Jan Wouters

Jan Wouters
Director, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies - Institute for International Law, KU Leuven
Tiensestraat 41 - box 3417
3000 Leuven
Belgium

contact

  • Contact address at Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies: Charles Deberiotstraat 34, 3000 Leuven – box 3005

  • Jean Monnet Chair ad personam EU and Global Governance, KU Leuven

  • Full Professor of International Law and International Organizations, KU Leuven

  • Director, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies - Institute for International Law, KU Leuven

  • Member, Royal Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts

  • Visiting Professor, Paris 2 (Panthéon-Assas) and College of Europe (Bruges)

  • Adjunct Professor, Columbia University (New York)

  • Of Counsel, Omega Law, Antwerp

Short Bio

Jan Wouters is Full Professor of International Law and International Organizations, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam EU and Global Governance, and founding Director of the Institute for International Law and of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, an interdisciplinary research centre with the status of both a Jean Monnet and KU Leuven Centre of Excellence, at KU Leuven. He is also Administrator of the America Europe Fund. He studied law and philosophy at Antwerp University, obtained an LL.M. at Yale University and was Visiting Researcher at Harvard University. As Visiting Professor at Paris-II (Panthéon-Assas, Paris) and the College of Europe (Bruges) he teaches EU external relations law. Prof. Wouters is a Member of the Royal Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts and practises law as Of Counsel at Omega Law, Antwerp. He is Editor of the International Encyclopedia of Intergovernmental Organizations, Deputy Director of the Revue Belge de Droit International, and an editorial board member in eleven international journals. He has published widely on international and EU law, international organizations, global governance, and corporate and financial law, including 80 books and more than 150 journal articles and 260 chapters in international books. His most recent books include China, the EU and the Developing World (2015), Global Governance of Labour Rights (2015), Global Governance Through Trade (2015), The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law (2015), Global Governance and Democracy (2015), Armed Conflicts and the Law (2016), Judicial Decisions on the Law of International Organizations (2016), Internationaal Recht in Kort Bestek (2nd ed. 2017), Research Handbook on EU Energy Law and Policy (2017), Commercial Uses of Space and Space Tourism (2017), The Commons and a New Global Governance (2018), EU Human Rights and Democratization Policies (2018), International Law: a European Perspective (2018), The G7, Anti-Globalism and the Governance of Globalization (2018), The Faces of Human Rights (2019), Changing Borders in Europe (2019),  General Principles of Law and the Coherence of International Law (2019), Parliamentary Cooperation and Diplomacy in EU External Relations (2019), The Belt and Road Initiative and Global Governance (2020), Assessing the 2019 European Parliament Elections (2020), The Law of EU External Relations (3nd ed. 2021),  The European Union and Human Rights: Law and Policy (2020), Rule of Law and Areas of Limited Statehood (2021), The European Union and Human Rights: Analysis, Cases and Materials (2021), Japan, the European Union and Global Governance (2021), EU Industrial Policy in the Multipolar Economy (2022), The G20, Development and the UN 2030 Agenda (2022), Research Handbook on Global Governance, Business and Human Rights (2022), The Nexus Between Organized Crime and Terrorism (2022), Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance (2023), Legal Advisers in International Organizations (2023) and National Human Rights Institutions in Europe and Latin America (2024). He recently coordinated two large European research projects, FRAME (“Fostering Human Rights Among European External and Internal Policies”, 2013-17) and RECONNECT (“Reconnecting Europe with its Citizens through Democracy and Rule of Law”, 2018-22) and coordinates a six-year multidisciplinary research programme CONNECTIVITY (“Connectivity, Contestation and Cooperation in Global Governance”), funded by KU Leuven. Apart from his participation in international scientific networks, he advises international organizations and governments, trains international officials and is often asked to comment international events in the media. In 2023 he was awarded the Serge Lazareff Prize for Excellence in Legal Services.

