IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Judicial powers, due process and evidence in the Security Council 1267 Terrorist Sanctions Regime: the Kadi II conundrum


  • Lisa Ginsborg and Martin Scheinin


The United Nations Security Council regime of listing Al Qaida and Taliban terrorists under Resolution 1267 (1999), as subsequently amended, has been subject to increasing criticism, including through litigation and judicial pronouncements. The role of EU courts in voicing the criticism, and quashing EU-level implementation measures of the sanctions required under the 1267 regime, has become important. The authors assess the current status of the 1267 regime, notably after the adoption of Resolution 1904 (2010) and the establishment of the office of a delisting Ombudsperson. In the view of the authors, also after the reforms, the 1267 regime falls short of international or European standards concerning fair trial or due process. After discussing the Kadi II ruling by the General Court of the EU, the authors propose a political solution to the tension between the legal orders of the UN and the EU, namely that those EU Member States that sit on the Security Council should block any terrorist listing proposal, where the proposing state does not accept the disclosure of information used for the listing decision in a manner that will enable the EU courts to exercise judicial review over the implementation of the resulting sanctions, to a degree that will be acceptable to these courts. As to the the issue of the required degree of disclosure, the authors propose that EU courts, departing from the Kadi II ruling by the General Court, should be prepared to accept a more modest degree of disclosure than the sharing of all evidence with the listed individual or entity.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Ginsborg and Martin Scheinin, 2011. "Judicial powers, due process and evidence in the Security Council 1267 Terrorist Sanctions Regime: the Kadi II conundrum," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 44, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:euirsc:p0291

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Keohane, Robert O. & Moravcsik, Andrew & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(03), pages 457-488, June.
    2. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(02), pages 391-425, March.
    3. Gourevitch, Peter Alexis, 1996. "Squaring the Circle: The Domestic Sources of International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 349-373, March.
    4. North, Douglass C. & Weingast, Barry R., 1989. "Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(04), pages 803-832, December.
    5. Maloney, William F., 2004. "Informality Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1159-1178, July.
    6. Avner Greif, 2002. "Institutions and Impersonal Exchange: From Communal to Individual Responsibility," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(1), pages 168-168, March.
    7. Osiander, Andreas, 2001. "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(02), pages 251-287, March.
    8. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(04), pages 513-553, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:euirsc:p0291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Valerio PAPPALARDO). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.