A League of Their Own

In recent years China’s prominence on the world stage has grown rapidly. With consistently high GDP growth, a swelling middle class, and high-profile international events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics or the Expo 2010 in Shanghai, many recognize China as an emerging superpower. But this growth has not been consistent across all fronts, and in some respects China lags far behind other world powers. Recent events have made one area in particular stand out in this regard: oil spills.

On July 16^th in the Chinese port city of Dalian, the explosion of two oil pipelines caused thousands of barrels of oil to begin gushing into the sea. The slick has since expanded to cover hundreds of square kilometres of water and spread upwards of 90km down the coast. The spill – and China’s cack-handed response – is clearly modelled after the U.S.’s ongoing gulf coast saga – but it’s a pale imitation. Unlike the American spill, there seems to be no threat of the oil being carried to other nations’ coasts. Yet even Australia has managed to pull off a massive spill affecting its neighbours. If China wants to get into the oil spill big leagues, they’ll have to find a way to go international.

But while the international oil spill scene is characterised by intense competition, there is a notable lack of corresponding cooperation. It’s all well and good to give neighbours’ coasts…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Transparency, internet and the international investment law

A ‘small history’ was recently made in the field of international investment law when, for the first time ever, the proceedings of a certain investor-state dispute (Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12) – Public Hearing (“Pac Rim Cayman dispute”)) were webcasted live to the general public.[1] These webcasts are now available on the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) website, where visitors can entertain themselves with over 12 hours of recorded legal proceedings (including recess).[2] It is asserted in this entry that by using the online webcast technology, the parties to the Pac Rim Cayman dispute introduced a new standard of transparency into the field of international investment law. Whether this standard will be taken up by future disputants remains to be seen.

The investor-state dispute resolution process has been a long standing target for critics. Many of these critics concentrate on the lack of transparency demonstrated in the system; Indeed investor-state dispute resolution proceedings are often held in a confidential manner, where not only the public cannot follow or participate in the proceedings, but also, at least on some occasions, viewing the awards granted in these disputes is not permitted. The importance of such a webcast therefore lies first and foremost in the enhanced transparency it provides. It is, after all, only fair that the public be allowed (and able) to follow any…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Realizing Layers of Security in Haiti: A Conceptual Re-Think is Needed if Haiti is to Find Post-Earthquake Peace

Articles in this week’s New York Times and Globe and Mail highlighted calls for a massive scaling-up of disaster relief and development efforts in Haiti. However, leaders should be much more critical about the shortfalls of such missions in the past, as Haiti is no stranger to international interventions, in particular at the hands of the United Nations and the US government, and to a lesser extent, Canada. As security is often held to underpin relief and development efforts, policymakers need to reform their view of the provision of physical security and international law needs to reflect this process. Time and time again, Western powers have failed to assist the Haitian people address the wrongs of the past and meet their overall social and economic development goals.[1]

Sadly, it has become commonplace for developed nations to make big pledges when tragedies occur, but seldom are all funds collected to drive development strategies. Only 10% of funds pledged to Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake have arrived in Port au Prince thus far. Core funding is often lumped into ‘security programs’, while so-called ‘soft development’ strategies languish. Soft development aid dollars are often tied up in the activities of foreign NGOs. The amount of NGOs in Haiti is staggering. The presence of so many foreign personnel, who are often unaccountable to the Haitian government or people as a whole, is troubling and potentially destabilizing.…

Continue reading this entry ➔

La liberté d’expression en 2010: une perspective tournée vers l’avenir

À notre époque, une société démocratique a nécessairement besoin des médias afin de développer une culture démocratique. La population généralise ses expériences, apprend ce qui se passe dans le monde et dans sa communauté ainsi qu’elle prend conscience que la parole de son gouvernement n’est pas toujours gage de vérité au travers des médias[1]. Ils sont donc une des pierres angulaires de la vie démocratique et malgré leurs défauts, il serait bien difficile de s’en passer puisqu’ils permettent à la population de participer aux débats sur l’élaboration des politiques du gouvernement[2]. Lors de sa première session, en 1946, l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a d’ailleurs tenu à rappeler l’importance de bâtir une société où la liberté d’expression est à l’avant-plan, déclarant dans la Résolution 59(1) que « la liberté de l’information est un droit fondamental de l’homme et la pierre de touche de toutes les libertés à la défense desquelles se consacrent les Nations Unies ». Afin de mieux comprendre le lien étroit unissant le droit à la liberté d’expression, les médias et le système démocratique dans notre société, il faut d’abord se pencher sur l’étendu de ce droit, le régime de protection dont il bénéficie en vertu du droit international des droits humains et les défis auxquels il sera amené à faire face dans notre société en constante évolution et au sein de laquelle l’internet et les technologies de l’information ne cessent…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Anarchists Engage with G20 Issues

