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 ➔

What’s wrong with banning the niqab?

Let’s start with the obvious: it violates the religious freedom of Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab for reasons of faith. Even those who would defend a ban, such as noted constitutional lawyer Julius Grey, acknowledge that this would violate religious freedoms – however, freedom of religion in Canada is never absolute, and the question is whether or not the government would be able to adequately justify such an infringement.

It is widely speculated that Bill 94 – proposed legislation that would bar the niqab from being worn in government offices, hospitals, and schools in Quebec – will face fierce legal challenges despite the overwhelming public support it receives in Quebec and the rest of Canada. There are three principle avenues by which one might pursue a legal challenge to this legislation.

The first is to sue the government in Quebec Superior Court, invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter stipulates that everyone is fundamentally entitled to freedom of conscience and religion, subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (as determined using the two steps outlined in the Oakes Test).

The second avenue is to bring a complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec Charter stipulates that every person is fundamentally…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Hope still lingers as Canada ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on March 11^th, one day before the official opening of the Paralympic Games in Vancouver. This long-awaited ratification made Canada the 78^th nation to have adopted the Convention.[1] In addition to requiring provincial governments to update a number of laws, the document imposes a fundamental shift of the focus from institutionalization to integration of people with disabilities. Further, the convention will empower individuals to challenge laws and policies, deemed in conflict with the convention. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has important implications in Canadian immigration and refugee law. How far can its remedial stretch extend in offering hope to disabled immigrant and refugee applicants who seek permanent status or asylum in Canada?

The blatant exclusion of people of disabilities from immigration to Canada on the basis of disability stems back to the 1910 Immigration Act which altogether banned the immigration of people with mental disabilities. The 1927 Immigration Act expanded the basis for refusal to entry to Canada to physical disabilities as well. The subsequent amendment of the Act in 1976, introduced a less blatant discriminatory provision. Under this Act, people with disabilities could be excluded from immigration because they might place “excessive demands” on health or social services. This practice acquired a new dimension with the passing of the 1985 Immigration Act, which had s.…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Does the Charter Follow the Flag? the Afghan Detainee Transfers Example

In 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the BC Civil Liberties Association brought an application for judicial review of the transfer of individuals detained by the Canadian Forces deployed in Afghanistan. This action arose from allegations that the Canadian Forces were not taking adequate precautions to ensure that individuals, whom the Canadian Forces captured in Afghanistan and transferred to the Afghan forces, were not being tortured. To support their application, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that sections 7, 10 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) applied to individuals detained by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Charter did not apply to the actions of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

Having previously argued that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) should narrow its ruling in Hape, I was disappointed to learn that it turned down an opportunity to hear this case. In my last entry, I argued that when establishing whether the Charter applies overseas, the foreign state’s consent should only be the determinative factor where Canadian authorities or agents would be enforcing the Charter in that state. With all due respect to Mactavish J.’s efforts to navigate Hape’s legal labyrinth, the Federal Court’s decision in Amnesty International reveals the confusion resulting from Hape. This confusion stems from LeBel J.’s assertion that the extraterritorial application of the Charter necessarily entails an extraterritorial…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Strange Things Done in the Midnight Sun

Most systems of property law, like exorcists, attach special importance to possession. Once someone is in possession of a given piece of property, it is usually a demanding process to have them removed by force of law (pro tip: try holy water). The same has historically been true in matters of international territorial sovereignty. More often than not, the country which simply takes possession of territory will win out over others which may have more legitimate claims. Yet how can a state “take possession” of land which is uninhabitable? It doesn’t take a Neil Armstrong to tell you that the answer is by planting flags.

For some reason Canada seems unwilling to practise flag-planting as much as other countries. Today we have the excuse that most of our flags are hanging over Olympic podiums. But this wasn’t always the case, and our nervousness about throwing flags around is putting our claims of Arctic sovereignty at risk. These claims are important, and could translate into tall cash, since shrinking ice coverage and advancing technology will make it more practical to extract resources such as oil and natural gas from the Arctic seabed in the future.

Don’t let the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) fool you into thinking that flag-planting isn’t a legal basis for an Arctic claim. According to Part VI of the UNCLOS, states have an exclusive right…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Fear and Loathing of E-Vegas

There’s no such thing as problem gambling. I should know – during the Winter Olympics alone I won over $7,000 by gambling, and that’s not even including my wagers on Olympic sports. Of course I spent $22,000, but you have to understand that winning comes in cycles, and I think I’m heading back into a hot streak now. It’s complicated – the point is people who enjoy gambling have things under control.

Why, therefore, do we need laws regulating or banning gambling? The fact that problem gambling is a myth takes care of a Hartian positivist/utilitarian justification. This leaves only Fuller and his “natural law”, which in this case amounts to antiquated Victorian morality. With such a foundation, I’d bet that today’s gambling laws are little different in substance from those of a hundred years ago.[1]

Such questions are all the more relevant today because of the rise of online gambling. Anyone who has watched movies on Megavideo knows that there are two rules: 1) there’s a 72-minute limit, and 2) popup ads for a certain gambling website – let’s call it “MartyMoker.com” – are ubiquitous. But are these kinds of betting sites legal? The truth is that in Canada today the answer is not entirely clear.

