Recent Posts

Events and Announcements: December 21, 2014

by An Hertogen

Events

  • For many years, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop – jointly organized by Rainer Hofmann (University of Frankfurt), Stephan Schill (Max Planck Institute Heidelberg), and Christian J. Tams (University of Glasgow) – has been a forum for the discussion of conceptual issues of international investment law. The next workshop, to be held March 13-14, 2015, will explore the role of history in the interpretation and application of international investment law. It will cover a wide range of issues, from debates about investment law’s imperial origins to the drafting history of the World Bank’s ICSID Convention. The program is available here. As in previous years, the workshop will bring together academics and practitioners and provide them with a forum for open and frank exchanges. To register, please contact Sabine Schimpf, Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order, University of Frankfurt (S [dot] Schimpf [at] jur [dot] uni-frankfurt.de) by February 28, 2015.

Calls for Papers

  • A call for papers has been issued for the International Criminal Justice Stream at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference which takes place at the University of Warwick from March 31 – April 2, 2015. Submissions are invited on all areas of substantive international criminal justice, whether on theory, policy or practice. Empirical work would also be welcomed. Both individual papers and panel submissions (of three related papers) can be submitted for consideration. Postgraduate students are also encouraged to submit abstracts. Abstracts may only be submitted via the Easy Chair system, must be no longer than 300 words, include your title, name and institutional affiliation and your email address for correspondence. Successful papers will be published in a symposium; details of which will be available shortly. For an informal discussion please email the convenor, Anna Marie Brennan at Anna [dot] Marie [dot] Brennan [at] liverpool [dot] ac [dot] uk. The deadline for the submissions is Monday January 19, 2015.
  • The Graduate Institute in Geneva is convening a conference entitled ‘International Law and Time’ to take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from June 12–13, 2015, to explore the phenomena of time and change in international law. Abstracts are due by February 15, 2015. More information is here.

Last week’s events and announcements can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us with a one-paragraph description of your announcement along with hyperlinks to more information.

Weekend Roundup: December 13-19, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, our regular bloggers touched on a variety of topics again with Kevin rejecting Ashley Deeks’ evidence that the international response to ISIS supports the “unwilling or unable” test under article 51 UN Charter and Kristen expanding the UN’s list of 13 things to know about UN sanctions to 16. Prompted by Christopher Kutz’ essay, Julian asked whether the norm against torture is indeed dying in the US.

In guest posts this week, Bede Sheppard discussed new guidelines to protect schools and universities from military use during armed conflict, and Rick Lines and Damon Barrett pointed to an interesting question of international law posed by the US’ four pillar approach to international drug control.

Finally, Kevin welcomed Points of Order to the blogosphere and, as every week, you could count on Jessica to wrap up the international news headlines and list the events and announcements.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a great weekend!

Guest Post: Has the US just called for unilateral interpretation of multilateral obligations?

by Rick Lines and Damon Barrett

[Dr Rick Lines and Damon Barrett are the Chair and Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, University of Essex]

These are interesting times for drug law reform, which, as it gathers pace, is asking important questions of international law. A UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs is set for 2016 just as national reforms are challenging international treaties that form the bedrock of a global prohibition regime that has dominated since the turn of the twentieth century. States parties to the three UN drug control conventions must now confront the legal and political dilemmas this creates. This is the situation in which the US now finds itself following cannabis reforms in various states that are at odds with these treaties. The State Department has issued its official position in this regard, one that stretches and boundaries of interpretation and raises other serious questions for international law.

In an October statement Ambassador William Brownfield set out that position in the form of the ‘four pillar’ approach the United States will now follow in matters of international drug control. While the four pillars, set out below, have prompted much discussion and debate among those working on drug policy issues, attention among international lawyers has been rare. This is something of an important gap given the implications of what the US suggests:

  1. Respect the integrity of the existing UN drug control conventions.
  2. Accept flexible interpretation of those conventions.
  3. Tolerate different national drug policies…[and] accept the fact that some countries will have very strict drug approaches; other countries will legalise entire categories of drugs.
  4. Combat and resist criminal organisations, rather than punishing individual drug users

Internationally, the four pillars have emerged in the context of efforts, led primarily by Latin American States, to open discussions on the future of the international drug control regime, and look at alternatives to the current and destructive prohibitionist paradigm.  Domestically, it comes in the context of successful referenda to legally regulate cannabis in several US states.

