Philippa Webb

The Genocide Convention: The Travaux Préparatoires

This work gathers in a single publication the records of the meetings which, in the context of the post World War II United Nations, led to the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Time to Share the Burden: Long Term Care Insurance and the Japanese Family

Japan is faced with population dynamics unprecedented in its history. In the next 30 years Japan’s population will become the oldest in the world due to earlier rapid declines in fertility and mortality. As Japan’s population dramatically ages, one key challenge looms large: the need to provide care to a generation of elderly people. As many as 5.2 million of them will require long term care in the coming years. Further, profound demographic and social changes are laying siege to the tradition of relying on families, particularly women, to care for the elderly. This has changed what it means to be old in Japan; as Hashimoto notes, ‘old age is no longer a bonus or a stroke of good luck: it has now become a social problem’. In response to the growing ‘social problem’ of providing care to elderly people, in 1997 the Japanese government passed the Long Term Care Insurance Law (Kaigo Hoken Ho ) (LTCI Law). This law established the Long Term Care Insurance System (Kaigo Hoken Seido) (LTCIS), which came into effect in April 2000.This article considers the question: is the LTCIS responding to the needs, values and expectations of the contemporary Japanese family, and more specifically, the female caregivers? This question is pertinent for two reasons. First, in Japan, as in most other countries, care of the frail elderly is the work of daughters-in-law, wives, and daughters; 85% of family caregivers are women. However, the position of women in Japanese society and the traditional framework of caregiving have been changing, and extra strain has been placed on the family unit. The Japanese government has had to ask itself: Where does the responsibility for caregiving lie: with the family, the state, the local community, employers, or all of the above? ...

Oppenheim's international law : United Nations

Volume I -- Part I -- Introduction -- Part 2 -- The United Nations - What it is -- The General Assembly -- The Security Council -- Trustee Council -- Economic and Social Council -- Subsidiary organs -- United Nations specialized agencies -- Membership -- Powers -- Voting -- Legal personality of the United Nations -- United Nations and international law -- Responsibility of the United Nations -- Financing of the United Nations -- United Nations secretariat and secretary-general -- United Nations privileges and immunities -- Volume II -- Part 3 -- The United Nations: What it does -- Improving social conditions -- Improving economic wellbeing -- Democratic governance -- Electoral assistance -- Disaster relief -- Promotion and protection of human rights -- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees -- Protecting the environment -- Promotion of international law -- Keeping the peace -- Peacekeeping and other peace operations -- Peaceful settlements of disputes -- Part 4 -- Adjudication within the United Nations system -- The International Court of Justice -- United Nations Compensation Commission -- Criminal Tribunals established by or in relationship with the UN.

International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation

1. Introduction 2. Genocide 3. Immunities 4. Use of Force 5. Explaining Judicial Integration and Fragmentation 6. Conclusion

A British Perspective on the War and Military Forces Clause of the Japanese Constitution

From the British perspective, a broad interpretation of Article 9 allowing Japan to act in unilateral and collective self-defence in response to actual and imminent attacks is desirable. Given the written nature of the Japanese Constitution, the best way to entrench such an interpretation would be through constitutional amendment. Prime Minister Abe’s vision of Japan taking a more proactive role in international and regional security issues is aligned with UK interests. Yet it cannot be overlooked that Article 9, even though it was imposed by the US, has become an integral part of Japanese perspectives on their contemporary national identity. The crisis over Syria has triggered a re-examination of both the UK’s and Japan’s values. The key question is whether Japan’s proactive role in international security can embrace security concerns beyond its own country and people.

Should the 2004 un State Immunity Convention serve as a model/starting point for a future un Convention on the Immunity of International Organizations?

This paper argues that the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property should not serve as a model for a new convention with regard to international organizations. It has been suggested that there would be some advantages in preparing a draft convention on the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations: it would make the law governing the immunities of international organizations more ‘easily ascertainable’; a convention would progressively develop the law; and it would make a useful counterpart and parallel convention to the 2004 convention. However, this paper contends that each of these reasons — while appealing from the perspective of harmonization and a notion of an accessible and predictable international ‘rule of law’ — does not overcome the problems of principle, practice and precedent. However, the immunities afforded to State officials may have greater value as a model for the immunities of officials of international organizations.

Binocular Vision: State Responsibility and Individual Criminal Responsibility for Genocide

More than six decades after the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the law on genocide has become increasingly prominent due to its invocation by governments and civil society as regards mass atrocities in the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Sudan. When the Convention was drafted, there was only one international judicial institution in existence with jurisdiction to apply and enforce its terms: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the jurisdiction of which was limited to state responsibility. Since then, the hypothetical reference in Article VI to a future ‘international penal tribunal’ that would address individual criminal responsibility has turned into a reality, with the establishment in the past two decades of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Iraqi Special Tribunal and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia have also considered the law on genocide.