International Law

Alcohol labelling and warnings: how progress at the Codex Alimentarius Commission can help States overcome challenges at the World Trade Organization

/ nikhilgokani / Leave a comment

By Nikhil Gokani, Lecturer in Law, Essex Law School, University of Essex

In this post, Nikhil Gokani writes about the work he is involved in on developing international standards, which can help countries navigate challenges under the rules of the World Trade Organization. Nikhil works on food and alcohol labelling regulation in the UK, EU and globally. He is chair of the Alcohol Labelling and Health Warning International Expert Group at the European Alcohol Policy Alliance (Eurocare). He is also a member of the Technical Advisory Group on Alcohol Labelling at WHO.

Alcohol-related harm and consumer protection

Consuming alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 diseases, injuries and other health conditions. Alcohol consumption affects other people, such as family, friends, colleagues and strangers. Globally, about 3 million deaths each year result from the use of alcohol. Beyond health, there are significant social and economic burdens.

Consumers do not have sufficient knowledge about the content and effects of alcoholic beverages. Most consumers are unaware of the energy and nutrition values (such as amount of carbohydrates) and ingredients. Few consumers are aware of the health risks, such as alcohol causing at least seven cancers.

Alcohol labelling and global progress

Alcohol labelling is an important source of information for consumers. Labelling is unique in providing information at both the point of purchase and consumption. Labelling improves knowledge. It is an effective measure to help ensure consumers are well-informed and not misled. Increasing evidence also shows that health information can empower consumers to make healthier consumption decisions, including drinking less.

Unfortunately, few countries in the world require that consumers are given essential facts on labelling, such as ingredients lists and nutrition declarations. Even fewer countries require beverages to be labelled with information warning consumers about the hazards of drinking alcohol.

The most recent success was in Ireland where new rules will require alcohol packaging to display warnings that “Drinking alcohol causes liver disease”, “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” and a pictogram showing that alcohol can harm the unborn child if drunk during pregnancy. Countries like Ireland, unfortunately, face international legal challenges, particularly under international trade law.

International trade law and international standards

International trade law can constrain the regulatory autonomy of States. Significant to alcohol labelling is the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). Most significantly, Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement states that technical regulations, including rules on alcohol labelling, shall not create “unnecessary obstacles to international trade”. Technical regulations shall not be “more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective”. Preventing alcohol-related harm is indeed a legitimate objective. However, many States trying to introduce better alcohol labelling rules have been challenged because other States have argued that labelling rules go beyond what is more trade-restrictive than “necessary”.

When a WTO State’s rule about alcohol labelling is challenged, international standards can either help or hinder them.

On the one hand, Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement states that where “relevant international standards exist” States “shall use them…as a basis for their technical regulations” except when this would be ineffective or inappropriate Therefore, where international standards are not aligned with public health interests, they can make it harder for States to introduce effective national rules.

On the one hand, Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement provides a powerful defence mechanism. It states that, when a technical regulation is “in accordance with relevant international standards”, there is a rebuttable presumption that the national rule does not create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. Simply stated, where the State complies with a relevant international standard, they have a potentially strong defence for their labelling rules. Therefore, good international standards can be very powerful to help countries defend their national labelling policies.

Codex Alimentarius

An international standard is one which is made by a recognised body and compliance is voluntary. For alcohol labelling, there is indeed an international standard: the Codex Alimentarius is a collection of standards, guidelines and codes adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Where alcohol labelling is in compliance with relevant Codex standards, States could use this as a defence under WTO rules. This underlines the importance of having good Codex standards that support effective national rules on alcohol labelling.

Significant progress has been made at the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Alcohol labelling was discussed at four Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL). The Report of the 46th Session of CCFL noted “there was common ground on which to proceed with the work” but little further progress has since been made in recent years. At that Session, the Committee agreed that Russia, European Union and India with assistance from WHO and Eurocare would prepare a discussion paper for consideration at the next meeting. In fact, this was the first time this Committee included an NGO in the preparation of a discussion paper, which is a testament to the global leadership by Eurocare in this field.  Unfortunately, however, no discussion paper was submitted by Russia. Therefore, WHO and Eurocare each submitted their own discussion paper to keep the matter moving forward. The WHO representative spoke objectively and convincingly at the 47th meeting of CCFL. These efforts led to alcohol labelling remaining on the Codex agenda – something which several States, no doubt under the influence of the powerful alcohol industry, had resisted.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has now started a new consultation process. It issued a Circular Letter which asks State members and Observers to comment on how work on developing alcohol standards should proceed.

For this consultation process to work best for public health and consumer protection, we need everyone to contact their governments (emails here) to demand effective progress at Codex. Please join us in these efforts!

Prohibited Force: The Meaning of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law. New book launch and in conversation with Dr Erin Pobjie 

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Erin Pobjie, Lecturer at Essex Law School

Dr Erin Pobjie has just published Prohibited Force: The Meaning of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law (CUP, 2024). Dr Pobjie made use of the University’s dedicated open access (OA) fund to ensure that her book is freely available to students, scholars, and readers everywhere. You can download your copy here.  

Dr Pobjie has kindly answered some questions about her work, her choice to go open access and future projects. 

Congratulations on the publication of your new book! How does it feel to have it published and freely available? 

Thank you! The book is the culmination of a long process, starting with my PhD at the University of Cologne and continuing through my post-doc at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg and then as a new lecturer at Essex University. There were many highs and lows over that period and I learnt so much along the way, so it feels emotional and very satisfying to see it finally out.  

