and follow government guidance documents.

Why recommend government guidance documents?  Because the actual withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU – currently scheduled to occur at 11pm GMT on March 29 – now looks like it will be very abrupt (if it happens at all), it will not be possible to amend all relevant laws to reflect the changes immediately (check out this blog post for a brief overview of the magnitude of changes that need to occur).  Thus, it will be important for anyone with an interest in Brexit to follow the government’s guidance on how to deal with it until the law can catch up.  Not only is the guidance going to be crucial for those living and working in the UK, it will also be extremely important for any country that currently engages with the UK in its (soon to be former?) capacity as a fellow EU member.   Therefore, a list of places to locate government guidance seemed like a good tool to create for librarians and FCIL instructors to have in their toolbox over the coming month(s).

After spending a few days searching and locating guidance information for most of the EU member states, I realized that the EU had already beaten me to creating a list of the relevant government guidance sites.  This was an extremely disappointing discovery, since I had already pitched this as a great blog post to Alyson and Susan and was really proud of my advanced Google (and Google Translate) skills.  However, from all my searching I can at least share my top research tip: because “Brexit” isn’t a real word, it’s a great search term to use in any language!   In the end, Alyson and Susan convinced me that there could still be value in my post, and so I humbly present a (shorter) list of relevant sites for locating government guidance on Brexit.

It should go without saying that this is what I was able to locate as of February 26, 2019; the landscape of Brexit guidance will undoubtedly change the closer we get to “B-day”, and will also change if the UK government takes new action in the interim (the latest update is that a “meaningful vote” will be held by March 12), so stay tuned!*

United Kingdom guidance

European Union guidance

Individual European country guidance

Even non-EU member states are finding it necessary to prepare for Brexit, as these countries interact with the United Kingdom under various bilateral agreements with the European Union and the European Economic Area; see, for example, this recent agreement on arrangements of citizen’s rights for many of these non-EU countries.  Three countries that have especially close ties with the UK are listed here:

 

*Looking for suggestions on how to “stay tuned” to the ever-changing world of Brexit?  Here are some of my go-to sources for Brexit coverage:

From the Reference Desk: Is There An Annotated European Union Code?

By Amy Flick

“Is there an annotated European Union Code? I have an EU directive, and I need to find some cases that interpret it.”

First, having just taught a class on U.S. statutory legal research, I’m thrilled that a student thought to use an annotated code to find cases interpreting legislation.

There isn’t a European Union code, not exactly. But the European Union does have a classification system for its law, and there are sources for finding cases on a particular EU directive, from the European Court of Justice and from national courts.

The student was looking for cases on Directive 98/44/EC on patents for biotechnological inventions.

Although European Union law isn’t codified, the closest thing to a codification would be the Directory of Legal Acts on EUR-Lex. It arranges EU legislation in force by subject and includes consolidated acts incorporating amendments. Directive 98/44/EC is classified with Intellectual Property legislation at 17.20, but with a general heading at 17 of “Law relating to Undertakings,” I’m not sure I would have found it without already having found the Directory Classification. There is also the EuroVoc thesaurus for browsing legislation (and caselaw) by subject. Either the thesaurus terms or the Directory codes can be used in the EUR-Lex Advanced Search, along with text and other criteria (including type of legislation). In this case, a text search for “biotechnology AND patents” worked just as well.

The student already had the citation for Directive 98/44/EC, but I recommended that he look at the Directorate-General on Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. The European Commission’s executive agencies are a great source for finding current legislation that they administer, with links to EUR-Lex. The DG’s page on Protection of Biotechnological Inventions includes the Biotech Directive with a summary, reports, and related documents, plus a State of Play of the Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC that has dates and citations for national legislation implementing the directive.

Summaries of EU Legislation on EUR-Lex are also a good way to find legislation by subject, including by general topic or to search. Again, a search for “biotechnology and patents” retrieved the summary for Directive 98/44/EC.

With a directive citation in hand, my student can find cases interpreting the directive. The EUR-Lex Document Information for the directive includes a “Relationship between documents” section that has links to Court of Justice judgments as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

The European Court of Justice’s CURIA site has an advanced search page with a field for “references to case law or legislation,” including directives by number. It even allows searching for pinpoint references to paragraphs within the directive.

Image 1

Since directives require that EU member states implement them with national legislation, there are also national laws and cases in national courts on the directive.

Once a directive is found in EUR-Lex, the links in the left navigational side bar include “National Transposition.” These National Transpositions by Member State provide the citations to each member state’s implementing laws for the directive. He could also use EUR-Lex’s Advanced Search Form. Choose National Transposition as the collection and search by directive number (1998 and 44).

Image 2

Image 3

For this particular directive, that “State of Play” from the Directorate-General cites national implementing legislation. If a Google search doesn’t retrieve the cited legislation, the student could use the Foreign Law Guide database or the Law Library of Congress’ Guide to Law Online to find sources for national legislation.  There’s also the European Union’s N-Lex gateway to search for national legislation in N-Lex with the directive citation.

