This is a commentary to the 12 September 2012 judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Nada v. Switzerland.
The European Court’s on Human Rights decision on the Soros’ case dated 6 October 2011 was highly disapproved by lawyers regardless of their nationality. The reason for this practically unanimous rejection was the supposed violation of fundamental principles of criminal law including its nonretroactivity. The author makes an attempt to show that the decision the judges managed to come to was correct from the legal point of view, though the means being employed give rise to some reticence. The other point the author focuses on is the jeopardy that the well-established concept of protection of human rights in the light of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle may be put in because of Strasbourg’s novels.
Ten years after the tragic events in the Dubrovka theater the European Court of Human Rights upheld the complaint, filed by hostages and relatives of those gone during the siege. The Court reviewed the legality of security forces’ actions on the different stages of the rescue operation with the increasing scrutiny, suggesting a new mode of dynamic analysis. The case raises questions concerning the reasonable conduct of counter-terrorism operations in compliance with state’s obligation to minimize casualties to the greatest possible extent.
First Conviction of the International Criminal Court: The Judgment of the Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 74 of the Rome Statute of 14 March 2012 in the Case Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
On 14 March 2012, the International Criminal Court issued its first judgment, convicting Thomas Lubanga of the war crimes. This article examines some aspects of the armed conflict’s history of DRC and comments some ideas of the Trial Chamber I.
Where the freedom of expression starts and what it ends with: The General comment No. 34 of The Human Rights Committee
Sergey Golubok, Maxim Timofeyev
In July 2011 the Human Rights Committee adopted general comment No. 34. This comment provides the interpretation of different aspects of the right to hold opinions and freedom of expression enshrined in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Authors give the general overview of this document and discuss most important and valuable provisions of the general comment No. 34.
In the case law of the International Court of Justice, admissibility, setting aside preliminary objections where its effect is determined by the existence or otherwise of reasons preventing the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, is in some circumstances understood in a different way – namely requiring the Court to ascertain whether it may accept the procedural instrument that is used by a party to a case. This procedural admissibility forms part of certain proceedings which include incidental proceedings (counter-claims, intervention) as well as proceedings in the post-adjudication phase (interpretation and revision). In their context admissibility determines whether a procedural instrument (counter-claim, application to intervene or declaration of intervention, request for interpretation or revision) meets the conditions stipulated in the Statute, Rules or case law of the Court.
A defence counsel’s reflection on international trials
The author, drawing upon his own experience in international criminal trials analyses the role of defense counsel in international justice. He reveals the drawbacks of international statutory setting for defence counsel and argues that for the sake of proper administration of criminal justice on an international level the relevant quality requirements should be increased and defence counsels’ legal opportunities outside the courtroom should be expanded.
The article analyzes the institutional fragmentation of international environmental law concerning settlement of environmental disputes. The author draws to the conclusion that in case such disputes or the possibility thereof arise states should prefer to apply non-compliance procedures in the frameworks of multilateral environmental agreements.
Unilateral declarations: possible abuses and need for ca reful supervision over implementation of decisions
Unilateral declarations were introduced in order to settle the problem of backlog of pending cases before the European Court of Human Rights and were designed to settle speedily repetitive cases. However, in practice the Governments are frequently introducing unilateral declarations in cases of strategic, precedential nature, which are in consequence struck out by the Court of the list of cases. The article highlights the problem or lack of strict rules as to the nature of cases in which unilateral declaration can be proposed by Governments. Moreover, it comments on the lack of modalities on the Committee of Ministers supervision over implementation of decisions based on unilateral declarations. Exemplification of the presented concerns is given in connection to two recent strike out decisions based on unilateral declarations in Polish cases concerning freedom of expression and inhuman and degrading treatment.
The transborder nature of cybercrime problem calls for harmonisation of substantive legal frameworks on the international level and for the development of a set of procedural measures allowing effective cooperation in crime investigation in digital environment. This article analyses existing international approaches to harmonisation of cybercrime legislation and examines the reasons why there is still no universally accepted international treaty on cybercrime.
Based on the text of ancient greek historian Dionisius of Halicarnassus, the author proves the existence of international court of arbitration in Latin confederacy of VI–IV centuries BC, similar in its character to ancient greek international courts of amphiktions. The history of this court of Rome and his confederates is divided by author into two periods. For the first period from VI Century BC to 338 BC is characteristic the recognition of role formally dominating of general Latin court as supreme organs of government, who give the imperium also for Roman consuls. For the second period from 338 to 89 BC was characteristic the leadership of the Roman Senate in the international Latin court, but the standard of legal procedure of international Law was remained according to the institution rerum repetitio.
The Judge of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea gave an exclusive interview to our journal. He shares his opinion about proliferation of international courts and tribunals, efficiency of the UNCLOS dispute settlement system, explains different aspects of functioning of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
The article is devoted to the master’s degree programme “International Business Dispute Resolution”, created by the International law department of Russian Academy of Justice. The author describes the conception of the master’s degree programme, the content of the main courses, core skills and competencies obtaining by the students during the process of learning, the advantages of the programme.