Emory International Law Review

Volume 33Issue 1

The Turtle Bay Pivot: How the United Nations Security Council Is Reshaping Naval Pursuit of Nuclear Proliferators, Rogue States, and Pirates

Brian Wilson | 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1 (2018)

Multinational action at the United Nations to combat illicit activity represents the most consequential sanctions period involving the maritime environment since the Athenian Empire’s Megarian Decree. From its inception, the Security Council has authorized measures that have led to naval approaches or boardings of more than 50,000 ships, the destruction of 3,500 vessels, and the maritime rescue of 40,000 people in the pursuit of transnational security threats. The Security Council resolutions adopted since 2008 underscore a diplomatic renaissance in which decisions unfold with unparalleled frequency: Measures impacting naval engagements that were adopted about once every 1.7 years are now approved every 2.5 months. This Article surveys hundreds of Security Council decisions to identify six categories of resolutions that could involve the maritime environment, examines their influence and intersection with one another, discusses potential future focus areas, and concludes with recommendations to improve the utility of these mandates.

Read More »

Reconciling Quasi-States with the Crime of Aggression Under the ICC Statute

Sascha Dominik Bachmann & Yasser Abdelkader | 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 91 (2018)

On June 11, 2010, a binding definition of the crime of aggression was finally adopted at the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala, Uganda. The Rome Statute’s definition of the crime of aggression reflecting on existing practice leads to the assumption that State-like entities that lack universal recognition will not be covered by the Court’s jurisdiction of the crime of aggression. Lack of clear definition of “State” in the Rome Statute gives the first indication of the implied exclusion of State-like entities from the scope of the crime of aggression. However, the most recent interpretation of the term “State” as provided by the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivers even more persuasive evidence, reinforcing the argument that these entities would not be covered by this amendment. This Article argues that uncertainty or explicit exclusion of these entities are both illegitimate; based on historical, legal and practical analyses respectively. Further, this Article examines how to reconcile these entities with the definition of the crime of aggression.

Read More »