ECtHR Mozer c/Moldova & Russia : a final round?

By Jacques Bellezit

Yesterday, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR has issued a judgement in the case Mozer c/Moldova &flag_moldova Russia.

The facts of the case are “unfortunately” common  (a detainee with precarious health, detained in poor conditions). The main issue was dealing with the jurisdiction of Moldovan and Russian governments in relation to a number of alleged violations of the applicant’s rights. Mr  Boris Mozer was arrested for fraud by police officers of ‘Moldovian Republic of Transniestria’ (MRT).Read More »

The Shooting of MH17: Is international law failing?

By Rishiraj Baruah*

Ukraine_ Is MH17 attack lawful?_international_law
The wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove, eastern Ukraine. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)

The Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lampur, flying at 33,000 feet, was shot down in the Donetsk Oblast in Eastern Ukraine on 17th July 2014. All passengers and crew on board were killed instantly as the aircraft broke in-flight and its remnants subsequently crashed on ground.[1] The civilian aircraft was allegedly shot down using surface to air missiles (SAM) by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, however the separatists and Russia claims to the contrary. Following this human tragedy of shooting down MH17, there was much international hue and cry over Russian responsibility for the act due to its alliance with the separatist forces in Donetsk Oblast.[2] However, state responsibility under international law is not so simple as it seems. I would firstly, examine hereinafter whether Russia could be held responsible for the shooting down of MH17 by the separatist forces and thenceforth evaluate the public air law response to this tragedy. The reason for such an approach is the lex generalis nature of public international law and public air law being lex specialis.Read More »

Validity of the Yukos Award: Agreeable scope of Involvement of an Arbitral Secretary

By Shivansh Jolly

On 18th of July, 2014, a historical award in international investment arbitration was passed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, commonly known as the “Yukos Arbitration”, in the case of Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation. The Tribunal comprised of arbitrators L. Yves Fortier (Chairman), Dr. Charles Poncet, and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel. The award went down in the books of unprecedented events for granting, by far, the largest sum of damages ever allowed in the field of investment arbitration, i.e., to the tune of 50 billion USD.Read More »

Arbitration Proceedings against Russia to protect the Investment lost in Crimea

By Sarthak Malhotra

A number of press reports suggest that PrivatBank (Dnipropetrovsk), the largest commercial bank in Ukraine, has decided to initiate arbitration proceedings against Russia in order to protect the investment that the bank allegedly lost due to the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.

The Bank’s press service was quoted as saying:

PrivatBank jointly with Finilon finance company has initiated arbitration proceedings against the Russian Federation for the protection of the investment lost in Crimea. An arbitration court has been formed and will carry out the proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Read More »