Topic 1

Introduction

On September 29, 2014 it may have become considerably harder for civilian and military superiors to avoid criminal liability for mass sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) after a landmark conviction by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was affirmed on appeal.[1]  In the trial judgement for The Prosecutor v.

Introduction

On January 28, 2015, the High Court of Australia (Australia’s highest court) issued a decision examining the question of where to take a person who flees a country for fear of persecution and is intercepted in international waters by national authorities. The judgment arose from operation “Sovereign Borders,” Australia’s latest effort to stem the flow and resultant loss of life of people travelling without authorisation to Australia by sea.

Since 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) in The Hague has aspired to “end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.”[1]  This pursuit has given rise to a contentious issue in two high-profile cases: whether high-ranking accused must be present at trial.

On April 24, 2014, the Marshall Islands filed individual applications before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) parties to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russian Federation, China) and the NWS not parties to the NPT (Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea)[1] claiming a violation of Article VI of the treaty, of its customary international la

The rapid increase in overweight and obesity around the globe has stimulated a discussion of whether and how obesity should be addressed in international law. Currently, no multilaterally binding rules govern states’ approaches to the rise in obesity.

Introduction

On September 16, 2014, in Hassan v. United Kingdom,[1] the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) interpreted how international human rights law (IHRL) should coexist with international humanitarian law (IHL) in a way that appears to give primacy to certain elements of human rights law.

At the time of publication of this Insight, Palestine is neither a signatory nor a state party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty.  Nonetheless, on January 16, 2015, the ICC Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine.

On September 20, 2014, the government of Iraq informed the UN Security Council (SC) that it had requested the United States to lead international efforts to strike Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) sites. The strikes would end the constant threat posed by ISIL to Iraq, protect Iraq’s citizens, and ultimately enable Iraq to regain control of its borders.[1] The U.S. asserted that this request extended to ISIL sites in Syria.[2]