The group said they were not protesting the work of the ICC, but that they wanted ecocide recognised as an international crime.

In a statement the group said: “Currently, the ICC recognises four international crimes: crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and crimes of aggression. The ongoing violence against the ecosystems that sustain all living beings including us has been left unpunished.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-protest-extinction-rebellion-international-criminal-court-the-hague-a8872621.html

I read this article about the situation and was wondering if there is a way to force the Syrian Court to pay? Wondering if there is a legal pathway for the US Government to seize the money from the Syrian government. Or is this order largely symbolic and the surviving family receives no financial compensation?

If this isn't the appropriate subreddit, can you please suggest one? Thanks!

I was reading about the potential categorization of past massacres dating back to the modern\contemporary era during civil wars as "genocides" due to the use of indiscriminate and\or excessive repression against local populations without a previous separate identity in an argument which is based on the french penal code's definition of the term genocide and amounts to a sort of geographical "genocide" contention http://www.passion-histoire.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=2297&start=615 if i understood it correctly because i do not know french grammar though i can read french somewhat. It seems to me that the argument here , as summarized by an user around page 17-20 Iirc , is that is the arbitrary massacre that makes a "genocide" according to a literal reading of the french penal code and not the existence of a previously established and separate cultural- social identity. I also stumbled, while trying to find sources about the definition of the term genocide, into this debunking of Armenian genocide denialism http://groong.usc.edu/Geoffrey-Robertson-QC-Genocide.pdf which caused me to begin to have doubts on the exact boundaries between ethnic cleansing and genocide and on the invocation of state responsibility. It is clearly shown here that the armenian genocide, despite the attempts of pro-turkish historians to muddle the waters, fits the requirements for article II (c) of the Un convention on the prevention of the crime of genocide because the young turks deliberately imposed conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of the Armenian people in the course of the ethnic cleansing/ forced migration which rapidly took on a unquestionable genocidal character. I was wondering though about the classification of state responsibility in cases in which during a forced migration\ethnic cleansing not enough precautions are taken to avoid excess mortality out of neglect and\ or lack of resources even though the calculation aspect is obviously absent and this undermines the intentionality required for genocide. Is there such a thing as a negligent "genocide"? The literal reading of article II (c) confuses me but i myself strongly doubt the existence of a negligent "genocide" as otherwise almost any forced migration along ethnic, national and\or religious lines or atrocity targeting an ethnically defined population for reasons unrelated to a extermination program and without an ethnic cleansing/forced migration (see what happened in the free state of Congo under king leopold) in which a significant number of people impacted die would be a "genocide" of sorts and there are very few internationally recognized genocides. In addition to this the classification of famines such as the Holodomor as "genocides" is strongly questioned and not accepted by many genocide scholars and historians because it would be negligent " genocide". Moreover the number of victims itself has no bearing on whether a violation of international human rights law is a genocide but how does this apply to article II (c) of the Un convention on genocide in the absence of a formal state policy? Basically how do you distinguish exactly genocidal intent from a will to forcibly remove a population for ethnic, national and/or religious reasons (or from a will to exploit a population for slave-labour purposes) without putting enough effort for the effective prevention of collateral damage and\or while sanctioning and/ or not punishing pogroms to push the target group/s to leave the territory? And then there is also the fact that in cases of colonial exploitation the local populations were not targeted as such for racial, ethnic, national or religious hatred but for economic exploitation and the as such requirement is decisive in the classification of an human rights violation as a genocide. What is the legal boundary in international law of state responsibility between negligence which rules out genocide and intent? And how do you distinguish between cases in which a specific group is targeted but not as such and cases in which specific groups are targeted as such and hence fall under the purview of genocide? How have case law and the doctrine addressed these questions? Thank you.

Hello to everyone,

I need help with international law. I got an exam which I need to retake and wouldn't mind some help from anyone. Is 2hr exam and the topics are:

sources of international law
statehood and recognition
Jurisdiction and immunities
State responsibility

​

Whoever can help me out, I'll be very grateful

​

Thanks

Spain has allowed qualifying descendants of Jews expelled during the the Reconquista to attain Spanish citizenship (1).

I was wondering if a similar arrangement has been allowed for the other major group of people who were also expelled in the Reconquista: the muslims? To my knowledge, this is not the case. Would anyone be able to confirm the current situation.?