Back to looking for cases interpreting the directive, the EUR-Lex advanced search can be used to search national caselaw as well. He could use the same EUR-Lex Advanced Search Form, choose National Case Law as the collection, and enter the directive number in the Instruments Cited field.

The European Union’s Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions has its own Dec.Nat. database for searching national decisions on European Union law. The search page includes a field for Provision of European Union Law for searching by directive number, or other EU legislation. The results list includes country, date, title of the case, and parties, with case details including a citation to the national law and link to related ECJ judgements.

Image 4

Image 5

So, the European Union doesn’t have annotated code, not is there an “EU Code.” But it does have subject resources for finding legislation. And it offers multiple ways through EUR-Lex and other EU databases to find cases that interpret an EU directive, and national legislation implementing the directive.

And my thanks to Alison Shea for sharing her European Union expertise!

Book Review – Humanizing the Laws of War: The Red Cross and the Development of International Humanitarian Law

By Jessica Pierucci

Robin Geiß, Andreas Zimmermann, & Stefanie Haumer (eds.), Humanizing the Laws of War: The Red Cross and the Development of International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017). 278 p. Hardcover $110.00.

9781316622186Humanizing the Laws of War is an edited book born from a 150-year celebration of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in 2013. “The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at 150: Developing and Clarifying International Humanitarian Law,” honored the movement by pulling together international humanitarian law (IHL) scholars and practitioners for a meeting in Berlin. The meeting led to this work memorializing the achievements of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its undeniable impact on IHL during the past 150 years, while also addressing the organization’s shortcomings and outside criticism.

The editors open the book with an introduction focusing on the interaction between the ICRC and the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society within countries. They note the cognizable advantage to this structure with locals who know and understand the country being able to most effectively implement broader initiatives on the local level. However, the authors note the need for increased cooperation between the organizations to further the worldwide influence of IHL.

Part I discusses the ICRC’s influence on treaty making. In Chapter 1, Robert Heinsch gives an historical account of the development of the Geneva Conventions showing the ICRC’s intimate involvement in drafting the conventions, and thus framing the conversation, noting “[i]t is probably not exaggerated to say that there is no other field of international law in which a non-State entity has had such an impact on the norm-development process as well as on the dynamic interpretation of the respective rules.” (p. 27). Heinsch notes the ICRC has also authored commentaries on the Geneva Conventions and is currently updating those commentaries, further demonstrating the ICRC’s influence as a central authority on interpretation of the conventions. The second chapter furthers the discussion with Michael Bothe detailing the ICRC’s influence on the subsequent protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 while acknowledging the protocols’ shortcomings, notably in nuclear and environmental fields.

Part II looks beyond treaties at the ICRC’s influence on IHL norm development. In Chapter 3, one of the editors of the 2005 Customary International Humanitarian Law study, Jean-Marie Henckaerts, describes the origin and addresses criticism of the study that laid out 161 rules of customary IHL, and is continually updated through additions of relevant state practice in the ICRC’s Customary IHL database. The origin story provides valuable context for understanding this expansive study and I appreciated the author’s direct discussion of criticism since the study’s publication. Chapter 4 similarly provides background and addresses critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Robert Cryer discusses the criticisms, but pushes back noting if the critical governments “wish to reject the ICRC’s view, the impetus is now for them to show that they can create (and get broad agreement thereupon) something better.” (p. 138).

Part III turns to the ICRC’s influence on weapons laws and international criminal law (ICL). Chapter 5 discusses the ICRC’s efforts in developing IHL norms and treaties on weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate or cause superfluous injury, such as chemical weapons and cluster munitions. Kathleen Lawand and Isabel Robinson share examples of the ICRC successfully serving as a catalyst for creating weapon-specific laws, but admits the ICRC has not been successful in all circumstances, particularly in the case of nuclear weapons. In Chapter 6, Carsten Stahn discusses the intersections of IHL and ICL, focusing in particular on interaction between the ICRC and international criminal courts and tribunals. Stahn shares how IHL and ICL are not mutually exclusive and further understanding of and development of their relationship could improve both fields.

Part IV, the conclusion, is authored by two of the editors, Robin Geiß and Andreas Zimmermann. They highlight the ICRC’s successes and prominence within IHL while also grappling with its failures. In particular, the authors note the need for a compliance mechanism or other means to increase IHL compliance and discuss barriers impeding compliance initiatives.

This review provides just a glimpse at the fascinating history of the ICRC discussed in the work. The book’s critical lens makes for an enlightening read allowing the reader to gain a broad understanding of the ICRC’s contributions to IHL laws and resources, and the current limitations of IHL and the ICRC. The heavily footnoted chapters allow readers interested in any of the topics covered to look deeper into history or criticism of the ICRC’s influence and IHL. This book would fit well in any library with an IHL collection.