Earlier today the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1636 demanding that Syria cooperate with the Hariri investigation “or else.” OK, it didn’t really say “or else” but that was the gist of it. See a summary of main points here; UN press report here.

The UN press report explained that

The resolution called on all States to prevent the entry or transit of suspects designated by the Commission or the Government of Lebanon and to freeze all assets of such person on their territory.

Moreover,

The resolution determined “that any involvement of any State in this terrorist act would constitute a serious violation by that State of its obligations to work to prevent and refrain from supporting terrorism.”

As CNN summarized:

Last-minute diplomatic haggling deleted a direct reference to the threat of sanctions on the Syrian government, but the effect of Monday’s resolution is the same.

The resolution is under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which holds open the ultimate possibility of the Security Council considering the use of force with failure to comply.

Russia and China simply would not have voted for stronger wording. But this nonetheless puts Syria in a fairly tight spot as the Security Council’s Chapter VII authority is the diplomatic equivalent of ending your demand with “or else.” Resolutions under Chapter VII must be followed by UN members States. The specifics of that “or else” may require another resolution but under Chapter VII no options are off the table, as certain Washington politicians are fond of saying.

The Hariri Report was the step that made getting a Chapter VII resolution politically feasible. Heated rhetoric alone from the U.S. could not have done this. Now UN member States are required to assist in the investigation. If Syria persists in stonewalling, then UN member States may soon be required to have sanctions against Syria.

But still, isn’t this less direct than the U.S. going in and trying a little regime change? Well, yes, but the point is that what sometimes seems to be the most direct method (hey guys, let’s topple a government!) can be the least effective. Rather, here we see the role of consensus building and coordination. Moreover, as I mentioned in my previous post on this topic, the UN’s role gives a legitimacy to the process that gung-ho unilateralism simply would not have had. And, with legitimacy, we may get a better and more sustainable outcome.

UPDATE
Christopher Le Mon has commented that the full text is available here. Thanks for the link.

This past week, the President of the ICJ Shi Jiuyong addressed the U.N. General Assembly as part of of the ICJ’s submission of its annual report (which can be found here, the President’s speech can be found here). It was, of course, very boring. But it also reveals that the ICJ doesn’t realize the seriousness of the problem I have complained about here and here: the ICJ’s unbelievably light workload and its ridiculously low productivity.

The ICJ President’s speech blithely noted that in the past few years, the ICJ has made great strides to improve its organization and its speed in resolving cases. In the past year, the ICJ reduced its docket from 21 to 11, meaning it has resolved 10 cases over the past year. As the President notes, “[t]he level of activity displayed by the Court over the past years is, simply put, unprecedented in its history.”

With all due respect to ICJ President Shi, he is blatantly exaggerating the amount of work the ICJ has done during the past year (although he may be right that even this little amount of work is “unprecedented”).

The ICJ has actually issued one final judgment in a contentious case during the past year: Benin v. Niger, which was an expedited arbitration-like proceeding involving a specially constituted chamber of the court.

It removed eight cases from its docket in one fell swoop by issuing preliminary judgments dismissing Serbia’s (identical) lawsuits against nine NATO countries arising out NATO’s actions in the 1999 Kosovo war. It issued one other preliminary judgment in a dispute between Lichtenstein and Germany dismissing that case from its jurisdiction. It should be noted that the court took five years to remove the Serbia cases and four years to remove the Lichtenstein case, both without reaching the merits of the cases.

In other words, the full ICJ (not counting special chambers) has issued zero final judgments in the past year and essentially two preliminary judgments. It has also held two public hearings.

Obviously, the ICJ President has a duty to present the Court’s work in the best light, especially because his main purpose is to request appropriations from the General Assembly. The ICJ’s budget, in absolute terms, is quite small (about $30 million per biennium). And the ICJ only employs about 98 staff members. So at least the ICJ doesn’t appear to be a bloated wasteful international organization.

On the other hand, it is hard to see exactly why the court needs even this small amount of money and staff to issue three judgments a year (roughly $5 million per judgment). Or why a cash-strapped U.N. should give them any additional funds.