See http://www.globalgovernancestudies.eu/ - http://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/eng/index.html

Full curriculum vitae (update: March 2024)
 


Research

Professor Wouters’ current research agenda includes 1) the relationship between global multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and the European Union; 2) accountability, legitimacy and reform of international organizations, including international courts; 3) multilevel regulatory interactions between global, European and national/subnational rules and standards, including private standards; 4) the contribution of the European Union to democracy, human rights and the rule of law; 5) actors and processes of informal lawmaking

Publications

query=user:U0010135 year:[2004 TO 2024] &institution=lirias&from=1&step=20&sort=scdate
showing 1 to 20 of 786
Items per page 10 |20 |50
Sort newest first |author |title |popularity
Type all | articles | presentations | conferences | chapters | other | reports | phd theses | book reviews | books | outreach | edited books
1/40
  • thesis-dissertation
    Marchesi, Diletta; 2024. Seriously Violating the Right to a Fair Trial in Wartime: The Denial of Judicial Guarantees as a War Crime.
    LIRIAS4130301
    description
    Dystopian forms of justice are not a fantasy. States and non-state armed groups frequently employ unfair trials as a 'weapon' of war. In wartime, individuals charged for having committed a crime are therefore deprived of fundamental judicial guarantees or denied a trial altogether. Such infringements often culminate in indefinite detention and executions. For example, eastern Ukraine and Crimea have recorded serious violations of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings related to the ongoing armed conflict. Moreover, several non-state armed groups are infamously known for violating the most basic guarantees of a fair trial. International criminal law considers depriving persons taking no active part in the hostilities of their judicial guarantees as a war crime, although with some differences between international and non-international armed conflicts. It can therefore hold individuals accountable for serious denials of a fair trial, providing an important instrument for the safeguarding of the right to a fair trial during armed conflicts. Notwithstanding this, the international crimes related to the denial of a fair trial have been largely ignored in practice: they have rarely been charged and the case law is sporadic and either inconsistent or vague. In line with the limited attention gained in court, scholars have been reluctant to address the denial of a fair trial as a war crime. As a consequence, these crimes still present interpretive issues that make their application arduous. The understanding of their underlying rules is limited, and these crimes confront challenges that have been disregarded. For instance, the interpretation of the material elements of the war crimes of denying judicial guarantees is controversial—it is unclear when a trial can be considered unfair for the purposes of substantive international criminal law. The uncertainty increases in non-international armed conflicts, as it is legitimate to wonder whether non-state armed groups should comply with the same standards of fairness imposed on states. The lack of a coherent and systematic legal framework to appropriately safeguard the right to a fair trial in situations of blatant violations during wartime is evident. This not only hinders the chances of effectively prosecuting the crimes, but also undermines legal certainty. In light of the alarming frequency in which dystopian forms of justice are employed in wartime, and the attention the offences are starting to receive at the International Criminal Court—most notably, with the Al Hassan case—an accurate and comprehensive investigation into the war crimes related to the denial of a fair trial is imperative and urgent. The main objective of this research is to solve the interpretative and application difficulties posed by the war crimes related to the denial of a fair trial by building a coherent and systematic legal framework. It also aims to clarify the potential, advantages and limits of international criminal justice concerning the protection of the right to a fair trial, thereby shedding light on an instrument so far ignored. This thesis, therefore, identifies ways to protect the right to a fair trial during armed conflicts while avoiding the 'overuse' of the criminal tool to criminalise situations that should not amount to an international crime. To identify the challenges posed in practice by the crimes and 'deconstruct' them, this research employed an empirical method based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners who had experience in interpreting and applying the war crimes of denying judicial guarantees. The doctrinal research then 'builds upon' these premises and 'reconstructs' the interpretation of the offences to address issues that emerged during the empirical research. This research fills a critical gap on the unexplored topic of war crimes related to the denial of a fair trial and the role of international criminal justice in safeguarding the right to a fair trial in wartime. It also aims to encourage a thoughtful prosecution of the crimes and guide their future interpretation and application before national and international jurisdictions. Finally, the research has the broader ambition of contributing to the 'rethinking' of war crimes in light of contemporary non-international armed conflicts' new challenges.

