Refugee protection depends, minimally, on the identification of agents capable of discharging international obligations in this area of international law. Commonly discussed “agents of justice” include states, IOs, and NGOs. This article focuses on a different set of actors: subnational units (cities, states, and provinces in federal States) and the legal mechanisms they may use to discharge international obligations in the area of refugee protection. I advance three distinct theoretical models for understanding subnational units’ responsibilities vis-à-vis international law: (1) derived (...) delegated responsibilities; (2) derived back-up responsibilities; and (3) assumed responsibilities. I conclude by sketching some ways in which subnational units could play an even more salient role in the promotion of international law. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Legal scholars and theorists have recently drawn a more sustained attention to the link between international human rights law (hereafter IHRL) and international criminal law (hereafter ICL). This concerns both positive and more normative accounts of the link. Whether positive or normative, the predominant approach to constructing the link issubstantive. This overlap is normatively justified in similar terms by reference to a subset of moral human rights. In this paper, I offer an alternative to the substantive approach. After identifying two (...) flaws in the substantive approach (the problem ofthresholdand the problem ofethical neutrality), I defend what I call astructuralaccount by focusing on duty‐holders. I start by reconstructing two structural characteristics common to IHRL and ICLquainternational legal regimes: who has theauthorityto address violations of IHRL and ICL, and who can beliablefor those violations. I then infer thatpublic authority(functionally construed) constitutes the common structural core of IHRL and ICL. I rely on the extraterritorial application of IHRL and on the collective dimension of ICL violations to further support the argument. I finally offer an argument explaining the normative point of those structural features. I hold that IHRL and ICL (their adjudicative and liability regimes) are both necessary (but clearly not sufficient) to render this exercise of public authority legitimate to its subjects. (shrink)