You chose to make use of the University’s open access fund. Why is open access important to you and how do you think it will benefit your work?  

I believe in the principles of open science so it was important to me to publish my book OA. Publishing OA allows me to share my ideas more broadly and without financial barriers, so that my book can hopefully contribute to scholarship, policy and practice on this important topic. Having poured so much into the project, I’m happy that it’s freely available open access thanks to the University’s OA fund. 

How did you find the open access process?  

It was fairly straight forward once the funding became available. The Open Access team at the University liaised with my editor at Cambridge University Press and were very helpful and responsive in supporting me throughout the process.   

What advice about open access, or publishing in general, would you offer to colleagues? 

My advice would be to seek feedback early and often, to be proactive throughout the publication process and to advocate for the ideas in your book so that they can contribute to the conversation. These are things I would try to do better next time. It continues to be a learning process now that I’m in the next phase of post-publication, so it’s been very helpful to speak to other colleagues who have recently published books for advice. 

Now, about your book, which feels incredibly timely: how did the idea come up and could you explain the key ideas of the book? 

The seed for the idea was planted during my LLM at Essex, where I was inspired by the module ‘International Law of Armed Conflict’ taught by Professor Noam Lubell. The first class was about jus ad bellum – the prohibition of the use of force between States. I was captivated by the topic and thought it could be a way to contribute to a cause I feel passionate about (the prevention of war) by exploring and clarifying fundamental legal concepts. Noam introduced me to my future doctoral supervisor, Professor Claus Kreß at the University of Cologne, who encouraged me to focus on the meaning of prohibited force.  

The prohibition of the use of force between States is a cornerstone of the modern international legal system and key to international peace and security, but its meaning is unclear. This is especially problematic for uses of force in newer domains like cyber and outer space, or that use emerging technologies. My book therefore seeks to clarify the meaning of prohibited force and proposes a definitional framework that can be applied in practice to identify illegal uses of force. To do this, I analyse the sources of the prohibition (article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law) and their relationship, identify the elements of a prohibited use of force and set out a framework to define a prohibited use of force.  

In a nutshell, my argument is that a ‘use of force’ under article 2(4) of the UN Charter describes a type rather than a concept. This means that rather than consisting of a checklist of necessary and sufficient elements (a concept), it consists of a basket of elements which must be weighed and balanced to determine whether the threshold of the definition is met (a type). According to this framework, not all elements must be present for an act to constitute prohibited force if they are compensated by other elements. For example, a hostile or coercive intent may turn a forcible act into a use of force even if other elements are relatively weak, such as a low gravity or if the harm is only potential but unrealised. The final part of my book applies this framework to illustrative case studies, including the use of force in outer space. 

What’s next for you? Do you have new projects lined up? 

I was recently appointed as co-Rapporteur of the International Law Association’s Committee on the Use of Force, a committee of global experts on the law on the use of force to draft a new report to bring normative clarity to the area of ‘military assistance upon request’ (a.k.a. intervention by invitation). The Committee has a mandate until 2026 to produce the report, so together with my co-Rapporteur Professor James Green I am taking the lead in carrying out the work of the Committee and drafting our report on this topic, with conclusions and commentaries to provide guidance for States. 

I’m also excited to have the opportunity to apply the framework I developed in my book to outer space security at the United Nations. I’m currently undertaking a residential fellowship at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva in their Space Security Programme, where I’m producing a policy report on the use of force in outer space. Humans globally depend on the preservation of safe, secure and sustainable uses of outer space, including for communications, global navigation systems (which underpin banking, financial markets and energy grids), disaster emergency response and humanitarian relief, food production and climate science. These are all placed at risk by military uses of outer space. The policy report will raise awareness of legal restraints on space threats under international law, which must be considered when negotiating and developing new norms for the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  

I’m enjoying the mix of doctrinal research and policy engagement and am grateful to have the opportunity to further develop and apply the ideas from my book following its publication. 

Prohibited Force: The Meaning of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law is available online and open access through Cambridge University Press. In case you would also like to purchase a hardcopy of the book, you can use the code POBJIE23 on the publisher’s website for a 20% discount until 31 December 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009022897.

Do you want to publish your work Open Access? Just complete this brief form and the Open Access team will soon be in touch. More information about making your research available open access can be found on the Open Access Publishing webpage, and you can also get in touch with the OA team via oapublish@essex.ac.uk.  

Essex Law Scholars Tackle Corporate Accountability and Human Rights at the U.N. Forum on Business and Human Rights

/ essexlawresearch
The UN Human Rights Council room ceiling in Geneva

From 27-29 November, the United Nations in Geneva will host its 12th annual U.N. Forum on Business and Human Rights. Essex Law School scholars Drs Jessica Lawrence and Tara Van Ho and Professors Sabine Michalowski and Clara Sandoval will attend to share their work and insights in the field.

In addition to hosting an event for our Alumni, Professors Michalowski and Sandoval and Dr Van Ho will speak at side events, focusing on issues arising from business operations in conflict-affected areas.

Professors Michalowski and Sandoval will address a side event organised by the Colombian Mission on the potential of securing accountability for business actors by that state’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). They will join Roberto Vidal, a member of the JEP. This event, titled “Accountability of economic actors for grave human rights violations as part of transitional justice processes” will be delivered in English on Monday, 27 November from 11-12.30pm in Room VII at the Palais des Nations.

This year, Dr Van Ho will speak at a side event organised by Pax for Peace and Swedwatch on the controversial corporate merger and acquisition of Swedish company Lundin with Norwegian company Aker BP. The event is taking place on Tuesday, 28 November from 10:45-12:00 GMT (11.45-13.00 CET).

