Heike Krieger

A Credibility Gap: The Behrami and Saramati Decision of the European Court of Human Rights

With the Behrami and Saramati decision the European Court of Human Rights misses an important opportunity to close the credibility gap in human rights protection during the international administration of territories such as Kosovo. The article criticises the attribution of KFOR acts to the United Nations. It holds that the equation of delegation and attribution as well as the ultimate authority and control test as a criterion for attribution are not in line with UN practice. Instead the article argues in favour of a responsibility of the Troop Contributing Nations. Their responsibility is either based on dual attribution or on the jurisprudence of the Court on the transfer of powers to international organisations. The Courts intention is understandable to protect the universal UN security system by not declaring acts of the Security Council incompatible with European standards. However, it will harm the credibility of UN administration of territories in the long run if collective security concerns prevail over human rights protection. In view of the exercise of quasi-governmental acts by the UN Security Council the article stresses the obligations of ECHR Member States to work towards the establishment of a human rights tribunal on the level of the United Nations.

Annex to Article 66

The Annex provides for a Conciliation Commission consisting of five conciliators which can make reports or proposals for the settlement of a dispute. In the light of Art 31 VCLT, the Annex constitutes an integral and binding part of the Convention. It is a supplement to Art 66 lit b and must therefore be set apart from Art 66 lit a which foresees arbitration or a decision of the ICJ in cases concerning the application or interpretation of Arts 53 or 64.

International Law and Governance by Armed Groups: Caught in the Legitimacy Trap?

ABSTRACT Empirical research shows that armed groups may provide governance services to civilians where they have established some form of control over a territory or population. At the same time, armed groups often pursue policies designed to enhance legitimacy in order to strengthen their claim to power. This gives rise to the question: Does the virtuous governance circle, to which this special volume is dedicated, also apply to governance efforts on the part of armed groups and which conditions must be fulfilled in order for the virtuous circle to operate? The article highlights that the contradictory demands of the multiple audiences of legitimacy with which armed groups need to communicate, create a dilemma that may interrupt the virtuous circle. Bringing together international legal and political science discourses on armed group governance, the article argues that the state-centric fabric of the international legal framework contributes significantly to this process.