Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

41 results

Page 1 of 3

The Cambridge Handbook of Secondary Sanctions and International Law
  • Edited by Tom Ruys, Cedric Ryngaert, Felipe Rodríguez Silvestre
  • Coming soon
  • Expected online publication date:
    October 2024
    Print publication:
    31 October 2024
  • We live in an age of sanctions. For geopolitical reasons, powerful states and economic blocks increasingly impose unilateral measures restricting economic transactions with certain target states. These sanctions may apply to transactions between the sanctioning state and a target country but may at times also extend to transactions between third states and the target state. By imposing such 'secondary' sanctions, states aim to further isolate the target state. The extraterritorial character of secondary sanctions makes them controversial, as they impinge on third states' economic sovereignty and the latter's operators' freedom to conduct international business. This book addresses the legality of secondary sanctions from multiple legal perspectives, such as general international law, international economic law, and private law. It examines how third states and operators can legally react against secondary sanctions, e.g. via blocking legislation or litigation. It also provides economic and political perspectives on secondary sanctions.

  • 9 - Divergent Views on the Content and Relevance of the Jus ad Bellum in Europe and the United States?

  • from 3 - International Law and the Use of Force
  • Edited by Chiara Giorgetti, University of Richmond, Guglielmo Verdirame, King's College London
  • Book:
    Whither the West?
    Published online:
    29 April 2021
    Print publication:
    29 April 2021, pp 231-264

  • Summary

    This chapter studies the idea that Americans and Europeans hold different views on global security. Generally, it is considered that the EU side demonstrates a stronger adherence to positivism in international law, while the US adopts policy-oriented methodologies. This translates into different views of the actual content of the UN Charter rules on the use of force, for example of the permissibility of self-defense against attacks by non-State actors, calls for new exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force and in relation to controversial issues, such as the legality of the anticipatory self-defense. The chapter offers a critical look at the alleged difference by studying the US-led military coalition fighting against the so-called Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This reveals a gradual acceptance of the more expansionist interpretation put forward by the US. Indeed, the case of the US-led military coalition against IS is one where European States - and several other western States - originally steered clear from murky legal grounds only to find themselves ultimately embracing an extensive reading of the right of self-defense, and relying for the first time, whether explicitly or implicitly, on the controversial “unable and unwilling” doctrine to justify military operations abroad.

  • The European Union Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR)

  • Tom Ruys
  • Journal:
    International Legal Materials / Volume 60 / Issue 2 / April 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 March 2021, pp. 298-318
    Print publication:
    April 2021

  • On December 7, 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted two legal instruments, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, which together make up the new EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR). Similar to the U.S. “Global Magnitsky Act,” and in contrast with the EU's existing country-specific sanctions regimes, the EUGHRSR seeks to address human rights abuses worldwide, by providing for the imposition of travel bans as well as financial sanctions on individual human rights offenders—state and non-state alike. The list of designated (natural and legal) persons will be reviewed on a periodic basis.

  • Mukeshimana-Ngulinzira and Others v. Belgium and Others

  • Part of
  • Tom Ruys
  • Journal:
    American Journal of International Law / Volume 114 / Issue 2 / April 2020
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 April 2020, pp. 268-275
    Print publication:
    April 2020
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • On April 11, 1994, approximately two thousand men, women, and children were brutally murdered by armed Hutu extremists after a group of Belgian UN peacekeepers abandoned the school facility where they had sought refuge upon the outbreak of the Rwandan genocide. Almost a quarter of a century later, the Brussels Court of Appeal (Court) on June 8, 2018 concluded the civil proceedings lodged by a number of Rwandan survivors and relatives against the Belgian commanding officers and the Belgian state. Overturning an earlier judgment of the Brussels Court of First Instance, the Court held that the decision to retreat from the facility was imputable only to the United Nations, to the exclusion of the Belgian authorities. Accordingly, the claims against the Belgian state were unfounded. The events—which inspired the movie Shooting Dogs (2005)—bear obvious similarities to the role of the United Nations Protection Force's (UNPROFOR) Dutch battalion (Dutchbat) in the evacuation of the Potoçari camp and the ensuing genocide of seven thousand Bosnian men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995. Like the Dutch judgments in the (more well-known) Mothers of Srebrenica proceedings, the Mukeshimana appellate judgment provides a rare national court precedent that considers the imputability of the conduct of peacekeepers to troop-contributing countries. The Mukeshimana judgment, however, raises a high bar for finding such imputability.

The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law
  • Edited by Tom Ruys, Nicolas Angelet, Luca Ferro
  • Published online:
    26 May 2019
    Print publication:
    02 May 2019
  • Few topics of international law speak to the imagination as much as international immunities. Questions pertaining to immunity from jurisdiction or execution under international law surface on a frequent basis before national courts, including at the highest levels of the judicial branch and before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, international immunity law is and remains a challenging field for practitioners and scholars alike. Challenges stem in part from the uncertainty pertaining to the customary content of some immunity regimes said to be in a 'state of flux', the divergent – and at times directly conflicting - approaches to immunity in different national and international jurisdictions, or the increasing intolerance towards impunity that has accompanied the advance of international criminal law and human rights law. Composed of thirty-four expertly written contributions, the present volume uniquely provides a comprehensive tour d'horizon of international immunity law, traversing a wealth of national and international practice.

  • THE ROLE OF STATE IMMUNITY AND ACT OF STATE IN THE NM CHERRY BLOSSOM CASE AND THE WESTERN SAHARA DISPUTE

  • Tom Ruys
  • Journal:
    International & Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 68 / Issue 1 / January 2019
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    21 December 2018, pp. 67-90
    Print publication:
    January 2019

  • In early 2018, the Polisario Front and the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) obtained a favourable ruling from the South African Courts, granting the SADR ownership over a cargo of phosphate aboard the NM Cherry Blossom originating from a mine in the Moroccan-controlled part of the Western Sahara. Although hitherto largely unnoticed in legal circles, the Cherry Blossom case raises important questions concerning the outer bounds of State immunity and the scope of the act of State doctrine. In addition, the case holds potentially far-reaching ramifications for the international legal order if other domestic courts were to follow suit.

Page 1 of 3