The remainder of this post will address the controversy of the Lundin-Aker case and information about our alumni gathering in Geneva.

Dr. Tara Van Ho
Professor Sabine Michalowski

Allegations of war crimes by Swedish company Lundin 

Non-governmental organisations and victims have long alleged that Lundin was complicit in war crimes committed in Sudan between 1998-2002 (the location is now located in South Sudan following the state’s 2011 independence). Allegedly, Lundin asked the Sudanese military to ensure the security of their oil field with either knowledge or indifference that this would result in the commission of war crimes.  

In 2010, Swedish prosecutors opened an investigation into the allegations. Under international law, statutes of limitations should not apply to war crimes. On 11 November 2021, Swedish prosecutors charged the company’s then-Chief Executive, Ian Lundin and its former vice president, Alex Schneiter, with complicity in those crimes. Both the company and the two men deny the allegations. After a challenge from Schneiter was denied by the Swedish Supreme Court, the case was scheduled for trial, which began earlier this year. 

As Dr. Van Ho has previously discussed on the prominent international justice podcast Asymmetrical Haircuts, transnational criminal prosecutions of corporate executives for war crimes remain rare, despite a large number of significant and well-substantiated allegations against multinational corporations. 

In 2014, Dr. Van Ho published her chapter on the rarity of successful corporate criminal prosecutions for human rights and humanitarian law violations in conflict-affected areas and oppressive regimes. Since then, the landscape of corporate criminal prosecutions has not significantly changed, making the Lundin case the most significant prosecution of corporate executives since the Nuremberg trials.  

The 2014 piece was only one in a series by Dr. Van Ho exploring the responsibility of corporations for terminating and remedying human rights violations committed in the context of conflicts. She now has a grant from Open Society Foundations for a study into the business responsibility to remediate international crimes, including war crimes, and the standards businesses should apply when exiting a conflict-affected area.   

The controversial acquisition by Aker 

On 21 December 2021—approximately five weeks after the Swedish prosecutors announced its charges—Aker announced its acquisition of Lundin, to be carried out in three stages starting in July 2022. The merger allegedly leaves just enough assets to cover any criminal fines levied as a result of the prosecutions but would deny remedies to Sudanese and South Sudanese victims.

Those victims were expected to make civil claims against the company following a successful criminal prosecution, a common practice in civil law states that both reduces the potential of conflict civil and criminal judgements as well as the costs and risks victims must otherwise undertake themselves when litigating a civil claim against a large multinational company. The arrangements for the merger and acquisitions also appear to include a clause indemnifying Aker from any further claims brought against Lundin as a result of its actions in Sudan.  

In other words: the acquisition appears to deny the South Sudanese victims of war crimes an opportunity to pursue their right to an effective remedy. 

A Panel Discussing the Effort to Secure Justice 

In response to the merger and acquisition, 8 South Sudanese and European NGOs have filed a complaint before the OECD National Contact Point in Norway alleging Aker BP failed to adequately conduct the human rights due diligence expected of the company under the OECD’s 2011 Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.  

Dr. Van Ho has a forthcoming book chapter, co-authored with Dr Eugenio Vaccari of Royal Holloway, on the need for human rights due diligence during corporate insolvency proceedings, a topic intimately related to the denial of remedies through corporate mergers and acquisitions. She has spoken with Dr Vaccari and others about the issue of remedies in corporate insolvency proceedings as part of the INSOL International podcast. 

In Geneva, Dr. Van Ho will discuss the intricacies of this case, focusing on how the right to an effective remedy should factor into mergers and acquisitions and what both the prosecution and the OECD complaint should tell us about the state of corporate accountability in the context of conflict.  

While in-person capacity in Geneva is limited, the event will also be live-streamed and you can register to attend the event here.

From Judgment to Justice: Discussing the Implementation of International Judgments on Socio-Economic Rights in Johannesburg

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Dr. Casla’s visit to the South African Constitutional Court

By Dr Koldo Casla, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director of the Human Rights Centre Clinic

In the first week of November, I participated in a workshop on advancing the implementation of positive rulings on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. The event took place in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it was jointly convened by Amnesty International and the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net). Taking stock of the discussion, some of us also held a meeting of the steering committee of the working group on strategic litigation of ESCR-Net.

The event gave us the opportunity to talk about specific examples of what is working and what not in strategic litigation around the world, with a particular focus on cases from Africa (South Africa, Kenya, Gambia and Malawi), but also from India (workers’ rights and the right to food), Canada (right to health of undocumented migrants), Ecuador (land rights of Sarayaku indigenous people) and Spain (evictions in the private rental sector).

The team deliberated on strategic approaches to address the challenges posed by the uncertainties associated with litigation and its enduring consequences. Emphasis was placed on the critical role of civil society in spearheading the identification of concerns and the implementation of judicial decisions.

We had the privilege of visiting the South African Constitutional Court, possibly the most important national court as regards the justiciability of socio-economic rights globally. The building is full of symbolism appealing to values of transparency, culture and accessibility of justice. It is built on top of the remains of a brutal prison of the apartheid regime. Gandhi and Mandela spent time there. The location is a powerful message about learning from the past to build a more promising future founded on the principles of the rule of law and human rights.

From the cells in the prison on Constitution Hill, where the Constitutional Court is located.

The occasion was also an opportunity to express solidarity with the Ogiek indigenous people in Kenya. Some of the community leaders were present at the workshop. Despite several rulings from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Ogiek have suffered repeatedly violations of their human rights, including further evictions from their ancestral land.