A great deal of attention has been paid recently to the preparation for the G20 summit next weekend in Toronto. But while the event has been a boon for the troubled artificial lake industry, not everyone will be so pleased with the assembled world leaders. From labour unions to environmentalists to indigenous rights groups, protestors are expected in the thousands. The greatest security concern however, remains the kind of anti-capitalism and anarchist groups which made the Seattle WTO summit of 1999 so memorable. The same kind will be in attendance during the Toronto summit; the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance (SOAR) and FFFC Ottawa, which was responsible for the firebombing of an Ottawa bank after hours on May 18^th, have both announced they’ll be at the event.

Yet Mike Bakunin, who recently left SOAR to establish a sister branch in Rivière Ouest (Manitoba) with a more awesome acronym, claims that these groups don’t just advocate violence. “For those who think that anarchists are just about chaos and firebombing, that’s not the case. Groups like FFFC Ottawa give the rest of us a bad name – we can actually engage with the issues as well as anyone. Now obviously the summit will be focusing on economic and financial matters, so we think that we can best get our message across if we zero in on those issues as well. It’s hard to convey…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Legal Pluralism – A Primer

A number of my previous blog postings made extensive reference to the buzzword “legal pluralism” which one finds abound in contemporary legal literature. Instances of legal pluralism can be found in the recent debate on faith-based arbitration in Ontario, in the Beth Din courts of New York, and in the family law structure of the Philippines.[1] A discussion on the very term “legal pluralism” is important so that its underlying assumptions can be uncovered and scrutinized rather than passing the relevant discussion unnoticed.

I. Defining Legal Pluralism

At its core, the concept of legal pluralism serves two purposes. The first purpose is to discredit the doctrine of legal centralism. Griffith’s seminal paper on legal pluralism defined the ideology of legal centralism as a claim that “law is and should be the law of the state, uniform for all persons, exclusive of all other law, and administered by a single set of state institutions”.[2] The state thus holds a monopoly over the administration of law, and is the sole source of legitimizing authority as to what constitutes “law”. Legal centralism follows a liberal conception where “state institutions operate according to strict principles of equality and neutrality”,[3] based on the assumption that state law is logically coherent.[4] According to legal pluralists, legal centralism is conceptually parasitic to the development of descriptive theories of the law, since it establishes an a priori notion of the desirable state of affairs.[5] As its second…

Continue reading this entry ➔

The Securitization of Immigration and Refugee Law in the United Kingdom

In describing governance trends in the United Kingdom today, Ian Loader contends that certain issues or “threats” are taken out of the realm of democratic politics and “securitized” by government.[1] Refugee and asylum law in particular, is an issue that has been increasingly securitized over the past decade since the ‘9-11’ attacks in the US in 2001 and the ‘7-7’ attacks in the UK in 2005. Evidence of this trend can be detected from the analysis of a recent press statement from the British Home Office:

Asylum applications for the last three months of 2009 were the lowest since the early 1990s. Net migration is down, and the new UK Border Agency is increasingly successful… We are making the UK a more hostile place for illegal immigrants by issuing foreign nationals with ID cards, checking those who apply for visas against watch lists and fining those who employ illegal workers.[2]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a dip in asylum applications occurring within the UK. In fact, the decreasing amount of refugees in the UK probably does correlate with a global downturn in the total number of refugees.[3] Yet, it is strange that this press statement focuses on this dip in correlation to the UK Border Agency’s (UKBA) attempt to create a more  “hostile” atmosphere for those seeking to migrate to the UK. The UKBA publishes accounts of its agents cracking down on illegal…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Les assassinats ciblés au regard du droit international: légaux ou pas?