Albany Law Review sponsored a symposium today on the topic of “Outsourcing Authority: Citation to Foreign Court Precedent in Domestic Jurisprudence.” It included a number of speakers, including Ken Kersch, Susan Karamanian, John McGinnis, John Baker, Mark Tushnet and yours truly. Wonderful debate about Roper v. Simmons, Lawrence v. Texas, Charming Betsy and the general trend toward citation of foreign and international authority.

The most revealing comment came from Mark Tushnet on the subject of constitutional comparativism. He said, “If contemporary U.S. liberals have gotten off the rails they should get back on the rails. So what.” When asked whether this meant we might need to revisit cases such as Mapp v. Ohio, Skokie, New York Times v. Sullivan, and Roe v. Wade in light of international norms that provide lesser protections, he unequivocally said, “Yes.”

Peter Spiro and Dan Bodansky at the University of Georgia Law School are hosting a symposium this weekend to discuss and critique Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner’s informative and provocative book, The Limits of International Law. I discussed the book’s central thesis — that international law is merely a reflection of states acting rationally to pursue their interests in relation with other states — in an earlier post. In addition to Goldsmith and Posner, papers are being presented by Philippe Sands (London), David Golove (NYU), Kal Raustiala (UCLA), Andrew Guzman (Boalt), Ken Anderson (American) and Allen Buchanan (Duke, philosophy). Oh, and yours truly will be presenting as well. If you’re in the neighborhood of Athens (Georgia, that is) come on by. I’ll post some reflections next week.

The final Volcker Independent Inquiry Committee Report has been released (see here). News summaries have generally emphasized the final report’s conclusion that over 2000 companies participating for Oil-for-Food were involved in illegal or at least illicit kickback schemes with the Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. But the report also rightly faults the U.N. itself for failing to prevent or stop such widespread and blatant corruption.

Before Chris jumps on me again for complaining about the U.N. without acknowledging its good qualities, let me say that I think the U.N. can be effective in some cases. And I also find the reports of private companies like Daimler Chrysler or Volvo receiving kickbacks from Saddam Hussein just as damning as the reports of malfeasance at the highest levels of the U.N. Secretariat. The fact that diplomats such as France’s former U.N. Ambassador and politicians like Britain’s George Galloway also appeared to benefit from the scheme is equally troubling. Corruption appears to have been endemic in this program.

Having said that, I do think supporters of the U.N. are underestimating the seriousness of the Oil for Food scandal for the institution’s long-term survival. Petty corruption is one thing, but petty corruption that directly undermines the U.N.’s administration of sanctions against Iraq is quite another.

If the U.N. cannot effectively administer sanctions against Iraq without succumbing to rather easy and blatant corruption by an unsavory figure like Saddam Hussein, it is hard to see why the “international community” should “trust” the U.N. to deal effectively with other serious threats to international peace and security. It is also hard to see why, for instance, the U.N.’s claims that it could effectively monitor Iraq’s weapons program should be taken seriously.

The U.S. government has made many mistakes of its own, and it perhaps deserves to have its good intentions questioned around the world. But the Oil-for-Food scandal reminds us that the U.N. has its own serious problems and that its claims of high-minded disinterested protection of world peace deserves just as much skepticism.

According to TopTenSources, “law news feeds abound … [but] these 10 are the best”:

Legal Theory Blog
Opinio Juris
Jurist
PrawfsBlawg
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Becker-Posner Blog
Law.com
How Appealing
Legal Underground
Overlawyered

Not bad company!

A copy of her withdrawal letter is available here.

U.S. Secretary of State Rice is visiting Canada this week in a likely futile attempt to defuse a worsening U.S.-Canada trade dispute over softwood lumber. As I’ve blogged in the past (here and here), U.S. relations with Canada have been steadily worsening over the past few years over a variety of issues. But the refusal of the U.S. to comply with a final NAFTA tribunal judgment is now a trade “casus belli” in Canada and the top item on the agenda for Secretary Rice’s visit.