An action in solidarity with the Ogiek people of Kenya, who have suffered multiple evictions and other human rights violations, as documented by the African Commission and Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.

At the event, I talked about the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) as a venue for strategic litigation on housing rights in Spain. The Optional Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted in 2008 and entered into force in 2013. It allows individuals to lodge complaints in front of the CESCR against States Parties for violations of socio-economic rights. To this day, 26 countries have ratified this treaty. Spain was the third country to do so, the first one in Europe.

More than 90% of CESCR decisions concern Spain, and the vast majority of them are about the right to adequate housing. One of the most significant cases is Ben Djazia and Bellili v Spain (2017), where the CESCR made two big contributions to international human rights law: firstly, it established that the proportionality test applies to the private rental sector as well as the public one; and secondly, it ruled that the State had breached the principle of non-retrogression because in the background of the eviction there had been a large-scale sale of some 4,000 social housing units by regional authorities in Madrid to transnational real estate investment trusts.

Dr. Casla presented the Ben Djazia case at the workshop

Since 2019, Spain’s legislation has been amended several times, and some of those amendments have brought to life some of the recommendations of the CESCR. Not all recommendations have been taken onboard yet; in particular, the issues of progressive realisation and the adoption of a national plan have not been given due consideration.

However, judges are now given the opportunity to look at personal circumstances (while not obliged to do so), and there is an expectation of coordination between the judiciary and social services before an eviction is executed (but not a specific timeframe or duties on public authorities). Housing laws at regional as well as central/national levels have created additional duties for large landlords over small landlords, which the CESCR considers part of the proportionality test (López Albán v Spain, 2019).

The experience of strategic litigation on housing rights in Spain has taught us some valuable lessons.

Firstly, sometimes human rights progress comes from non-human rights litigation. In the case of Spain, the first major court victory was the Aziz case (2013), where the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that foreclosure procedures must give judges the chance to look for potential unfair terms in the contract, opening the door to a kind of proportionality test. This ruling was based on consumer law (EU 1993 Directive), not human rights law.

Secondly, recent legal developments in Spain are a reminder that parliaments can play a central role in the implementation of international human rights rulings. After all, hardly anything can beat securing a majority in parliament for human rights-friendly legislation.

Thirdly, recent developments also show that in federal or quasi-federal countries, regions can indeed learn from each other in a sort of laboratory for democracy. As I show in Chapter 5 of Spain and Its Achilles Heels, I would argue that this is precisely what happened between several of Spain’s regional legislative chambers between 2013 and 2017.

Finally, we must not make perfect the enemy of the good. Not all of the CESCR recommendations have been implemented in Spain. The situation is far from perfect. Even those that have been implemented have been implemented only to some extent. However, in the spirit of joyful advocacy, it is important to celebrate victories when they occur, including partial victories, even if we do not achieve everything we may hope for.

The Rwanda Plan is Unlawful, the Supreme Court Rules

/ essexlawresearch / 2 Comments
The UK’s Supreme Court on Parliament Square, Westminster

The UK’s long-delayed and controversial proposal to deport asylum-seekers to the central African state of Rwanda was rejected by the Supreme Court on Wednesday 15 November 2023.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s earlier conclusion that “the Rwanda policy is unlawful”. This is because there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement to their country of origin if they were removed to Rwanda. Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones gave a joint judgment with which the other members of the Court agreed.

The Supreme Court cited evidence by the UN refugee agency indicating Rwanda’s lack of adherence to the non-refoulement principle and raised doubts about the Rwandan authorities’ fairness of asylum claim assessments and human rights violations.

The Court made it clear that it was “not concerned with and should not be regarded as supporting or opposing any aspect of the political debate surrounding the policy”. However, its decision deals a blow to the government’s pledge to “stop the boats”, and with the Rwanda plan being at the centre of the recently passed Illegal Migration Act, a reassessment of asylum policies seems inevitable now.

In October 2022, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee published its 7th Report of Session 2022–23 on its inquiry into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UK government and the government of the Republic of Rwanda for the provision of an Asylum Partnership Arrangement, citing written evidence submitted by Professor Theodore Konstadinides and Dr Anastasia Karatzia of the Essex Law School.

Prof. Konstadinides and Dr. Karatzia had questioned whether an MoU is an appropriate vehicle for the relocation of asylum seekers deemed to have arrived illegally in the UK, “especially given: (a) the implications it has for individual rights, and (b) the assurances and safeguards included in the MoU, particularly those relating to inspection and monitoring, a relocated individuals’ access to legal assistance, and data protection which give rise to legitimate expectations as to the other party’s conduct.”

The Research Visibility Team interviewed Prof. Konstadinides, co-director of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (Essex CAJI) and academic lead for Public Law, to find out more about the Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications.

The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasised serious flaws in Rwanda’s asylum procedures. Could you elaborate on these shortcomings that led the court to determine it wasn’t a safe option for asylum seekers?

Removals to Rwanda, a practice established by the Home Secretary’s immigration rules, were held to be unlawful by the Supreme Court because of substantial evidence, including over 100 examples from the UN Refugee Agency, regarding Rwanda’s inadequate system of processing asylum claims. Rwanda’s poor human rights record and the lack of guarantees that upon arrival to Rwanda asylum seekers would have their claims properly examined by the respective authorities could result to further removal and repatriation where they would face a real risk of ill-treatment. The Supreme Court took this possibility very seriously despite the Home Secretary’s reassurance that Rwanda entered the deal in good faith.

