Browsing by discipline "Folkrätt"

The World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1994, has been criticized for not sufficiently accommodating other values of international law such as the environment or human rights. This study examines interaction and possible collisions between the WTO and other special regimes of international law from the viewpoint of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Both normative and jurisdictional conflicts are studied. The purpose is to analyze the means available in international law to solve these conflicts and whether they actually are working. There is no hierarchy between international tribunals and no codified rules on how to solve conflicts of jurisdiction. Treaty clauses may be of some help, but often the clauses are too vague to offer any guidance in practical situations. Traditional principles governing jurisdiction, such as res judicata and lis pendens, might solve conflicts inside one regime, but they seem to work poorly in conflicts of jurisdiction between different special regimes. Parallel proceedings can be avoided if one of the tribunals shows deference to the other, or if the parties manage to agree on the relevant tribunal. Paradoxically, politics and diplomacy seems to play an important role in solving conflicts of jurisdiction between international tribunals. Normative conflicts can be defined either narrowly or broadly. This study advocates a broad definition of conflict in order to realize conflicts between obligations and permissions, and to avoid solving conflicts by merely defining them narrowly. Conflicts can be avoided through interpretation in the light of other rules of international law applicable between the parties, also known as systemic integration. Systemic integration could be especially useful in smoothing friction in the interaction between the WTO and other special regimes. However, so far the WTO panels and the Appellate Body have not made use of systemic integration to the extent possible. Actual conflict rules become necessary when interpretation fails in providing harmony between two conflicting norms. It is concluded that conflict rules, such as lex posterior and lex specialis, can be of use when solving conflicts inside one regime, but their applicability to conflicts between special regimes is problematic. Possible conflicts between peremptory norms and WTO law are also discussed. It is concluded that solving jurisdictional and normative conflicts has more to do with political decision-making than with the application of legal rules. It is suggested that the interaction between the WTO and other special regimes could further be enhanced by a broad definition of conflict and the utilization of systemic integration to its full extent.

This thesis identifies feminist activism as a key influential factor on the language of international conventions addressing the issue of trafficking for sexual purposes, and consequently as a significant factor in the resulting inconsistent language and inconsistent legal obligations contained within the conventions. The thesis introduces the concept of “governance feminism” and discusses how three main feminist theories—abolitionism, pro-work feminism, and individualism—have influenced the three main trafficking conventions related to the issue of trafficking for sexual purposes. The three main convention discussed are: The 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons (1949 Convention), The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol). The analysis of these texts determines the legal obligations that each convention contains; identifies which particular school(s) of feminist theory influenced the text, and to what extent; and, illustrates the inconsistencies in language and obligations among the conventions. Based on the identification of the three main feminist schools and their influence on the text of the three conventions considered, the thesis then analyzes domestic laws on trafficking for sexual purposes and prostitution in three different jurisdictions: New York—looking also at United States federal trafficking law, Finland, and Sweden. This analysis illustrates how inconsistent language, and therefore inconsistent obligations, in the conventions allows for disparate approaches to trafficking domestically. The thesis also compares the comprehensive legal frameworks in these domestic jurisdictions and concludes that if governance feminists seek to advance the human rights of women, and eliminate sex trafficking through a legal framework, it would serve them well to acknowledge the relationship that anti-trafficking laws and prostitution laws have domestically and work to create clearer international guidelines in support of their goals.

