Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
87
result(s) for
"Ryngaert, Cedric"
Sort by:
Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts
The most eye-catching effect of digitalization on the law of enforcement jurisdiction is the fading into irrelevance of territoriality. Insofar as the “physical” location of digital data—on a server—may be entirely fortuitous and may in fact not be known by the territorial state, it appears unreasonable for that state to invoke its territorial sovereignty as a shield against another state’s claims over such data. To prevent a jurisdictional free-for-all, however, it is key that the exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction in cyberspace becomes subject to a stringent test weighting all relevant connections and interests in concrete cases. Introducing such a weighting test means that extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is no longer governed by binary rules (allowed and not allowed), but becomes a matter of degree, requiring a granular, contextual assessment. It remains the case that such a flexible attitude towards extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is not universally shared, and that relevant state practice and expert opinion in favor of the “un-territoriality of data” has a particular Western slant.
Journal Article
Indications of Settlement Provenance and the Duty of Non-recognition Under International Law
In its 2015 \"Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967\", the European Commission linked the indication of origin of prod-ucts from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories to the duty of non-recognition under international law, i.e., a duty not to recognize illegal situations. In its Psagot judgment (judgment of 12 November 2019, case C-363/18 [GC]), however, the CJEU did not engage with this duty, but limits itself to interpreting EU consumer law. It is argued that disputes over the application and interpretation of consumer law indeed do not lend themselves well to the application of the duty of non-recognition. The question remains, however, whether conducting trade relations as regards settlement products amounts to an implicit recognition of Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories.
Journal Article
Peacekeepers Facilitating Human Rights Violations: The Liability of the Dutch State in the Mothers of Srebrenica Cases
This article provides a critical reading of the judgments of The Hague District Court and especially The Hague Court of Appeal in the case of Mothers of Srebrenica v. the State of the Netherlands, which concerned the liability in tort of the Dutch State for facilitating the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in 1995. It engages with the courts’ considerations regarding the attribution of conduct to the State in UN peacekeeping operations, the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, the State obligation to prevent genocide, and the State’s liability for damages. While not fully agreeing with the courts’ argumentation, the author concludes that the judgments contribute to the refinement of the law and practice of State responsibility in respect of wrongful acts committed in complex multinational peace operations.
Journal Article
The GDPR as Global Data Protection Regulation?
The deterritorialization of the Internet and international communications technology has given rise to acute jurisdictional questions regarding who may regulate online activities. In the absence of a global regulator, states act unilaterally, applying their own laws to transborder activities. The EU's “extraterritorial” application of its data protection legislation—initially the Data Protection Directive (DPD) and, since 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—is a case in point. The GDPR applies to “ the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union , where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services . . . to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour . . . within the Union.” It also conditions data transfers outside the EU on third states having adequate (meaning essentially equivalent) data protection standards. This essay outlines forms of extraterritoriality evident in EU data protection law, which could be legitimized by certain fundamental rights obligations. It then looks at how the EU balances data protection with third states’ countervailing interests. This approach can involve burdens not only for third states or corporations, but also for the EU political branches themselves. EU law viewed through the lens of public international law shows how local regulation is going global, despite its goal of protecting only EU data subjects.
Journal Article
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ APPROACH TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBER STATES IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
It is generally considered that an international organization (‘IO’) has an international legal personality which is distinct from that of its Member States, as a result of which the IO itself, rather than the Member States, is to be held responsible for the IO's internationally wrongful acts.1 It appears to be an accepted principle that Member States cannot generally be held liable for the acts of IOs by virtue of their membership of an IO alone. This view can be found in a 1996 resolution of the Institut de Droit International, which provides that ‘there is no general rule of international law whereby States members are, due solely to their membership, liable, concurrently or subsidiarily, for the obligations of an international organization of which they are members.’2 This is echoed in the International Law Commission's (‘ILC’) Commentary to article 62 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (‘ILC DARIO’): ‘It is clear that … membership does not as such entail for member States international responsibility when the organization commits an internationally wrongful act’.3 The ILC holds the view that only in the case of an intervening act by a Member State that influences the commission of a wrongful act by the IO (aid and assistance, direction and control, coercion, avoidance of compliance, acceptance) could the Member State be held responsible.4
Journal Article
Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law
Non-state actors have always been treated with ambivalence in the works of international law. While their empirical existence is widely acknowledged and their impact and influence uncontested, non-state actors are still not in the centre of international legal research. The idea that non-state actors are not law-makers, however, stands in sharp contrast with the growing notion of non-state actors as law-takers. This book examines the position of non-state actors in international law as law-makers and law-takers and questions whether these different positions can or should be separated from each other. Each contribution reveals both the political and normative aspects of the question as well as the positivistic possibilities and constraints to accommodate non-state actors as law-takers and law-makers in the contemporary international legal system. Altogether, each expert reveals that the position of non-state actors in international law is not a fixed one but changes with the functional and theoretical perspectives of the observer. Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law is a welcomed addition to an under researched field of legal study. An indispensable read to scholars and policy makers wishing to gain new insights into general discourse on non-state actors in international law and the process of norm formation in the international realm.
eBook
PROVOCATIVE CLIMATE PROTECTION: EU ‘EXTRATERRITORIAL’ REGULATION OF MARITIME EMISSIONS
In 2015, frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations in the International Maritime Organisation, the EU issued Regulation 2015/757 on the monitoring, reporting, and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. Echoing the controversial Aviation Directive, the Regulation is intended to support a unilateral market-based measure, and includes emissions from outside EU territory. This raises the question whether, according to international law, the EU has jurisdiction to regulate such ‘extraterritorial’ circumstances. In exploring the appropriate jurisdictional bases, we argue that neither the Law of the Sea Convention, nor world trade law definitively decide this issue. We therefore devote more detailed attention to the customary international law of State jurisdiction supplementing these regimes. We seek to build on the existing analysis by examining climate change as a ‘common concern of mankind’. We argue that this emerging concept has distinct legal implications that can and should be accommodated within the interest-balancing exercise underlying the jurisdictional analysis.
Journal Article
Ascertaining Customary International Law: An Inquiry into the Methods Used by Domestic Courts
Based on analysis of a large number of recent domestic court cases on matters of customary international law (2000–2014), this article demonstrates that, rather similar to the International Court of Justice, domestic courts do not normally identify customary norms of customary international law on the basis of the textbook method of ascertaining a general practice accepted as law. Rather, they tend to outsource the determination of custom to treaties, non-binding documents, doctrine or international judicial practice. Sometimes, it appears that domestic courts simply assert, without citing persuasive practice authority, the existence of a customary norm. In rare cases, however, domestic courts do engage in extensive analysis.
Journal Article
International cooperation by (European) security and intelligence services: reviewing the creation of a joint database in light of data protection guarantees
National intelligence and security services are stepping up their cooperation to address national security threats, in particular terrorism. Given the sensitivity of national security, such cooperation will normally occur on the basis of legally non-binding, informal arrangements rather than ‘hard’ treaties.1 Under these arrangements, states scale up the exchange of data concerning persons of interest. This article, which is based on an expert opinion of the authors to the Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD),7 is relevant for cooperation among all security and intelligence services. Its emphasis, however, lies on the exchange of data between European states, defined here as states that are Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or at least the exchange of data accompanied by the creation of a centralized database of which the server is located on the territory of an ECHR Contracting Party. The geographical limitation to ECHR Contracting Parties allows us to review the envisaged cooperation in light of the jurisdictional and substantive guarantees provided by the ECHR, as notably developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Journal Article