I think as a policy matter, the U.S. position on softwood lumber and other trade issues is hard to defend (although it is worth remembering that Canada is hardly free from blame for this ongoing dispute). But, as I’ve argued rather incessantly in the past, compliance with international tribuanal judgments, even trade tribunals like NAFTA and the WTO, remains a policy decision for the U.S. Congress and President. It is not something that would be appropriately delegated to the federal courts, as many international lawyers often suggest. If trade disputes are a diplomatic bargaining process, the U.S. shouldn’t be burdened with a system of automatic compliance since this would undercut its bargaining power.

Compliance here will occur if and when the President and Congress decide to do so. Which is why the Canadians are going to have to bargain, rather than simply whine about U.S. non-compliance. The U.S, for instance, is already moving to comply with a separate WTO case involving Canada. Compliance can happen, but it is a long, slow, and political process. Which is as it should be.

It is difficult to imagine a situation when Julian may ever be satisfied with what the UN has done. Here the UN actually accuses high-level Syrian and Lebanese officials of taking part in a murder and he thinks this is another example of the UN being inconsequential. There’s just no pleasing some people.

Julian mentions “allegations” of possible “high level” interference by UN officials, causing the report to be redacted, specifically removing the names of Assad’s brother and members of his inner circle. Before we get all wound up in some conspiracy theory, one should note that Detlev Mehlis, the author of the report, said he himself made the changes without the urging of any other UN official once he learned that the report would be made public and would not be confidential. This is a perfectly reasonable explanation but, even if you don’t accept it, one should still see the report for what it is: a political disaster for the Syrian regime.

Let’s set aside the rhetoric and actually look at the effects of the report so far. Julian implies that, like reports of other international organizations, this report ends up with “muddy, often useless conclusions in an attempt to avoid rocking the boat.” Well, I guess someone better tell all those demonstrators in Damascus to calm down. That is not the result of a document that avoids rocking the boat.

What is even more interesting are the comments of some of the Syrians in the street when asked about the report. Comments were along the lines of, “well, if these allegations turn out to be true then whoever supported the assassination are traitors,” and “if anyone in Syria was responsible, they must be brought to justice.” Probably not the sound bites that Assad and his cohorts were hoping for when they planned this “spontaneous” demonstration.

No one seems to find that this is a report that was muddy or useless. Look at the news cycles, the report was portrayed not as milquetoast but a bombshell. Even Al Jazeera read the whole report on air. Keep in mind, even without the name of Assad’s brother, the upper echelons of the Syrian and Lebanese security agencies were implicated after an investigation. Maybe this is just like going after Scooter Libby instead of Dick Cheney.

Anyway, what unremitting detractors of the UN miss is when it actually does some good. They don’t realize, perhaps, that in many parts of the world the UN’s voice is believed to be more legitimate than that of the United States, or at least that of the current Administration. Especially after the intelligence fiasco leading up to the Iraq War, the U.S. is not perceived as being especially credible when it starts pointing the finger in the Middle East. But the UN, for all its flaws, is. This is one of the particular strengths of a global organization and one of the things that those who would wish that the UN would just collapse should realize: legitimacy matters. And, even if some in the U.S. see the UN as illegitimate, their view does not map to the rest of the globe. When thinking about foreign policy, we need to remember how others perceive situations as opposed to simply our own ideological views. In this case the UN is the enemy of our enemy. Any realist knows what that means.

Yale has an endowment of $12.7 billion. Through its investment team it earned about 17 percent per year, or one billion dollars every few months. Stein notes that with such staggering profits, those gains dwarf whatever pitiful little gifts that he might offer. By comparison his donations of several thousand dollars to other organizations that promote animal rights or assist widows of deceased American vets does far more good. “There are only a few tens of thousands of us alums, so what we give has to be totally insignificant… Why give them money, then?” Donating thousands of dollars is “virtually meaningless to Yale, so why bother giving to it?” Indeed. (Full disclosure: I am not a Yalie, but am married to one).

If we care deeply about human rights or similar public concerns, Stein raises the serious question of why we should divert funds to fantastically rich organizations like Yale Law School instead of human rights organizations that can directly and materially benefit from every single dollar we donate. Yale University earns from its endowment about 6 million dollars a day, or about $4,000 per minute. Rather than give to Yale, why shouldn’t Yale alums give to an organization like International Justice Mission? When I was in India this summer working with IJM, it was clear that a few thousand dollars would pay the annual salary of an Indian human rights lawyer working daily to free those in bonded labor or child prostitution. So with $4,000, an alum could give one minute to Yale, or one year to IJM? Why give money to the anointed “little princes or princesses” at Yale Law School (Stein’s term) instead of the true nobility of our profession who desperately need our support?