Two major developments have shaped the international community’s involvement in efforts to bring justice to situations of armed conflict: the turn to anti-impunity and the global protection reflex. The former focuses in international criminal law and accountability, while the latter has informed both humanitarian intervention and the protection of fundamental human rights, as advocated by the humanitarian community. The proliferation of international commissions of inquiry (CoIs) can also be placed in this context. The mechanism has been increasingly deployed in the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring. Also in the case of Syria, the Human Rights Council (HRC) has set up a permanent Independent International Inquiry Commission, in order to monitor the observation of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) by the parties to the conflict. The Syrian CoI’s mandate can be scrutinised from two perspectives: the formal HRC-given mandate, and its self-proclaimed mandate, which it exerts in its reports and public appearances. While the former focuses on ending all alleged violations to protect the population, the latter should, according to the CoI, be interpreted in a manner, which is the most conducive to civilian protection. In my research, I aim to find out, whether the Syrian CoI has respected its formal and its self-proclaimed mandate. Fundamental to both are the development of IHRL in a manner that is more favourable to civilian protection. While CoIs have been considered a fundamental mechanism in the promotion of global justice, they been both praised and criticised for their progressive interpretations of IHRL, among other things. Also at the beginning of its mandate, the Syrian CoI was said to have assigned IHRL protection responsibilities to non-state armed groups (NSAGs), in a manner that is expansive compared to the state-centric, status quo reading of international law. However, despite its mandate, it seems that the CoI quickly abandoned its willingness to engage in rights-based legal analysis, and even less so in the development of IHRL. I make my assessment of the CoI’s human rights analysis based on three fundamental issues, which mark the current discussions on the application of IHRL in armed conflict. In order to see if the CoI is following its rights-based mandate, I evaluate the CoI reports based on three questions: how it applies IHRL next to or independent of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), whether it considers rights catalogues holistically – particularly economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights, and whether it is willing to assign IHRL responsibilities to NSAGs. Based on my analysis of the CoI’s repots through these three questions, I argue that after a progressive beginning, the Syrian CoI no longer follows its formal or self-proclaimed mandate, nor UN guidance on IHRL fact-finding. Facts also have an advocacy function, and rather than engaging in promoting a protection reflex in the international human rights system, the CoI focuses on matters of anti-impunity, claiming that it cannot do anything, until the UN Security Council refers the Syrian case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, the CoI has given political statements that fall well beyond the parameters of its mandate. This has a negative bearing on the CoI’s credibility. I argue that the CoI should act as an ally of the humanitarian community by promoting IHRL protection concerns to the parties and more globally, and I propose a number of concrete recommendations in order for the CoI to better balance the two complementary goals of anti-impunity and civilian protection. These recommendations are highly relevant as UN planning for transitional justice is already fully operational, and international actors are once again demonstrating a willingness to insert ‘managerialism’ in a transitional setting. By employing a more holistic conception of rights protection and by truly acting as a voice of the civilians whilst remaining self-critical, the CoI is more likely to lift itself out of irrelevance in the global division of labour. My analysis is based on both critical literature, and the acknowledgement that my own pro-rights view bears its risks.

Teknologisen kehityksen sekä globalisaation ansiosta finanssimarkinnat ovat viimeisten vuosikymmenten aikana kehittyneet yhä kansainvälisemmiksi. Alan sääntely on jäänyt tässä kehityksessä jälkeen ja 2010-luvun finanssikriisin myötä merkittävät puutteet nykyisessä kansainvälisessä finanssisääntelyssä ovat korostuneet entisestään. Tutkielman ensisijaisena aiheena ovat finanssisääntelyjärjestelmän eri tasot, niiden keskinäinen vuorovaikutus sekä finanssisääntelyn kehityssuunta. Pankkivalvontaan kiinnitetään erityistä huomiota sen käytännön merkittävyyden sekä kehitysmahdollisuuksien johdosta. Työssä käydään läpi globaali sääntelykehikko, sen ratio ja taustat. EU:n pankkivalvontajäjestelmää sen viimeaikaisine muutoksineen tarkastellaan esimerkkinä ylikansallisista, alueellisista finanssisäänteratkaisuista. Samalla sivutaan myös EU:n suhdetta kansainväliseen oikeuteen ja pohditaan EU-tason ratkaisujen laajempia vaikutusmahdollisuuksia. Katsaus Suomen pankkivalvontasääntelyyn tarjoaa kansallinen näkökulman kansainväliseen finanssisääntelyyn. Tältä osin tutkielma nojautuu pitkälti työn osanana toteutettuun asiantuntijahaastatteluun, jossa haastateltavana ollut pankkivalvonta-asiantuntija Erkki Kontkanen esittää omat näkemyksensä finanssisääntelyn viimeaikaisista kehityssuunnista sekä tulevaisuuden mahdollisuuksista. Tutkielman toisena kantavana teemana on finanssisääntelyn suhde perinteiseen kansainväliseen oikeuteen. Finanssimarkkinoita säännellään yhä enemmän kansainvälisellä tasolla. Kansainvälinen finanssisääntely ei kuitenkaan noudata perinteisen kansainvälisen oikeuden sääntöjä. Globaali finanssiregulaatio on pääasiallisesti epävirallisten sääntelyverkostojen tuottamaa, muodollisesti sitomatonta soft law-sääntelyä. Sääntelyverkostoihin sekä sitomattomaan sääntelyyn liittyvät ongelmakohdat liittyvät siten kiinteästi myös nykyisen finanss isääntelyn ongelmakohtiin sekä haasteisiin. Kansainvälinen finanssisääntely kärsii mm. demokratiavajeesta, läpinäkyvyys ongelmista, hajanaisuudesta sekä liiallisesta monimutkaisuudesta. Tutkielman keskeisiä väitteitä on, että kansainvälisen finanssisääntelyjärjestelmän kokonaisvaltainen uudistaminen on tarpeen ja lähes väistämättä edessä. Tämä uudistus voi toteutua monella eri tavalla. Tutkielmassa ei esitetä seikkaperäisempiä kannanottoja finanssisääntelyjärjestelmän potentiaalisiin muutossuuntiin taikka tulevaisuudessa mahdollisesti omaksuttaviin sääntelyratkaisuihin, vaan keskitytään aiheen kokonaisvaltaiseen kuvaamiseen.

