Irene Couzigou - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Irene Couzigou

BILETA, Sep 7, 2020

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to p... more The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The preparation of this response has been funded by BILETA

Environmental Law Review, 2012

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, organised networks have spread out across bor... more Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, organised networks have spread out across borders, overtaking cities. The most famous of these is the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL), more commonly known as ‘Islamic State’ (IS) (Flasch, 2015: 3). Militants of IS now control wide portions of territory in Iraq and Syria as well as an area in Libya. IS has killed and injured thousands of people and IS-related violence has led to the displacement of over a million people. Atrocities committed by the IS have extended to several other countries in the Middle-East, in West-Africa, and in Europe (Zerrouky, Audureau and Vaudano, 2015).

Civitas Europa, 2018

EnglishThis paper analyses whether the Security Council of the United Nations has to respect inte... more EnglishThis paper analyses whether the Security Council of the United Nations has to respect international human rights law when it adopts measures on the basis of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that directly affect individuals. This study also examines whether the Security Council has to take international human rights law into consideration when it adopts coercive measures that must be applied by Member States without any margin of appreciation. One objective of the United Nations, enshrined in Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations, is to develop and encourage respect for human rights by Member States. The general principle of international law of good faith, which applies to the United Nations, requires that the United Nations, including the Security Council, interpret the Charter with good faith. The paper applies the general principle of good faith to the interpretation of Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the Charter and concludes that the Security Council has in principle to observe human rights of treaties drawn up under United Nations auspices, and that it cannot in principle ask Member States that they dismiss those rights in the implementation of resolutions of the Security Council. The Council can however deviate from human rights of treaties prepared by the United Nations or impose to Member States that they deviate from those in the implementation of sanctions decided by the Security Council, when the deviation is necessary and proportionate to the success of its action in the maintenance of peace. The Security Council enjoys a wide margin of appreciation when it assesses which derogations to human rights are necessary and proportionate to the fulfilment of its security’s objective. The paper also demonstrates that the United Nations, including the Security Council, have in principle to respect non-peremptory customary international law, including customary international human rights law. In addition, they cannot require from Member States that they dismiss that law, including in the implementation of resolutions of the Security Council. The study explains that the Security Council is however allowed to derogate from non-peremptory customary international human rights law and to require from Member States that they derogate from that law, when this is necessary to the success of its action in the maintenance of peace. The scope of the obligation of respect and taking into account of customary human rights by the Security Council is thus identical to that of the obligation of respect and taking into consideration of human rights of United Nations treaties on human rights. Finally, the paper argues that the United Nations cannot derogate through their unilateral acts from peremptory customary international law. The Security Council is therefore bound, without exception, by peremptory customary international human rights law. It cannot impose to Member States a derogation from that law. There are however only a few peremptory human rights. Thus, the paper concludes that the coercive action of the Security Council is limited to small extent by international human rights law. francaisCet article analyse si le Conseil de securite des Nations Unies doit respecter le droit international des droits de l’homme quand il adopte des mesures sur la base du chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations qui affectent directement des individus. L’etude examine egalement si le Conseil de securite doit prendre en consideration le droit international des droits de l’homme quand il adopte des mesures coercitives qui doivent etre appliquees sans pouvoir discretionnaire par les Etats membres. Un objectif des Nations Unies, inscrit a l’article 1 § 3 de la Charte de l’Organisation, est de developper et d’encourager le respect des droits de l’homme par les Etats membres. Le principe general de droit international de bonne foi, qui s’applique aux Nations Unies, requiert que l’Organisation, y compris le Conseil de securite, interpretent la Charte de bonne foi. Cette etude applique le principe general de bonne foi a l’interpretation de l’article 1 § 3 de la Charte, et conclut que le Conseil de securite doit en principe observer les droits de l’homme des traites concus sous les auspices des Nations Unies, et ne doit pas en principe demander aux Etats membres qu’ils ecartent ces droits dans la mise en œuvre de resolutions du Conseil de securite. Le Conseil peut toutefois devier des droits de l’homme des traites prepares par les Nations Unies ou imposer aux Etats membres qu’ils devient de ces droits dans l’application de sanctions decidees par le Conseil de securite, si cette deviation est necessaire et proportionnelle au succes de son action de maintien de la paix. Le Conseil de securite jouit d’un large pouvoir discretionnaire quand il apprecie quelles sont les derogations aux droits de l’homme necessaires et proportionnelles a l’accomplissement de son objectif de securisation. L’article demontre aussi que…

ICL Journal, 2016

This article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under... more This article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under international law when acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It argues that the Security Council has to respect human rights enshrined in those human rights treaties drawn up under the United Nations’ auspices and in non-peremptory customary international law, when this is not incompatible with the Security Council’s objective of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. The analysis also argues however that the Security Council must comply with peremptory international human rights, with no exception. The paper concludes that Chapter VII action by the Security Council is limited only to a small extent by international human rights standards.

Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 2017

This article analyses whether the military operation against the "Islamic State" in Syria led to ... more This article analyses whether the military operation against the "Islamic State" in Syria led to a modification of the right to self-defence in customary international law. It outlines the arguments presented by some States in favour of a right to self-defence against the IS as a non-State actor. It also explains that, in contradiction with the traditional temporal understanding of the right to self-defence, some of the States intervening in Syria assert a right to react to imminent armed attacks or even to a simple threat of armed attacks committed by the IS. This article shows that there is limited international acceptance of a broad right to self-defence as a justification for the military involvement in Syria. It concludes that neither a right to self-defence against a non-State actor, nor a right to self-defence in reaction to potential future attacks, has crystallised in customary international law. However it acknowledges that the fight directed against the IS in Syria constitutes another step towards the emergence of a customary right to self-defence against non-State actors in response to current or future armed attacks.