    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Hellinx, Elke; 2024. Policy Instruments in International Wildlife Law - A Study of the Legal Framework for Large Carnivore Conservation in Southern Africa.
    LIRIAS4108992
    description
    Although international environmental law and its subset of international wildlife law are quite young, the number of environmental treaties has mushroomed in the past few decades. The evolution of international wildlife law has occurred rather haphazardly, which has led to an unnecessary level of complexity and opaqueness. As a result, our picture of the international legal framework is becoming fragmented and inadequate. One of the problems is that we no longer precisely know how the legal framework for wildlife conservation is constructed and why it was constructed particularly that way. This study tries to remedy that by zooming in on policy instruments within the international legal framework. More specifically, the research centres on an in-depth study of policy instruments and instrument selection in large carnivore conservation in southern Africa. In a first step, the study develops a comprehensive overview of the policy instruments that currently make up the international legal framework for wildlife conservation. In a second step, the study zooms in on southern Africa, and an assessment is made of the implications of the international legal framework for large carnivore conservation as it applies in southern Africa. In the final part, the study tries to understand how international policy instruments are implemented on the international and national level. To do so, two examples of the implementation of international commitments under multilateral wildlife-related agreements were analysed: the CMS-CITES African Carnivores Initiative and national implementation in Namibia and South Africa.

    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Verhelst, Anne; 2024. NATO and international institutional law: a critical analysis of the Alliance’s legal and institutional foundations and transformation.
    LIRIAS4086928
    description
    Title: NATO and the law of international organizations: a critical analysis of the Alliance's legal and institutional foundations Summary: The doctoral dissertation aims to determine whether the legal and institutional foundations of NATO and its transformation are in compliance with the principles of the law of international organizations. As a core principle of the law of international organizations, the constitution of an international organization is what sets the pattern for the organization's entire legal order. Such a constitution typically defines the powers and tasks attributed to the organization, sets out the institutional framework thereof (the organs, their composition and powers) and prescribes the decision-making procedures. However, the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which is at the origins of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, states little more than 'the Parties to the Agreement consider an armed attack against one as an armed attack against all' (article 5). The Treaty does not even allude to NATO, the powers attributed to it, its organs, decision-making or enlargement procedures. Despite this, in a time span of 70 years, NATO has grown from 12 to 31 Member States, conducted over forty military operations and shifted its task increasingly from collective self-defence to collective security, taking action on issues such as cyber, terrorism and conflict management. Importantly, this was done without ever amending the North Atlantic Treaty. This goes contrary to the established practice of constitutional amendment of most other international organizations. In other words, NATO as an international organization appears to have grown organically and pragmatically rather than on a solid legal footing. This triggers the following question: to what extent has the Alliance respected, or rather departed from, the fundamental principles of the law of international organizations? The doctoral dissertation is articulated around the following two research questions: 1) to what extent has NATO departed from the fundamental principles of the law of international organizations in transforming itself since 1949? 2) How does one have to consider the North Atlantic Treaty if it cannot be regarded as a fully-fledged constituent treaty? This translates into the following specific research questions: - Does NATO's expansion of powers to include non-article 5 crisis-response operations violate the principle of attributed powers? - Was NATO's institutional framework created and transformed in accordance with the principle of the lawful establishment of subsidiary bodies and the lawful delegation of powers to them? - Is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly a public international organization? - What is the legal basis of NATO's immunity from jurisdiction? - To what extent are NATO decisions made within the confines of the constituent instrument and established practice? - What is the legal effect of NATO decisions in light of the rule that international organizations cannot take binding operational decisions unless their constitutions expressly provide? - Does the expansion of the accession conditions away from article 10 North Atlantic Treaty constitute a tolerable treaty interpretation or does it impose new conditions? - Absent a provision in the North Atlantic Treaty, is there a basis in international law for the suspension or expulsion of a NATO Member State?

