Assessments of Liability for Violations of International Law involving Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Abstract Entities and Algorithmic Accountability – Helen Stamp

05/10/202105/10/2021 Editors Analysis, Articles

In 1950, the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremburg, put forward the following, fundamental proposition, reported in the official proceedings of the Tribunal [466], regarding criminal responsibility for crimes of international concern:

“[c]rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

This statement was in response to arguments submitted to the Tribunal that it is sovereign states which are governed by international law, rather than individuals, and that individuals are therefore protected from personal responsibility when the act in question is an ‘act of state.’ This submission was strongly rejected by the Tribunal who confirmed that individuals can be held responsible under international law, and specifically the laws of war; a position which has been maintained and has informed the development of international criminal law since that time.

Seventy-one years on, the notion of individual criminal responsibility is again being challenged; not through arguments of state sovereignty but by the very technology incorporated into weaponry which is now being developed and used in modern armed conflicts.

In particular, Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) – where responsibility for decisions is shared between a human operator and to varying degrees an autonomous digital system – have created a challenge to established legal frameworks and accountability mechanisms which would have been unimaginable to those sitting at Nuremburg many years ago.

Beyond the International Health Regulations: The Role of International Disaster Response Law in the Global Pandemic Response – Thomas Mulder

01/10/202101/10/2021 Editors Analysis, Articles

The global pandemic response has legally largely relied on the International Health Regulations of 2005, but this instrument does not offer a clear framework for the provision of international assistance in pandemics. The regime of international disaster response law offers a solution and should fill this gap. The concurrent application of both regimes contributes to a comprehensive global approach to the complex challenges of pandemics.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, dramatic surges in COVID-19 cases have caused crises around the world. Rising pressure on health care systems and shortages of medical supplies have put several states in urgent need of assistance at various stages during the pandemic. A striking example is India, where an exponential rise of cases led to heartbreaking scenes in April and May 2021. States have responded to these needs with offers of international assistance, including assistance to India. However, it has been unclear which legal framework applies to international assistance in a pandemic.

The International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005) have been the main framework for the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this year, two independent panels that reviewed the global pandemic response have highlighted the lack of attention drawn to international cooperation and mutual assistance in the IHR 2005. The panels have recommended revision of the IHR 2005 and even a new ‘pandemic treaty’, but did not come up with detailed proposals that address international assistance in pandemics. However, rather than reinventing the wheel, we should look beyond the IHR 2005 and rely on the rules and principles of international law that already address international assistance in crises, namely international disaster response law. This regime should be integrated into the legal framework on the global pandemic response.

Event: ‘Private International Law and Intellectual Property: The ILA Kyoto Guidelines’, 15 October 2021

01/10/202101/10/2021 Editors Events

In 2020, the 79th Conference of the International Law Association passed the Resolution 6/2020 and adopted the Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (‘Kyoto Guidelines’).

The Guidelines are part of international efforts to establish a cooperative global system for jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgment recognition and enforcement in transnational IP disputes. They apply to civil and commercial matters involving IP rights that are connected to more than one State.

This webinar, jointly sponsored by the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the Sydney Law School and International Law Association (Australian Branch), invites distinguished professors from Japan, Republic of Korea and Australia to discuss the contents, implications, and challenges of the Guidelines in regulating complicated IP disputes.

At the webinar, Professor Toshiyuki Kono (Kyushu University, Japan) will be speaking about the background and significance of the Kyoto Guidelines; Professor Gyooho Lee (Chung-Ang University, Republic of Korea) will be speaking about the laws applicable to transferability of an intellectual property right and employment contracts under the Kyoto Guidelines; and Professor Vivienne Bath (Sydney Law School, Australia) will be speaking about the Kyoto Guidelines and injunction in transnational standard essential patents and parallel patent infringement disputes. The panel will be moderated by Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang (Sydney Law School, Australia).