There is a legal rule, or prohibition if you may, that refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin if their life or freedom will be under threat. This principle is known as ‘non-refoulement’ and it is a core principle of international law. Our colleague Prof. Geoff Gilbert is an expert in international refugee law and could tell you more about it. Suffice to say for now that asylum seekers are protected against refoulement by several international treaties to which the UK is a party including the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As Lord Reid emphasised it is not, therefore, only the ECHR which is triggered here regarding the returning of asylum seekers in their country of origin without proper examination of their claims. The obligations under these international treaties are also reflected in our statute book for some time now, see for instance, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act (1993); the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) and, last but not least, the Human Rights Act (1998).

This explains in a way why the Supreme Court was unanimous that, once there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers who are sent to Rwanda will be at real risk of ill-treatment or refoulment, there is only one way to decide this case.

The government is considering emergency legislation to declare Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers, bypassing the Supreme Court’s judgment. What legal and political challenges might arise from such a move, and how could it impact the ongoing debate within the Conservative Party on issues like leaving the European Convention on Human Rights?

The government will try to negotiate changes and inject extra safeguards to the Rwanda deal. Of course, a revised or renewed deal cannot stop fresh litigation, especially challenges against the decisions of the Home Secretary made in light of such deal. Following the Court’s decision on the 16th of November, the Prime Minister expressed the will to use Parliament as a vehicle to reverse the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision.

If Parliament were to pass such legislation that would override the ECHR and the HRA (which gives the ECHR domestic effect) in relation to non-refoulment claims that would be the law of the land due to Parliamentary Sovereignty. But that would not be the end of the matter as far as international law is concerned: the government’s policy could still be in breach of international law. Also, as Lord Reid emphasised, the ECHR and the HRA are not the only relevant pieces of international and national legislation that protect asylum seekers from refoulment.

This takes us to your question about leaving the ECHR altogether, getting Parliament to repeal the HRA and either resuscitating Dominic Raab’s Bill of Rights Bill or relying on a combination of rights under the common law and statute and other international obligations that have found their way into our statute book. I don’t personally think it is a good idea to establish a record of treaty withdrawal every time we are unhappy with the outcomes that international law produces, although I worry that leaving the ECHR will become part of a future Tory Manifesto that has been flirting for some years now with the idea of repealing the HRA or “updating” it.

Unfortunately, this government has been too ready in its rhetoric to breach international law, albeit in a specific and limited way which is worrying in terms of the rule of law which requires compliance by the state with its obligations in both national law and international law.

Given the ruling on the Rwanda plan and its implications for the UK’s asylum policy, what do you foresee as potential avenues for the government to reconsider its approach? Could the quest for a new safe third country lead to similar legal challenges, and how might this affect the broader discourse on asylum processing in the UK and globally?

A new Bill that will, according to Suella Braverman’s response on X (formerly Twitter), “block off ECHR, HRA and other routes of legal challenge” is a legal fiction. As Prof. Mark Elliott (University of Cambridge) responded to her post, domestic legislation cannot just “block off” the ECHR, which the UK will still be obliged in international law to comply with for as long as it remains a member of the Council of Europe. Prior to legislation, a new treaty with Rwanda or another safe third country is possible, however. The Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal before it, said explicitly that if there are no grounds for believing that asylum seekers who are sent to Rwanda or a third state for that matter will be at real risk of ill-treatment then the policy is sound and lawful.

The current memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda provides some reassurance but being an expression of political will and not legally binding, it cannot be relied upon by asylum seekers. A treaty, however, can better protect such commitments, something that I initially argued with Dr. Anastasia Karatzia in our evidence to the International Agreements Committee of the House of Lords that got cited in the end. Following the judgment yesterday, the UK’s Prime Minister publicly stated that his government has been working on “a new international treaty with Rwanda” which will push to “ratify without delay” in Parliament and “will provide a guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda”.

Some people, including myself, will still find this solution to the issue disappointing given Rwanda’s poor track record of human rights protection, judicial independence, and lack of adherence to the terms of similar agreements with other countries in the past, especially on non-refoulment of asylum seekers. However, yesterday’s judgment is a small legal victory insofar as the rule of law is concerned.

Unlike the initial memorandum that the government signed with Rwanda, a treaty will be subject to Parliament’s statutory role in scrutinising treaties as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. In the grand scheme of things, this may look like a small step. But let me remind readers that the UK-Rwanda memorandum was only published when it became operational on signature which left no space for any type of review or revisions by Parliament.

If the House of Commons passes a resolution opposing the ratification of a new UK-Rwanda treaty, it triggers an extra 21-day delay, preventing the government from proceeding with the ratification during this time. However, there is a catch: a minister has the authority to ratify a treaty without following this process, but this option becomes void if either House passes a negative resolution. Essentially, this represents a modest legal triumph.

UN Mission on Arbitrary Detentions in Mexico: In Conversation with Dr Matthew Gillett

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Dr. Gillett and his team during an Inspection of a detention facility

Dr. Matthew Gillett, the Vice-Chair of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Essex Law School academic, spearheaded a high level delegation on a recent mission to Mexico. His team visited multiple sites across Mexico City, Nuevo León, and Chiapas over 11 days. 

Their mission included interviews with detainees and assessments of police stations, migration detention centres, sanctuaries of vulnerable children, mental health institutions and the very corridors of prosecutors’ offices. The delegation also met with significant figures, including President Norma Lucía Piña Hernández of the Supreme Court, and offered key recommendations to the Mexican government. 

