Collective Security

Orakhelashvili, Alexander

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579846.001.0001

Cited by 46 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more far-reaching position is taken by Orakhelashvili who declares that, when a peremptory norm is juxtaposed with an inconsistent norm, "this produces the case of a priori hierarchy which operates by itself and without any need to clarify whether there is sufficient practice supporting such [an] outcome." 90 These suggestions find some degree of judicial support in the reasoning of the Italian Court of Cassation in Milde. 91 When dealing with the apparent conflict between fundamental values and state immunity, the Court of Cassation claimed that this conflict could not be resolved based merely on a quantitative assessment of international practice but, instead, required a qualitative assessment of this practice in the context of the values accepted by the international legal order.…”

Section: The Source Of Peremptory Norms and Consequences Of Their Viomentioning

confidence: 98%

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

Mora

2013

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de dro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

show abstract

Section: The Source Of Peremptory Norms and Consequences Of Their Viomentioning

confidence: 98%

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

Mora

2013

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de dro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 FOCARELLI, "The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and Humanitarian Intervention: Too Many Ambiguities for a Working Doctrine", Journal known, 45 but the fact is that the Security Council in determining that a threat exists and then imposing sanctions on a target state or individual, has both determined the law and enforced it. 46 Despite its unappealing nature, at least to believers in objective laws, 47 this form of constructivist inter-subjective agreement arguably enables international law to develop to achieve new understandings of security in an ever-changing world. 48 In order to ensure the survival of the planet, more specifically the system of international relations based on nation-states, states and other key actors take measures to establish the basic conditions for the control of violence.…”

Section: Sanctions: Enforcing Peace or Law?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomous and Collective Sanctions in the International Legal Order

White¹

2018

The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UK government is currently proposing the enactment of a “Sanctions Act” upon the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2019, embodying a right to impose “autonomous sanctions” against other states and non-state actors, on the basis that the UK will no longer be able to benefit from the EU’s collective sanctioning competence. The spotlight is again on the nature and purposes of sanctions in international law. The article addresses the legal framework applicable to sanctions by, first of all, showing that the nature of sanctions is different in the international legal order to how it is conceived in domestic legal orders in that sanctions are primarily imposed in response to threats to or breaches of the peace and, in so doing, the analysis will distinguish sanctions from countermeasures and other non-forcible measures. It then proceeds to demonstrate that the values of peace and security that underpin sanctions are essentially normative and should be seen as part of the international legal order and enforceable through sanctions alongside other fundamental norms of international law. Whether viewed as responses to breaches of international law or not, the analysis shows that sanctions are collective measures exclusively within the competence of international organizations. Having established the conceptual and legal frameworks for understanding sanctions, the article considers sanctions imposed against states and non-state actors, and explores whether the move towards targeted sanctions is a form of collective response to violations of international law. The article finishes by considering that, in contrast to countermeasures and other measures of self-help, collective sanctions are inherently lawful, but can only be legally justified as measures adopted out of a necessity to prevent major ruptures to peace and international law.

show abstract

“…146 Today, subjects of international law, both States and international organisations, must not derogate from norms of jus cogens, either in a treaty or in a (non-peremptory) customary international norm 147 or a unilateral act. 148 Otherwise the concept of jus cogens would not make any sense. In accordance with the statement of the International Law Commission as early as 1966, '… a rule of jus cogens is an overriding rule depriving any act or situation which is in confl ict with it of legality'.…”

Section: Its Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The United Nations Security Council Sanctions and International Human Rights

Couzigou

2016

ICL Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under international law when acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It argues that the Security Council has to respect human rights enshrined in those human rights treaties drawn up under the United Nations’ auspices and in non-peremptory customary international law, when this is not incompatible with the Security Council’s objective of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. The analysis also argues however that the Security Council must comply with peremptory international human rights, with no exception. The paper concludes that Chapter VII action by the Security Council is limited only to a small extent by international human rights standards.

show abstract

Collective Security

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

Autonomous and Collective Sanctions in the International Legal Order

The United Nations Security Council Sanctions and International Human Rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About