The event will be held on Friday 15 October 2021 from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm AEDT on Zoom. Registration is essential and through Eventbrite.

International Human Rights Law ‘In Here’: Bail Reform in Victoria – Jennifer Keene-McCann

30/09/202101/10/2021 Editors Articles

Jennifer Keene-McCann brings international human rights law home to Victoria’s Bail Act 1977.

When I teach international law, I often wave my hands in the air separating the ‘domestic sphere’ and the ‘international sphere’. This separation, I explain, is how something could be lawful in the domestic sphere but unlawful in the international. Australia is a dualist system; we can commit to particular principles on the international stage and choose not to implement them domestically.

This separation is partly why I imagine many domestic practitioners do not see international law as a part of their ‘toolbox’ – it exists ‘out there’ somewhere. But international legal principles provide excellent support for strategic litigation.

A perfect example of this is bail.

Victoria further tightened its laws in 2017 and 2018 by increasing the number of offences subject to what is referred to as a ‘reverse onus’ test for granting bail (outlined further below). Now, there is growing concern that not only are provisions in Victoria’s Bail Act 1977 (Bail Act or the Act) too harsh, they are also disproportionately effecting Victoria’s most vulnerable.

Event: International Investment Agreements and National Impacts, 7 October 2021

20/09/202120/09/2021 Editors Events, ILA Updates

The International Law Association (Australian Branch) is pleased to announce its fourth in a series of online lunch-time panels showcasing the work of early career international lawyers.

This event follows the first panel on “Intersections of International Environmental Law with National Jurisdictions” on 22 July 2021, the second panel on “Armed Conflict, Technology and Human Rights” on 26 August 2021 and the third panel on “International Criminal Law: Practitioner Perspectives” on 16 September 2021. Recordings are made of these panels and will be made available in the members’ section of the ILA (AB)’s website in due course.

This fourth panel is focused on “International Investment Agreements and National Impacts” and features speakers Caitlyn McKenzie (ANU College of Law) presenting on ‘Improving access to Foreign Direct Investment for Pacific Island Countries: Pursuit of International Investment Agreements from a development perspective’ and Zhenyu (Zoe) Xiao (UNSW Law and Justice) speaking on ‘International law and domestic institutions: rethinking the evolution of China’s investor-state dispute settlement policymaking’. The event will be chaired by Associate Professor Jeanne Huang (University of Sydney Law School) and feature commentator Dr Jonathan Bonnitcha (UNSW Law and Justice).

The panel will be held online on Thursday 7 October 2021 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm AEST. Registration is free and through Eventbrite.

A flyer for this fourth panel is included below.

Can international criminal law protect the environment? – Stephanie Erian

20/09/202127/09/2021 Editors Analysis, Articles

In June 2021, a panel of legal experts convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation (called the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (Panel)) unveiled a proposal to make mass environmental destruction an international crime (Proposal). The Proposal involves adding new Article 8 ter to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which would place ecocide alongside existing international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Although encouraging to see environmental protection as the focus of international legal efforts, the Proposal raises serious questions for international criminal law practitioners. Some of these are considered below.

So, what’s the proposed definition?

The Panel defines ecocide as ‘unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts’ (Proposal, p 5).

A number of aspects of the draft definition are drawn from existing international law agreements, making its construction feel more familiar. For example, the Proposal reflects the structure of Article 7 of the Rome Statute relating to crimes against humanity: the first paragraph sets out the crime, and the second paragraph defines the crime’s core elements. In terms of language, the words ‘widespread’, ‘long-term’ and ‘severe’ replicate those in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute concerning damage to the environment during international armed conflict. This article prohibits intentionally conducting an attack in the knowledge that it will cause ‘widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’. New Article 8 ter would essentially extend this war crime to times of peace, and cover environmental damage that is both cumulative and alternative (‘severe and either widespread or long-term’).

