Papers by Apostol Lilian
The present research looks into the inter-state and quasi-inter-state cases examined by the Europ... more The present research looks into the inter-state and quasi-inter-state cases examined by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) linking them with the context of Ukrainian conflict in Crimea and its Eastern part. It puts emphasis on the challenges that the Court has met in its previous cases, from the perspective of the States in dispute, and wonders on the outcomes of the Ukrainian inter-State and quasi-inter-State pending litigations. The paper observes briefly the executional perspectives and, finally, proposes some short-term scenarios of how these litigations may evolve.
It starts by a general introduction into the contexts and developments of inter-state and quasi-interstate adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), underlining in particular aspects relevant for the pending Ukrainian disputes. Then it outlines the general question of extraterritorial States’ jurisdiction and the Court’s specific interpretation from the Convention Human Rights Law perspective, in comparison to general meaning as given by other international adjudication bodies. All relevant elements from both summaries are supported by the Court’s case-law leading cases.
Turning to the Ukrainian conflict situation, the paper surveys landmark Convention cases concerning the so-called “frozen conflicts”, reflecting rather the Court’s reasons between the lines and behind its official rulings; what tactic the Court usually employs dealing with the inter-States disputes and how these cases have been evolved so far under the Convention mechanism, including their execution stage. The paper will list similar zones with “on-going” and/or “frozen conflicts” that already gave raise to systemic problems and massive violations leading to multiple cases being brought before the Court (such as the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova; the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and its conflicting jurisdiction with Armenia; the Northern Cyprus region and the extensive jurisdiction of Turkey, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, conflictual zones of Georgia). The author assesses how the autonomous interpretation of the jurisdiction under the Court’s case-law has been applied to all these cases and, therefore, what are the effects in terms of the state’s positive or negative obligations under the Convention in these zones. Then, the paper will illustrate types of cases and applications coming from conflictual zones, in particular inter-State cases and individual applications, which may become quasi-inter-States disputes.
In the end, the present paper dares to make some assumptions concerning a potential development of the Ukrainian human rights complaints brought before the Court (be that inter-State or quasi-inter-State cases). It will be mainly a hypothetical exercise and speculative scenario, which however will be construed on the above research and overview of the previous cases. It will refer solely to the on-going international disputes over the Crimea region and military conflicts in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, from jurisdictional perspective of both States in dispute. However, no valuable predictions will be possible concerning the merits of the Ukrainian cases and the executional reaction, though some general ideas and examples will be mentioned.
Thesis Chapters by Apostol Lilian
frozen conflicts - in between jus in bello and jus ad bellum , 2019
Frozen conflicts were seen as neither war nor peace, neither this nor that or something in-betwee... more Frozen conflicts were seen as neither war nor peace, neither this nor that or something in-between. This oxymoron first appeared in political speeches. Since then, it has been used in geopolitical and security studies along with words like "proxy," "asymmetric," "hybrid," "prolonged," "transnational," and "internationalized" conflicts. These studies define these conflicts as post-conflict situations at risk of re-emerging because of deeply rooted nationalist, inter-ethnic, and political differences culminating in never-ending negotiations. Some scholars describe them as fragile peace arrangements, while others observe them as military stalemates threatening to erupt back into violence or, worse, into full-fledged war.
From this perspective, frozen conflicts were compared to “ticking bombs” or “black holes," destabilizing entire regions. States and stateless entities involved in these conflicts engage into endless legal disputes concerning the status of territories and the legitimacy of non-state actors. Unable to resolve them, they shift the burden of settling these disputes to the international community seeking to resolve their differences according to international law.
Frozen conflicts, however, have not yet acquired a distinct meaning in international law. International law practitioners see no need to define these conflicts, and international law scholars pay little or no attention to them. And even if discussed, these conflicts acquire various legal classifications: they are nothing but systemic violations under international human rights law; public international law qualifies them as either inter-state disputes or internal conflicts; there is no reason to define them for the purposes of international criminal law. Ultimately, it gives the impression that frozen conflicts are an outlaw phenomenon.
International humanitarian law has the only potential to provide reliable answers what frozen conflicts are about. Ultimately, frozen conflicts are still “armed conflicts” therefore falling under the scope of application of international humanitarian law. The present thesis will prove this and seek these answers.
Uploads
Papers by Apostol Lilian
It starts by a general introduction into the contexts and developments of inter-state and quasi-interstate adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), underlining in particular aspects relevant for the pending Ukrainian disputes. Then it outlines the general question of extraterritorial States’ jurisdiction and the Court’s specific interpretation from the Convention Human Rights Law perspective, in comparison to general meaning as given by other international adjudication bodies. All relevant elements from both summaries are supported by the Court’s case-law leading cases.