Now I do not mean to paint with a broad brush and suggest that all gifts to all law schools are similarly suspect. Certainly gifts to many law schools can make a dramatic difference in the life of that school. For example, Yale’s endowment earns in a few months the total endowment of my current employer. If one of our alums makes a gift to help fund our newly established human rights initiative that is fighting religious discrimination in remote parts of the world, it will materially and dramatically improve the experiences of our most inspired students and their clients. I would suspect most schools are in a similar situation. (The average university endowment is $361 million, and the median is $72 million).

Rather than make a donation to the fat and happy Yale Bulldogs, why shouldn’t Yale Law alums donate a real live bull to the desperate and starving through Heifer International? Better yet, why not have the Yale Law School Dean (whom I greatly respect) spend countless hours campaigning for their alums to make donations to human rights organizations in the school’s name out of a deep sense of institutional gratitude and an abiding commitment to human rights? The capital campaign could announce that Yale would donate one dollar of every two dollars raised from alums to a truly needy non-profit organization of their choice. That may be the best way for Yale to continue to win Ben Stein’s money.

Related links:
For Loyalty, For Irrationality, and For Yale

Before we get too excited (see Chris’ post here) about the U.N.’s wonderful effectiveness in the investigation of Harari’s death, it is worth pointing out that allegations of high level U.N. interference have been circulating almost from the moment the report was released. In particular, the electronic version of the U.N. Harari report contained embedded text of last-minute changes. According to the Times of London, these changes removed”[t]he names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle . . .” and instead pointed to “unnamed Syrian officials.” Obviously, the U.N. may have good reasons for redacting the report, but its intervention here to protect the current Syrian president also points to one of the problems with investigations run by international organizations - they tend to try to avoid pointing fingers and end up with muddy, often useless conclusions in an attempt to avoid rocking the boat.

Suzanne Nossel at Democracy Arsenal has a good post on the UN report implicating the Syrian government in the Hariri killing.

She explains succinctly how and why the UN can play an important role in investigating such crimes, especially in situations where we, the U.S., cannot. Nor could anyone else (such as the E.U. or the ICC) have done the job.

This is another example of the value of a global organization such as the UN, despite its flaws.

There has been much speculation in various academic circles as to why Senator Dianne Feinstein–a liberal Democrat representing a state that has been at the vanguard in applying Alien Tort Statute–would propose amendments to the law. Here is her own statement as to why she perceives a change to be necessary:

“Many recent legal cases have demonstrated the need for clarification of the meaning and scope of lawsuits filed in our federal courts by foreigners for alleged violations occurring outside the United States… Judges have grappled in interpreting and applying the relevant law for years with no consensus. The lawsuits should be able to go forward, but judges need better legal tools to understand the cases that come before them….Right now, courts are essentially adrift in terms of being able to pinpoint the underlying meaning, scope and intent of the Alien Tort Statute. I hope this legislation will settle the questions that surround this 200-year-old law by providing a reasonable legal means that both plaintiffs and defendants can rely on to litigate their differences. It is time for Congress to bring clarity to the law and I believe this legislation does so.”

According to her press release, her proposed amendment would:

• Specify a legal standard convicting defendants of wrongdoing if they directly participate with specific intent to commit the alleged tort;
• Codify international claims under the Alien Tort law to include genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy;
• Expand on existing statutory law, the Torture Victim Protection Act;
• State that federal courts shouldn’t proceed with tort claims when the President adequately certifies that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the U.S.;
• Maintain that every effort should be made to try these cases in the country of origin before granting jurisdiction in U.S. courts;
• Invoke a 10-year statute of limitations on Alien Tort Statute charges filed against defendants; and
• Disallow contingency fee arrangements for legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, has introduced a potentially revolutionary amendment to every international lawyer’s favorite statute, the Alien Tort Statute. While Sen. Feinstein calls her amendment a “clarification,” it looks to me like she is proposing a near-complete evisceration of the Alien Tort Statute as we (international lawyers) know it. And such an evisceration is almost certainly a good thing.

