ICJ

Derecho Internacional

Posted on

Pakistan to take Kashmir case to ICJ

Source: Jurist

August 21, 2019

 Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told ARY News TV Teusday that, after considering all legal options, Pakistan will take the Kashmir case to the International Court of Justice.

In addition, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, Firdous Ashiq Awan, “confirmed to reporters that an in-principle approval had been granted by the cabinet to take the issue to the world court. She said that the case will be presented with a focus on the violation of human rights and genocide in occupied Kashmir.”

On August 5, India revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which removed the special status and autonomy of Kashmir. Following this announcement, Indian troops occupied Kashmir, imposing a curfew.

A decision by the ICJ would be advisory, unless the countries had agreed beforehand to be bound by the court’s decision.

Anuncios

General

Posted on

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Islands.

Source: Ejil Talk

March 10, 2019

 The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, along with Westminster Law School, are hosting this event on 18 March 2019 from 17.30 (registration from 17.00). The event will discuss the most recent decision of the International Court of Justice, whereby the Court delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. For further information, see here. To register, see here.

Derecho Internacional / International Law

Posted on

ICJ urges UK to end rule over Chagos islands    

Source: Jurist

February 26, 2019

The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion Monday outlining the legal consequences of separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

The UK and Mauritius, by virtue of the Lancaster House agreement, detached the Chagos Archipelago form Mauritius and established the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Originally, the agreement aided the US’s desire for a military base on Diego Garcia, but the UK has continued to assert control over the island. Many inhabitants were forcibly removed, and those who left voluntarily were prevented from returning.

The ICJ’s opinion, which is nonbinding, says the UK did not lawfully decolonize the islands through the Lancaster House agreement. The court further urged the UK to end its continued administration over Chagos Archipelago: “the United Kingdom has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, and that all Member States must cooperate with the United Nations to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.”

The opinion follows requests from the UN General Assembly and Mauritius to return Chagos Archipelago to the country and end British control.

Derecho Internacional / International Law

Posted on

La Corte Internacional de Justicia se declara competente para juzgar un litigio entre Irán y EE. UU.      

Fuente: Naciones Unidas

 La Corte Internacional de Justicia aceptó la petición de Irán de procesar una demanda contra Estados Unidos concerniente a una presunta violación del “Tratado de Amistad”, según la cual Estados Unidos tiene retenidos unos 2000 millones de dólares en activos iraníes.

El acuerdo de Amistad fue firmado por los dos países en Teherán el 15 de agosto de 1955 con el objetivo de regular la relación económica entre los dos países. El pasado mes de octubre el gobierno estadounidense lo finalizó unilateralmente.

Estados Unidos argumenta que el reclamo iraní de recuperar sus activos en base al Tratado de Amistad  quedaron anuladas con la decisión norteamericana de retirarse del mismo.

El tribunal de La Haya (CIJ) rechazó este miércoles por once votos contra cuatro la solicitud estadounidense de desestimar el argumento de que el bloqueo norteamericano de bienes iraníes infringe alguna de las disposiciones del Tratado de Amistad.

El máximo órgano judicial de la ONU se declaró competente para juzgar un caso en el que Irán busca recuperar los 2000 millones de dólares retenidos en Estados Unidos. El litigio tiene como origen un bombardeo en el cual fallecieron 240 marines en la ciudad de Beirut, la capital del Líbano, el año 1983. Irán niega cualquier participación en el ataque y Estados Unidos considera lo contrario.

La congelación de bienes se produjo el año 2012 tras una orden ejecutiva presidencial que bloqueaba todos los activos del Banco Central Iraní (Banco Markazi) “y los de las instituciones financieras de propiedad o bajo el control de Irán, cuando esos bienes se encontraran dentro del territorio de Estados Unidos”.

El mismo año, Estados Unidos aprobó una ley que dispone, entre otras cosas, que los activos del Banco Markazi “se sometan a ejecución a fin de cumplir las sentencias en rebeldía dictadas contra Irán en el caso Peterson”, relativo al mencionado bombardeo del cuartel estadounidense en Beirut.

El Banco Markazi cuestionó la validez de esta disposición ante los tribunales de Estados Unidos pero la Corte Suprema estadounidense confirmó su constitucionalidad.

Los jueces de la CIJ también rechazaron unánimemente la afirmación estadounidense de que el caso representaba un abuso procesal, y que debía ser desechado debido a las “manos sucias” de Teherán, basándose en el hecho de un supuesto patrocinio del terrorismo y las presuntas ambiciones de desarrollar armas nucleares en el país persa.

Derecho Internacional / International Law

Posted on

Canada: the ICJ intervenes to ensure access to justice in corporate complicity case before Canada’s Supreme Court   

Source: International Comission of Jurists

February 23, 2019

The ICJ and Amnesty International–Canada, have intervening in appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Case Araya et al versus Nevsun Resources Ltd on appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

This case concerns a civil suit by Eritrean refugees against Nevsun for its involvement in the commission of forced labour, slavery, torture and other serious breaches of international law against them and many other victim. It is being heard today (23 January).

The joint intervention sets out the basis of the right to an effective remedy under international law and the importance of giving effect to that right in the proceedings of the case and in the development of common law in Canada.

The proceedings before the Supreme Court originate in an appeal by the defendant company Nevsun Resources Ltd against the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s judgment of 2017 which upheld the rights of claimants to sue in Canada.

The company argues that the “act of State” doctrine precludes Canadian courts from sitting to judge the lawfulness or validity of sovereign acts of foreign states, in this case the implementation of Eritrean National Service Programme, within the territory of that state.

The alleged forced labour, slavery and torture had been committed in this context. The company also contends that the claimants’ suit is based on allegations of breach of customary international law rules applicable only to States and which are not recognized under Canadian tort law as applicable to companies.

The ICJ and AI-Canada argue that the development of common law doctrines of judicial abstention and causes of action should be consistent with the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations as protected by international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this line, the company’s grounds of appeal should be rejected or, if accepted, should be made consistent with the full respect to the right of the claimants to an effective remedy.

The claim filed in 2015 argues that Nevsun Resources was involved in various ways in the practice of forced labour, slavery, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity at the Bisha mine against hundreds of Eritreans who were conscripted into the Eritrean National Service Programe and forced to working in the mine operated jointly by Nevsun and Eritrean State companies.

The claimants, Gize Yebeyo Araya, Kesete Tekle Fshazion and Mihretab Yemane Tekle, three of those who were forced to work in the Bisha mine and fled the country to find refuge in Canada, sued Nevsun alleging private law torts and breaches of peremptory principles of international law (forced labour, slavery, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity).

Derecho Internacional/ International Law

Posted on

irish-handsOpen Data – Still Closed to Latin American Communities 
Source: IPS News 
MEXICO CITY, Nov 4 2015 (IPS) – Open data policies in Latin America have not yet enabled communities to exercise their right to access to information, consultation and participation with regard to mining or infrastructure projects that affect their surroundings and way of life.
These rights are contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Leer el resto de esta entrada »

Derecho Internacional/ International Law

Posted on

IMG_0787ICJ inaugurates the Third Regional Conference on judicial independence and the fight against impunity in Central America 
Source: International Commission of Jurist 
In coordination with the Norwegian Judges’ Association and the Guatemalan Mayan Bar Association, the ICJ inaugurated today a two-day Conference in Guatemala City.

Leer el resto de esta entrada »