Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – serie

By the end of British rule in Palestine on 14 May 1948, Palestinian nationality had become well established in accordance with both domestic law and international law. Accordingly, the legal origin of Palestinian nationality lies in this nearly thirty-year period as the status of Palestinians has never been settled since. Hence, any legal consideration on the future status of individuals who once held Palestinian nationality should start from the point at which the British rule over Palestine was terminated. This work provides a legal basis for future settlement of the status of Palestinians of all categories that emerged in some sixty years following the end of the Palestine Mandate: Israeli citizens, inhabitants of the occupied territory, and Palestinian refugees. In conclusion, nationality as regulated by Britain in Palestine represents an international status that cannot be legally altered except in accordance with international law.

No other scholar has so deeply influenced the development of international law or shaped the doctrinal debates as Vattel. More than 250 years after its publication, his Law of Nations has remained the most frequently quoted treatise of international law.Vattel's International Law from a XXIst Century Perspective explores the reasons behind the extraordinary authority of Vattel and analyses its continuing relevance for thinking and understanding contemporary international law. It gathers the contributions from well-known experts of international law and history for the purpose of evaluating the Law of Nations from a XXIst century perspective. The multiple facets of Vattel’s thinking are apprehended through a wide-ranging and comprehensive analysis respectively devoted to the international system, the sources of international law, the subjects of international law, the law of peace, and the law of war.

The Rights of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings for Serious Human Rights Violations addresses a question of critical importance to policy-makers, international lawyers, academics, and affected societies throughout the world: Should victims of serious human rights violations be granted under international law the rights of access to and participation in criminal proceedings before international, hybrid and domestic tribunals? Juan Carlos Ochoa applies a thorough analysis of international and comparative domestic law and practice to this question, taking into account a host of international human rights instruments and case law, the theory, law and practice of international and hybrid criminal tribunals, the law and practice in several domestic jurisdictions, and many theoretical and empirical studies. After first determining the current state of, and emerging trends in, international law in this area, he argues that the lack of recognition of these rights under customary international law is inadequate, because access to and participation in criminal proceedings for victims of these infringements are based on several internationally recognised human rights and principles, contribute to the expressivist objectives of these procedures, and are consistent with the principles that inform the enforcement of criminal law in democratic States. On this basis, Ochoa convincingly suggests concrete reforms.

In recent years, the question of whether and to what extent states are bound by human rights treaty obligations when they act abroad has given rise to considerable debate in academic circles, courtrooms and military operations. Focusing on treaties considerably jeopardized during the ‘war on terror’, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention against Torture,The Extraterritorial Application of Selected Human Rights Treaties takes stock of the key developments informing the discussion to date. Together with the wording of treaties, critical analysis is made of the ensuing interpretation of treaty provisions by monitoring bodies and states parties. A way forward in this debate is suggested, accommodating conflicting interests while preserving the effective protection of basic rights.