Jus cogens: Recent Developments in International Law

Treaties & Conventions: Carpathian Convention Enters Into Force

On 6 January 2006 the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians (the "Carpathian Convention") entered into force. The Convention is designed to develop a comprehensive policy for the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians, a transboundary mountain range shared by the seven signatories of the Convention. The signatories to the Carpathian Convention are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovak Republic, and Ukraine.

I. Background: Development of the Carpathian Convention

In 2001 the Ukranian government requested the United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for Europe, "to service a regional cooperation process aim[ed] at the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians."[1] In response, the United Nations Environment Programme promoted the Alpine-Carpathian Partnership and fostered five negotiation meetings of the Carpathian countries, resulting in the adoption of the Carpathian Convention in May 2003.[2] The Carpathian Convention is modeled on the Convention on the Protection of the Alps (the "Alpine Convention"), which entered into force in 1995.[3]

II. Substantive Provisions of the Carpathian Convention

Consisting of 23 Articles, the Carpathian Convention's general objectives mandate that the "Parties shall pursue a comprehensive policy and cooperate for the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians with a view to inter alia improving quality of life, strengthening local economies and communities, and conservation of natural values and cultural heritage."[4]

The Carpathian Convention sets a broad framework addressing such issues as integrated land resources management, conservation and sustainable use of biological and landscape diversity, spatial planning, sustainable and integrated water/river basin management, sustainable transport and infrastructure, sustainable tourism, industry and energy, cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, and environmental monitoring and early warning.[5] As a "framework" agreement, the Carpathian Convention provides policy guidance and leaves the creation of specific protocols and policies for the Conference of Parties. For example, the Convention does not geographically define the Carpathian region, leaving that function to the Conference of the Parties.[6]

III. Current Status of States Parties

Entering into force on 4 January 2006, the Carpathian Convention has been ratified by four of the seven signatories (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic, and Ukraine). Poland, Romania, and Serbia & Montenegro are yet to ratify the Carpathian Convention. The first Conference of the State Parties must occur no later than 4 January 2007.[7]

IV. Further Information

• The Carpathian Convention (homepage)
• Text of the Carpathian Convention
• Status of Ratification
• United Nations Environment Programme
• Alpine Convention

[1] The Carpathian Convention, "History of the Convention," available at http://www.carpathianconvention.org/history.htm.
[2] Id.
[3] See Convention on the Protection of the Alps, Nov. 7, 1991, available at http://www.convenzionedellealpi.org/page2_en.htm.
[4] Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, art. 2(1), May 22, 2003, available at http://www.carpathianconvention.org/text.htm.
[5] Id. art. 3-12.
[6] Id. art. 1(1).
[7] Id. art. 14(3).

Courts & Tribunals: The Republic of Djibouti Files Application Against France with the International Court of Justice

On 9 January 2006 the Republic of Djibouti filed an Application in the Registry of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding a dispute with France. In the application, Djibouti alleges that France violated “international obligations in respect of mutual assistance in criminal matters” in regards to the investigation into the death of the French judge Bernard Borrel in Djibouti in 1995.[1] Specifically, Djibouti's application to the Court refers to “the refusal by the French governmental and judicial authorities to execute an international letter rogatory regarding the transmission to the judicial authorities in Djibouti of the record relating to the investigation in the ‘Case against X for the murder of Bernard Borrel.’”[2] Djibouti alleges this refusal is a violation of two treaties: 1) the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed by Djibouti and France in 1977, and 2) the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters signed by Djibouti and France in 1986.

In the application, Djibouti bases the ICJ's jurisdiction over the dispute on Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Court.[3] Article 38, paragraph 5, states:

"When the applicant State proposes to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon a consent thereto yet to be given or manifested by the State against which such application is made, the application shall be transmitted to that State. It shall not however be entered in the General List, nor any action be taken in the proceedings, unless and until the State against which such application is made consents to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of the case."[3]

Accordingly, the ICJ transmitted the Application by Djibouti to France, and the ICJ will await France's consent to the ICJ's jurisdiction over the dispute before taking further action.

[1] International Court of Justice, "The Republic of Djibouti seises the International Court of Justice of a dispute with France," 2006/1, Jan. 10, 2006, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2006/ipresscom2006-01_dft_20060110.htm.
[2] Id.
[3] International Court of Justice, Rules of Court (1978), July 1, 1978, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicrulesofcourt_20050929.htm.

Recent Scholarship: This Week in Public International Law Scholarship

A juscogens.net weekly feature, This Week in Public International Law Scholarship highlights new and notable books and articles concerning public international law. For comments or suggestions, please contact editor@juscogens.net.

Books:

• Gian Antoini Benacchio & Barbara Pasa, A Common Law for Europe

• Michael Byers, War Law : Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict

• James Crawford & Vaughan Lowe (eds.), British Year Book of International Law 2004 Volume 75

• Adam Czarnota, Martin Krygier & Wojciech Sadurski, Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism

• Stephen Weatherill, Cases and Materials on EU Law

Articles:

Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2005

• Symposium:  The Future of the United Nations in Matters of Security and Human Rights

Michigan Journal of International Law, Volume 26, Number 4, Summer 2005

• Laurel E. Fletcher, From Indifference to Engagement: Bystanders and International Criminal Justice

American University International Law Review, Volume 21, Number 1, 2005

• Louis-Philippe F. Rouillard, Misinterpreting the Prohibition of Torture Under International Law: The Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum

Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Volume 31, Number 1, 2005

• Erik B. Bluemel, Overcoming NGO Accountability Concerns in International Governance

International Lawyer, Volume 39, Number 3, Fall 2005

• Claes Sandgren, Combating Corruption: The Misunderstood Role of Law