    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Andrione-Moylan, Alex; 2023. (De-)politicization strategies in the European Union: An Actor-Centered Comparative Study of Public Discourse on EU Policies.
    LIRIAS4123169
    description
    This doctoral thesis conceptualizes what an act of (de-)politicization in the public sphere looks like and shows how this can be detected empirically through a claim-level (de-)politicization index - the first of its kind in the field. This approach is applied to a database of EU policy evaluations (claims), in the media of six Member States (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark). The aim is to explore avenues which theoretically and empirically embed the long-observed politicization and depoliticization of EU policies into our understanding of EU policy-making and legitimation processes. As a result, this doctoral thesis aims at addressing key gaps in the literature, which remain despite the growing centrality of politicization. With this in mind, this doctoral research adopts a three-pronged approach, with each strand addressing an important facet of the overarching research goals. Two of the strands directly address the two main dimensions of the question of how issues are politicized: (i) the ways in which domestic (macroeconomic) structural conditions shape concrete patterns of politicization by different actors; (ii) whether and how different actors strategically engage in behavior aimed at (de-)politicization. The final strand (iii) highlights both conceptually and empirically the ways in which Representative Claims Analysis (RCA) as the methodological core of this dissertation, can enhance debates about legitimacy in the EU. In the following paragraphs each of the three main research questions related to these 'strands' is presented and discussed in more detail. The first strand, explored in Chapter 2, delves into key questions about the institutional, societal, and economic context in which actors politicize a contentious EU-related issue, such as TTIP and CETA. This is an important starting point which is useful in dispelling any criticisms about an arbitrary hierarchy between structural and agency related aspects of (de-)politicization, given the repeated focus on actor centered (de-)politicization. The key finding here is that, in the context of TTIP and CETA, there appears to be some noticeable differences in how claimants from different Member States discuss trade-related issues. In particular, this chapter outlines two distinct types of politicization, one more negative about EU FTAs but also more European in scope, and the other more national-focused but also more positive about TTIP and CETA. The research links each type of politicization to different 'families of nations' and certain macroeconomic features that might help explain this divergence. Polish actors where closer to German and French ones (type I), while claims by Danish claimants were found to align with Spanish and Italian claimants (type II). Based on the findings, this contribution presents an explanation of this clustering pattern which is based on both macroeconomic factors and welfare regime types. The first Weberian ideal-type of politicization (type I) is defined by a tendency to focus on EU-wide concerns, general interests and non-economic justifications, alongside overall negative evaluations of FTAs. Type II politicization, conversely, is characterized by debates focused on economic issues and overall positive towards FTAs, while also emphasizing national and sectoral interests in their claims. Even though the pattern of politicization detected did not fully match the families of nations, this theoretical approach has still proved to be quite effective in making sense of the constellations of factors that affect the kinds of arguments domestic actors tend to make. When reflecting on the motivations and indeed strategies adopted by claimants, both macroeconomic factors and welfare regime characteristics need to be taken into account. This perspective shows that a key aspect of fragmentation across the EU is that (i) claimants from certain Member States may have significantly more to lose when contesting the EU and (ii) that general attitudes towards the EU are not always good predictors of the tone of debates on EU issues. As for the second strand, Chapters 3 and 4 develop and examine the actor-centered discursive approach, shifting the focus to highlighting a significant link between, on the one hand, EU actors, national governmental actors, and societal actors, and on the other hand, their approach to debating politicized issues. This is done by developing and applying the Depoliticization Discourse Index (DDI), a scaled variable which provides a claim-level measure of the extent to which an attempt to (de-)politicize an issue through discourse is detected. When focusing on debates on TTIP and CETA (Chapter 3), the central finding was that societal actors were the most likely to politicize, and EU actors the most likely to depoliticize; however, even though national governmental actors did politicize overall, they did so to a lesser extent than societal actors. This outcome of the analysis aligns with existing assumptions both with regard to the behavior of actors like the Commission and its significant depoliticization tendencies - particularly in the context of highly politicized issues - and also with regard to expectations to societal actors. The DDI is, therefore, effective in capturing these strategic divergences in discourse, which is in itself a relevant finding. It appears that EU actors, national representatives and also societal actors use discourse in a deliberate and explicit attempt at decreasing or increasing the politicization surrounding a certain issue: this reveals deep informal undercurrents to the EU integration process, which run parallel to formal processes and have the capacity to shape EU policy outcomes and, indeed, integration outcomes too. Chapter 5, the third research strand, which concludes this doctoral thesis by exploring the possible applications of RCA, beyond the strict confines of (de-)politicization. This final contribution is effective in showing not only that academic debates on politicization are linked to broader EU-related matters like legitimacy, but also that there is untapped potential in applying an actor-centered discursive approach to these related domains. The main argument here is that the problem with defining sociological legitimacy as a lack of contestation is that assessing the beliefs and perceptions of constituents, in relation to the EU's authority, is all but impossible without politicization. A key conclusion can be drawn here: engaging with bottom-up politicization, rather than attempting to limit its impact through depoliticization, could lay the ground for an improved process of sociological legitimation, which harnesses the dynamics of informal representation in the EU. The evidence from the research presented in these pages suggests that politicization has the potential for improving legitimation and accountability processes in the EU. However, even when there is intense bottom-up politicization, like in the case of TTIP and CETA, such a virtuous cycle of legitimation remains only potential if there is no response from an institutional point of view.

