4,573 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ::a commentary /
No full textThis Commentary offers detailed background and analysis of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted at the UN Headquarters in New York in July 2017. The Treaty comprehensively prohibits the use, development, export, and possession of nuclear weapons. Stuart Casey-Maslen, a leading expert in the field who served as legal adviser to the Austrian Delegation during the negotiations of this Treaty, works through article by article, describing how each provision was negotiated and what it implies for states that join the Treaty. As the Treaty provisions cut across various branches of international law, the Commentary goes beyond a discussion of disarmament to consider the law of armed conflict, human rights, and the law on inter-state use of force. The Commentary examines the relationship with other treaties addressing nuclear weapons, in particular the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Background on the development and possession of nuclear weapons and theories of nuclear deterrence is provided. Particular attention is paid to controversial issues such as assistance for prohibited activities, the meaning of 'threaten to use', and the definition of nuclear explosive devices. Casey-Maslen also considers whether a member of NATO or other nuclear alliance can lawfully become a state party to the Treaty
Recommended from our members
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ::a commentary /
No full textThis Commentary offers detailed background and analysis of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted at the UN Headquarters in New York in July 2017. The Treaty comprehensively prohibits the use, development, export, and possession of nuclear weapons. Stuart Casey-Maslen, a leading expert in the field who served as legal adviser to the Austrian Delegation during the negotiations of this Treaty, works through article by article, describing how each provision was negotiated and what it implies for states that join the Treaty. As the Treaty provisions cut across various branches of international law, the Commentary goes beyond a discussion of disarmament to consider the law of armed conflict, human rights, and the law on inter-state use of force. The Commentary examines the relationship with other treaties addressing nuclear weapons, in particular the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Background on the development and possession of nuclear weapons and theories of nuclear deterrence is provided. Particular attention is paid to controversial issues such as assistance for prohibited activities, the meaning of 'threaten to use', and the definition of nuclear explosive devices. Casey-Maslen also considers whether a member of NATO or other nuclear alliance can lawfully become a state party to the Treaty
Recommended from our members
The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention ::a commentary /
No full text"Stuart Casey-Maslen's article-by-article commentary on the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention [APMBC] addresses international law and state practice on anti-personnel mines in the first twenty-five years of the lifetime of this disarmament treaty"--Publisher
Jus ad bellum: The Law on Inter-State Use of Force by Stuart Casey-Maslen : the Law on inter-state use of force /
No full textRevolution not Evolution: Protecting the rights of children in armed conflicts in the new millennium
No full textStuart Maslen and Shazia Islamshah argue that through the Machel Study and campaigns to end the use of landmines and child soldiers, children's rights in armed conflict have begun to receive the attention they deserve. They suggest that if the plight of children is to be genuinely tackled, there needs to be a fundamental refocus on children's rights if the new millennium is not simply to start as the present one has ended. Development (2000) 43, 28–31. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1110113
Two controversies in the Lubanga trial judgment of the ICC : the nature of co-perpetration’s common plan and the classification of the armed conflict
No full textThis chapter focuses on two aspects of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Lubanga Trial Judgment. First, it investigates the common plan element of (direct) co-perpetration as a mode of liability, particularly the Trial Chamber’s holding that it need not be inherently criminal nor necessarily involve the commission of crimes. It demonstrates that this is inconsistent with other elaborations of the common plan element in prior ICC decisions, jurisprudence that was neither engaged nor addressed. It also questions the reliance by the Trial Chamber on Article 30 of the ICC Statute to arrive at this interpretation and contrasts its approach to that of the ad hoc tribunals in the context of joint criminal enterprise, which similarly contains a common plan element. Second, the chapter addresses the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the classification of the armed conflict, in particular its reliance on Tadić’s test of overall control to determine the existence of an international armed conflict (or not) when non-state armed groups function with the support of states. The author opines that contrary to increasingly popular belief, the fact that the Trial Chamber was classifying the conflict does not in of itself harmonise Tadić with the International Court of Justice’s competing test in Nicaragua of effective control, an ongoing source of debate that was neither flagged nor engaged. The author concludes that rather than letting such conflicting jurisprudence fester in the background unaddressed, it should be confronted, lest they return to unexpected and/or unwelcome results in the future
Farewell 'specific direction' : aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity in Perišić, Taylor, Šainović et al., and US Alien Tort Statute jurisprudence
No full textIt is not an overstatement to posit that international criminal law (ICL) has never seen anything quite like what has been dubbed the ‘specific direction saga’. The drama began when the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Perišić1 case acquitted the accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes on the basis that the actus reus of aiding and abetting required not only that he substantially contributed to the commission of crimes (by providing practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support), but also, since he was remote from the crimes, that such acts needed to be specifically directed towards the commission of crimes.2 This was the first time that such an element had been applied to this effect in the history of the ICTY and ICL. The rest, as they say, is history, as discussed in detail this chapter
Complementarity and universal jurisdiction : South Africa’s ICC Act and the domestic investigation of extraterritorial international crimes
No full textIn Southern African Litigation Centre and Another v. National Director of Public Prosecution and Others the High Court of South Africa held that South African authorities were legally obliged to investigate allegations of crimes against humanity committed in Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans against their own nationals. This was based on the strength of domestic law, in particular the universal jurisdiction provision of Section 4(3)(c) of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act (‘ICC Act’), together with South Africa’s international legal obligations as a state party to the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) and the principle of complementarity. This decision has likely been the catalyst for the opening of other investigations by South African authorities of extraterritorial international crimes allegedly committed in Madagascar and Zimbabwe. This chapter takes a critical approach to the invocation of complementarity in a universal jurisdiction context. It argues that, in cases such as the present, complementarity can only be invoked when a state’s domestic jurisdiction over international crimes matches those of the ICC. That is, when committed by the nationals of an ICC state party or on their territory. To hold otherwise, as the High Court did in the Zimbabwe case (a state which is not a party to the ICC) invites results that completely transforms the traditional understanding of complementarity beyond that intended by its creators. Nevertheless, South Africa may still have an international (or domestic) obligation to investigate international crimes pursuant to its universal jurisdiction, but it cannot be based on the Rome Statute or complementarity
Develop a Book About Food Allergy Superpowers (Summer 2022)
No full textCasey Cockrell Stuart is the Assistant Director of Employer Services in the Career Center. She has been on staff at the University of Mississippi since July 11, 2007.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/staff_res/1008/thumbnail.jp
- …
