[James G. Stewart is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia Law Faculty. Until recently, he was on the board of the Conflict Awareness Project, but had no role in this investigation.] Something momentus happened in Switzerland last week—national prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into one of the world’s leading gold refineries, for pillaging Congolese natural recourses. Pillage, of...
On Tuesday, Saudia Arabia made official its rejection of a highly sought after seat on the UN Security Council in a letter to the President of the General Assembly. The letter confirmed in writing its surprise decision of October 18 (announced less than 24 hours after its election) to forgo a prestigious seat on the Council. The letter now enables...
I am delighted to announce the publication of a new book that I co-edited with my colleague and dear friend Gerry Simpson, The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials. As the title indicates, the book contains a number of essays that discuss little-known trials (such as the Franco-Siamese Mixed Court) or re-narrate better known but misunderstood trials (such as the...
On November 6, the United States signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury and deposited an instrument of acceptance indicating its consent to be bound by the treaty on its entry into force, making it the first nation to do so. Here's how UNEP summarizes the Convention: The Minamata Convention for Mercury is a global treaty to protect human health and the...
Your weekly selection of international law and international relations headlines from around the world: Middle East The UN said it had halted work on all but one of its 20 Gaza building projects as a result of an Israeli ban on importing building materials into the Palestinian enclave. The UN estimates that about 9.3 million people in Syria, or about 40 percent of the population,...
Events The Leitner Center for International Law at Fordham University is hosting Global Rights and Local Challenges: Disability, Inclusive Education and Rural Environments, a panel discussion that will highlight the backdrops of rural poverty and educational underdevelopment as barriers to inclusion and to education for persons with disabilities. A film screening of In the Shadow of the Sun will follow the event on Friday, November 15th...
This week on Opinio Juris, we brought you a healthy diet of treaties, chemical weapons, drones, and a sprinkle of terrorism. Duncan rounded up various treaty related news items this week, and argued that US treaty practice does not have to be a zero-sum game. Peter posted about the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearings on a possible Understanding that would limit...
Peggy, Julian, Duncan and I took a stab at a podcast discussion of Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments in Bond v. United States. [audio mp3="https://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/oj-podcast.mp3"][/audio] You can now find an audio of the argument itself here. Mentioned in the course of the discussion are related posts by David Golove and Michael Ramsey here and here. The Nick Rosencranz Harvard Law Review article that...
[Michael W. Lewis is a Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University. He is a former Navy aviator and Topgun graduate.] Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International released reports last week criticizing the use of drones in Yemen and Pakistan. Both reports have significant flaws in the way the factual information was presented and in how they characterize international law and US...
[William S. Dodge is Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. He and Professor Sarah H. Cleveland filed an amicus brief in Bond v. United States arguing that the Offenses Clause provides an additional basis for upholding the constitutionality of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.]
The difference between signature and ratification was not the only point of misunderstanding about treaties at the oral argument in Bond v. United States. Both counsel for the petitioner Paul Clement and some of the Justices also seemed confused about self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Under U.S. law, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is a non-self-executing treaty. Article VII(1) provides that “[e]ach State Party shall, in accordance with its constitutional processes, adopt the necessary measures to implement its obligations under this Convention” and, in particular, shall “prohibit natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory . . . from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention, including enacting penal legislation with respect to such activity.” Justice Kagan asked if the treaty could have been self-executing, a possibility Mr. Clement seemed willing to entertain (transcript p. 7). Justice Scalia seemed to think that self-executing treaty would be better because it would require implementation by the states of the United States (transcript p. 33), though he was mistaken because a self-executing treaty binds the judges of every state under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Justice Breyer seemed to think that a self-executing treaty would be worse because it would cut out the House of Representatives (transcript p. 48). And Solicitor General Verrilli made the point that if “a self-executing treaty that requires the President to negotiate and two-thirds of the Senate to ratify it, can impose an obligation of that kind, then it has to be the case that a non-self-executing treaty . . . that has . . . the additional structural protection of the passage of legislation by the Senate and the House and being signed into law by the President, can do what the self-executing treaty can do” (transcript pp. 32-33). Verrilli’s point echoes one that has been made by Rick Pildes, among others, in response to Nick Rosencranz’s reading of the Treaty Power.
The problem with all of this is that it makes little sense in the context of a criminal case like Bond.
Lots of commentary today here and elsewhere on yesterday's oral arguments in Bond v. United States, with vote-counters quick to predict the Court will retreat from Missouri v. Holland and the question is only how much. I have views on the merits, but, frankly I'm having trouble getting passed the fact that two Supreme Court justices, the Solicitor General, and one of...
Very interesting hearing yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. C-Span video here. Treaty opponents are focused on the associated Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (charged with considering state-party compliance) and the risk of evolving treaty meanings. It's perfect terrain on which to transpose longstanding anxieties regarding activist...
