This paper explores the practice of pushback operations in the Mediterranean Sea in the last decade, observing it both through the prism of states’ security interests and through their obligations ...under human rights law. Analysis of the content of some of the basic human rights – in particular the right to life, the prohibition of refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsions – and their applicability in the context of pushback operations reveals that it is virtually impossible to reconcile pushbacks as a means of safeguarding states’ borders and states’ human rights obligations. It seems that the Mediterranean states and the European Union have come full circle – from the Italian pushback programme in 2009, through the condemnation of the practice by the European Court of Human Rights in the landmark decision of Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy and the subsequent replacement of the practice of pushbacks with the practice of pullbacks, to renewed systemic hot returns. A viable solution at the European Union level needs to be found or otherwise the states which are on the front line of migratory flows will continue to prioritise their own security interests over their human rights obligations.
U radu se analiziraju fenomen tzv. „preventivne samoobrane“ i njegovo mjesto u međunarodnom pravu. Člankom 51. Povelje Ujedinjenih naroda, samoobrana je predviđena kao jedina iznimka od zabrane ...jednostrane upotrebe sile, a kao uvjet njezine dopustivosti Povelja predviđa prethodno počinjenje oružanog napada od strane države protiv koje se ona poduzima. U praksi nekih država javlja se, međutim, shvaćanje da je samoobrana dopuštena i uoči nastupanja protupravnog oružanog napada, ukoliko država koja ju poduzima smatra da takav napad predstoji. U radu se analiziraju dva ključna pitanja: prvo, uključuje li zahtjev oružanog napada iz članka 51. Povelje i napad koji je izravno predstojeći i drugo, je li od donošenja Povelje do danas nastalo novo običajno pravo temeljem kojega bi preventivna samoobrana bila dopuštena. U tom smislu, analiziraju se relevantni međunarodnopravni dokumenti i sudska praksa te osobito praksa država i odgovarajući opinio juris.Zaključak je rada da preventivna samoobrana nema uporište niti u Povelji Ujedinjenih naroda, niti u međunarodnom običajnom pravu.
Pojava prijetnji modernog doba, kao što su terorizam ili oružje za masovno uništenje, dovela je do preispitivanja tradicionalnog shvaćanja „neposredno predstojećeg napada“, kao preduvjeta poduzimanja ...samoobrane. Shvaćanje „neposrednosti“ kao vremenske kategorije došlo je u pitanje upravo zbog nepredvidive naravi novih prijetnji i nemogućnosti utvrđenja točnog trenutka u kojemu će se one ostvariti. Uslijed toga, kod dijela država i pravnih pisaca koncept „neposrednosti“ doživio je reinterpretaciju, na način da se neposrednost više ne poima kao isključivo vremenska komponenta samoobrane, već se pri njenom utvrđenju uzima u obzir niz različitih faktora. U radu se raspravlja o tome jesu li prijetnje novog doba zaista utjecale na promjenu sadržaja zahtjeva „neposrednosti“ samoobrane te na koji način bi takva promjena utjecala na pravo države na samoobranu.
An emergence of modern threats, such as terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, has led to the reexamining of the traditional understanding of an „imminent attack“, as a precondition of a lawful self-defence. Understanding of “imminence“ as a temporal category has come under scrutiny due to the unpredictable character of modern threats and the impossibility of determining the exact moment in which they will materialize. This has led to redefining „imminence“ by some scholars and states. Imminence is thus not perceived as an exclusively temporal category, but is being assessed with regard to different factors. This paper deals with the impact of new security threats on the notion of “imminence” and discusses whether the meaning of “imminence” has been changed and, if yes, how that influences the states’ right to self-defence.