If not, is there a legal basis for this different treatment of the victims of the Reconquista? I note that the law reverses a specific law that explicitly expelled jews per se (2). Was there no similar law made for Muslims (that is, no such law to reverse)?

If so, couldn't descendants of Muslims and other victims of the Reconquista seek recourse to similar right of citizenship via the legal precedents of right of return of expelled peoples during war and conflict? That is, seeking recourse via being a descendant of a victim of expulsion during war per se, rather than via seeking a reversal of a specific law expelling specific groups?

I was reading today about plans for the Almaty International Finance Cetnre in Kazakhstan. The article stated they're planning on implementing their own court staffed with British judges. There are even hopes the court will be used by domestic companies to settle disputes due to the corruption inside the judicial branch of the Kazakh government. How common are courts like this in other countries? I know a finance center in Dubai uses roughly the same thing.

Lets say some random country, ie: Brazil, decides to offer the US government to rent their army for operations in some current conflict (say Afghanistan) in exchange for payment.

Leaving aside if DC would be interested or not (I think they would since it could prove to be cheaper and close to no political cost because no American troops would be lost) the question is if this would be against international law and if so how do you prove the country (Brazil, again could be any other) is doing it only for the money?.

I plan to do my degree in Law, and its my ambition to work with the UN and such, however, if I complete my Law degree, to the possibility of a university accepting me, how would I go about working with the British legal council in regards to the UN, and the international Court of Justice. Also, are the 2 separate entities, or is the ICOJ merely a subdivision of the UN? Furthermore, will the lack of a British judge starting from next year affect my chances in any way? Thanks!

Additional info: the US Supreme Court has ruled in 2016 that the $1.75 billion belonging to Bank Markazi will be used for financial reparations towards the victims of the 1983 Maine barracks bombing

Just curious what exactly is a international Practice.

"An important development in modern international law is the concept of "consent." Before World War II, a nation would not have been considered to be bound by a rule unless it had formally agreed to be bound by it, or it was already customarily abiding by that rule. Now, however, merely consenting to an international practice is sufficient to be bound by it, without signing a treaty."

I have an exam tomorrow and I'd appreciate if someone could elaborate on whether renvoi is not applicable under the Brussels Ibis Regulation the same as it is with the Rome I and II Regulations.

Thank you in advance.

Edit: a word

Hi. I'm a Law student. We have recently seen in Public International Law the case of a group of French soldiers that intervened in the former Yugoslavia to save a family from being kidnapped and murdered, although they didn't have the legal right to do so. The General in charge of the operation was later charged by a Military Court. I wanted to know the name of that case/person and what did the Court decide.

PD: My teacher didn't remember the details.

Thank you very much in advance.

/r/internationallaw

Has there been any instance where tourists from country A and B were illegally detained in country C, in which either country A OR B (not both) appealed to an international organization (U.N. for example) to get the people of BOTH countries out of country C?

Anybody have examples of this? I am curious if there are and how it manages to tie in with age of emancipation and consent.

Banishment as a punishment has been something with humanity since about as long as we've been in groups and fought with each other but how would it transfer to the modern world? For example say Cuba tossed a bunch of prisoners onto rafts and pushed them into the ocean, and say the drifted to the US coast, would that result in some issues? Obviously the US probably doesn't want a bunch of Cuban prisoners washing up on the Gulf coast but doesn't Cuba have the right to make people leave their country? How about if Ukraine wanted to drive a bunch of prisoners to the Russian border and help them hop the fence whether they wanted to or not.

Disclaimer: I am (obviously) ignorant of international law or any efforts made in this regard , and just about everything else. I'm not making any assertions or trying to be controversial, just truly wondering because to a lay person it seems so transparently unfair.

Obviously I don't mean like all the gems taken off the Taj or all the precious metals taken from every temple. I'm referring more to [high profile loot which the English proudly display with their "crown jewels",] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor) [or in their museums] (http://www.bowers.org/index.php/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/140-egyptian-treasures-from-the-british-museum)

I know that some of the pieces are on loan , or were bought, and that there would be a lot of "in fighting" as to who that loot belonged to, but shouldn't the countries from which they were taken at least get the option to house or sell them as they see fit?

Or are they like Indiana Jones "This belongs in a museum!"