‘The British government’s claim that Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen has not breached international humanitarian law is “deeply disappointing” and contributes to an “anything goes” attitude from the opposing sides in the conflict, the international development select committee has said.’
The Guardian, 4th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The British government must challenge Saudi Arabia over whether it is using UK weapons to breach international humanitarian law by launching indiscriminate airstrikes in Yemen, a leading lawyer has told the UK arms export control select committee.’
The Guardian, 13th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The law in England and Wales will continue to be regarded as “gold standard” internationally despite the fact that the development of case law risks being stifled by the number of confidential arbitrations taking place in London, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The parties were married in September 2001 and had one daughter born in October 2002. The husband, a Saudi national, was a businessman of substantial means who married again in 2012 when the parties’ marriage broke down. On their divorce the wife applied for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to strike out the wife’s application , claiming immunity from suit as the permanent representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), a post to which he had been appointed on 1 April 2014. The United Kingdom was required, as a matter of international law, to grant privileges and immunities to personal representatives of member states to the IMO in accordance with the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement. A permanent representative was entitled to the same immunity from suit and legal process as the head of a diplomatic mission, except that, by article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002), a permanent representative who was permanently resident in the United Kingdom was only entitled to immunities and privileges in respect of his official acts. The Foreign Secretary certified that the Foreign Office had been informed by the IMO of the husband’s appointment as permanent representative of St Lucia, of his arrival date and had not been notified that his diplomatic functions had terminated. Although on the face of it that certificate was conclusive evidence of the husband’s appointment by virtue of section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, the judge balanced the husband’s claim to immunity against the wife’s rights to access to the courts under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He concluded that the husband had not undertaken any duties or performed any functions as permanent representative, that the appointment was an artificial construct to defeat the wife’s claims on the breakdown of the marriage and that, since the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he was entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. In consequence the judge refused to strike out the wife’s claim.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ease with which businesses will be able to win interim injunctions to defend against rivals’ infringements of their patents will be influential in determining whether companies engage with the new Unified Patent Court (UPC).’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Downing Street is facing a legal challenge to restore 13 words deleted from the ministerial code that appeared to remove the government’s obligation to uphold international law.’
The Guardian, 11th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘More than £1bn worth of bombs, missiles and rockets were sold under government licence to Saudi Arabia over three months last summer, according to human rights groups.’
The Guardian, 19th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘As we reflect on Human Rights Month and the implications of conflict throughout 2015, we have asked some of the humanitarian law scholars who contributed to the new Geneva Conventions Commentary to explore the interplay between these two important legal disciplines, and how we should approach them in the future.’
OUP Blog, 15th December 2015
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Abolishing current human rights laws will create uncertainty and give clever lawyers a field day, says former Lord Chief Justice.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Rights Watch UK describes the Government’s bid to the change the code – which sets out standards expected from ministers – to disregard international law was ‘seriously concerning’.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th October 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Conservative ministers have been accused of quietly abandoning the longstanding principle that members of the government should be bound by international law.’
The Guardian, 22nd October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The second reading of the Immigration Bill in the House of Commons is today. We have seen how even more appeals will be out of country under its regime, and the greater powers given to immigration officers under Part 3. Part 6 – including Schedules 7 and 8 – offers a mix of provisions, including ensuring the UK complies with international law on blacklisted persons and introduces civil penalties for aircraft and airport managers if they do not ensure people go through control zones. The final section gives a raft of new powers to immigration officers (where have we seen that before?), this time to intercept and detain boats suspected of carrying undocumented migrants, and to arrest anyone suspected of facilitating illegal migration in to the UK.’
Free Movement, 13th October 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘In the run up to the climate change negotiations in Paris this December, Professor Philippe Sands QC delivered a public lecture at the UK Supreme Court focusing on the role of international law and judges in addressing legal issues relating to climate change.’
Supreme Court, 18th September 2015
‘The attorney general has refused to disclose his advice about the legality of RAF drone strikes in Syria, citing collective cabinet responsibility and the need for law officers to give “full and frank” opinions.’
The Guardian, 16th September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘On the facts as we know them, this unprecedented attack on British would-be terrorists appears to be within the law.’
The Guardian, 7th September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Two British jihadists from the Islamic State group were killed by a RAF drone strike in Syria. What’s the legal status of the attack?’
BBC News, 8th September 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held that UK armed forces breached both Afghan law and Article 5 of the ECHR by detaining a suspected Taliban commander for longer than the 96 hours permitted by ISAF policy.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th August 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An Afghan suspect was detained illegally by British forces for almost four months and denied access to a lawyer, the court of appeal has ruled. Serdar Mohammed, who was captured by UK soldiers in April 2010, was not handed over to the Afghan security services until July that year, despite regulations requiring any transfer to take place within 96 hours. Mohammed, who was eventually released earlier this year to return to his home in Helmand province, claimed that the Afghan authorities tortured him.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024