The Principle of Proportionality in International Law

Cottier, Thomas; Echandi, Roberto; Leal‐Arcas, Rafael; Liechti-McKee, Rachel; Payosova, Tetyana; Sieber-Gasser, Charlotte

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2598410

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the principle of proportionality has become significant in international law. Countries worldwide not only agree that the principle of proportionality is a necessary limitation on the exercise of executive power by governments, but also accept it as an important constraint on the behavior of states under international law (Cottier et al, 2012). The EIA is not just a procedural requirement; its results should be fully considered in the decisionmaking process for the disposal of Fukushima nuclearcontaminated water in conjunction with the principle of proportionality.…”

Section: Applying the Principle Of Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The implementation of the environmental impact assessment in Fukushima contaminated water discharge: an analysis of the international legal framework

Chen,

2024

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Japan is discharging nuclear contaminated water from the 2011 Fukushima incident into the sea after treatment with the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). This process is expected to continue for decades, as planned by the Japanese government. This decision sparks opposition from many countries and international organizations, as well as constant protests from people in Japan and neighboring countries. Although there are no international documents specifically addressing the discharge of contaminants from a nuclear accident, it is found that the LOS Convention, treaties on nuclear safety, and international environmental laws provide the basis and legal framework for requiring Japan to implement environmental impact assessments throughout the entire process of Fukushima contaminated water discharge. First, this paper evaluates the consistency between the measures taken before Japan’s decision to discharge contaminated water into the sea and the requirements under international laws. Second, this paper further examines the substantive and procedural requirements under international law for the entire process of Fukushima contaminated water discharge. It identifies substantive criteria to be applied in assessing the environmental impact of Fukushima contaminated water discharge based on international documents and explores the procedural requirements to assure transparency, prudence, and accountability of the assessment. Finally, given the potential transboundary damage caused by the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, this paper proposes that a new multi-stakeholder cooperative mechanism is necessary to achieve effective and credible monitoring and respond to the claims of potentially affected parties. In addition to providing a legal framework for the environmental impact assessment in the Fukushima case, this paper may also contribute to the proper disposal of nuclear contaminants in future nuclear accidents.

show abstract

Section: Applying the Principle Of Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The implementation of the environmental impact assessment in Fukushima contaminated water discharge: an analysis of the international legal framework

Chen,

2024

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restrictions on the full attainment of the right to health are possible if certain criteria are met, such as necessity and proportionality, as in the case of law enforcement. 76 Furthermore, treaty provisions may be derogated from in case of public emergency. No existing treaty entailing a provision on the right to health spares the right from a possible derogation.…”

Section: Non-lethal Weapons and The Right To Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-lethal weapons

Hoffberger

2017

Zb. Prav. fak. Sveuč. Rij. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If thinking about weapons, one generally thinks about lethal technology. However, an abundance of so-called non-lethal weapons, a technology not aimed at killing but merely incapacitating the human target or military objective, is also being deployed both within and outside the ambit of armed conflict. Since non-lethal weapons do not necessarily implicate a zero chance of mortality, but often lead to severe wounds and tremendous suffering, the use and deployment of such weapons raise strong humanitarian and human rights concerns. The prohibition to cause superfluous injuries and unnecessary suffering, as well as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks are, amongst others, one of the most relevant provisions potentially having an influence on the deployment of nonlethal technology in armed conflict. However, the invocation of the principle of proportionality may lead to the justification of the use of non-lethal weapons on the grounds that the military advantage anticipated was greater than the human suffering caused. Insofar, one must ask whether there is a “red-line”; where the almost inflationary invocation of the principle of proportionality may defeat the object and purpose of the Geneva Conventions and therefore render the deployment and use of non-lethal technology illegal. Apart from the battlefield, non-lethal weapons are also being deployed in lawenforcement scenarios, where human rights law plays a pivotal role. In this regard, one must not look merely at the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading suffering and the right to life but also at the right to health, a presumably underestimated principle curbing and shaping the use of non-lethal technology outside the ambit of armed conflict.

show abstract

“…33 It will be a matter of defining the scope of such jurisdiction to prescribe, enact and enforce in light of existing international obligations, such as WTO rules and other principles of international law, in particular the principle of proportionality. 34 Measures taken in pursuit of, and addressing, Common Concern should be appropriate in form and substance, and not transgressing what is required to achieve goals defined by Common Concern. But clearly, there is the potential to move beyond vague concepts of Common Concern and develop more precise principles and perhaps even future rules on cooperation and unilateral action failing efforts at cooperation, for example in the fields of climate change mitigation and adaptation.…”

Section: A the Principle Of Common Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility to Protect R2P and the Emerging Principle of Common Concern

Schefer¹,

Cottier²

2013

Die Schutzverantwortung (R2P)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper conceptualises the emerging concepts of responsibility to protect (R2P) and common concern. Beyond exploring the foundations of these two concepts, it explains their current interaction and how they may be developed further in the future. The principle of common concern responds to obvious institutional deficiencies in producing global public goods. It obliges states to cooperate in the pursuit of such goods, such as climate change mitigation and adaption.Failing such cooperation, it empowers states to act accordingly. We argue that R2P may be understood as a particular category of common concern, encompassing not only the right, but more importantly, also the obligations to act in case of gross human rights violations. Linking R2P and common concern will allow their role in addressing the shortcomings of traditional precepts of international law to evolve without increasing the potential of misuse by placing limits on their invocation.

show abstract

The Principle of Proportionality in International Law

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

The implementation of the environmental impact assessment in Fukushima contaminated water discharge: an analysis of the international legal framework

The implementation of the environmental impact assessment in Fukushima contaminated water discharge: an analysis of the international legal framework

Non-lethal weapons

Responsibility to Protect R2P and the Emerging Principle of Common Concern

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About