29 août 2015

OUVRAGE : S. Hutter, Starvation as a Weapon: Domestic Policies of Deliberate Starvation as a Means to an End under International Law

Catherine MAIA

In Starvation as a Weapon Simone Hutter explores, within the framework of international law, the legality of using deliberate starvation as a means to an end. A close look at modern famine shows that, in many cases, food scarcity is not the product of coincidence, but a side effect or result of a deliberate strategy. Starvation is an efficient instrument when used to exert pressure and power, in times of war and peace. Simone Hutter demonstrates how international human rights law and international humanitarian law prevent deliberate starvation as a means of achieving political goals. She focuses on highly divisive and under-discussed instances in which states deploy deliberate starvation domestically, i.e. within the state’s own national territory.

23 août 2015

OUVRAGE : S. Lalonde, T.L. McDorman (eds.), International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean

Jean-Marie COLLIN

International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean: Essays in Honor of Donat Pharand is a collection of essays in honor of Professor emeritus Donat Pharand by leading Arctic experts from around the globe. The volume offers a clear, concise and detailed analysis of many of the issues an expanded use of the Arctic Ocean raises and of critical importance for the legal and political processes unfolding in the Arctic region.


19 août 2015

OUVRAGE : A. Klein, C. Laporte, M. Saiget (dir.), Les bonnes pratiques des organisations internationales

Catherine MAIA

Comme les entreprises, les organisations internationales recourent aux bonnes pratiques pour améliorer leur action, former leurs collaborateurs, renforcer leur expertise et, ainsi, légitimer leur présence sur un terrain de plus en plus concurrencé par les acteurs non étatiques.

6 août 2015

OUVRAGE : T.D. Grant, Aggression against Ukraine: Territory, Responsibility, and International Law

Catherine MAIA

Aggression against Ukraine marks a stunning shift. Ever since 1945 it had been understood that the borders of States must not be the object of forcible change by other States. However, Russia has now revived long-buried historical claims — and prosecutes them by dint of arms. The annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the subsequent armed incursions in eastern Ukraine under color of separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk challenge not just one State's territorial integrity, but jeopardize the general settlement on which international law for almost three generations has rested. This is the settlement which enabled human rights and modern institutions of international law to flourish. Russia's domestic rejection of human rights and its new geopolitics of territorial seizure in this light should be seen not in isolation but as connected developments — and as a challenge to international law and global public order at large.

2 août 2015

REVUE : Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (vol. 2, issue 1, 2015)

Olivier CORTEN

It is with great pleasure that we introduce the first issue of the second volume of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. As ever, legal questions regarding both threats and uses of force can be witnessed within the international community. The crisis continues in eastern Ukraine, despite a ceasefire agreement being reached in Minsk in February 2015, and forcible responses against Islamic State have continued apace within Iraq and Syria, with Egypt broadening the geographical scope of the response to Libyan territory. While the facts on the ground make for disturbing reading, the ways in which some states have justified their actions can also leave a slightly sour taste in one's mouth. While understandable from some perspectives, the use of punitive language by Jordan in responding to the gruesome killing by Islamic State of one of its military pilots whose aircraft had been shot down over Syria raises questions over whether, and, if so, how, the distinction exists between unlawful reprisals and self-defence. Or does the jus ad bellum ultimately have anything to say about this incident, given that it is entirely plausible that Jordan was engaged in a non-international armed conflict with Islamic State?