    Published
  • journal-article
    Pavesi, Giulia; Wouters, Jan; 2023. The final frontier? The European Union and the governance of outer space. Journal Of European Integration; 2023; Vol. 45; iss. 8; pp. 1199 - 1217
    LIRIAS4140743
    description

    Publisher: Taylor & Francis (Routledge)
    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Hegde, Vineet; 2023. The Future of International Trade Law Making: India’s Contestation of Sustainable Development Reforms at the WTO.
    LIRIAS4120042
    description
    Many countries have started contesting international economic law principles, values and norms which has led to the questions of credibility of multilateral institutions like the WTO and ICSID. These practices, if continued will provide a different direction other than global cooperation and free trade. It will also start shifting the authority to regulate trade practices back to nation states, empowering them with more autonomy for policy space and negotiations. So, the question of whether this would lead to free trade or closed economies and the manifestation of this in international trade agreements is what the research would be.

    Accepted
  • thesis-dissertation
    Guerreiro Teixeira, Rita Cristina; 2023. How International Organisations Shape International Environmental Law through Non-Binding Instruments - A Tale of Law and Authority.
    LIRIAS4088293
    description
    International organisations have been at the forefront of contemporary developments in international environmental law, adopting influential codes of conduct, guidelines, and declarations of principles. These are not the classical international instruments that are traditionally considered to be sources of international law. They do not fulfil the necessary formalities to be international treaties nor are they binding decisions of international organisations that could claim an analogous legal status. Formally speaking, they are not more than recommendations for states, but this legal classification is somewhat at odds with their influence in the development of international environmental law. In this context, my research sets out to capture the legal relevance of these non‑binding instruments in shaping environmental regimes and contributing to the achievement of environmental goals. In particular, it seeks to understand how the instruments adopted by international organisations influence the conduct of different actors, generate expectations of compliance, and shape developments of legal regimes, despite lacking the coercive and enforceable features typically associated with binding international law. In doing so, the thesis contributes to rethinking international institutional law so that it can better reflect developments in the practice of international organisations, their increasingly autonomous role in international law‑making, and their innovative decision‑making processes that challenge the traditionally strict boundaries between binding and non‑binding law. This thesis proposes that focusing on the authority of instruments (understood as their ability influence the freedom of other actors, both norm addressees and/or law‑appliers, in the pursuance of a public interest) provides a better set of tools and concepts to grasp the legal relevance of the outputs of international organisations. It suggests that the decision‑making processes taking place inside international organisations influence the authority of their adopted instruments on the basis of (i) the scientific and technical expertise input into their legislative processes (epistemic authority), (ii) the participation of a broad range of stakeholders in rule-making and follow-up processes and consequent establishment of shared agreements and expectations (interactional authority), and (iii) the development of the procedural and practical norms and institutional structures necessary for implementation and compliance with existing obligations (regulatory authority). This framework of authority is applied to two case studies—the regulation of sustainable fisheries by the FAO and the decisions of the COP‑UNFCCC and the MOP to the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation—and suggests a relation between the decision‑making processes of the organisations, the authority of the outcomes, and their reception by legal actors. The case studies also highlight how influence the development of environmental regimes, by shaping future decision‑making processes and interactions within the international organisations that adopt them.

    Published
  • chapter
    Wouters, Jan; De Vos, Karen; Grossi, Zoë; 2023. 75 jaar Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens: belang voor de internationale, Europese en Belgische rechtsorde. Recht in beweging: 30ste VRG-Alumnidag 2023; 2023; pp. 67 - 84 Publisher: Gompels&Svacina
    LIRIAS4072296
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    De Vos, Karen; Grossi, Zoë; 2023. 75 jaar Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens: belang voor de internationale, Europese en Belgische rechtsorde.
    LIRIAS4080174
    description


    Published
  • journal-article
    Wouters, Jan; Latorre, Maria C; 2023. Our Common Agenda and its implementation: An introduction. Global Policy; 2023; Vol. 14; pp. 5 - 7
    LIRIAS4085164
    description