Valtamerien biodiversiteetti vaikuttaa koko maailman elollisen luonnon hyvinvointiin ja on äärimmäisen tärkeää myös ihmiskunnalle. Nykyisillä kansainvälisillä ympäristösopimuksilla ei ole onnistuttu tehokkaasti estämään lajien häviämistä ja ekosysteemien tuhoutumista. Biologisen monimuotoisuuden eli biodiversiteetin suojeleminen ja kestävä käyttö on erityisen haastavaa aavalla merellä, missä vastuu biodiversiteetin suojelusta on hajaantunut useille globaaleille ja alueellisille toimijoille ilman, että suojelutoimintaa valvoisi tai ohjaisi mikään kansainvälinen instrumentti tai toimija. Tässä tutkielmassa tarkastellaan aavan meren biodiversiteetin suojelun ja kestävän käytön hallinnollisen säädöskehyksen nykytilaa, haasteita, ja tulevaisuutta. Tutkimuskysymyksenä on, mitä haasteita aavan meren biodiversiteetin suojelun ja kestävän käytön hallinnollisessa säädöskehyksessä on, pystyykö kehitteillä oleva merioikeusyleissopimuksen alainen täytäntöönpanosopimus aavan meren suojelemisesta ja kestävästä käytöstä (BBNJ-sopimus) vastaamaan näihin haasteisiin ja mitä vaihtoehtoja se tähän antaa. Pääasiallinen tutkimusmetodi on yhteiskuntaoikeudellinen metodi. Lisäksi tutkimuksessa käytetään lainopillista metodia sekä kriittisiä metodeja. Tutkielma alkaa perehtymisellä aavan meren biodiversiteetin käsittelyyn kansainvälisessä oikeudessa. Tämän jälkeen perehdytään ja tutkitaan aavan meren biodiversiteetin suojelun ja kestävän käytön sääntelyn säädöskehyksen hallinnollisia haasteita. Tämän jälkeen perehdytään kehitteillä olevaan aavan meren biodiversiteetin suojelusopimukseen ja sopimusneuvotteluihin sekä siihen, miten uusi sopimus pyrkii vastaamaan aavan meren biodiversiteetin hallinnollisen säädöskehyksen haasteisiin. Viimeisessä luvussa tarkastellaan vielä mahdollisen syvemmän muutoksen tarvetta kansainvälisessä ympäristöoikeudessa ja aavan meren suojelussa. Neuvoteltavana oleva aavan meren biodiversiteettisopimus pyrkii luomaan globaalin hallinnollisen regiimin, jonka avulla pystytään luultavasti yhdistämään paremmin eri toimijat ja luomaan yhteisiä tavoitteita ja tehostamaan suojelutoimintaa. Se ei kuitenkaan anna selvää vastausta siihen, miten alueellisten ja sektorillisten toimijoiden välistä yhteistyötä käytännössä parannetaan. Alueellisten ja sektorillisten toimijoiden sekä sopimusvaltioiden välinen yhteistyö ja koordinaatio on myös ongelma, johon sopimus ei anna täysin selkeää vastausta. Sopimuksesta ei käy tarpeeksi selvästi ilmi velvollisuus aavan meren biodiversiteetin suojeluun ja kestävään käyttöön, eikä se tuo tarpeeksi kunnianhimoisesti esiin merten suojeluun liittyviä periaatteita. Kalastukseen ei tämän hetkisen kehityksen perusteella tulla ottamaan erityisemmin kantaa BBNJ-sopimuksessa.