Turning to the Ukrainian conflict situation, the paper surveys landmark Convention cases concerning the so-called “frozen conflicts”, reflecting rather the Court’s reasons between the lines and behind its official rulings; what tactic the Court usually employs dealing with the inter-States disputes and how these cases have been evolved so far under the Convention mechanism, including their execution stage. The paper will list similar zones with “on-going” and/or “frozen conflicts” that already gave raise to systemic problems and massive violations leading to multiple cases being brought before the Court (such as the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova; the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and its conflicting jurisdiction with Armenia; the Northern Cyprus region and the extensive jurisdiction of Turkey, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, conflictual zones of Georgia). The author assesses how the autonomous interpretation of the jurisdiction under the Court’s case-law has been applied to all these cases and, therefore, what are the effects in terms of the state’s positive or negative obligations under the Convention in these zones. Then, the paper will illustrate types of cases and applications coming from conflictual zones, in particular inter-State cases and individual applications, which may become quasi-inter-States disputes.
In the end, the present paper dares to make some assumptions concerning a potential development of the Ukrainian human rights complaints brought before the Court (be that inter-State or quasi-inter-State cases). It will be mainly a hypothetical exercise and speculative scenario, which however will be construed on the above research and overview of the previous cases. It will refer solely to the on-going international disputes over the Crimea region and military conflicts in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, from jurisdictional perspective of both States in dispute. However, no valuable predictions will be possible concerning the merits of the Ukrainian cases and the executional reaction, though some general ideas and examples will be mentioned.
Thesis Chapters by Apostol Lilian
From this perspective, frozen conflicts were compared to “ticking bombs” or “black holes," destabilizing entire regions. States and stateless entities involved in these conflicts engage into endless legal disputes concerning the status of territories and the legitimacy of non-state actors. Unable to resolve them, they shift the burden of settling these disputes to the international community seeking to resolve their differences according to international law.
Frozen conflicts, however, have not yet acquired a distinct meaning in international law. International law practitioners see no need to define these conflicts, and international law scholars pay little or no attention to them. And even if discussed, these conflicts acquire various legal classifications: they are nothing but systemic violations under international human rights law; public international law qualifies them as either inter-state disputes or internal conflicts; there is no reason to define them for the purposes of international criminal law. Ultimately, it gives the impression that frozen conflicts are an outlaw phenomenon.
International humanitarian law has the only potential to provide reliable answers what frozen conflicts are about. Ultimately, frozen conflicts are still “armed conflicts” therefore falling under the scope of application of international humanitarian law. The present thesis will prove this and seek these answers.
It starts by a general introduction into the contexts and developments of inter-state and quasi-interstate adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), underlining in particular aspects relevant for the pending Ukrainian disputes. Then it outlines the general question of extraterritorial States’ jurisdiction and the Court’s specific interpretation from the Convention Human Rights Law perspective, in comparison to general meaning as given by other international adjudication bodies. All relevant elements from both summaries are supported by the Court’s case-law leading cases.
Turning to the Ukrainian conflict situation, the paper surveys landmark Convention cases concerning the so-called “frozen conflicts”, reflecting rather the Court’s reasons between the lines and behind its official rulings; what tactic the Court usually employs dealing with the inter-States disputes and how these cases have been evolved so far under the Convention mechanism, including their execution stage. The paper will list similar zones with “on-going” and/or “frozen conflicts” that already gave raise to systemic problems and massive violations leading to multiple cases being brought before the Court (such as the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova; the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and its conflicting jurisdiction with Armenia; the Northern Cyprus region and the extensive jurisdiction of Turkey, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, conflictual zones of Georgia). The author assesses how the autonomous interpretation of the jurisdiction under the Court’s case-law has been applied to all these cases and, therefore, what are the effects in terms of the state’s positive or negative obligations under the Convention in these zones. Then, the paper will illustrate types of cases and applications coming from conflictual zones, in particular inter-State cases and individual applications, which may become quasi-inter-States disputes.
In the end, the present paper dares to make some assumptions concerning a potential development of the Ukrainian human rights complaints brought before the Court (be that inter-State or quasi-inter-State cases). It will be mainly a hypothetical exercise and speculative scenario, which however will be construed on the above research and overview of the previous cases. It will refer solely to the on-going international disputes over the Crimea region and military conflicts in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, from jurisdictional perspective of both States in dispute. However, no valuable predictions will be possible concerning the merits of the Ukrainian cases and the executional reaction, though some general ideas and examples will be mentioned.
From this perspective, frozen conflicts were compared to “ticking bombs” or “black holes," destabilizing entire regions. States and stateless entities involved in these conflicts engage into endless legal disputes concerning the status of territories and the legitimacy of non-state actors. Unable to resolve them, they shift the burden of settling these disputes to the international community seeking to resolve their differences according to international law.
Frozen conflicts, however, have not yet acquired a distinct meaning in international law. International law practitioners see no need to define these conflicts, and international law scholars pay little or no attention to them. And even if discussed, these conflicts acquire various legal classifications: they are nothing but systemic violations under international human rights law; public international law qualifies them as either inter-state disputes or internal conflicts; there is no reason to define them for the purposes of international criminal law. Ultimately, it gives the impression that frozen conflicts are an outlaw phenomenon.
International humanitarian law has the only potential to provide reliable answers what frozen conflicts are about. Ultimately, frozen conflicts are still “armed conflicts” therefore falling under the scope of application of international humanitarian law. The present thesis will prove this and seek these answers.