The EU functions as a receptor and promoter of customary international law (CIL). However, from a theoretical (and international law) perspective, the questions why and when the EU is bound by CIL still have not been answered in definite terms. This chapter argues that the EU should be afforded a similar treatment as is afforded to (newly independent) states. This is based on a close examination of its practice in the field of international humanitarian law (IHL), where the primary organization tasked with ensuring peace and security – the United Nations – has so far avoided explicitly affirming that it is bound by customary IHL. After showing that it is indeed the EU which might bear direct responsibility in the context of military operations authorized under the Common Security and Defence Policy, the chapter examines the EU’s behaviour when it comes to new regulatory efforts, its executive and operational conduct, and the CJEU’s case law. On the basis thereof, it is concluded that the EU’s practice confirms the theoretical conclusions reached, and that therefore any theoretical uncertainties on whether and why international organizations are bound by CIL might in future be answered by paying closer attention to their practice.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The current COVID-19 pandemic has undermined states’ capacities to hold elections. The danger of infection caused by participation in electoral procedures, most importantly in-person polling on election day, stands in tension with the necessity to conduct elections without any undue delay. Amplified by a high degree of uncertainty revolving around the virus especially during the first wave early in 2020, states have opted for different approaches. The magnitude of the crisis is evident from the fact that around eighty countries and territories across the world have decided to postpone national and subnational elections due to COVID-19.

The protection of the environment is a cornerstone of intergenerational justice and a main objective of national sustainable development institutions. Different approaches to the protection of the environment are possible. One approach is to consider the protection of the environment in its own right. Examples of international treaties adhering to this approach include instruments for the protection of the ozone layer, forests, biodiversity, and seas. Also, in some national constitutions the protection of the environment is considered as a good in its own right. Another approach to the protection of the environment is a human-centred perspective which defines the environment from the perspective of its value for human beings. Relevant rights under this approach include third-generation/collective rights such as the right to a healthy environment or the right to development, as inter alia enshrined in a number of General Assembly Resolutions.