The thesis is focused on two battling concepts: head of state immunity from criminal proceedings in foreign national courts and accountability of heads of state for international crimes and human rights violations they have committed. These concepts are studied in the light of the developments after a remarkable judgment by the United Kingdom’s House of Lords regarding Chile’s former president Augusto Pinochet, who according to the judgment did not enjoy immunity of a former head of state for crimes of torture. This year, 20 years have passed since this revolutionary judgment was given on March 24, 1999. Head of state immunity can be derived from state immunity, although currently it must be considered as a distinguished concept from the rules of state immunity. It has also similarities to diplomatic immunity. However, currently there is no separate convention regarding only head of state immunity. The International Law Commission (ILC) has been drafting articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction since 2006, but the work is not yet finished. This can be counted as an important expression of opinion in the area of head of state immunity. Thus, currently customary international law plays the most central role when trying to reconcile head of state immunity and current requirements of international criminal and human rights law. A possible human rights exception could include international crimes and other serious human rights violations. International crimes include core international crimes and additionally few other crimes. Serious human rights violations include breaches of human rights that cannot be derogated. These criminal actions are often subject to universal jurisdiction, which means that they should be punished wherever committed, and more importantly, by whoever. Thus, also the most high-ranking officials, such as heads of state should be held individually responsible. Since head of state immunity is divided to immunity ratione personae (reserved for incumbent heads of state) and immunity ratione materiae (covering official acts of former heads of state), which are distinctively different from each other, a possible human rights exception must be established separately to these doctrines. The elements of established rules of customary international law, state practise and opinio juris, show that a certain kind of human rights exception exists to immunity ratione materiae, whereas immunity ratione personae remains inviolable. The national and international cases and national legislations alongside other state practise and opinio juris, such as the ILC’s work and multilateral treaties however demonstrate, that the scope of the exception is not general, but including mainly just international crimes and excluding other serious human rights violations. Rationale for immunity, proper functioning of states, does not require that former heads of state should not be held responsible in foreign courts.

This thesis contains two parts. The first part consists of sections 2-4 and introduces the main elements of the thesis’ topic. Section 2 provides insight to the Finnish Arbitration Act 1992, its history and its recently commenced reform project. Section 3 describes the main features of the UNCITRAL Model Law and the UNCITRAL 2010 Arbitration Rules and section 4 provides a concise overview of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 and the Swedish Arbitration Act 2019. The second part focuses on addressing the problems presented in section 1.1 by considering them in turn, from the perspectives of the four above-mentioned legal instruments. The issues with the current provisions on challenging an arbitrator are discussed in section 5. The lack of interim measures in the Finnish Arbitration Act 1992 is considered in section 6. Recommendations in relation to what kind of provisions on setting aside and annulment of arbitral awards should be in the reformed Finnish Arbitration Act are provided in section 7. The fourth problem examined in this thesis is analysed in section 8, which contains solutions with respect to the question how the provisions on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards should be reconfigured during the reform project. Finally, section 9 summarises the solutions to each problem. The thesis offers distinct conclusions to the four problems. As a summary of the four conclusions, I submit that the UNCITRAL Model Law provides a useful foundation in relation to solving the four problems with the Finnish Arbitration Act 1992. The UNCITRAL 2010 Arbitration Rules’ provisions compliment the Model Law in solving these issues. Singapore’s case law is particularly useful for the purposes of the reform project as the International Arbitration Act 1994 is based almost completely on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Finally, the recent changes stemming from the reformed Swedish Arbitration Act 2019 should be considered carefully, when proceeding with the reform project of the Finnish Arbitration Act 1992.

The underlying goal of this thesis is to bring some clarity to the perennial ‘terrorist v freedom fighters’ dilemma. The importance of this undertaking is hard to overestimate considering the increased vulnerability of non-state actors pursuing progressive anti-dominant political agendas in the post-9/11 environment when it is much easier and less costly for states in terms of international acceptance to suppress opposition movements by applying the label ‘terrorism’. Because the legal definition of terrorism is yet to be agreed just like the conceptual ramifications and legal scope of the notion of revolution as the most widespread form of modern freedom-fighting are still highly under-theorised, a recourse is had to the second-tier framework of principled restraint based on the moral distinction between just and unjust wars. Such revival of the just war theory in the twenty-first century is occasioned by the increased invocation of the substantive-legitimacy talk in the contemporary conditions of rapid change and reigning uncertainty as to the law’s ability to adapt in order to bridge a gap between what law requires and what morality demands. A net outcome of such development is the emergence of the ‘illegal but justifiable’ formula where a certain action can be technically illegal but morally justified if undertaken in conformity with the second-order principles of legitimate aim, legitimate goal, legitimate target and a set of legitimate conditions. Ergo, if freedom-fighting can be ‘illegal but justifiable’, it is by definition not terroristic. Importantly, the substantive-legitimacy framework of the second-order norms might appear as lacking sufficient clarity and legal robustness by virtue of being too abstract to serve as a clear guide for action. Yet, it introduces additional avenues of debate over controversial conduct and provides a setting of more controlled criteria for the interpretation of first-tier legal rules with a view of adapting those to changing circumstances.