BILETA, Sep 7, 2020

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to p... more The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The preparation of this response has been funded by BILETA

Environmental Law Review, 2012

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, organised networks have spread out across bor... more Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, organised networks have spread out across borders, overtaking cities. The most famous of these is the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL), more commonly known as ‘Islamic State’ (IS) (Flasch, 2015: 3). Militants of IS now control wide portions of territory in Iraq and Syria as well as an area in Libya. IS has killed and injured thousands of people and IS-related violence has led to the displacement of over a million people. Atrocities committed by the IS have extended to several other countries in the Middle-East, in West-Africa, and in Europe (Zerrouky, Audureau and Vaudano, 2015).

Civitas Europa, 2018

EnglishThis paper analyses whether the Security Council of the United Nations has to respect inte... more EnglishThis paper analyses whether the Security Council of the United Nations has to respect international human rights law when it adopts measures on the basis of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that directly affect individuals. This study also examines whether the Security Council has to take international human rights law into consideration when it adopts coercive measures that must be applied by Member States without any margin of appreciation. One objective of the United Nations, enshrined in Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations, is to develop and encourage respect for human rights by Member States. The general principle of international law of good faith, which applies to the United Nations, requires that the United Nations, including the Security Council, interpret the Charter with good faith. The paper applies the general principle of good faith to the interpretation of Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the Charter and concludes that the Security Council has in principle to observe human rights of treaties drawn up under United Nations auspices, and that it cannot in principle ask Member States that they dismiss those rights in the implementation of resolutions of the Security Council. The Council can however deviate from human rights of treaties prepared by the United Nations or impose to Member States that they deviate from those in the implementation of sanctions decided by the Security Council, when the deviation is necessary and proportionate to the success of its action in the maintenance of peace. The Security Council enjoys a wide margin of appreciation when it assesses which derogations to human rights are necessary and proportionate to the fulfilment of its security’s objective. The paper also demonstrates that the United Nations, including the Security Council, have in principle to respect non-peremptory customary international law, including customary international human rights law. In addition, they cannot require from Member States that they dismiss that law, including in the implementation of resolutions of the Security Council. The study explains that the Security Council is however allowed to derogate from non-peremptory customary international human rights law and to require from Member States that they derogate from that law, when this is necessary to the success of its action in the maintenance of peace. The scope of the obligation of respect and taking into account of customary human rights by the Security Council is thus identical to that of the obligation of respect and taking into consideration of human rights of United Nations treaties on human rights. Finally, the paper argues that the United Nations cannot derogate through their unilateral acts from peremptory customary international law. The Security Council is therefore bound, without exception, by peremptory customary international human rights law. It cannot impose to Member States a derogation from that law. There are however only a few peremptory human rights. Thus, the paper concludes that the coercive action of the Security Council is limited to small extent by international human rights law. francaisCet article analyse si le Conseil de securite des Nations Unies doit respecter le droit international des droits de l’homme quand il adopte des mesures sur la base du chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations qui affectent directement des individus. L’etude examine egalement si le Conseil de securite doit prendre en consideration le droit international des droits de l’homme quand il adopte des mesures coercitives qui doivent etre appliquees sans pouvoir discretionnaire par les Etats membres. Un objectif des Nations Unies, inscrit a l’article 1 § 3 de la Charte de l’Organisation, est de developper et d’encourager le respect des droits de l’homme par les Etats membres. Le principe general de droit international de bonne foi, qui s’applique aux Nations Unies, requiert que l’Organisation, y compris le Conseil de securite, interpretent la Charte de bonne foi. Cette etude applique le principe general de bonne foi a l’interpretation de l’article 1 § 3 de la Charte, et conclut que le Conseil de securite doit en principe observer les droits de l’homme des traites concus sous les auspices des Nations Unies, et ne doit pas en principe demander aux Etats membres qu’ils ecartent ces droits dans la mise en œuvre de resolutions du Conseil de securite. Le Conseil peut toutefois devier des droits de l’homme des traites prepares par les Nations Unies ou imposer aux Etats membres qu’ils devient de ces droits dans l’application de sanctions decidees par le Conseil de securite, si cette deviation est necessaire et proportionnelle au succes de son action de maintien de la paix. Le Conseil de securite jouit d’un large pouvoir discretionnaire quand il apprecie quelles sont les derogations aux droits de l’homme necessaires et proportionnelles a l’accomplissement de son objectif de securisation. L’article demontre aussi que…

ICL Journal, 2016

This article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under... more This article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under international law when acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It argues that the Security Council has to respect human rights enshrined in those human rights treaties drawn up under the United Nations’ auspices and in non-peremptory customary international law, when this is not incompatible with the Security Council’s objective of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. The analysis also argues however that the Security Council must comply with peremptory international human rights, with no exception. The paper concludes that Chapter VII action by the Security Council is limited only to a small extent by international human rights standards.

Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 2017

This article analyses whether the military operation against the "Islamic State" in Syria led to ... more This article analyses whether the military operation against the "Islamic State" in Syria led to a modification of the right to self-defence in customary international law. It outlines the arguments presented by some States in favour of a right to self-defence against the IS as a non-State actor. It also explains that, in contradiction with the traditional temporal understanding of the right to self-defence, some of the States intervening in Syria assert a right to react to imminent armed attacks or even to a simple threat of armed attacks committed by the IS. This article shows that there is limited international acceptance of a broad right to self-defence as a justification for the military involvement in Syria. It concludes that neither a right to self-defence against a non-State actor, nor a right to self-defence in reaction to potential future attacks, has crystallised in customary international law. However it acknowledges that the fight directed against the IS in Syria constitutes another step towards the emergence of a customary right to self-defence against non-State actors in response to current or future armed attacks.