The War on Human Rights: Countering Duterte’s dismissal of the ICC Probe

19/09/202119/09/2021 Editors Articles

Aisiri Raj, Rahul Rajasekar and Lekha Suki make a case for extending International Criminal Responsibility to Filipino President Duterte and the law enforcement officials for their failure to guarantee the right to life and protect their civilians from the unjustified use of force by the police officials.

In June 2021, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested judicial authorisation to investigate extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, bringing Philippine President Duterte’s ‘War on Drugs’ campaign back into the spotlight. Since 2016, over 7,000 such killings have been reported, and only one instance resulted in the conviction of police officials for the use of excessive force. However, President Duterte is largely dismissive of the probe, asserting that the War on Drugs is a sovereign exercise in the interest of national security and justifying extrajudicial killings as the law enforcement personnel’s right to self-defence. This article analyses the failure of the State to guarantee the right to life and to protect its civilians from the unjustified use of force by police officials in the Philippines.

The Justification of Self-Defence under International Human Rights Law

Under the assertion of self-defence, the wide-ranging powers granted to police forces in the Philippines do not follow the requisite due process obligations to conduct investigations and collect evidence but instead use lethal and unjustified force on ‘mere suspicion’ that individuals might be in possession of illicit drugs. According to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement, force can only be used as a last resort when other means are ineffective. The absence of verbal warnings and directions by police to surrender violates the binding principles of necessity and proportionality under the general principles governing the use of force. This principle has been recognised by the Supreme Court of Philippines, which held that the presence of an ‘imminent threat’ is the required threshold for exercising proportionate self-defence in the course of public duty.

The Philippines, being a State Party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), must guarantee the right to life to all its civilians. The justification of self-defence is not absolute in International Human Rights Law (IHRL), where the right to life is non-derogable, and its deprivation cannot be arbitrary. The blanket justification of self-defence by the law enforcement was similarly invoked in Suarez De Guerrero v Colombia (Communication No 45/1979) and was rejected by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee on the grounds that disproportionate killing of suspects is an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life under Article 6(1) of the ICCPR.

Further, the acts of the police officials violate the drug suspect’s right to fair trial under Article 10 of the UDHR by denying them the opportunity to be heard and the right to legal counsel. The arbitrary manner in which the killings were carried out violates the requirement of presumption of innocence under Article 14(2) of the ICCPR, whereby a suspect’s guilt must be determined by affording them a fair and impartial trial. This arguably represents a complete failure of the constitutional machinery as well as the judiciary in the Philippines in ensuring access to justice. The Philippines has violated its obligations under IHRL since the acts of law enforcement do not constitute a justified use of self-defence which, as explained below, is a relevant finding for the ICC’s jurisdiction to prosecute.

Criminal Responsibility for Crimes against Humanity under International Criminal Law

According to the Special Prosecutor’s Office of the ICC, the actions taken pursuant to the “War on Drugs” policy may constitute crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. The authors are of the opinion that the War on Drugs satisfies the elements of Article 7 for the following reasons:

First, it is an organised state-sanctioned policy with large-scale, systematic violence committed against the civilian population.

Secondly, President Duterte’s explicit orders require law enforcement to arbitrarily kill all drug suspects, indicating the presence of mens rea to carry out such acts.

Lastly, mens rea is further evident in the actions of the State by granting complete impunity from prosecution to the police responsible for such mass atrocities and perversely rewarding them for extrajudicial killings.

The large-scale and widespread nature of this deprivation of life constitutes a systematic ‘murder’ of civilians under International Criminal Law (ICL), specifically under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. The proximity between IHRL and ICL implies that serious violations of human rights are regarded as crimes against humanity. For instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v Karadzić (Case no IT-95-5/18-T, 6 April 2009) noted the confluence between the deprivation of human rights and crimes against humanity in instances of torture and rape, as an attack on human dignity. This can be reasonably applied to the present case as murder in the form of extrajudicial killings are IHRL and ICL violations worthy of prosecution by the ICC.

