Mexico’s ongoing human rights crisis during the war on drugs has been driven not only by domestic factors, such as political corruption and organized crime, but also by decades of United States (U.S.) policy and strategy. The U.S. has played a central role in shaping the policy framework governing the drug war, often unilaterally, while overlooking significant drivers of the crisis within its own control. Through sustained support for militarized strategies and permissive domestic firearm regulations, the U.S. has exercised significant influence over the conditions under which violence and human rights abuses have proliferated in Mexico. Against this backdrop, this Comment examines U.S. conduct which has played a consequential role in shaping Mexico’s War on Drugs and assesses whether those actions give rise to international responsibility for the resulting infringements of fundamental rights. Applying the contemporary international legal framework governing state responsibility and human rights obligations, this Comment analyzes whether U.S. conduct that contributes to the perpetuation of human rights violations associated with the drug war gives rise to international responsibility. Ultimately, this Comment suggests that U.S. policies satisfy the legal thresholds for attribution and breach, thereby supporting a finding of international responsibility for contributing to systemic human rights violations associated with Mexico’s War on Drugs.
This article helps military lawyers work with allies. By comparing the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) Manuals printed by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Australia, this article identifies consequential differences in the interpretation of LOAC between these five countries. The article discusses four such differences: definitions of foundational principles, incursion into a neutral or nonparticipating State during a conflict, the role of doubt in making targeting decisions, and the degree of protection accorded to the environment from the effects of attacks. While these differences point to possible challenges for cooperation between the United States and its allies in a major conflict, the article argues that proactive identification of these and other misalignments will remove obstacles in combined planning. This article advocates for comparison of LOAC manuals as a starting point for understanding allied and partner requirements.
The focus of this article is the exercise of the UN Security Council “veto.” This is done through an examination of the question whether members of the UN Security Council have an absolute right to veto? The author comes to this query against the background of different arguments that have been proffered thus far in the recent contemporary discourse on the issue and then presenting the author’s findings on this, including suggesting a strategic way of uncovering an authoritative answer to this vexed question that has thwarted the work of the UN Security Council in times of international crisis.
This article presents a novel approach by developing a lex specialis due diligence framework based on the elements identified in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, which by analogy, establishes sector-specific elements to protect healthcare facilities from cyberattacks by Non-State Actors (NSAs). Cyberattacks by NSAs during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the risks, including the disruption of essential healthcare services and hindrance of positive obligations to ensure the rights to health, life, and privacy, among others. Existing instruments, including the Budapest Convention, the Tallinn Manuals, and the Oxford Statements, offer an important but incomplete framework. Meanwhile, the recent UN Convention Against Cybercrime (not yet in force) represents another missed opportunity to clarify due diligence obligations regarding the actions of NSAs targeting critical infrastructure, such as healthcare facilities. Therefore, this research highlights the inadequacy of simply extending general international law to cyberspace and argues in favor of establishing a sector-specific due diligence framework to protect healthcare facilities from cyberattacks by NSAs. Recent Ebola and hantavirus cases reinforce this conclusion.
U.S. courts and regulators often face challenges in interpreting Chinese law, as actual regulatory practices frequently diverge from formal legal provisions. This article argues that a strictly formalist approach that relies solely on legal text is inadequate. Instead, U.S. authorities should adopt an extra-legality framework, which considers how Chinese law functions to reinforce political authority while maintaining a legal façade. The article further illustrates the application of this approach through a case study of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA), which pro- vides a more nuanced and realistic understanding of Chinese regulatory practices surrounding U.S. access to audit work papers.
International investment law largely flows from the protections afforded foreign investors under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. Until recently, few of these treaties required investors to comply with human rights provisions in national constitutions or in international law, or preserved the ability of states to regulate to protect constitutional rights. As a result, critics have argued, investor-state dispute settlement fails to protect human rights or preserve the ability of states to regulate in the public interest, and that arbitral awards rarely consider, let alone give effect to, rules of human rights. This article considers the question of how Indigenous rights, as a subset of human rights, are protected in international arbitration. It examines the various international and domestic human rights instruments at play, including UNDRIP, as well as New Zealand’s Waitangi Clause and Canada’s Section 35 protections. It then examines arbitrations where Indigenous rights were at play – including Bear Creek v. Peru and South American Silver Limited v. Bolivia – and shows that the manner in which arbitrations have proceeded has effectively sidelined such protections. Indigenous rights are only considered, it argues, when assessing the contributory negligence of investors. It closes by considering other mechanisms that have been used to protect indigenous rights and then attempts to develop a theory of how and when Indigenous rights could be better protected.
