Antenor Hallo de Wolf

Modern Condottieri in Iraq: Privatizing War from the Perspective of International and Human Rights Law

The publication in April 2004 of the shocking photos depicting Iraqi prisoners that had allegedly been abused by U.S. military personnel took world opinion by surprise. The question was raised how this could have happened and whether U.S. military personnel were properly trained in the basic rules of international humanitarian law and human rights. The surprise became even greater after it became known that not only military personnel had been involved in the abuse, but also contractors of private military and security companies. As a way of compensating for the relatively small numbers of regular army personnel involved with handling and processing detainees, the U.S. Army apparently contracted two private military and security companies to provide support for translation and interrogation duties. The presence of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in Iraq had already been the focus of discussion following the shocking pictures of the burnt bodies of four PMSC contractors who had been ambushed by insurgent militia in the troubled city of Falluja while escorting a convoy at the beginning of April 2004. The apparent complicity of the personnel of PMSCs in the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib fueled further controversy about the wisdom of utilizing their services. Almost two years after the Abu Ghraib incident was widely discussed in the media, there is no clear picture regarding the role of PMSC personnel in the abuse scandal or their potential responsibility for the human rights violations that took place. The use of PMSCs in military conflicts is a phenomenon that, in spite of being current, is not new. Employees of PMSCs such as Sandline International, a British company that recently ceased its activities, and MPRI, an American corporation providing a variety of securityand military-related services, have

The Overseas Exchange of Human Rights Jurisprudence: The U.S. Supreme Court in the European Court of Human Rights

A recent study indicated that even though courts around the world have long looked to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) for guidance, a diminishing number of foreign courts are citing the writings of American justices. By contrast, foreign courts in developed democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, this study did not specifically examine citations by the ECtHR of USSC decisions. The use by the ECtHR of law of other jurisdictions is now relatively commonplace. This article discusses the use of the individual rights decisions of the USSC by the ECtHR. Included is a discussion of the methodology used by the ECtHR and an analysis of decisions citing USSC decisions where the government loses. This examination adds to the literature on the evolving relationship between domestic institutions and legal norms from extra-jurisdictional sources.

Human Rights and the Regulation of Privatized Essential Services

The privatization of essential services such as water and electricity has raised a number of questions with respect to the role of the state and how these services should be regulated. An obligation to regulate from the perspective of human rights law may clash with the right to regulate within certain limits under international investment law. The importance of these services for society requires the adoption of positive protection measures that guarantee their quality and universal accessibility. At the same time, the rights of investors under bilateral investment treaties need to be respected. However, under international law it is not self-evident that human rights concerns will trump the legal obligations fowing from bilateral investment treaties. A way to reconcile these potentially competing legal obligations is required under international law, and may lead to the development of what may be called ‘international public service law’.