Since 1980, when it was first invoked to allow aliens to bring suits alleging violations of international human rights law, the Alien Tort Statute has become a vehicle for advocates of international law within the U.S. International lawyers loved the statute because it opened the door to federal court vindication of customary international law, a type of law rarely recognized by courts in other contexts. In recent years, advocates have used the ATS to sue large corporations and, more recently, the U.S. government for alleged abuses arising out of the war on terrorism.

If enacted, the Feinstein amendment would continue to permit lawsuits for genocide, torture, slavery and slave trade, extrajudicial killing, and piracy. But, unlike the current open-ended ATS, those are the only claims you can bring under the statute (creative claims for violations of, say, international environmental rights, would not be permitted). Most importantly, the definition of these claims would be statutory as opposed to based on international custom, which is notoriously fuzzy and evolving.

The amendment has some other salutary provisions. It would give the President the power to terminate an lawsuit if he certifies in writing that the suit would have a “negative impact” on U.S. foreign policy. It also appears to shield corporations from theories of “aiding and abetting” liability by limiting damages to defendants who are “direct participants acting with specific intent to commit ” one of the specified torts.”

In sum, Sen. Feinstein is proposing that Congress “de-internationalize” the Alien Tort Statute. Instead of looking to foreign courts or international tribunals (or to international law professor articles), courts considering a claim under the ATS would look to the text of the statute and the legislative history. Victims of serious human rights abuses would still be able to bring their lawsuits, but they would have to meet U.S. statutory standards, and not fuzzy international ones.

I have no idea whether this bill has a good chance of passing, although I think its sponsorship by a moderate Democrat is very promising.

* Here are some key excerpts from the bill

‘‘§ 1350. Alien’s action for tort
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS.—The district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action brought by an alien asserting a claim of torture, extrajudicial killing, genocide, piracy, slavery, or slave trading if a defendant is a direct participant acting with specific intent to commit the alleged tort. The district courts shall not have jurisdiction over such civil suits brought by an alien if a foreign state is responsible for committing the tort in question within its sovereign territory.

‘‘(e) FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.—No court in the United States shall proceed in considering the merits of a claim under subsection (a) if the President, or a designee of the President, adequately certifies to the court in writing that such exercise of jurisdiction will have a negative impact on the foreign policy interests of the United States.

From this Thursday through Saturday, the American Branch of the International Law Association (and co-sponsors including the NY City Bar and the American Society of International Law) will hold International Law Weekend 2005 at the House of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 42 West 44th Street, NY, NY. Links to the program and registration materials are available here.

Registration is free for students and members of one of the co-sponsoring organizations. Otherwise, registration is $50.

If you are attending, please swing by to say hello to Roger or me as we will both be there. Roger will moderate a panel entitled “The Charming Betsy and the Role of Presumptions in International Law” (4:00 pm to 5:30 pm on Friday, October 21st ) and I will moderate a panel on UN Reform and the ICJ (2:15 pm to 3:45 pm on Friday, October 21st).

We hope to see you there.

Michael Scharf at Case Western Law School, together with a group of other law professors and professionals with deep knowledge about international war crimes tribunals, has put together a very useful website and blog on the Saddam Hussein trial, aptly named Grotian Moment. It is well worth a visit.

Update: Of course, Julian posted this blog endorsement a couple of weeks ago. Two endorsement are better than one, no? We’ll add Grotian Moment to the blogroll for easy access.

The U.S. entered into a new round of negotiations this week with the E.U. for “open skies” air transport agreements. These agreements govern the terms of air traffic rights between U.S.-based and E.U. based-carriers, and the intention is to liberalize these rules so that air carriers can fly to directly to more cities on each side. In other words, more direct flights to more places. This could only be a good thing. Maybe one day, I’ll be able to take Lufthansa from NY to San Francisco.

Air transport seems to be an area that could use more, rather than less, international coordination. Even the WSJ($) editorial page seems to think so. There is the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) but the important agreements appear to be bilateral, such as this recent agreement between the U.S. and Mali. On the other hand, since the majority of the world’s air traffic flows between the U.S. and Europe, perhaps no worldwide negotiations are needed.

