Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:14:28.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bustani v. Organisation For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Judgment No. 2232

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Ana Stanič
Ana Stanič*
Affiliation:
Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 810 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Bustani v. Org. for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Judgment No. 2232 (ILO Admin. Trib. July 16, 2003) [hereinafter Judgment]. The Tribunal’s Statute, Rules, and judgments are available at <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal> .

2 Jan. 13, 1993, 1974 UNTS 45, 32ILM 800, available at <http://www.opcw.org> [hereinafter CWC]. Documents and information concerning the CWC and the OPCW are available at <http://www.opcw.org>>Google Scholar .

3 See CWC, supra note 2, Art. 1.

4 See Mission Statement of the OPCW.

5 See CWC, supra note 2, Art. VIII(4).

6 Williams, Ian, The U.S. Hit List at the United Nations, Foreign Policy in Focus, Apr. 30, 2002, at <http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204un_body.html>Google Scholar .

7 Bustani, J. M., I Brasil e a OPAQ: diplomacia e defesa do sistema multilateral sob ataque, 46 Estudos Avancados 71, at 79–80 (2002), available at <http://www.usp.br/iea/revista/online/eua/bustani.pdf>Google Scholar .

8 See Judgment, supra note 1, para. 15; see also Statement by the Director–General to Executive Council at Its 28th Session (Mar. 21, 2002)Google Scholar, OPCW Doc. EC–28/DG.12 (on file with the author).

9 Seventeen states voted in favor, five against, and eighteen abstained. Article VIII(29) of the CWC requires that Council actions on matters of substance be taken by a two–thirds majority of its members.

10 Forty–eight states voted in favor, seven against, and forty–three abstained. Article VIII(18) of the CWC requires that, in the absence of consensus, Conference actions on matters of substance be taken by a two–thirds majority of all members present and voting. For a discussion of die dismissal, see Murphy, Sean D.. U.S. Initiative to Oust OPCW Director–General, 96 AJIL 711 (2002)Google Scholar.

11 The Statute is available at <http://www.ilo.org>>Google Scholar .

12 The text of this rule is set forth in note 1 of the Tribunal’s judgment.

13 Rule 0.0.1 is quoted, though not named, in paragraphs E and 8 of die Tribunal’s judgment. Staff Regulation 1.2 is quoted in paragraph E and cited in paragraph 8. The text of Staff Regulations 11.1 and 11.3 is set forth in paragraph 6.

14 Judgment, supra note 1, para. E.

15 Id., para. 8.

16 Id., para. 10.

17 Id., para. B.

18 Id.

19 See Opening Statement by the Director General to the Executive Council at Its Twenty–Eighth Session (Mar. 19, 2002) (on file with author); see also Statement by the Director–General at the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties, para. 24 (Apr. 21, 2001), OPCW Doc. C-SS-1/DG.7, at <http://www.opcw.org/html/global/c_series/ss1csp/css1_dg7.html>>Google Scholar.

20 Judgment, supra note 1, para. D.

21 Id., paras. C, 3, 15.

22 The Tribunal found that the Conference’s dismissal of Bustani was an action taken at “the insistent request of the United States.” Id., para. 15.

23 Id., para. 16.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 Id., para. 17.

28 See James, Barry, Chief UN Chemical Weapons Inspector Hits Back at U.S. Criticism, Int’l Herald Trib., Apr. 18, 2002 Google Scholar, News, at 6; Murphy, supra note 10.

29 See Monbiot, George, The Removal of Jose Bustani Demonstrates George Bush’s Contempt for Cooperation, Guardian, Apr. 23, 2002, at <http://www.guardian.co.uk>Google Scholar .

30 Watson, a prominent scientist, was a leading critic of the United States and called for urgent action to curb global warming. For details see Fowler, Jonathan, U.S. Scientist off Climate Change Panel, Associated Press Online, Apr. 19, 2002,Google Scholar and Borger, Julian, US and Oil Lobby Oust Climate Change Scientist, Guardian, Apr. 20, 2002, at <http://www.guardian.co.uk>Google Scholar .

31 See Statement by the Director–General at the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties, para. 24, OPCW Doc. C-SS-1/DG.7 (Apr. 21, 2001), at <http://www.opcw.org/html/global/c_series/sslcsp/cssl_dg7.html>>Google Scholar .

32 Monbiot, supra note 29.

33 Brazil Arms Control Chief Says US Interferes, Reuters, Mar. 26, 2002.Google Scholar