The beautiful city of Barcelona has an estimated population of 5.7 million. Located in the north-eastern tip of Spain, the city boasts a vibrant culture and historic past that entices people from all over the world to visit. One could spend the morning visiting the stunning La Sagrada Familia church that towers 172.5 meters (566 feet) above the ground, following that, they could cool off by swimming in the Mediterranean Sea, and finally they could finish their day by visiting the historic Spotify Camp Nou and support Barcelona FC (soccer team) along with 99,354 loyal fans. Despite these enticing tourist attractions, the reality for Barcelona residents is much more grim. The city, like many regions around the world, is facing a severe housing crisis, with 5,100 people without housing or living in inadequate conditions – a number that has increased by 22% since 2022. According to the Arrels Foundation, just over half of the unhoused population receives assistance, leaving 1,231 people to sleep on the city’s streets, a record high and a notable 16% increase compared to 2021. Scholars have long debated the underlying factors that have contributed to these outcomes, with culprits ranging from inflation and rising rents to broader issues such as unemployment and high housing cost.
“Give me a lever long enough and a firm place on which to stand and I will move the earth." That is how Archimedes famously described the power of levers and the possibility they create for moving something that otherwise seems immovable. His point was that with the use of distance, a fulcrum, and a lever, nothing is really immovable. This same characterization has been applied to human rights law, and its attempts to disrupt patterns of structural dispossession, discrimination and oppression that bedevil human society. Indeed, the metaphor that human rights are a lever for change is relatively common in human rights discourse. It is worth looking more closely at this metaphor. Rather than creating a lever, this article instead suggests that human rights laws provide a new fulcrum—a new inflection point or center of gravity that can allow us to leverage all kinds of law to better protect people, places, and groups. This characterization of human rights law is more accurate than describing human rights law as a lever. Levers depend on their fulcrum to create mechanical advantage. In fact, it is the effective deployment of a fulcrum that turns an ordinary pole into a lever.
Climate change, which is already making itself felt, poses challenges for international law and the international community. Climate change and its consequences will lead to (involuntary) human mobility and affect many people. This forced migration is not yet specifically addressed by international law. This article addresses climate-induced migration and the protection of climate refugees through international refugee and migration law, international human rights law, international environmental law, climate change law and international disaster law. It analyzes how and, above all, why climate refugees are protected. The core thesis of the article is the justification of a need for protection of climate refugees, which is directed against the international community of states. According to this, states have a duty to prevent the causes of flight and must also protect climate refugees during and after their mobility. It argues that a minimum standard of protection for climate-related, disaster-induced migration already exists under current law and examines how this can be effectively developed and expanded to ensure adequate protection. Furthermore, it is argued, that the best way to address climate induced migration would be within a Global Governance system. The article focuses on a legal analysis but also draws on findings from other disciplines. The relevance of the topic is increasing as climate change progresses and international law develops.
For decades, international child abduction by one parent from the legal custody of the other has been a persistent issue which continues to be overlooked by international organizations and countries from around the world. While the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has helped to initiate certain progress in addressing acts of international child abduction by parents, signatory states including Brazil have failed to enforce rulings and provisions of the convention. This article addresses how the convention does not account for structural inadequacies of Brazilian court systems which prevent thorough enforcement of international custody and visitation rulings. Further, this article consists of a few alternatives to implementing the Child Abduction Convention, as seen with non-member states such as India, as well as several proposed strategies which Brazil can adopt in order to improve its compliance with the Child Abduction Convention. Such strategies will encompass Brazil enacting additional implementing legislation such as the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) used in the U.S., having Brazil make additional bilateral agreements with more compliant signatory states such as the U.S., and examining enforcement techniques in Denmark as a model state.
Both the United States and Australia would benefit from more conservation of private land, and conservation servitudes can help both countries achieve this. However, in the United States and Australia, the power of eminent domain is a threat to the perpetuity of conservation servitudes. The prior public use doctrine, a common law doctrine in the United States arising out of the public trust doctrine, could limit eminent domain in these cases and provide protection to conservation servitudes. This doctrine states that land devoted to one public use (such as conservation) may not be condemned for another inconsistent public use unless there is express legislative authority to do so. The argument that conservation servitudes serve a public use may be strengthened when affirmative steps are taken to monitor and manage encumbered land, an element that is required of conservation servitudes in Australia but not the United States. Further, the Australian legal system does not have an equivalent of the prior public use doctrine but may benefit from one. This Note examines the differences between conservation servitudes in the United States and Australia and analyzes the impact of the prior public use doctrine as a potential protection to conservation servitudes in each country. The prior public use doctrine is an important tool to protect the perpetuity of conservation servitudes. The application of this doctrine to conservation land raises important questions regarding what actions landowners must take to ensure public benefits are in fact derived from their conservation operations.
