IO + HR Flashcards

Question

Adoption of conventions within IOs: Opting-out procedure

Answer 1

Majority adoption -> option to notify and opt out within timeframe

Answer 2

Majority adoption -> option to notify and opt out within timeframe. Speed up via immediate activitation. Free to opt out

Answer 3

Time limit for ratify or not. If not -> provide reason

Answer 4

International courts. CJEU has jurisdiction to review if compliance with ius cogens/legal regimes of national measures. Not domestic courts (only check if comply with jus cogens).

Answer 5

Invalid act -> considered never legally effective

Answer 6

Invalid act, but parties who relied on it should be protected. No retroactive effect

Answer 7

Only part of the act is considered invalid -> remainder of act is valid

Answer 8

Ultra vires act, but no one objects -> likely the decision will stand

Answer 9

The organization itself, representatives of the UNs MS, UN Officials and Experts on missions

Answer 10

HQ district shall be under control of UN, HQ district is inviolable, military and police can only enter with the consent by the Secretary-General, HQ shall prevent becoming a refuge from persons escaping arrest

Answer 11

Privileges and immunities of the EU applies to the EU and its officials, representatives of MS, members of the EP, judges of the CJEU. Third countries accredited to the EU enjoy accorded privileges and immunities by the EU’s host state

Answer 12

Codified, crystallization, generating.

Answer 13

1. Full incorporation of an int org into the domestic legal order. Single act/law regulating each international organization. 2. General law regulating privileges and immunities + executive decrees, no specific international org

Answer 14

In history there was an idea that the actions of IOs could only affect the MS -> but then Tin Council (80es) went bankrupt and left many creditors unpaid. Assumption dismissed.

Answer 15

1. There has to be an legal agent (responsible in court). 2. Involved in the relevant conduct (link between actor and conduct. Ex. NATO or MS?) 3. Superior/subordinate relationship (provides instructions and just enforce it? NATO soldiers responsible or just following orders?)

Answer 16

At the treaty law level, the constitutive instruments of IOs. Two exceptions: Orgs in the financial field (you don’t enter into agreements about finance if there is not a clear realm of responsibility) and Orgs carrying out activities in outer space (bc they are dangerous)

Answer 17

State analogy (states and orgs are different entities), One size (do not) fit all, not so much practice available

Answer 18

When an IO and a state are responsible for the same wrongdoing the responsibility of the state and the IO may be invoked separately.

Answer 19

1. Behrami. No dual attribution. Tried to bring Norway, France and Germany before the court, but was deemed inadmissible bc countries were acting as UN agtents. 2. Srebreinca. Dual attribution. UN and the Netherlands were treated differently UN=immunity, the Netherlands District Court of the Hauge: N partly responsible 3. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Greece. Dual attribution. Greece prevented YRoM to enter NATO. Greece said that they were acting as NATO MS and therefore not attributable to Greece. Court said no and applied dual attribution.

Answer 20

a. Restitution. We establish the situation which was before the wrongful act was committed. Two requirements 1. Materially possible 2. Proportionate. Restitution should not involve a burden disproportionate from the benefit. b. Compensation: Payment due to the damage caused. c. Satisfaction: Symbolic value. Acknowledgement of breach. Regret, apology or a finding in a tribunal.

Answer 21

Everything is based on consent. IOs often made to ensure that HR are not breached, but who ensures that IOs do not breach HR? Paradox: immunity + the position of IOs + the lack of jurisdiction = paradox. Behrami case: UN in Kosovo administration of territory by an IO = a case where HR were breached but no dual attribution = UN have immunity.

Answer 22

Difference: number of states. UN: negotiate with many states. Difficult to find strong consensus. Heterogeneous. Wide constellation but not very deep. No courts, just committees. Observation + views. Possible to be in UN but not HR conventions. CoE: easier to find strong consensus push mechanism to stronger procedures. Binding court. If you want to be a part of the CoE you have to ratify the HR conventions. In general = regional systems are stronger.