President Duterte’s claims that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the Philippines due to its withdrawal from the ICC in 2019. However, international criminal responsibility would be extended to President Duterte and the law enforcement officials responsible for mass atrocities committed, as a termination of consent to the Rome Statute does not constitute immunity from prosecution since the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed during the time the Philippines was a State Party from 2011 to 2019.

Failure of R2P Obligations

The refusal of the Filipino Government to acknowledge the human rights violations, investigate and order State agents to stand down, is reflective of the failure of its responsibility to protect (R2P) obligations to its civilians. This norm places an obligation on States to guarantee to their civilian population the basic human rights of safety and security to prevent mass atrocities in their territory.

Pillar I of R2P emphasises the sovereign responsibility to monitor and prevent any atrocity before it occurs through effective cognisance, sanction, monitoring and fair trial. In casu, the existing state structures such as the National Prosecution Service under the Department of Justice required to initiate prosecutions on human rights violations, the National Ombudsman, which is constitutionally empowered to undertake investigations in cases of unlawful and illegal acts of the police, and the National Human Rights Council, have failed to prevent mass killings and protect the rights of the civilians. The welfare approach of R2P places a responsibility on the Philippines to protect and guarantee the welfare of its population. However, Duterte’s government deems countering narcotics through extrajudicial killings as the most suitable way to handle the drug problem.

The international community has remained silent over the UN Human Rights Council’s failure to investigate the extrajudicial killings in the country. As Gallagher et al note, Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) States, China and Russia value diplomatic relations and the principle of non-interference, and have maintained that the War on Drugs is a domestic concern, legitimising the stance of the Filipino Government. Therefore, the initiation of the ICC Probe is a means of upholding Pillar II of the R2P, the responsibility of the international community to assist States in protecting their populations, as it attempts to launch an international investigation to punish President Duterte and the law enforcement officials, who are accountable for the mass killing of their population. Therefore, it is necessary for the rest of the international community to take collective action and support the work of the UNHRC and the ICC to ensure justice for the victims of state violence in the Philippines.

Aisiri Raj, Rahul Rajasekar & Lekha Suki are fourth year Law (Honours) Students at School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru, with academic and professional experience in International Human Rights Law, Constitutional Law and Public Policy in India.

New technology, equity and the law of the sea — Aline Jaeckel and Harriet Harden-Davies

10/09/202110/09/2021 Editors Analysis, Articles

Advancements in new technologies open up new ocean industries and possibilities to explore the ocean. Some of these new technologies, such as swarms of underwater mini robots to map the seafloor or sensors on automated underwater vehicles, assist scientists in their work and produce growing quantities of ocean data. Other technologies enable us to extract evermore resources from the ocean, be it wave energy, fish, genetic materials or seafloor minerals. Still others provide new ways to conserve marine ecosystems, such as the use of satellite technologies to monitor human activity at sea and detect illegal fishing in marine protected areas.

Given the many possibilities offered by ocean technologies, the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development starting this year aims to stimulate innovation and access to new technology to increase ocean exploration. Yet, whether new technology will help us achieve the UN Agenda 2030 sustainable development goal of ‘leaving no-one behind’ and contribute to positive social, environmental and economic benefits will depend on how, where, and by whom ocean science and technology is used in pursuit of ‘sustainable development’.

This calls for research and action into how ocean science and technology can address, rather than perpetuate, inequities between states and communities. International law provides the legal framework, though it is far from perfect.

Announcement of Brennan Prize Winner: Jack McNally, ‘Restrictions on the Freedom of Navigation in the Northern Sea Route: Implications for Arcticus Liberum’

09/09/202109/09/2021 Editors ILA Updates, News

The Australian Branch of the International Law Association is pleased to announce the winner of the 2021 Brennan Essay Prize in Public International Law. The Brennan Prize is named for Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE QBS QC, former Chief Justice of Australia and Patron of the Branch. Sir Gerard was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1981 and appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to the law in 1988.