Both of these are welcome developments. The international drug regime is long overdue for reform, and the cannabis referenda will produce many positive criminal justice, health and social outcomes in those US states adopting them. However, domestic cannabis law reform places the United States in a compromised position within the coming debates on the future shape of the international drug control regime.

(more…)

16 things to know about UN Sanctions

by Kristen Boon

The UN’s Department of Political Affairs recently published this list of “13 things to know about UN sanctions.”  If you scroll down on the link above, you’ll also see some great sanctions graphics.

United Nations Sanctions Primer

1. Since the creation of the United Nations, the Security Council has established 25 sanctions regimes. They have been used to support conflict resolution efforts, prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and counter terrorism.

2. “UN sanctions have proved to be an effective complement to other Security Council instruments and actions. We know it is not perfect, but there is also no doubt that it works,” Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman told the 15-Member of the Council in the 25 November briefing.

3. There are currently 15 sanction regimes, the highest number in the history of the Organization.

4. UN sanctions are fairly economical. The total cost of supporting the 15 sanctions regimes is less than $30 million per year.

5. The first United Nations sanctions regime was established in 1966 when the Security Council imposed sanctions on Southern Rhodesia. By a vote of 11 to 0 – with four abstentions – the Council declared an international embargo on 90 per cent of Rhodesia’s exports, forbade the UN’s then 122 Member States (there are now 193) to sell oil, arms, motor vehicles or airplanes to Rhodesia.

6. The most recent sanctions were applied against Yemen this November. The UN Council ordered a freeze of all assets and a global travel ban on Saleh, the rebel group’s military commander, Abd al-Khaliq al-Huthi, and the Houthi’s second-in-command, Abdullah Yahya al Hakim.

7. In 1999, the Council established its first sanctions monitoring group on Angola.

8. There are now 11 monitoring groups, teams and panels with a total of 66 experts working in support of the Security Council and its sanctions committees.

9. Expert panels regularly cooperate with international organizations, such as INTERPOL, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on issues related to travel bans, and with national authorities and the private sector on asset freezes.

10. DPA underscored in today’s briefing that UN sanctions are meant to be supportive not punitive. They are not meant to cripple states but to help them overcome instability, address massive human rights violations, curb illegal smuggling, and counter terrorism.

11. The DPA’s Security Council Affairs Division provides substantive and administrative support to the sanctions committees and expert panels; as well as engages the wider UN system in support of UN sanctions.

12. This year, among its other activities on sanctions, DPA let two missions on sanctions issues, one on the partial lifting of the arms embargo on Somalia and another on the termination of sanctions in Liberia. The aim was to strengthen these countries’ understanding of what the Council expects on sanctions issues and to enhance UN coordination on how the Organization can support implementation in these countries.

13. In 2006, the Secretary-General outlined four elements to improve the fairness and transparency of the sanctions procedures: the right to be informed; the right to be heard; the right to be reviewed by an affective review mechanism; and the need for periodic reviews, especially regarding the freezing of assets.

Let me add three things of my own:

14.   A recent UN high level review on sanctions took place between May – October 2014 (thus the reference to the 2006 document in #13 is a bit dated).  The background paper on the High Level Review website is well worth reading, as are the reports from the 3 working groups. See for example this briefing on Working Group 1, that included Security Council members.

15.   Technical assistance remains an important but controversial topic.   Australia proposed a resolution on technical assistance in November, 2014 but due to opposition by Russia, China and Argentina, the resolution was not put to a vote.   The basis of the opposition, as I understood it from statements during the Security Council session, was largely due to concern over an expansion of the Secretariat’s policy making role.   To put it differently, more technical assistance managed by the Secretariat might result in less Security Council authority.  Nonetheless, implementation gaps in sanctions remain a serious bar to sanctions effectiveness.  As sanctions become more sophisticated, so too do techniques of evasion, and for UN sanctions to be effective, there is no question that common ground will need to be identified to assist states, particularly, but not exclusively those states in whose territories individual and entities are targeted, neighboring states, and regional hegemons.

