Matthew Happold

Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Constitution of the United Nations

In Resolution 1373 the Security Council laid down a series of general and abstract rules binding on all UN member states. In doing so, the Council purported to legislate. This article discusses whether it is entitled to do so. In the light of the Charter and the past practice of United Nations organs, it argues that the Council can only exercise its Chapter VII powers in response to specific situations or conduct. In enacting Resolution 1373 the Council acted ultra vires . The article looks at the circumstances in which such an extension of the Security Councils powers might be acceptable, but concludes that unilateral attempts by the Council to legislate would be destructive of the international legal order.

Child soldiers in international law: the legal regulation of children's participation in hostilities

Over recent years the recruitment of child soldiers has become a matter of increasing international concern. There appear to be two reasons for this growth of concern. First, an increase in the use of child soldiers. Second, a change in societys perception of when childhood ends.

Independence: in or out of Europe? An independent Scotland and the European Union

There is a question mark over the future of the nation-state in Europe. National monetary policy has been transferred to the European level in most European Union member States. Over the next ten years the EU will have a stronger role in defence and foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement. The very policies that supposedly define the concept of national sovereignty are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments.

Protecting Children in Armed Conflict: Harnessing the Security Council's 'Soft Power'

The United Nations Security Council’s recent involvement in the protection of children in armed conflict, particularly by seeking to prevent the recruitment and use of child soldiers, has attracted little attention from international lawyers. However, the process, initiated by Council Resolution 1612, has interesting parallels with non-compliance mechanisms in international environmental law and can be seen as an innovative attempt to harness the Security Council’s “soft power” to engage both State and non-State parties to conflicts.

International Humanitarian Law, War Criminality and Child Recruitment: The Special Court for Sierra Leone's Decision in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman

The recent decision of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman not only addresses the status of child recruitment as a war crime, but also provides an insight into how international criminal tribunals determine what conduct is criminal in international law. However, the authority of the decision is weakened by the unconvincing evidence relied upon by the Appeal Chamber in coming to its conclusions and by a strong dissent from Justice Robertson. The decisions faults, however, merely reflect problems in the process whereby violations of international humanitarian law are criminalized.

The ECOWAS Court of Justice as an Investment Tribunal

This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their investments against actions of their host States. It does so taking into account the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on, in particular, the extent of its substantive jurisdiction. Although it is not suggested that the Court of Justice would be better forum than an international arbitral tribunal, it is argued that it has considerable advantages over national courts.

The “Injured State” in Case of Breach of a Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Legal Consequences of Such a Breach

This chapter covers issues of State responsibility for breaches of non-proliferation treaties. It examines firstly which States can react to which breaches of non-proliferation treaties; in particular, which State parties should be considered to be ‘injured States’ and in what circumstances State parties which are not ‘injured States’ can nevertheless advance claims for breach. Secondly, it considers the legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act, in particular the secondary obligations placed on wrongdoing States as a consequence of their breach of their primary obligations under non-proliferation treaties. It demonstrates that the particularities of non-proliferation agreements as regards the question of who is an injured State are already recognised in the international law of State responsibility. However, in most cases, the traditional emphasis placed on the obligation make reparation as the consequence of breach on an international engagement has little importance in relation to non-proliferation agreements. Finally the chapter examines whether non-proliferation agreements permit State parties to act unilaterally to invoke their treaty partners’ international responsibility, or whether they are restricted to utilising any relevant treaty compliance mechanisms. It is argued that non-proliferation agreements do not establish ‘special regimes’, albeit that in practice the law of State responsibility does not play a major role in ensuring observance of the commitments undertaken by State parties to them.

The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention

On 5 December 2001, a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the application of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, took place in Geneva.