The detrimental effects of textiles and the fashion industry on the planet are well-known.In its 2022 Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles (the EU Textile Strategy) the EU proposed aggressive actions to transform the textile industry to implement the commitments of Europe’s Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan. The Textile Strategy’s aim is simple but ambitious: to end fast fashion. Its proposals will regulate textile businesses along the whole supply chain, but the views of the smaller enterprises that make up the majority of the supply chain have been overlooked, even as larger players lobby for policy changes. This paper focuses on eight small and microbusinesses (MSEs) already attempting to operate sustainably in the textile supply chain to understand how these proposals will affect them. The MSEs we questioned used some certifications and ecolabels to assess where to buy sustainable products (whether for their business or personal consumption) but they were suspicious of the accuracy of these certifications and often used the location of their supplier as a better guide to its level of sustainability. None of those interviewed used certifications on their own products and, while many considered the EU Textiles Strategy initiatives to be praiseworthy, they were concerned about the tools that the EU might use to measure sustainability, and the potential costs of compliance with new legal requirements. Understanding how these often-overlooked industry players view sustainability and understand regulation can assist policymakers to ensure that the EU Textile Strategy can “keep textile products in the economy for as long as possible, end fast fashion, and make reuse and repair services widely available.”
This paper argues that the international community, led by the United Nations, must develop a coherent global framework for the “S” in Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) to strengthen corporate accountability and human rights protections. While environmental metrics in ESG have gained global traction, the social pillar remains fragmented, inconsistently defined, and weakly enforced, opening the door to impact washing, where companies misrepresent or exaggerate their positive social impact. Drawing from international, regional, and domestic case studies, this paper illustrates how this incoherence leads to economic, ethical, and operational harms for businesses and the global community. It argues that public governance should regulate the social dimension of ESG through binding international treaties and recurring multilateral conferences, modeled on successful global environmental governance mechanisms. Ultimately, the paper proposes actionable pathways for building international consensus on the “S” in ESG and establishing enforceable metrics to protect human dignity in global supply chains.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) grapples with a pervasive and alarming phenomenon of forced evictions orchestrated by multinational corporations operating within its cobalt and copper mining sites. This comprehensive inquiry, undertaken collaboratively by Amnesty International and the DRC-based Initiative for Good Governance and Human Rights, meticulously scrutinizes the multifaceted human rights implications emanating from four mining projects situated in the Kolwezi region of the DRC. The investigative report documents a troubling pattern of systematic disregard for the fundamental rights and dignity of affected populations, compounded by a stark failure on the part of mining operators to adhere to extant national legislation designed to mitigate the deleterious impacts of forced evictions attendant to mining pursuits. Despite the DRC’s indispensable role as a principal global supplier of cobalt, a critical component in rechargeable batteries vital to the electronics and electric vehicle industries, the relentless quest for expansion by mining entities, particularly within the Kolwezi region, has precipitated the involuntary displacement of thousands of individuals, thereby imperiling their inalienable entitlements to shelter, education, healthcare, and communal coexistence. Against the backdrop of concerted global endeavors aimed at curbing carbon emissions and embracing renewable energy sources, it is incumbent upon the international community to ensure that this transition is executed consonant with universally recognized human rights principles and affords adequate protection to vulnerable communities adversely impacted by extractive industries. This article endeavors to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding human rights violations within the Democratic Republic of Congo by analyzing the complex international legal doctrines implicated by the egregious human rights violations arising from the implementation of mass forced eviction in the Kolwezi region of the DRC. Of particular concern is the infringement upon the human right to adequate alternative housing, a fundamental tenet enshrined within the international human rights framework. In light of the humanitarian crisis precipitated by the forced evictions realized in the region of Kolwezi, it is evident that direct and concerted international intervention is indispensable to uphold the rule of law, safeguard human rights, and facilitate the sustainable recovery and rehabilitation of affected communities within the DRC. This article thus concludes by proffering pragmatic recommendations for the implementation of sustainable recovery programs and the establishment of judicial mechanisms to afford redress for the grievous human rights abuses perpetrated against vulnerable populations within the DRC’s mining regions.
The article analyzes the legality of the Russian practice of forced adoptions of Ukrainian children from an international human rights and humanitarian law perspective. It argues that while the relocation of children from conflict zones to safe areas is generally lawful under international law, these measures must only be temporary, and persons abducted must be returned as soon as possible. This article also argues that human rights obligations must be read in the light of international humanitarian law, which is the lex specialis applicable in armed conflicts. The article concludes that any permanent measures against the will of the children concerned, their families or their legal guardians, constitutes a violation of the rights to a family and private life under the applicable human rights conventions. Moreover, the permanent deportation of children to the Russian Federation is a grave breach of international humanitarian law, which entails individual criminal responsibility.