16.   There is growing support to expand the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction to other sanctions regimes.  Currently, her office reviews delisting requests from the 1267 Al Qaida regime.   Individuals and entities listed under other regimes only have access to a focal point, who has far less powers.  If these proposals continue to gain momentum, there will be a significant improvement to the due process procedures noted above.  See an overview of developments in this debate here.

Do you have anything else to add to the list?  Please use the comments box to chime in.

Is the “Norm” Against Torture Dying (At Least in the U.S.)?

by Julian Ku

Christopher Kutz, Professor of Law in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program at Berkeley Law School, has a fascinating new essay examining the possibility that “norms” against torture and assassination have died in the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  Kutz is not writing to support the CIA interrogation program or the US government’s use of assassination, but he does think that, as a descriptive matter, the rules against torture and assassination may be dead or dying in the U.S. He suggests that democracies have a limited ability to maintain commitment to these kinds of norms because of a democracy’s “sensitivity” to public mobilization.  Eric Posner has a typically interesting response to Kutz here.

I don’t know if the norm against torture is dead in the U.S., but I will say that the U.S. public appears completely unmoved by the release of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s very critical report on the CIA interrogation program.  A raft of new polls shows that the U.S. public’s support for an absolute ban on torture remains relatively low, while a majority, or perhaps a strong plurality, support the actual CIA program and methods that was so harshly criticized by the Senate Report.  See the WSJ/NBC poll here.  See the Pew Research Survey poll here.  We can quibble about the details, but those post-Senate Report polls show almost no change from pre-Senate Report polls.

I emphasize again that the U.S. public’s support for the CIA program does not in any way justify the legality or the morality of the program.  But the public’s failure to support a ban on torture, especially the absolute ban on torture embedded in international law and U.S. law, cannot be ignored either.  It suggests there is little chance of a prosecution over the CIA program, and it really poses a tough challenge for international lawyers. What should the response of international lawyers be when public opinion in a democracy refuses to support a central key rule of international law?  As Kutz’s paper suggests, this whole episode suggests widely accepted international law norms can be fragile, even (or especially) in liberal democracies.

 

Guest Post: Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use

by Bede Sheppard

[Bede Sheppard is the deputy children’s rights director at Human Rights Watch, based in Barcelona]

At an event at the United Nations in Geneva this morning, the ambassadors of Norway and Argentina unveiled a set of six new “Guidelines” aimed at better protecting schools and universities from being used for military purposes during times of armed conflict. They are intended to respond to the practice of government forces and non-state armed groups converting schools and universities into bases or barracks, or using them as firing positions or places to cache weapons and ammunition.

This practice endangers students and teachers by turning their schools into targets for enemy attack. Students and teachers have been injured and killed in such attacks. It also exposes students to sexual violence, forced labor, and forced recruitment by the soldiers sharing their schools. Students must either stay at home and interrupt their education, or study alongside armed fighters while potentially in the line of fire.

The Guidelines urge all parties to armed conflict to refrain from using schools or universities for any purpose in support of the military effort, but state specifically that “functioning schools” should not be used, even if it is outside of normal school hours, or during the weekend or on school holidays. Schools that have been abandoned or evacuated because of the danger presented by the armed conflict should also not be used, except in circumstances in which fighting forces are presented with no viable alternative, and only as long as no choice is possible between such use of a school and another feasible method for obtaining a similar military advantage. The Guidelines reiterate the prohibition on destroying a school as a measure intended to deprive opposing parties of the ability to use them in the future, and provide guidance on how to respond if enemy forces are using a school, or if military forces are the only option for providing essential security in response to threats of an attack on a school.

Concerns about the negative consequences of where soldiers are accommodated—and resulting efforts to regulate their billeting—date back a long time. (more…)

Welcome to the Blogosphere, Points of Order!

by Kevin Jon Heller

The new blog, which will focus on “multilateralism, international organizations, and world order” — no small task there! — includes Friends-of-OJ David Bosco and David Kaye, as well as my SOAS colleague Leslie Vinjamuri. Here is the complete contributor list:

