Opinio Juris » Blog Archive » Harold Koh Speaks to ABA Committee

Harold Koh Speaks to ABA Committee

by Deborah Pearlstein

Given our past discussions about State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh on this list, I thought I’d pass along word of an upcoming event some might find of interest. My colleagues at the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security are hosting a breakfast discussion with Koh this coming Tuesday, March 16, from 8:00-9:00 a.m. The event is open to the public and will be held at the University Club, 1135 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Registration is required, as is payment: the cost is $25.00 per person. If readers in the D.C. area are interested in attending, contact committee staffer Matthew Owens, owensm@staff.abanet.org.

No Related Post

March 10th, 2010 - 9:27 AM EDT | Trackback Link |

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/03/10/harold-koh-speaks-to-aba-committee/

3 Responses

Response…

3.10.2010
at 1:40 pm EST Kenneth Anderson
Hope someone asks him what his thinking on targeted killings is.
Best,
Ben

3.10.2010
at 8:44 pm EST Benjamin Davis

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

[...] Opinio Juris » Blog Archive » Harold Koh Speaks to ABA Committee [...]

3.10.2010
at 11:26 pm EST 10 Web Marketing Trends for 2010

Posts of Interest

July 23, 2010
The Kosovo Advisory Opinion, Self Determination, and Secession
Now that I've had a chance to read through the ICJ's advisory opinion, following are a few initial reactions. (I will consider the separate opinions in another post.

June 21, 2010
Opt-Ins and Opt-Outs
Dapo Akande has an important post today at EJIL: Talk! that asks, as he puts it, "what exactly was agreed in Kampala on the crime of aggression?" I think this paragraph is particularly important: The opt out provision is the most confusing aspect of the aggression amendments. Who exactly is required to opt out? Once the requisite number of ratifications are reached and a decision is made in or after 2017 to activate the aggression provisions, are all States parties to be regarded as bound such that the ICC has jurisdiction over aggression committed by the nationals of all States parties unless they opt out? Or does the ICC only have jurisdiction over nationals of States parties who have accepted/ratified the amendment unless that State party opts out? Bill Schabas and Kevin Jon Heller appear to believe that the all States parties are bound unless they opt out.

June 16, 2010
Padania Beats Kurdistan in World Cup Final!
Padania's victory was not in the football (American translation: "soccer") World Cup being played in South Africa but in the one that was just played in Gozo. You know, the Viva World Cup, the tournament among the unrecognized states of the world.

June 16, 2010
Are the Aggression "Understandings" Valid?
Readers who have been following the Review Conference are most likely aware that the delegates adopted by consensus seven "understandings" concerning aggression in addition to a definition of the crime, the conditions of jurisdiction of the crime, and the elements of the crime. I believe that those understandings have no actual force and should be ignored by the judges when they begin to apply the new aggression provisions.

June 15, 2010
Oklahoma's Unnecessary Law to Ban Citation of Sharia and International Law
According to news reports, Oklahoma voters will consider a proposed amendment to their state constitution this fall that would ban "an local courts from considering Shariah or other international law in their rulings. " I have little doubt it will pass, and that (since it is an amendment to the OK Constitution) it is constitutional.

Harold Koh Speaks to ABA Committee

Related Posts

3 Responses

Trackbacks and Pingbacks