Call for Papers
The Groningen Journal of International Law continues to receive submission for its Volume 6, Issue 1 to be published in June 2018. Guidelines on the submission can be found here. All manuscripts submitted via email to board@grojil.org by 6 April will be considered for publication.
By Liliana Lyra Jubilut and Rachel de Oliveira Lopes |lljubilut@gmail.com rachel_lopes@yahoo.com.br
For all its specialisation in its contemporary phase after World War II and the granting of a special status to human rights, international law still lacks a comprehensive architecture for the protection of migrants. The only advanced regime relates to the protection of refugees, while the Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is the least ratified treaty among the core instruments of human rights, not counting with the commitment of any major migrant-receiving Western State.
Furthermore, even though the processes of negotiation and creation of a Global Compact on Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration (by States) and a Global Compact on Refugees (by UNHCR), are under way, the creation of hard norms on either migration governance or the protection of migrants has not advanced and there is as of yet no consensus on the topic, as the USA’s resignation from the Migration Compact shows.
By Ferdinand Quist, Groningen Journal of International Law | board@grojil.org
Dear reader,
This second issue in Volume 5 of the Groningen Journal of International Law provides another exciting new step in the development of the Journal. Some may have already caught a few glimpses here and there, but it is still an honour to properly announce our co-operation with University of Groningen Press (UGP)! Without getting too technical, UGP has provided us with an Open Journal System and taken on the backend work needed to export our publications to academic databases. Concretely this means that starting from this issue all articles will be published not on our own website, but on <https://ugp.rug.nl/grojil> instead. References to previous issues and articles on our website will gradually be redirected to the relevant external webpage on our UGP site. It goes without saying that all articles will still be made available on SSRN and other outlets. This is an incredible opportunity for the Journal to increase the discoverability of the work that the authors have entrusted us with and by extension increase the Journal’s exposure.
By Benjamin Dürr | mail@benjamin-duerr.de
Twenty years after its creation, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is on the verge of gaining jurisdiction over a new crime, enabling the court to prosecute high-level individuals for waging war. During the annual Assembly of States Parties in December, the ICC’s member states decided to activate the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression as of 17 July 2018 – twenty years after the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, entered into force. While the activation is seen as a historic step in international law, the political compromises that enabled it raise doubts about the applicability of jurisdiction over the new crime.
By Marlies Hesselman and Lottie Lane | m.m.e.hesselman@rug.nl c.l.lane@rug.nl
This series of two blog posts builds on two recent articles by the authors on the human rights responsibilities of private actors during disasters, including companies and NGOs (here and here – open access).
As explained in Part I, several international initiatives have led to a common understanding that private companies are subject to both indirect and direct human rights duties or responsibilities, mostly to respect human rights. It was also established that such duties or responsibilities apply during all stages of disaster management. With these findings in mind, the current post particularly reflects on recent corporate responses to hurricanes in the Atlantic region. Continue reading
By Marlies Hesselman and Lottie Lane | m.m.e.hesselman@rug.nl c.l.lane@rug.nl
This series of two blog posts builds on two recent articles by the authors on the human rights responsibilities of private actors during disasters, including companies and NGOs (here and here – open access). The following post addresses whether private companies have human rights responsibilities during disasters, while the second post particularly reflects on recent corporate responses to hurricanes in the Atlantic region.
Boasting the severely destructive hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season revealed deep concerns about (in)adequate human rights protection in situations of natural disasters. It especially revealed the impact of natural disasters on the most vulnerable.
Premature loss of lives and limb, massive damage to homes, property and the economy, the total disruptions of lives, livelihoods, infrastructures and utilities: these matters raise important questions about the adequate protection of human rights prior, during and after disasters. Human rights at stake include the right to life, the right to food, the right to water, the right to health, the right to private and family life and protection of the home, the right to housing, the right to shelter, and the right to property. More rights may be relevant, as is detailed, for example, by the UN’s Inter-Agency Standing Committee.
By Prof. Dr. Caroline Fournet |c.i.fournet@rug.nl
On 22 November 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued one of its most awaited judgments: that against Ratko Mladić, former Serbian army general and acolyte of the equally lamentably famous Radovan Karadžić, former Bosnian Serb leader, who also achieved infamy for the atrocities he perpetrated and was condemned by the ICTY on 24 March 2016.
The point of this short blog text is not to summarise a judgment that totals 2475 pages, excluding Judge Orie’s Dissenting Opinion and appendices. Rather, it is to comment on one particular issue that, although not overlooked as such, seems to be accepted as an expected outcome and ultimately as a side point in a verdict that, after all, may be seen as satisfactory insofar as it condemned the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’.