Meeting the president and members of the Supreme Court of Mexico

The Essex Law School Research Visibility Team had the opportunity to interview Dr. Gillett about his recent trip, the different layers of the UN project and their impact:  

Dr. Gillett, what inspired or motivated you to focus on arbitrary detentions, and how did the idea to visit Mexico specifically come about? 

Having worked in criminal justice for 20 years, I have increasingly seen that the moment of detention is a critical point in the application of the law. If the State power to detain is misused, then it can violate a person’s right to liberty and can also lead to other violations including enforced disappearance, torture, and even extra-judicial killings. I’ve worked on detention related matters in New Zealand, Afghanistan, Mongolia and several other countries. 

But this latest mission to Mexico came about through the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, of which I am the Vice-Chair. We considered Mexico an important country to assess, because of its large and diverse population, and its major issues with migrant-related detention at the moment.   

Were there any moments or encounters during your trip that deeply impacted or surprised you? 

There were many moments during the mission to Mexico that were deeply affecting. Seeing detainees with open wounds, sometimes sleeping on concrete floors in over-crowded cells, was shocking. But also learning of the challenges that Mexico faces, including the hundreds of thousands of migrants passing through its territory, brought home the complexity of the situation.

While observing the situation in Mexico, what progress stood out to you, and conversely, what challenges deeply concerned you?

Mexico’s progress in terms of placing human rights at the centre of its constitution and establishing a National Registry of Detentions were important steps forward. Prison officials were largely professional and not using violence against detainees in a systematic way from what we discerned. 

However, significant challenges remain, particularly in terms of the use of violence by security forces conducting arrests out on the streets, and the imposition of mandatory pre-trial detention, as well as shortages in staff and resources at prisons which lead to many detainees being kept in their cells the vast majority of the time without access to proper sunlight and fresh air.

What are the key recommendations you’d like to emphasise from the UN Working Group, and how have the responses from the Mexican authorities and international community felt to you? 

We would strongly recommend increasing the scope of the National Registry of Detentions to cover all deprivations of liberty, including administrative detentions of migrants for example. We would also emphasise the need to remove mandatory pre-trial detention and ensure that individualised assessments are carried out to verify that persons detained before trial are either a flight risk, or risk of tampering with evidence or serious re-offending. The Working Group and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have both called for this change in their judgments. 

During the visit, we sensed an openness on the part of the Mexican authorities to take up our recommendations. At the same time, we urged them not to wait for our full report, which we will deliver to the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2024, to start implementing changes.

On a personal note, how has this trip impacted your views on human rights and arbitrary detention globally? What message would you want to convey to international readers regarding the situation in Mexico and the efforts of the UN Working Group?

There are two points which I take away from the Mexico mission. 

One is the importance of investigating at multiple levels in order to get a holistic view of the situation. We spoke to over 170 detainees, as well as officials at the federal, state and local levels, and many NGO and civil society actors. The communications are critical to understand the depth and breadth of human rights challenges, but also to provide focused recommendations which are feasible and impactful. 

The second is that the wheels of justice must speed up! People should not be left for years, languishing in detention, before they have a trial. It’s a global problem that requires a concerted effort on the part of governments and the judiciary. They must ensure that everyone charged with a crime enjoys their right to trial without undue delay.

Unlock Your Potential: Join the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School

/ essexlawresearch / 1 Comment

Are you an aspiring legal scholar with a hunger for advanced training in law and a thirst for a vibrant research environment that fosters innovation and interdisciplinary exploration?

If the answer is a resounding ‘yes,’ then the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your ticket to an exciting and transformative journey in the world of academia.

What is CHASE?

The Consortium for Humanities and the Arts South-East England (CHASE) is not just any doctoral training partnership; it is an AHRC-funded initiative that is carving out a path for the next generation of world-leading arts and humanities scholars.

Comprising nine prestigious institutions engaged in collaborative research activities, including an AHRC doctoral training partnership, CHASE is a gateway to an intellectually stimulating and supportive academic community. And we are proud to announce that the University of Essex is one of the esteemed members of this exceptional consortium.

Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, our students and applicants to our PhD programme are eligible to apply for CHASE studentships and take advantage of the unparalleled training opportunities offered by this partnership.

CHASE is dedicated to supporting discipline-based projects, but what sets it apart is its specialisation in interdisciplinary research and emerging fields of study and creative practice. If you are looking to pioneer new methodologies, CHASE provides a great platform for your academic aspirations.

Moreover, CHASE does not just stop at academic prowess; it extends its reach to powerful partnerships with leading organizations in the creative and public sectors. This collaboration is a goldmine of opportunities for future CHASE scholars, providing a network of connections that few other programmes can match.

Why choose the Essex Law School?

The choice of where to embark on your doctoral training is not one to be taken lightly. At the Essex Law School, we have worked hard to create an environment that nurtures excellence, fosters innovation, and empowers our students to become leaders in their chosen fields.

Here is why you should consider joining us:

We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our institution. Our academic staff collaborates with the United Nations, governments, human rights organizations, and corporations worldwide.

We believe that the best research happens at the intersection of various disciplines. This is why we encourage innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to legal research. Our research clusters bring together colleagues from different backgrounds to work on collaborative projects, creating a stimulating and diverse intellectual environment.

Our academics are the heart and soul of the Essex Law School. They bring a wealth of expertise across a wide range of legal disciplines. We are proud to have some remarkable scholars in the field, with particular strengths in areas of intellectual leadership, including Human Rights Law, led by Dr. Andrew Fagan who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Theodore Konstadinides, who is also a founder member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI).

Our academic leads are more than willing to provide guidance and connect you with the right members of our academic staff.