The situation is complex because online gambling by its nature involves cross-border transactions. It is clear that running an unregulated online casino from within Canadian territory…

Continue reading this entry ➔

SCC Unconvincing in Khadr Decision

The much anticipated arrival of the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision on the repatriation of Toronto-born Omar Khadr came on Friday. Familiar to most Canadians by now, Khadr was arrested when he was 15 years old and was charged with murder, conspiracy and support of terrorism. Now 23 years old, he has been imprisoned at Gunatanamo Bay, Cuba ever since. He applied to the Federal Court  for an order that he must be repatriated which was successful and subsequently upheld on appeal.

Overturning the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, the SCC refused to order the Canadian government to bring Khadr back, submitting that it was not the correct remedy under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter as it would infringe on the government’s common law Royal Prerogative over foreign relations. This decision came despite the SCC recognizing that the Canadian officials who interrogated Mr. Khadr in 2003-2004:

participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice[i]

The remedy granted was that of “declaratory relief” – declaring that Khadr had had his rights violated and leaving it to the government to decide what to do with this “new” information. Wow! Thanks Supreme Court of Canada! Some remedy! I…

Continue reading this entry ➔

International Consequence to Prorogation

In discussing the principle of democracy in international law in my previous blog entry, I used the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall as a starting point. I wondered whether the blueprint for German reunification at the turn of the decade of the 80s could be used eventually for Korean reunification. As the 00s give way to the 10s,  I find myself more compelled now than before to write about another “threat to democracy.” While such a phrase may conjure up a slew of George W. Bush speeches discussing his “crusades” to the Middle East, the threat of which I speak is not overseas, not even in a different continent, but here in North America. It is in Canada. While saying that Prime Minister Harper’s move to prorogue parliament on December 30^th, 2009 is a threat to democracy and an affront to international law may seem like a slight exaggeration, the background of the prorogation makes it internationally relevant.

Authoritarian Leadership

This blog is certainly not the forum to engage in an ideological debate. Moreover, prorogation of Parliament is not unusual. Since Canadian Confederation, the Parliament has been put on hold 105 times. However, it is the timing and circumstances of this prorogation which has drawn nationwide criticism. While this is not a problem under Canadian domestic law, it is arguably contrary to “soft” international law. In my previous entry I…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Bil’in (Village Council) c. Green Park International Inc: an Overeaching Assertion of Jurisdiction?

In his detailed analysis of Bil’in (Village Council) c. Green Park International Inc, James Yap argues that the plaintiffs will have a great chance of overturning Cullen J.’s decision to decline jurisdiction. Since our own Alexandra Dodger introduces this intricate case very well, I direct those who are unfamiliar with it to her entry. While I welcome the decision for its potential to end the impunity with which Canadian corporations operate overseas, I believe that the Court of Appeal would not overturn Cullen J.’s decision if it did hear the matter. I agree with the outcome because the connection between the dispute and Québec is far too superficial for a Québec court to legitimately claim jurisdiction over the action. However, the issues raised by the application of forum non conveniens to this case should make us think twice before dismissing the plaintiffs’ action as an abusive or exaggerated assertion of jurisdiction.

The main problem with bringing this action in Québec is that its connection to Québec is extremely weak. Pursuant to article 3134 of the CCQ, the court took jurisdiction over the action because it found that the defendants were domiciled in Québec (Bil’in, para. 207). While the fact that the defendant has its domicile in Québec might normally be determinative in establishing jurisdiction, such a factor should be inconclusive in this instance. As Cullen himself later points out

this lone and apparent…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Last Week in International Law

1. Prosecutor v. Karadzic

On November 5, the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia postponed the trial against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic until March 2010. Karadzic ended his boycott of the proceedings earlier this week, saying it would be “criminal” if he had “to enter a trial for which I am not prepared.”

As discussed last week, Karadzic’s boycott of the trial led judges to begin hearing the prosecution’s case and warning Karadzic to appear in court or risk being tried in absentia.  Besides postponing the trial, the tribunal has also appointed a lawyer to represent Karadzic.

Karadzic has vowed to resist the imposition of counsel.  He has seven days to apply for permission to appeal the ruling, and another seven days thereafter to file an appeal.

2. Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty was officially ratified by the last European Union member state, the Czech Republic, on 3 November 2009. It is expected to officially become law in December.

The treaty is an attempt to make the EU more cohesive and influential on the worldwide stage, though some critics have seen it as a threat to national sovereignty. The treaty grants new powers to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice.  Legislation will now be decided by “co-decision” by the parliament and the European Council.  A major change regards the president of the Council.  Currently, countries take turns at being president for six…

Continue reading this entry ➔