On 7 November 2022, the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law, UC Berkeley, hosted an event where Rethinking SLIC* member Tom Hamilton shared his insights and research on Arms Trade and International Criminal Law.
Tom, in his research, focused on how the prioritisation of military and political actors in international prosecutions have adversely drawn away from the significant role of business entities in atrocities and violations of human rights.
Moderated by Professor Saira Mohamed of Berkeley Law, and organised by Professor Christopher Kutz with Professor Mohamed, the event was met with a wonderful turnout of over fifty members of faculty and students.
Amid the Ukraine conflict, allegations have been made against foreign businesses for providing various types of direct or indirect support for Russia’s military attacks. Recently, on November 15, 2022, companies were sanctioned by the US for supplying Iran-made drones used in Russia's devastating strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. In the current circumstances of the war in Ukraine, the provision of military assistance to Russia probably violates international law. Could it also be a basis to hold individuals criminally responsible? Might investigations deter others from supporting Russia? And would such prosecutions even be a good idea?
Check out this exciting post-doctoral opportunity to join our team at the University of Amsterdam on a leading international research project, looking at criminal complicity, secondary civil liability and state responsibility for atrocity crimes and serious human rights abuses: https://vacatures.uva.nl/job-invite/10622/.
On 26 September 2022, an ICC defendant, Mr Paul Gicheru, died in Kenya at the age of 52, prompting various news outlets to report on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his sudden demise. Mr Gicheru passed away at home after visiting a restaurant, while his son, with him in the restaurant, suffered abdominal pains. Further investigations are needed, but it cannot be excluded that Mr Gicheru was murdered, for example by poisoning. Indeed, Mr Gicheru’s lawyer in the ICC proceedings, Michael G Karnavas, suspects foul play, calling on the Kenyan authorities and the ICC to open a full investigation: ‘It’s somewhat odd that after the election in Kenya, and before the court issues its judgment, there is this incident,’ he said, commenting that this ‘warrants the ICC stepping up to the plate.’
On 16 September, NRC newspaper published the article: “How the Netherlands facilitate the most hated websites in the world”. The article, written by Carola Houtekamer and Rik Wassens, describes how internet hosting services based in the Netherlands provide services to the extremist, far-right website 8kun. The journalists’ finding that Dutch companies ‘facilitate’ the website raises an interesting question. If 8kun is being used to commit or support crimes, could persons or companies be liable under Dutch criminal law for providing services that ‘facilitate’ the website?
On 16 and 17 June 2022, the second Rethinking SLIC* Expert Group Meeting will take place in Amsterdam.
This meeting presents an opportunity for the experts to share the progress of the different working groups on the evaluative framework of the Rethinking SLIC* project, and to discuss the Principles of Secondary Liability emerging from our research.
After the interruptions of the last two years, we are happy to be able to reconvene the project community in Amsterdam.
In August 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of Massachusetts against American manufacturers. Mexico alleges that the defendants' business practices led to a proliferation of guns in Mexico, contributing to widespread gun violence and incurring significant costs for healthcare, law enforcement, and criminal justice. The lawsuit's key focus lies in the tenuous link between the manufacturers' actions and Mexico's claimed damages, raising crucial questions about the scope of liability. This blog argues that although past similar cases were dismissed because of a failure to adequately plead proximate cause, the legal standard applied in those cases is not appropriate for this context.
Recent attention on how business activities impact human rights has resulted in the emergence of new legal norms, including mandatory human rights due diligence obligations. The most recent example is the Sustainability Directive proposal by the European Commission. Much remains uncertain about the impact of these new laws and regulations, but ultimately, the way that business is done is changing. Please join us for an in-person conversation on how corporations and their advisors are adjusting their practices in anticipation of emerging business and human rights initiatives.
On Thursday 14 April, Principal Investigator of the Rethinking SLIC project Göran Sluiter will present his paper "Police Bystander Liability: A Comparative Approach" at William & Mary Law School.
For more information, see: https://events.wm.edu/event/view/law/129279
On 24 February 2021, a German court in Koblenz sentenced Eyad Al-Gharib, a Syrian national, to four and a half years in prison for aiding crimes of torture and aggravated deprivation of liberty in Syria. The case was prosecuted in Germany under universal jurisdiction. In convicting Al-Gharib, the Koblenz court relied on definitions of crimes against humanity that reflect those found in the ICC Statute. However, the court relied on a domestic mode of liability to connect Al-Gharib to these crimes. In this blog, we consider whether the use of domestic modes of liability in universal jurisdiction cases is consistent with the principle of legality.
In response to the Russian Federation’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the Council of the European Union issued an unprecedented Decision to finance and supply 450 million euros of lethal military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, an amount that was later doubled. In this rush to war, the EU’s stringent framework for arms control has received little scrutiny. Specifically, the EU Council hasn't disclosed its strategy for considering long-term conflict risks in Ukraine. However, such a strategy is crucial to prevent sidelining Europe's arms control framework and safeguarding global norms concerning arms control.
Despite increasing calls by shareholders to exit Russia after its brutal and unprovoked attack against Ukraine, the French energy company TotalEnergies has opted not to entirely abandon its dealing there. Reacting to TotalEnergies’s decision, NGOs Greenpeace France and Amis de la Terre have alleged that the company’s continued involvement “contributes, at least financially, to Russian aggression in Ukraine”, noted that the company and its managers might face criminal liability for facilitating war crimes and crimes against humanity, and highlighted the company's legal obligation not to contribute to human rights violations. In response, TotalEnergies claimed is acting in a responsible manner and that it will take new steps in light of the worsening conflict. However, it appears that TotalEnergies will continue to do business in Russia, at least for now. This blogpost contemplates whether TotalEnergies’s continued business dealings in Russia contribute to Russia’s ability to wage an illegal war, and if so, whether there are any legal consequences.
On 23 February 2022, following the earlier recommendation for a directive by the European Parliament, the EU Commission presented its (long overdue) proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive that aims to regulate corporate conduct in order to prevent and remedy human rights violations and environmental harm related thereto. Given the numerous legislative initiatives, proposals and debates at the national level, the Commission concludes that the proposal answers to a ‘clear request by Union Citizens (…) to address these and other adverse impacts’. This blogpost highlights some aspects of the proposed rules on civil liability and provides some initial thoughts on whether the proposed Directive will be a leap forward for the further development of civil liability standards or whether it might stifle progress.