  • David Bosco is an assistant professor at American University’s School of International Service and a contributing editor at Foreign Policy magazine.
  • Martin Edwards is associate professor at Seton Hall University and director of the Center for United Nations and Global Governance Studies.
  • David Kaye is clinical professor of law at the School of Law, University of California-Irvine. He was appointed special rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression by the UN Human Rights Council.
  • Cymie Payne is assistant professor at Rutgers University, focusing on international and environmental law.
  • Ted Piccone is a senior fellow with the Project on International Order and Strategy and Latin America Initiative in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
  • Oliver Stuenkel is assistant professor at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV) in São Paulo, where he coordinates the São Paulo branch of the School of History and Social Science (CPDOC) and the executive program in International Relations
  • Leslie Vinjamuri is co-director of the Centre for the International Politics of Conflict, Rights and Justice and associate professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.  She is an Associate Fellow in the US Programme at Chatham House, the Royal Institute for International Affairs.

Recent posts address climate finance, Brasilian foreign policy, the IMF, and the ICC’s preliminary examination in Afghanistan. All of the writing is very high quality, so make sure to check Points of Order out!

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, December 15, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

Your weekly selection of international law and international relations headlines from around the world:

Africa

Middle East and Northern Africa

  • Palestinian officials are to present a draft resolution to the UN Security Council seeking a two-year deadline for Israel to end its occupation, an official has said.
  • The UN Security Council has called for a “swift and transparent investigation” after a Palestinian minister died during a confrontation with Israeli soldiers.

Asia

Europe

Americas

Oceania

UN/World

Events and Announcements: December 14, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

Events

  • The International Humanitarian and Criminal Law Platform of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Kalshoven-Gieskes Forum on International Humanitarian Law of the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University cordially invite you to attend the launch of the book: ‘Nuclear Weapons Under International Law’  taking place Wednesday, 17 December in The Hague. Please find more information here.

Calls for Papers

  • The McCoubrey Centre for International Law of the University of Hull Law School is hosting on 2 & 3 July 2015 its 2nd conference for research students and early career scholars. The conference’s title is “Making International Custom More Tangible”, and the keynote speech will be given by Sir Michael Wood, the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on the Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law. The principal aims of the McCoubrey Centre Conference are to promote wider debate on the issues being addressed by the ILC, to stimulate research on customary law by younger academics, and to contribute to a wider understanding of the foundations and function of customary international law in the 21st century. All panels will be chaired by leading academics, who will be invited to comment on the papers. Selected papers will appear in a volume edited by the McCoubrey Centre for International Law. Interested participants should provide an abstract of no more than 500 words by 15 February 2015. Abstracts shall be uploaded on the conference’s webpage. Speakers will be informed of acceptance of their papers by 6 March 2015.

Announcements

  • The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has launched its Online Training Centre, a collection of e-learning modules on international humanitarian law and other areas of the ICRC’s work. These online training courses are available to anyone as self-paced courses, free of charge. For more information, please visit the website here.
  • As we have announced previously, the ICRC also has recently launched the online version of the casebook, How Does Law Protect in WarThis new online reference platform in IHL features:
    • Regular updates with new case studies on contemporary armed conflicts
    • An comprehensive IHL outline composed of 14 different themes
    • More than 350 case studies covering past and contemporary armed conflicts
    • More than 20 model IHL courses and pedagogical resources for IHL lecturers
    • More than 300 terms and notions referenced in the online index “A to Z”
    • Full online navigation between theory and practice through internal links and search engine

Last week’s events and announcements can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us with a one-paragraph description of your announcement along with hyperlinks to more information. 

Do Attacks on ISIS in Syria Justify the “Unwilling or Unable” Test?

by Kevin Jon Heller

Almost three years ago to the day, I critiqued an article by Ashley Deeks that argued the right of self-defence under Art. 51 of the UN Charter extends to situations in which states are “unwilling or unable” to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to launch armed attacks. As I noted in my post, Deeks herself admitted that she had “found no cases in which states clearly assert that they follow the test out of a sense of legal obligation (i.e., the opinio juris aspect of custom).”

When Deeks wrote her article, ISIS did not yet exist — and the US and other states had not started attacking ISIS in Syria. It is not surprising, therefore, that Deeks is now relying on the international response to ISIS to argue, in the words of a new post at Lawfare, that “the ‘unwilling or unable’ test is starting to seem less controversial and better settled as doctrine.”