Depuis que les États-Unis ont déclaré leur « guerre contre la terreur » suite aux événements du 11 septembre 2001, de multiples attaques ciblant spécifiquement une personne ou un groupe ont été exécutées sur le territoire d’un État étranger. Notamment en ce qui concerne le conflit israélo-palestinien, au cours duquel la Force israélienne de défense a rendu publics ses agissements, n’hésitant pas à organiser l’assassinat de dirigeants de groupes de l’opposition palestinienne présumés avoir commis des actes terroristes. Les assassinats ciblés forment donc un problème préoccupant sur le plan juridique à une époque où les techniques et stratégies de guerre ne cessent d’évoluer.

Nils Melzer, conseiller juridique au Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et auteur du livre Targeted Killing in International Law, définit un assassinat ciblé comme l’utilisation d’une force létale par un sujet de droit international et dirigée à l’encontre d’une personne individuellement sélectionnée n’étant pas détenue.  Cette force doit être intentionnelle (plutôt que négligente ou insouciante), préméditée (plutôt que simplement volontaire) et délibérée (dans le sens que la mort de la personne ciblée est le but ultime de l’opération, à l’opposé du cas où la mort bien qu’intentionnelle et préméditée demeure le résultat accidentel d’une opération poursuivant un tout autre but)[1]. Ces attaques posent d’épineux problèmes lorsque considérées en vertu du droit humanitaire international et du droit international des droits humains. La communauté juridique internationale est d’ailleurs divisée sur la question…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Regionalization of International Criminal Law on the African Continent?: Ubuntu and Amnesty

On 15^th December 2009, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) rendered its (much awaited) first decision – In the Matter of Michelot Yogogombaye v The Republic of Senegal.[1] In the case, Michelot Yogogombaye brought an application against Senegal with a view to suspend Senegal’s ongoing legal proceedings against Hissène Habré, former President of Chad.[2] Habré is suspected of complicity in crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of torture in Chad between 1982 and December 1990.[3] Yogogombaye alleged that Senegal had violated the legality principle by amending their Constitution to authorize “retroactive application of its criminal laws, with a view to trying exclusively and solely Mr. Hissène Habré”.[4] Although the ruling did not move beyond the merits in finding that Senegal had not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction,[5] some of the arguments outlined deserve attention. In this case note I will focus on the arguments on the issues of amnesty to draw out the regional flavour in the approach.

Amnesty and Ubuntu: Shared objective?

An interesting feature in the judgment was that Yogogombaye urged the Court to order that Senegal utilize the philosophical concept of ubuntu to develop a national “Truth, Justice, Reparations and Reconciliation” Commission for Chad on crimes committed between 1962 and 2008.[6] Ubuntu (or African Humanity) is a philosophy that attempts to capture the intersection of justice and humanity by essentially asking: how does one keep their humanity after being wronged? This was underscored…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Culmination of the 2009-2010 Blogging Year

I am very please to announce that Legal Frontiers has been awarded the McGill Law Students Association Award for Clubs 2009-2010, for the group’s “outstanding contributions to the Faculty community through the organization of events and activities this year.” Congratulations the all the members of Legal Frontiers who made this year a success at the McGill Faculty of Law. I extend my full gratitude to all the contributors of Legal Frontier, whose writings constantly engaged our public readership: Brett, Daniel Haboucha, Larissa, Lee, Todd, Alexandra, Philip, Avidan, Yeniva, Jenna, Erin, Emily, and Silvia, Daniel King, and Andrew. Further, my gratitude to our coordinators, whose behind the scenes work served as the thread, which facilitated the seamless day-to-day running of the blog: Leo and James.

As the academic year comes to an end, it is time to the pass the reigns onto a new group of students. I am very pleased to announce that the 2010-2011 Contributor-in-Chief will be our own Yeniva Massaquoi. She will be assisted by the incoming Executive Contributor, Martin Hétu, who is newly joining the Legal Frontiers team. I am confident that under their leadership, Legal Frontiers will reach new heights in the coming year.

I also want to assure our valued readers that we will be continuing to blog throughout the summer months (May-August). Since many students have work and travel plans during the summer, our goal will be the post…

Continue reading this entry ➔