Moreover, none of these current agreements appear to require U.S. Senate confirmation or any congressional confirmation. Talk about unchecked executive power! But Congress’ non-involvement may also explain why there are so many (72 and counting) and why they are so uncontroversial.

Sometimes, countries really act in ways that don’t appear motivated by narrow material self-interest. Australia’s recent campaign to win a Security Council referral against Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is a good example of this type of moralist foreign policy. Australia has no obvious national interests at stake in Southern Africa. It stands pretty much alone in its level of outrage. But it is outraged nonetheless and it is taking action.

“Ultimately it is Ugandans who have to decide what is best for them. Whatever they choose, it should not hinder reconciliation and healing and yet it should not encourage impunity and hurt the victims yet again,” said Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It appears Ugandans may not know which path is best for them, leaving successful prosecution before the ICC in a state of uncertainty.

Related links
ICC Watch: Uganda Arrest Warrants Unsealed
Peaceful Settlements in Uganda Jeopardized by ICC Arrest Warrants

Meanwhile, Jon Holdaway, a former JAG officer over at Intel-Dump, objects to the McCain Amendment for a completely different reason:

Both Lederman and Holdaway think the McCain Amendment that may eventually become law is a step backwards, but for very different reasons.

What is fascinating in this debate over detainee interrogation is the larger debate over the role of Congress and the Executive branch on what is essentially an administrative law question: whether Congress shall impose strict rules or general guidance on how an agency of the Executive branch conducts its affairs. The general approach of our administrative state is one of broad grant of authority from the legislative branch and trust in agency expertise to carry out the congressional mandate. The McCain Amendment appears to be one of those instances in which the legislative branch is stepping in because it now lacks confidence in the agency to exercise its expertise.

But of course, as anyone who has studied the Eighth Amendment or the Torture Convention in any detail well knows, precisely what terms like “cruel or unusual punishment,” or “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment is an exceedingly difficult question. If we apply an administrative law gloss to the McCain Amendment, what are we to do if executive agencies interpret those words broadly or narrowly? Courts likely will defer to agency interpretations of what is “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment. Hence the McCain Amendment may not have particularly cabined executive authority in any significant way. Administrative law principles will blunt any major impact it might otherwise have.

I am curious if others have thoughts on whether this administrative law gloss on the McCain Amendment is correct.

Related links:
What Congress Has Done and Not Done to Limit Inhumane Treatment
Congress Speaks–Defining Detainee Interrogation Policies

Sometimes being virtuous pays off. The Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights has been awarded jointly to Justice Richard Goldstone and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour. The two well-known figures from the human rights community will share the prize of $75,000. Thomas Dodd, the father of current U.S. Senator from Connecticut Chris Dodd, served as an executive trial counsel at Nuremberg.

The prize has only been awarded twice, so it doesn’t quite have the pedigree of the Nobel Prize. Still, if the trend continues, it could be a nice bonus for those folks who make a living promoting or advocating for international human rights. Perhaps like the Nobel Peace Prize, politics is unavoidable. This year’s prize winners are openly critical of the U.S. policies toward the war on terrorism, and I am somehow guessing that taking this line against the U.S. is going to be de rigeur for future winners. Which means, I suppose, I’m never going to win this prize. Not that anyone was planning on nominating me, but it would be nice to have a little extra cash.

The ICC Prosecutor has unsealed the arrest warrants issued in July 2005 against five leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The warrants can be found here. Not surprisingly, these warrants allege pretty grisly crimes including:

murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements … abducted civilians, including children, …to have been forcibly recruited as fighters, porters and sex slaves and to take part in attacks against the Ugandan army (UPDF) and civilian communities.

I am generally sympathetic to Roger and Peggy’s criticism of the effect an ICC intervention into a delicate peace negotiation, although I do think it is worth noting that the ICC does have some moral (and maybe) legal obligation to act. As one of its arrest warrants has pointed out, “LRA commanders are allegedly inclined to launch retaliatory strikes, thus creating a risk for victims and witnesses who have spo