Our thriving community of research students is at the heart of our success. These talented individuals investigate a broad range of exciting topics under the supervision of our academics, creating a rich tapestry of ideas and insights.

Image via Shutterstock

Where can you find out more?

Are you intrigued to explore what the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at the Essex Law School can offer you? Join us for an information session on the CHASE student-led studentship scheme on 18 October 2023, from 12:30-1:30 pm (UK Time), via Zoom. This is the perfect opportunity to learn more about eligibility, application processes, and the incredible benefits that await you.

For further details, eligibility criteria, and application procedures, please visit our web pages here. For questions relating to legal research and the CHASE scheme, please contact our Postgraduate Research Director, Dr. Anil Yilmaz Vastardis. If you have other specific questions about academic disciplines, do not hesitate to reach out to our academic leads (mentioned above) who are here to guide and inspire you on your academic journey.

Your journey to becoming a world-leading scholar in the field of law begins here. Do not miss this chance to be part of the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation are the name of the game. Your future awaits – seize it with both hands!

Accountability for Digital Harm Under International Criminal Law: In Conversation With Sarah Zarmsky

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Image via Shutterstock

Sarah Zarmsky, PhD Candidate and Assistant Lecturer at the Human Rights Centre, is a recipient of the 2023-2024 Modern Law Review Scholarship for her PhD thesis ‘Accountability for Digital Harm Under International Criminal Law’, supervised by Professor Carla Ferstman (University of Essex) and Dr Daragh Murray (Queen Mary University of London).

Sarah was awarded the Mike Redmayne Scholarship, instituted in memory of past MLR Committee Member Professor Mike Redmayne, which is presented to the best applicant in the fields of Criminal Law and the Law of Evidence (and related fields).

Modern Law Review Scholarships are prestigious awards provided to doctoral researchers in the United Kingdom and are funded by the Modern Law Review. Sarah is the first candidate from the University of Essex to receive the scholarship!

The research visibility team talked to Sarah about her success and took the opportunity to find out more about her plans:

This is an impressive achievement. How does it feel to bring this award to the University of Essex for the first time?

Thank you! It feels great, I’m very proud of it and to be part of such an impressive group of recipients. It’s very rewarding to have your research, that you invest so much hard work in, be recognised by others, especially by a journal as reputable as the Modern Law Review.

Could you tell us a bit more about your research? What gaps or shortcomings have you identified when it comes to addressing digital harm in the context of international criminal law?

My research examines how digital harm with relevance to the perpetration of international crimes may or may not be accommodated within existing international criminal law frameworks. Where criminalization may not be appropriate or feasible, it identifies possible alternatives for obtaining justice for victims of digital harms, such as through corporate criminal liability or regulatory frameworks.

I think the main takeaway so far is that the law has not yet ‘caught up’ with new ways of inflicting harm through technology, and depending on the type of harm, international criminalisation may or may not be the answer. There are some digital harms where we can see a clear link to existing international crimes, such as online hate speech and incitement to genocide, or sharing footage of crimes as an outrage upon personal dignity. It will be harder to accommodate more ‘novel’ types of harms, such as algorithmic harms or digital mass surveillance with ICL as it stands, so I am entering the stage of my research where I explore complementary strategies for achieving justice for victims of those harms.

In a single sentence, how would you summarise the importance of your research when describing it to an undergraduate student?

New technologies are important for advancing accountability for international crimes, but they also create new ways to perpetrate existing crimes or entirely new crimes, so this research is important in laying the foundation for future discussions as to how international criminal law can best accommodate digital harms.

With the evolving nature of digital threats and the global nature of the internet, how can international cooperation and collaboration be fostered to ensure effective accountability mechanisms for digital harm? Are there any notable examples or initiatives you could share that illustrate promising efforts in this area?

This is a complex question, but to answer it briefly, I would stress that as an international community, we need to be recognizing how harmful new technologies can be if used maliciously and that these harms are grave enough to be international crimes. I think sometimes the technology aspect can be roped in with other more ‘traditional’ offences and not treated as crimes on their own, which can result in less tailored justice for victims.

There are some promising developments in domestic war crimes trials, such as in The Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden, where individuals have been convicted and sentenced for war crimes for sharing degrading footage of executions on social media. I think these are positive developments because they serve the expressive function of recognizing how humiliating and degrading it can be to share footage of people in their most vulnerable states, and send a message that this is a serious crime.

This has not yet happened at an international criminal court or tribunal, but with the rise of open-source evidence initiatives at the ICC for example, I think it could definitely be a possibility going forward.

Do you anticipate your research will influence policy and if so, how?

I hope that my research can provide guidance for how ICL lawmakers and practitioners can ensure that the law keeps up with the times to fully address new ways of inflicting harm through technological means. My goal is to bring these issues to light and hopefully spark discussions within the ICL community about how we can account for digital harms moving forward.

Which direction do you see your research going in the future and why?

I’m now entering the third year of my PhD, during which I plan to apply my research thus far to one or two case examples and be able to highlight how the theory might work in practice, which I think will be really valuable. After the PhD, I would like to continue in this realm of ICL, human rights, and new technologies, perhaps delving deeper into one of the specific digital harms with a nexus to international criminal law that I have identified in the thesis.

Illegal Migration Bill: Essex Law School experts on the international system of protection against arbitrary detention express concerns in their written evidence to the JCHR

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Image via Shutterstock

On 5 April 2023, Dr. Sabina Garahan (Lecturer, Essex Law School) and Dr. Matthew Gillett (Senior Lecturer, Essex Law School submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (the “JCHR”) as part of its legislative scrutiny of the Illegal Migration Bill. Their submission focused on detention-related questions posed by the JCHR.