There is no question that the US believes the “unwilling or unable” test is consistent with Art. 51. As Jens noted a few months ago, the US officially invoked the test with regard to ISIS and the Khorasan Group in a letter to the Security Council. Moreover, the UK seems to agree with the US: according to Deeks, the UK submitted a similar Art. 51 letter to the Security Council, stating that it supports international efforts to defend Iraq “by striking ISIL sites and military strongholds in Syria” — a position that, in her view,”implicitly adopts the ‘unwilling or unable’ test.”

Deeks does not provide a link to the UK letter, but I have little doubt she is characterizing the UK’s position accurately. I have significant issues, though, with the rest of her post, which argues that three other factors related to the international response to ISIS support the “unwilling or unable” test. Let’s go in order. Here is Deeks’ first argument:

[S]tates such as Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, which also have undertaken airstrikes in Syria, presumably are relying on the same legal theory as the United States and UK.  (That said, those states have not proffered clear statements about their legal theories.)

There are two problems with this claim. To begin with, even if the four states are relying on “unwilling or unable” to justify their attacks on ISIS in Syria, they have not said so publicly — which means that their actions cannot qualify as opinio juris in support of the test. The publicity requirement is Customary Law 101.

More importantly, though, and pace Deeks, it is actually exceptionally unlikely that these states support the “unwilling or unable” test. All four are members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which has consistently rejected the test, most notably in response to Turkey’s cross-border attacks on the PKK in Iraq (see Ruys at p. 431):

We strongly condemn the repeated actions of Turkish armed forces violating the territorial integrity of Iraq under the pretext of fighting guerrilla elements hiding inside Iraqi territory. … We also reject the so-called ‘hot pursuit’ measures adopted by Turkey to justify such actions that are abhorrent to international law and to the norms of practice amongst States.

To be sure, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE have not rejected the “unwilling or unable” test since 9/11 — the statement by NAM above was made in 2000. But there is little reason to believe that their understanding of Art. 51 has fundamentally changed over the past decade. On the contrary, all four are also members of the Arab League, and in 2006 the Arab League formally rejected the “unwilling or unable” test in the context of Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon (see Ruys at p. 453).

Here is Deeks’ second argument:

Iraq vocally has supported strikes within Syria.

This is not surprising, given that ISIS is using Syria as a base for attacks on Iraq. But does Iraq’s support for airstrikes on ISIS in Syria count as opinio juris in favour of the “unwilling or unable” test? I doubt it. After all, not only is Iraq a member of the Arab League, it consistently denounced Turkey’s attacks on PKK bases in its territory between 2007 and 2008 as inconsistent with its sovereignty (see Ruys at p. 461). Iraq’s attitude toward the “unwilling or unable” test thus seems driven exclusively by political opportunism; there is no indication that it considers the test to represent customary international law.

Here is Deeks third argument:

Syria itself has not objected to these intrusions into its territory.

This factor seriously complicates Deeks’ argument. Another word for “not objecting” is “consenting.” And if Syria is consenting to attacks on ISIS in its territory, it is problematic to simply assume — as Deeks does — that all such attacks provide evidence in favour of the “unwilling or unable” test. The US and UK may not want to rely on Syrian consent to justify their attacks. But it seems likely that Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE are relying on Syrian consent rather than Syrian unwillingness or inability to justify their attacks on ISIS in Syria — particularly given their traditional narrow understanding of Art. 51.

Finally, it is important to note what Deeks says immediately after claiming that “[i]In view of these developments, the ‘unwilling or unable’ test is starting to seem less controversial and better settled as doctrine”:

Whether other European states ultimately commit to airstrikes in Syria will be informative; to date, states such as France, Denmark, and Belgium only have provided support to strikes against ISIS within Iraq, not Syria.

This is an important admission, because it means that a member of P-5 and two other important Western states have suggested they are not comfortable with using the “unwilling or unable” test to justify attacks on ISIS in Syria.

So, to recap: the US and UK clearly support the “unwilling or unable” test; Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE are likely basing their willingness to attack ISIS in Syria on Syrian consent; Iraq has a completely opportunistic approach to the “unwilling or unable” test; and France, Denmark, and Belgium seem to reject the test, even if they have not done so explicitly.

And yet we are supposed to believe that the “unwilling or unable” test “is starting to seem less controversial and better settled as doctrine”?

