Abstract Drawing on an application currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights against Italy concerning arms exports to the Saudi-led coalition in the context of the conflict in Yemen, this article explores the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights to contribute to the engagement of state responsibility in this field. It argues that, while the Court’s restrictive approach to extraterritorial jurisdiction significantly limits reliance on the substantive limb of the right to life, greater scope emerges from the Convention’s procedural guarantees. Notably, the duty to conduct effective investigations, together with the rights to a fair trial and to an effective remedy, may open avenues for judicial oversight at the domestic level, even where the harmful consequences of export decisions occur abroad. It therefore concludes that the European Convention on Human Rights may contribute to strengthening state accountability by facilitating access to justice in this field.
Abstract In recent decades, tactical (or “non-strategic”) nuclear weapons have gained relevance in the nuclear postures of nuclear-armed states. The legality of their threat or use under international law, however, remains unclear, particularly because the International Court of Justice declined to elaborate on tactical nuclear weapons in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons . While the Court expressly grounded its reasoning in the “current state of international law” at the time, the international legal framework has evolved over the last three decades in the field of environmental protection and under the influence of sustainable development. The present contribution assesses the influence that these developments have had on the legality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons and examines whether the International Court of Justice’s analysis in the Nuclear Weapons Opinion retains its force today with respect to the conceivability of “clean” uses of tactical nuclear weapons.
Abstract The article examines the applicability of the Arms Trade Treaty to autonomous weapons systems. Although autonomous weapons were not contemplated during the negotiation of the Treaty, the contribution argues that many autonomous systems may nonetheless fall within its material scope when they qualify as conventional arms or items under Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Treaty. Particular attention is devoted to the challenges that autonomous weapons systems cause to the Treaty’s preventive regulatory framework, especially regarding the obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 11. The analysis shows that the Treaty’s interpretative flexibility allows the regulation of autonomous weapons by adapting and shaping those obligations to the characteristics of these new weapon systems.
Abstract A key issue in contemporary debates on business and human rights concerns the corporate responsibility of the arms industry to respect human rights and international humanitarian law. The nature of the products supplied by the arms industry makes it inherently at high risk of these violations. However, arms corporations tend to hide their responsibility behind the export licences granted by public authorities. In this paper, the authors examine the human rights due diligence duties of arms corporations under the international business and human rights framework, as well as their interaction with the obligations set by arms export frameworks. Taking into consideration the specific risk profile of the arms sector, the close relationship between the arms industry and the states, and the recent international and domestic litigation on arms export, the analysis emphasises the necessity of a more coherent and effective regulatory approach based on a shared responsibility between states and corporations.