The first migration due to severe changes in climate date back to centuries ago. However, in the past, climatic factors have not been as significant as the climate change we are currently experiencing. Sea level rise, frequency of the extreme weather, and drought and water scarcity are main impacts of climate change on humans’ lives. In most vulnerable places, these effects lead to disasters which may force millions of inhabitants to leave their usual homelands. Some studies estimate that over the course of this century, more than 200 million people will be displaced, temporarily or permanently, as a result of climate change. This thesis primarily aims to demonstrate that whether the existing refugee protection system is able to provide protection for climate change refugees. Given the specific requirements of the protection of this emerging group of refugees, this thesis demonstrates that the current refugee protection instruments, both in a regional or international level, seem incapable to cover climate change-induced displaced persons. Therefore, a number of different academic proposals have been drafted to provide protection for climate change refugees. Amendment to the existing instruments, adaptation of a protocol, or creation of an independent framework are common categories of these protective proposals. As the second question of this thesis, a few numbers of proposed frameworks are examined to point out their strengths and weaknesses.

Activities in outer space are governed at an international level, above all, by international space law. As for treaty law, there are five United Nations treaties on outer space, all drew up during 1960’s and 1970’s. The first one of them is the Outer Space Treaty. Out of the five space treaties, the Outer Space Treaty has been ratified or acceded to the most. By 2019, the treaty had over a hundred States Parties to it whereas the most recent one of them, the Moon Agreement has only 18. These two treaties contain relevant provisions when it comes to the topic of the present thesis, space resource utilization. According to article I of the Outer Space Treaty, outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all states. However, such freedoms are not absolute. One of the limitations can be found in article II of the treaty, known as the nonappropriation principle. The Moon Agreement echoes these principles but is a bit more specific than the Outer Space Treaty by further declaring that any areas of celestial bodies or natural resources in place are not subject to ownership rights unless there is an international regime saying otherwise (Art. 11(3) MOON). So far, there is no such regime, and the legal significance of the Moon Agreement is rather limited as it lacks binding force upon majority of states. Nonetheless, the question of property rights and the right of ownership over space resources is a relevant one. Whether one can extract such resources and do, more or less, whatever one pleases with them once removed from their original place is subject to controversy. The scope of freedom of use in relation to the non-appropriation principle remains ambiguous when it comes to space resource utilization. The research problem of the thesis is to study the formation of the United States’ position within the context of indeterminate space law. The United States is a state party to the Outer Space Treaty, but not to the Moon Agreement. It was the first country to enact a domestic law dealing with space resource utilization – the U.S. Act 2015. The Act sets out a national framework for commercial space resource utilization including an ownership regime regarding space resources obtained by U.S. citizens. An accompanying report notes that the state’s stand has long been that “the right to remove, take possession, and use in-situ natural resources from celestial bodies” and “the right of exploitation” are allowed under freedom of use granted in the Outer Space Treaty. It is further reported that the state has taken this position while being aware that there is no uniform understanding among states on the interpretation of the relevant principles and that, contrary to the United States, some regard the non-appropriation principle precluding exploitation of space resources and private property rights over such resources. Space resource utilization may have seemed like a distant future throughout the negotiating history of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, but the privatization and commercialization in the space sector in general was well anticipated by the United States. The state made clear that private sector involvement in the space arena is expected and shall be permitted. Article 11 of the Moon Agreement was held risky with regard to the interests of the private sector, and the agreement was left unratified in the United States. Therefore, the issue of space resource utilization rests upon the general principles of the Outer Space Treaty. At the hearings of July 1980, where the Moon Agreement was discussed before the U.S. Senate Committee, the representative of the Department of State addressed that the state’s position was that space resource utilization was allowed under the Outer Space Treaty whether for scientific investigation, or sustaining of missions in outer space, or for commercial purposes. The purpose of the U.S. Act is to give effect to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty through a national law stating that private entities may use space resources in accordance with the treaty. The aim of the Act was to promote the development of space resource industry by decreasing legal uncertainties. When the Act was under preparation it was suggested that eventually the issue of space resource utilization would require solution on an international level as a state cannot make unilateral promises on how such issues will be dealt with on an international plane. However, the U.S. Act appears as a logical addition in the continuum, which dates back at least to July 1980 when the representative of the Department of State declared the states’ position on space resource utilization being allowed under the principle of free use.