The winner of the 2021 Brennan Prize is Jack McNally, for his paper ‘Restrictions on the Freedom of Navigation in the Northern Sea Route: Implications for Arcticus Liberum’. Mr McNally is a final year Bachelor of Arts (International Relations) / Bachelor of Laws (Honours) student at the University of New South Wales. He currently works as a Research Assistant at UNSW Law, where his research focusses on public international law, the law of the sea and international dispute settlement, and as a Law Clerk in the International Arbitration Group of King & Wood Mallesons. The Australian Branch of the International Law Association expresses its congratulations to Mr McNally on his successful entry.

The abstract for the paper is included below:

The freedom of navigation is one of the fundamental principles of international order. However, as the effects of anthropogenic climate change grow greater and the extent of Arctic sea ice continues to decline, a question arises as to whether, and to what degree, the freedom of navigation applies in formerly ice-covered areas. This question is not an abstract one. Arctic States have asserted extensive sovereign rights over formerly ice-covered shipping routes, imposing restrictions on the freedom of navigation of both merchant vessels and warships. Whether these restrictions are valid impositions on the freedom of navigation is an unresolved question, complicated by the genuine interests of littoral States in the protection of the Arctic’s highly sensitive marine environment. If, however, these restrictions are acquiesced in by the international community, they may operate to restrict the freedom of navigation and diminish its content in formerly ice-covered areas. Accordingly, there is a need for States to strike a balance between permitting restrictions on the freedom of navigation that pursue environmental protection, while contesting those that exceed what is permitted under international law. This article seeks to provide the necessary legal framework to enable States to undertake that balancing exercise and to, in turn, ensure the Arctic remains mare liberum.

Announcement of Nygh Prize Winner: Michael Douglas, ‘Does Choice of Law Matter?’

02/09/202109/09/2021 Editors ILA Updates, News

The Australian Branch of the International Law Association is pleased to announce the winner of the 2021 Nygh Essay Prize in Private International Law. This prize is named in honour of the late Dr Peter Nygh AM, a leading Australian scholar of private international law and former President of the Branch. Dr Nygh was a judge of the Family Court of Australia, a member of Australia’s first delegation to, and played an integral role in, The Hague Conference on Private International Law and was awarded the Centenary Medal by the Australian Government as well as the Order of Australia, partly in recognition of his outstanding and longstanding contribution to private international law, and in particular his representation of Australia at The Hague Conference.

The winner of the 2021 Nygh Prize is Michael Douglas for his paper ‘Does Choice of Law Matter?’ Mr Douglas is completing his PhD in private international law at Sydney Law School. He works as an academic at UWA Law School and in a litigation firm in Perth. The Australian Branch of the International Law Association expresses its congratulations to Mr Douglas on his successful entry.

The abstract for the paper is included below:

We ought to rethink how we understand the conflict of laws in Australia with respect to forum statutes. Views which may be orthodox in conflict of laws scholarship no longer align to the proper treatment of forum statutes in cross-border civil litigation in Australian courts. Statutory interpretation is of primary importance in determining issues in cross-border litigation before Australian courts involving forum statutes. As most cases involve statutes, statutory interpretation is thus of primary importance to most cross-border litigation. This approach is statutist, in that, like the statutism of centuries ago, it favours interpretation as the method to determine issues of territorial scope of law. It also follows in the tradition of Currie’s governmental interest analysis in that it favours the interests of forum institutions in resolution of questions in cases with a foreign element. Choice of law, in the traditional sense of its traditional techniques, still matters. But statutory interpretation matters more in the actual life of the law. This ought to be embraced by scholars and teachers. Perhaps then the realm of the conflict of laws will be less dismal, less mysterious and more comprehensible to those who understand the law better than many of those in the ivory tower: actual lawyers.