Answer 23

UN: expulsion possible (no practical example. South Africa was brought for expulsion, but veto -> never brought before the GA) CoE: suspension and expulsion possible. Russia has been expulsed. 6 m rule after expulsion: still watched by the court. Gives states a chance for correct mistakes and join again. Paradox: states that violate HR and get expulsed are no longer watched by the court. EX: Russia expulsed in March 2022. Effective exit in Sep 2022. Ratione tempris: if a violation took place while Russia was part of the convention then they can be brought before the court (if local remedies are exhausted)

Answer 24

-Universal periodic review Cycle of rounds where HRC analyses the situation of HR in each MS. States make reports maybe problem. Result: recommendations. -Special procedures Focus on one MS. Very specific topic focus on either specific country situation or thematic issue in different countries. Result: repots. Nothing binding (not much in the international system is when the recommendation, report, advisory opinion is published, the ‘punishment’ is that everyone knows (publishment consent based) -Complaint procedure Possible for individuals to bring cases before the court, but HRC do not take each up, just collects them. If many complaints/cases deal with one topic/country, they take it up. NO DECISIONS ON INDIVIDUAL CASES

Answer 25

HRC: state representatives -Universal periodic review Cycle of rounds where HRC analyses the situation of HR in each MS. States make reports maybe problem. Result: recommendations. -Special procedures Focus on one MS. Very specific topic focus on either specific country situation or thematic issue in different countries. Result: repots. Nothing binding (not much in the international system is when the recommendation, report, advisory opinion is published, the ‘punishment’ is that everyone knows (publishment consent based) -Complaint procedure Possible for individuals to bring cases before the court, but HRC do not take each up, just collects them. If many complaints/cases deal with one topic/country, they take it up. NO DECISIONS ON INDIVIDUAL CASES

Answer 26

Independent experts (not political like HR Council). Monitor implementation of HR core treaties. Based on state reporting the state tells the committee what it is doing to align the state with the recommendations. -Reports Each MS address the to the committee, cycle depends on the convention. Nothing happens after report -Inquiries (undersøgelse, ask questions, investigate) Few conventions include this power, not very used. Report following inquiry is not published. -Inter-state communications One state reports about another state -Individual communications An individual victim puts a case before the committee. Different conditions to bring a claim, most important is the exhaustion of local remedies. Practical reason: too many complaints if this was not the case. Theoretical reason: give the state the option to take international responsibility.

Answer 27

Systems of visits: To check and keep MS aligned with the provision of torture. They come and look and interview report. Part of the flexible approach: optional protocol

Answer 28

Creation of HR conventions: in CoE it’s like UN --> organs have power to create specific treaties in the name of HR protection. The is in the rules of the statute: give legal basis to draft treaties. Committee of Ministers --> create organ which is enabled to work and negotiate on draft conventions that fall within the general aim of the CoE --> protection of HR.

Answer 29

Monitoring procedure Soft procedure: If serious HR breach MS can have their place in PA suspended (not entire CoE)

Answer 30

-Systems of visits Similar to the UN: Convention against torture. European convention against torture. They come and look and interview report. -Committees No binding procedure, follow up mechanisms (weak). -Courts European Convention of Human Rights. If part of the convention you have to accept what it says, accept the jurisdiction. CoE has less flexibility than the UN because there is the top level of control court. Possible to reach because of the homogeneity of the organization. 1. Inter-state applications: state put another state for the court if there is breach of the convention. Only states that are in the convention can be brought before the court (Australia cannot). 2. Individual applications: from any person, NGO or group of individuals. Domestic remedies must have been exhausted + many other requirements. Court has binding force -Traditional mechanisms of settlement of international disputes: fewer mechanisms, not much practice -Soft monitoring body Monitors that procedure of democracy takes place in accordance with aggrement

Answer 31

Based on state pratice (objective) and opinio juris (subjective)

Answer 32

Certain fundamental, overriding principles of international law

Answer 33

The Court's role is to settle legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

Answer 34

It examines complaints (known as 'applications') alleging violations of human rights. These applications can be made by individuals, or sometimes by Member States. When the Court finds that a Member State has violated one or more of the Convention’s rights and guarantees, it explains why in a written judgment. Judgments are binding; the countries concerned must comply with them.