Dr. Garahan recently completed her AHRC-funded research on the right to liberty under European human rights law. Dr. Gillett is the Vice-Chair of the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the “Working Group”). The submission expresses shared concerns that the proposed legislation conflicts with fundamental protections against arbitrary detention set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (the “ECHR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”).

The authors’ submission identifies several areas in which the Bill conflicts with the right to liberty as enshrined in Article 5 of the ECHR. Importantly, it raises the possibility that the UK Government may be the first Council of Europe Contracting State in history to be found in breach of Article 17, which prohibits the destruction and excessive limitation of ECHR rights.

Dr. Garahan’s and Dr. Gillett’s written evidence equally highlights the potential breach of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5, on account of the likelihood that the legislation was introduced in bad faith under the ECHR – namely, on the basis of aims not listed under Article 5. Immigration detention that is predominantly imposed on grounds other than those permitted by Article 5 will be found to violate Article 18. The Government’s documented anti-migrant rhetoric, which has sparked significant concerns among international expert bodies, and the expedited passage of the Bill through Parliament strongly indicate the existence of bad faith.

Finally, the submission addresses likely violations of Article 9 of the ICCPR, which protects against arbitrary detention in a range of contexts including immigration-related processes, as held by the Working Group. In introducing discretionary powers to detain anyone suspected of entering the UK unlawfully, for such period as is “in the opinion of the Secretary of State” reasonably necessary (namely, without any time limit), the Bill undermines the exceptionality and necessity limitations of immigration detention.

Dr. Garahan and Dr. Gillett are members of Essex Law School/Human Rights Centre and the Essex Constitutional and Administrative Justice Institute. Their full submission can be accessed on the JCHR website here and a copy can be downloaded from our ELR Blog below.

garahan_gillett_illegal-migration-bill_jchr-evidenceDownload

A Proposal for a Policy and Structural Change in the Interpretation and Application of the International Criminal Court’s Principle of Complementarity for the Achievement of Victim-oriented Justice

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Image via Shutterstock

Dr. Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche concluded her PhD programme under the supervision of Professor Lars Waldorf, Dr. Marina Lostal and Dr Clotilde Pegorier. Her thesis is titled ‘Victim-oriented Complementarity is the Key: A Proposal for a Policy and Structural Change in the Interpretation and Application of the International Criminal Court’s Principle of Complementarity for the Achievement of Victim-oriented Justice’.

The thesis examined the International Criminal Court (ICC) principle of complementarity through the lens of victim-oriented justice, i.e., justice that considers and accommodates victims’ needs and interests procedurally and substantively within the limits of criminal justice processes.

Complementarity, the chosen form of jurisdictional relationship between the ICC and its States Parties, is key to the Court’s existence and sustainability. It is inter alia a tool for deciding who between the ICC and states, can exercise jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression (core international crimes).

For victims of core crimes, complementarity is much more than that; it has implications on whether justice will be served, who will investigate and where necessary prosecute — the ICC or states? Where will these proceedings take place, in The Hague or in domestic jurisdictions? Which victims can participate? How will justice be shaped?

Given the centrality of the principle of complementarity to the Rome Statute system, the thesis’ main aim was to propose ways for turning complementarity into a fulcrum for the pursuit of victim-oriented justice in the Hague and fostering the same in domestic jurisdictions.

For this purpose, the thesis asked two main research questions; firstly, how has the ICC interpreted and applied the principle of complementarity in relation to victims? Secondly, how can victims’ interests be adequately accommodated in the complementarity regime and process to aid the ICC in the fight against impunity and in achieving victim-oriented justice? To address these questions, the thesis analyzed the ICC’s complementarity, and victim jurisprudence using the doctrinal research method.

In response to the first research question, the thesis argued that victims’ needs, and interests were minimally considered in the development of the principle of complementarity; the focus was on sovereignty protection and prosecutorial issues. This is replicated in complementarity provisions within the Rome Statute, the ICC’s case law and practice. Admissibility determinations at the ICC tend to focus on issues of investigations and prosecutions of a small number of situations and cases, and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court or states. This problem is exacerbated by the structure of the ICC’s main complementarity body — the Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division (JCCD) which does not include a victims’ representative. The thesis argued that sustaining a sovereignty and prosecutorial-focused approach to complementarity will circumscribe, if not eclipse the ICC’s ability to pursue victim-oriented justice and galvanize states to do the same.

Thus, in answering the second research question, the thesis argued that a re-interpretation of the principle of complementarity and the creation of an independent, inclusive ICC complementarity body are crucial to ensuring that victims’ needs, and interests are adequately considered and accommodated throughout all stages of proceedings.

The thesis’ original contribution is twofold; it outlines a reinterpretative framework for the introduction of victims’ needs and interests into admissibility determinations by the ICC. It is the first study to propose a design for an inclusive, neutral, and independent ICC complementarity division based on the existing Rome Statute regime.

The thesis also contributes to the discussions of ways in which the ICC’s relationship with African states and the African Union can be improved in the interests of victims, and the role this can play in bringing the Rome Statute closer to becoming a universal treaty.

Dr. Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche is now employed as a Lecturer at the University of Exeter. She is currently working towards publishing a monograph and journal articles from her thesis to apply her proposals to ongoing situations and cases before the ICC. She intends to further investigate the potential impact of a new and improved complementarity mechanism on victims, the ICC’s work, and workload.