U radu se analizira praksa odvraćanja migranata na Sredozemnom moru u posljednjih desetak godina, i to kroz prizmu, s jedne strane, zaštite sigurnosnih interesa država i, s druge strane, obveze ...država na zaštitu ljudskih prava. Analiza sadržaja nekih temeljnih ljudskih prava – u prvom redu prava na život, zabranu refoulementa te zabranu kolektivnih protjerivanja stranaca – i njihova primjenjivost u kontekstu operacija odvraćanja na moru ukazuje na to kako je praktički nemoguće provoditi operacije odvraćanja, a da se istodobno postupa u skladu sa standardima zaštite ljudskih prava. Čini se kako su države Sredozemlja, kao i Europska unija, napravile puni krug – od talijanskog programa odvraćanja iz 2009. godine, preko odluke Europskog suda za ljudska prava u predmetu Hirsi Jamaa protiv Italije te naknadne prakse zamjene operacija odvraćanja operacijama povlačenja (pullbacks), do ponovnih sustavnih odvraćanja migranata. Potrebno je i dalje tražiti na razini Europske unije zadovoljavajuće i održivo rješenje jer dokle god se to ne postigne, države koje su na prvoj liniji priljeva migranata zasigurno će dati prednost svojim sigurnosnim interesima, nauštrb zaštite ljudskih prava.
The article explores the (non)application of the "responsibility to protect" (RtoP) doctrine in crises in Libya and Syria. When violent conflicts between the government and the opposition arose in ...both countries in 2011, different international bodies reported on mass atrocity crimes committed by the government forces against civilians. As rulers of Libya and Syria showed no intention of halting those atrocities, it was expected that the international community would intervene and act under RtoP, as agreed among the states at the 2005 World Summit. In Libya, the Security Council acted pursuant to the RtoP doctrine and passed the resolution authorizing the use of force aimed at saving civilian lives. In the case of Syria, however, the Security Council was deadlocked by the Russian and Chinese veto and no resolution employing RtoP could have been adopted. The paper thus analyzes these two cases, by paying special emphasis to the reasons behind such a disparate reaction of the Security Council in similar circumstances.
After the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the successor states concluded the Treaty on Succession Issues in 2001, in order to resolve various issues arising from the breakup of the state. The issue ...of protection of private property and acquired rights of citizens and legal entities of the former state in successor states is governed by Annex G of the Agreement in question. A series of proceedings were conducted before national successor courts, as well as before international judicial and arbitration bodies, in which natural and legal persons sought protection of their rights, referring to the application of Annex G. The basic question that arises is whether Annex G is a self-executing contract. , that is, suitable for immediate application without taking any further measures by its parties, or it is a contract that creates a legal obligation, but is not directly applicable. The answer to the question whether a particular contract is self-enforcing or not primarily depends on its provisions themselves and their interpretation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties from 1969. By analyzing the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention and the jurisprudence of successor states, the authors conclude that Annex G is not self-executing.
The paper explores the status of unilateral humanitarian interventions in international law. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force, except in case of self-defense and the collective ...action authorized by the Security Council. The question is whether the non-existence of unilateral humanitarian intervention among these exceptions means that they are not in conformity with the Charter and if so, whether the right to such interventions exists as the part of customary law. The issue has become even more controversial after the adoption of the “responsibility to protect” principle. Findings of legal scholars on this issue differ significantly. This paper analyzes and interprets the Charter provisions in order to answer the question of compatibility of humanitarian interventions with the Charter and examines the state practice in order to conclude whether the customary law rule allowing the humanitarian intervention exists. The conclusion of the paper is that there is no evidence to support the contentions that interventions without the Security Council authorization are permissible, although there are elements which point to the possibility of the creation of customary law allowing them.
Events that took place on 9/11, when symbols of American nation were destroyed by hijacked civilian airplanes, raised the issue of the effectiveness of the currently existing legal framework which ...regulates terrorist activities. Prior to that event, dealing with terrorist activities was mostly regulated by conventions, many of which were ratified by no more than couple of states. However, it became questionable whether these instruments are sufficient to fight terrorists who are not only immune to a threat of sanctions, but are even ready to sacrifice their lives. After the attacks took place, the United States launched against Afghanistan an armed action, ending up in a more than a decade long occupation, holding Taliban regime responsible for the attacks undertaken by Al-Qaida. The United States response to the 9/11 raised an important question: what is the legal response to terrorist attacks? This article explores the current legal framework of the use of force in response to terrorist attacks, especially with regard to distinguishing terrorist acts which are attributable to a certain state, from those which are undertaken by a terrorist group, not associated with any particular state.
PDF