Weekend Roundup: December 6-12, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

Looking back at the week that was, Opinio Juris bloggers covered a number of news-related issues. Several provided commentary on the release of the US Senate’s Torture Report. Prior to its release, Kevin expressed disbelief at a post by ACLU Director Anthony Romero urging blanket amnesty for those responsible for torture, and as soon as it became available, Jens announced the report’s availability and his first thoughts here, before discussing what we really fight about when we talk about torture here.

Deborah examined the question of prosecution in response to allegations in the report, and Roger posted on the report as a truth and reconciliation commission, akin to his research on the transitional justice process post-apartheid in South Africa. Finally, Julian weighed in analyzing a recent trend that the US public does not necessarily agree with international law’s absolute ban on torture.

In other news, after the ICC dropped the case against Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta, Julian posed the provocative question whether this might spell the end for the ICC. Additionally, Kevin flagged the OTP’s decision to suspend the investigation into alleged crimes in Darfur, troubled by the seemingly politically laden relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council.

Julian also called attention to China’s “position paper” released ahead of its December 15th filing deadline in the situation between China and the Philippines before the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal. He also pointed to his more in-depth analysis of why the Philippines arbitration is doomed to fail (spoiler alert: it’s due to a mistake by the Philippines in employing a “lawfare strategy” forcing China before the arbitral tribunal), notwithstanding Vietnam’s support of the Philippines’ position. Finally in sea-worthy news, Julian pointed to the newest (sci-fi) development for the US Navy in the Persian Gulf: the planned deployment of laser cannons.

Rounding out the contributions from our regular bloggers, Duncan paid homage to his mentor, the late Professor Alfred P. Rubin, referring to him as the best professor he has ever had.

We posted Eric Sigmund’s guest contribution, a response to Kevin’s previous questioning of why US courts don’t understand IHL, remarking that the courts’ misunderstanding of IHL is deeper than you’d think.

Finally, I wrapped up the week’s news and listed events and announcements.

Thanks go out to our guest contributor and have a nice weekend!

OTP Suspends Darfur Investigation

by Kevin Jon Heller

This is quite big news, and I hope it doesn’t get lost in the welter of voices discussing the collapse of the Kenyatta prosecution. Here is a snippet from the Washington Post:

The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court told the U.N. Security Council on Friday she is stopping her investigations in Sudan’s chaotic Darfur region for now because no one has been brought to justice in a decade and the council has done little or nothing to help.

Darfur’s situation is deteriorating and the brutality of crimes is increasing, but there have been no discussions with the council for “concrete solutions,” Fatou Bensouda said. She demanded a new approach.

Darfur was the council’s first referral to the ICC, which is seen as a court of last resort for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[snip]

“It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to appear before you and purport to be updating you when all I am doing is repeating the same things I have said over and over again,” Bensouda told the council, which has been divided on how to press Sudan for cooperation. This was the 20th time the prosecutor has briefed the council on Darfur.

“Given this council’s lack of foresight on what should happen in Darfur, I am left with no choice but to hibernate investigative activities in Darfur as I shift resources to other urgent cases,” Bensouda said.

It’s never good news when any OTP investigation falters, but it’s particularly disturbing in the context of the first Security Council referral to the ICC. Unfortunately, as many have noted (Mark Kersten, Dov Jacobs, me), the Security Council has an unfortunate tendency to treat the ICC like a political football — referring a situation to the Court when it needs to appear concerned about mass atrocity, then abandoning it when an attention-challenged international community has moved on to a different situation. Darfur is a perfect example of that troubling dynamic.

There is, however, a silver lining to the OTP’s decision to suspend the Darfur investigation: it indicates that Fatou Bensouda is getting tired of being Charlie Brown to the Security Council’s Lucy. I’m quite certain the Security Council would have preferred the Darfur investigation to continue ad infinitum: as long as the OTP is trying to investigate, the ICC will get the lion’s share of the blame for the failure to get Bashir. Now Bensouda has cleverly shifted the terrain, making it clear that the problem is the Security Council, not the ICC. Whether the Security Council will care is an open question — but at least Bensouda will take some of the heat off the ICC regarding Darfur. The last thing the Court needs now is additional bad publicity…