    Publisher: Wiley
    Published
  • chapter
    De Vos, Karen; Grossi, Zoë; Wouters, Jan; 2023. The Sustainable Development Goals and International Law. Human Society and International Law: Reflections on the Present and the Future of International Law; 2023 Publisher: Kluwer Law
    LIRIAS4080300
    description


    Accepted
  • chapter
    Andrione-Moylan, Alex; Wouters, Jan; 2023. Populists at the G7 and G20: Informal Cooperation in Turbulent Times. Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance: European Responses; 2023; Vol. 8; pp. 124 - 142 Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
    LIRIAS3363253
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Guerreiro Teixeira, Rita; Wouters, Jan; 2023. ESG Initiatives in International Law. Research Handbook on Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance; 2023 Publisher: Edward Elgar
    LIRIAS4020237
    description


    Accepted
  • thesis-dissertation
    Bourgeois, Hanna; 2023. Forcible protection of civilians. The international legal framework on the use of force for the protection of civilians in the context of UN (mandated) peace operations.
    LIRIAS3970602
    description
    Strongly criticised peace operations in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia caused a change of course within the United Nations (UN). It was agreed both inside and outside the organisation that peace forces should no longer be deployed in conflict situations where peace could not be achieved without having the necessary robust mandate and military resources. At the turn of the century, the UN Security Council therefore introduced a new type of mandate whereby peace operations are authorised to 'use all necessary means to protect civilians from the (imminent) threat of physical violence', otherwise known as Protection of Civilians or PoC mandates. Over the years, adopting PoC mandates has proven to be a ubiquitous tool eagerly used by the UN Security Council when implementing initiatives to maintain or restore international peace and security—seeking to draw particular attention to the need to protect civilians. Specifically, between 1999 and 2021, most peace operations conducted by the UN ('UN peace operations') as well as a large number of peace operations conducted by UN Member States and regional or international organisations other than the UN (so-called 'UN-mandated peace operations') received such a PoC mandate. However, practice shows that many questions remain about the legality of using force within such operations. At its roots is a deep gap between the doctrine of international law on the one hand and military doctrine and practice on the other. Academics are concerned with the strict legal rules as set forth by customary and conventional law, as well as general principles of law; practitioners are focused on the mission-specific PoC mandates and the strategic, operational, and tactical instruments that implement such a mandate. This study seeks to answer the following primary research question: 'What are the legal parameters for the use of force in UN (mandated) peace operations tasked by the UN Security Council to protect civilians?' To formulate an answer to this question, this study conducts the following research: (i) Clarifies and further develops the concept of PoC as a mandated task by the UN Security Council and provides an overview of the political and legal framework governing the use of force for PoC in the context of UN (mandated) peace operations. (ii) Explores the mission-specific legal bases underlying UN (mandated) peace operations deployed to protect civilians, particularly the consent of the host State and mandates granted by the UN Security Council, and investigates the possible impact the legal regimes (in particular, human rights law and international humanitarian law) might have on PoC mandates granted by the UN Security Council. (iii) Examines the legal regimes, and, in particular, human rights law and international humanitarian law, governing the use of force to protect civilians by UN (mandated) peace forces carrying out PoC mandates and explores the possible impact of the PoC mandate on whether or not force can be used by UN (mandated) peace forces on the ground. This study has come to the following conclusions: (i) There should be no exclusive reliance on policy- and mission-specific non-legal instruments, broad notions of self-defence, or powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to legally justify the use of force to protect civilians. While the power to use force in self-defence, defence of others or defence of the mandate may be part of the standard set of rules for the conduct of UN (mandated) peace operations, and while PoC mandates under Chapter VII of the UN Charter indeed provide for a legal authority to use force, any use of force to this end must be in accordance with the applicable legal regime(s). Indeed, it is essential to justify compliance of any use of force by (UN) mandated peace forces with the applicable legal regime(s). (ii) There must be a better understanding of the respective roles of the legal bases and the legal regimes in regulating the use of force for protective purposes. It is the legal bases that principally regulate the resort to armed force on the territory of a State as well as the overall levels of force used to conduct the operation, while it is the applicable legal regimes that primarily regulate specific instances of the use of force by armed forces on the ground. (iii) It is essential to have an understanding of which rules may provide a legal basis for UN (mandated) peace operations and which rules may regulate the conduct of UN (mandated) peace operations. Such rules can be found in the UN Charter, the rules of customary international law relating to the use of force and the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security, the internal laws of States, organisations, or arrangements that undertake operations, human rights law, and international humanitarian law, among others. (iv) A PoC mandate serves as a mission-specific legal basis underlying a UN (mandated) peace operation deployed to protect civilians and requires an interpretation that is legally sound. To unravel the precise meaning of the terms used in PoC mandates, they must be interpreted in good faith, considering the ordinary meaning given to them when they are read in the context of the resolution as a whole and in light of its object and purpose. Account should also be taken of the relevant circumstances of the adoption of these UN Security Council resolutions, the subsequent practice of the UN Security Council and other relevant practices of UN organs and subsidiary organs, and any relevant rules of international law (to the extent that they are consistent with the UN Security Council's intent). (v) A PoC mandate is never a blank cheque to use any amount of force, but neither is it necessarily a mere authorisation with no expectations attached. There is an upper limit to what UN (mandated) peace operations may lawfully do to protect civilians and an emerging lower limit for what UN (mandated) peace operations must lawfully do to protect civilians. (vi) The applicability de jure of human rights law and international humanitarian law to UN (mandated) peace operations cannot be refused when the requisite conditions for the application of the relevant body of law are met. (vii) The use of (lethal) force to protect civilians that has no clear nexus with an armed conflict is governed by five main principles of human rights law, including legality, necessity, proportionality, precautions, and accountability, while the use of (lethal) force to protect civilians that has a clear nexus with an armed conflict is governed by the relevant rules and principles of international humanitarian law, including humanity, military necessity, distinction, proportionality, precautions in attacks and against the effects of attacks, and the prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. While the rules on the use of force under human rights law are somewhat restrictive, effective protection of civilians is possible while complying with the relevant rules and principles. (viii) The understanding of the relationship between the legal bases and the legal regimes is of paramount importance to the regulation of the use of force for protective purposes. In principle, the mandate is concerned with the use of force at the strategic level, whereas human rights law and international humanitarian law are concerned with the use of force ordered by military leadership at the operational and tactical level and conducted by individual forces at the tactical level. When observing their respective roles in practice, it becomes clear, however, that human rights law and international humanitarian law may also influence the interpretation, implementation, and evaluation of PoC mandates. In turn, PoC mandates may have an impact on the use of force on the ground (an area predominantly regulated by the applicable legal regimes). By thoroughly analysing the international legal framework and uncovering the relationship between legal bases and legal regimes in this regard, this doctoral thesis not only makes a novel and fundamental contribution to the doctrine of international law, but also provides tools to formulate concrete answers to the complex legal questions on the use of force to protect civilians faced in practice.

    Published
  • chapter
    Egan, Michelle; Raube, Kolja; Chaisse, Julien; Wouters, Jan; 2023. Introduction to Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance. Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance: European Responses; 2023; Vol. 8; pp. 1 - 15 Publisher: Edward Elgar; Cheltenham
    LIRIAS4069915
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Meijen, Jens; Raube, Kolja; Wouters, Jan; 2023. Protector of the People or Enemy of Democracy? Vlaams Belang’s anti-pluralist discourse and institutional barriers in the Flemish political system. Populist Parties and Democratic Resilience: A cross-national analysis of populist parties’ impact on democratic pluralism in Europe; 2023; pp. 101 - 119 Publisher: Routledge
    LIRIAS3664344
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Wouters, Jan; Reis, Francisca Costa; 2023. Localizing the responsibility to protect: European and Brazilian perspectives. CONTESTATION AND POLARIZATION IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE; 2023; Vol. 8; pp. 247 - 263 Publisher: EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING LTD
    LIRIAS4108540
    description


    Published
  • editedbook
    2023. Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance: European Responses. Publisher: Edward Elgar; Cheltenham
    LIRIAS3362839
    description


    Published
  • chapter
    Egan, Michelle; Raube, Kolja; Wouters, Jan; Chaisse, Julien; 2023. Introduction: Europe at the Cross-Roads of Global Order. Contestation and Polarization in Global Governance: European Responses; 2023; pp. 1 - 15 Publisher: Edward Elgar
    LIRIAS3664349
    description


    Published
  • internet-publication
    Martens, Katrien; Wouters, Jan; Rights of Women. Publisher: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press
    LIRIAS4017965
    description


    Published online

1/40