Archive for
June, 2014

Canada Citizenship-Stripping Law (Probably) Violates International Law

by Peter Spiro

Canada last week enacted a major amendment (Bill C-24) to its citizenship law. As a general matter it makes citizenship harder to get and easier to lose. Residency periods for naturalization are lengthened and physical presence requirements toughened up, English and civics tests will apply more broadly, and naturalization fees are tripled. This on top of the elimination of the “golden visa” program through which many (mostly Chinese) secured permanent residence through investment. These moves are all well within Canada’s sovereign discretion over its citizenship practices (whether they are good policy or not is another question – for an excellent critical analysis, see this from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers).

But there are two provisions are at least problematic and may violate international human rights.

1. Naturalization applicants will now need demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada after naturalization. This is a response to the phenomenon of “naturalization as exit strategy” — one we are seeing in the U.S. as well. A growing number of long-term permanent residents are naturalizing only once they want to go back home to their countries of origin. With Canadian citizenship, they know they can freely travel back to Canada to visit friends and relatives, and perhaps also to take advantage of the social welfare net (remember: Canada has universal health care). Acquiring citizenship becomes a kind of insurance. This template for naturalization is the opposite of the traditional sequence, in which naturalization is the final act of commitment to the new community. The amendment means to end it.

Some fear that the new requirement will be used to de-naturalize anyone who moves abroad after naturalization (on the theory of fraudulent intent), and in any event the requirement is likely to have a chilling effect on those who would like to. It discriminates against naturalized citizens, since native-born Canadians are free to leave the country and keep their citizenship in the process. That’s in tension with an emerging norm under which naturalized and native born citizens should be equal before the law (see for example article 5(2) of the European Convention on Nationality).

Key to how this plays out: whether it is enforced (one can imagine not at all — in the way that the naturalized U.S. citizens are never held to the renunciation oath).

2. The government gets the power to strip individuals for convictions relating to treason, spying, or terrorism. Here Canada follows a British lead. But the Canadian measure may be the more problematic. The British law extends a very broad power to the Home Secretary to revoke citizenship where it is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.” That would seem worse than the Canadian approach, which at least requires a conviction. But because it requires a conviction, the Canadian measure is more clearly penal — expatriation is tied to the criminal activity. The result looks like banishment. The U.S. Supreme Court long ago found the penal use of expatriation to violate the constitution, in a 1958 decision (Trop v. Dulles) that drew extensively on international law norms prevailing even in the mid-twentieth century against the penal use of expatriation.

Moreover, this ground of revocation discriminates against dual citizens. The law does not apply where it would result in statelessness, so mono-nationals are insulated. This argument has had some traction against the UK measure, which until recently at least also discriminated against dual citizens. To the extent that maintenance of dual citizenship is framed as a human right, the new Canadian law burdens it.

Both elements are already being challenged in Canadian courts. It will be interesting to see whether international law enters into the constitutional equation. In any case forgive me for suffering just a touch of legal schadenfreude in seeing our usually internationally law-abiding northern neighbor push the envelope much harder than we are. This is one context in which the U.S. probably has it right in keeping expatriation out of the counterterror mix.

Events and Announcements: June 29, 2014

by An Hertogen

Call for papers

  • Professor Julian Killingley and Dr Jon Yorke are calling for contributions to a new volume on “International Law and American Exceptionalism“, to be published in the Ashgate Series: Controversies in American Constitutional Law. This edited collection engages with the controversies surrounding the relationship of international law and American domestic law. It deals with a variety of approaches to the use/restriction/rejection of international law by Congress and the American courts through engaging with international legislation (in both “hard” and “soft” forms) and the increasingly important discourse on international judicial dialogue. The collection will bring together scholarship from different disciplines in analysing this issue, and we encourage contributions from both sides of the American political spectrum. We want to provide a platform for both conservative and liberal approaches to the issue of the utility of international law. The critique supplied can be multidisciplinary, including: legal, sociological, political, psychological and philosophical enquiry. More information is here.

Announcements

  • OGEL has published a new issue, as special on Governance of Unconventional Gas Outside the United States of America. Interested readers can find the editorial and abstracts of the papers 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.

Milestone: The EU Signs Association Agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia

by Chris Borgen

On Friday, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia signed the Association Agreements with the European Union that have been at the center of so much controversy among Russia, the EU, and these states. Preventing Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia from signing these agreements had become an important foreign policy goal for Moscow (see, for example: 1, 2, 3) after significant pressure, and perhaps some incentives, from Moscow, former Ukrainian President Yanukovich’s decided at the last minute not to sign the agreement at the EU’s summit in Vilnius in November precipitated the demonstrations that began in Kiev. Those were followed by Yanukovich fleeing, Russia’s intervention in and annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing tensions over the future of Ukraine. Moldova and Georgia have also faced threats of economic and/or energy embargoes as well as the ongoing Russia-backed separatist issues in Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.

After the diplomatic disputes and the pipeline politics, the secessionist movements and Russian military incursions, Maidan Square and Crimean annexation, the signing of these treaties are a significant milestone, and hopefully a turning point. Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia are committing themselves to a path of greater economic and normative integration with the EU. The EU is committing itself to allowing market access to the EU; more generally, the EU will likely become increasingly involved the in the internal policies of these countries, although they are not member states.

What is clear is that this is a significant moment, President Poroshenko of Ukraine called it the most important moment for his country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. What is not yet clear is how relations with Russia will evolve from this point. Here are some issues to consider… Continue Reading…

Weekend Roundup: June 14-27, 2014

by An Hertogen

This fortnight on Opinio Juris, Kevin and Deborah discussed the OLC’s legal justification of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, which Kevin called murder. Kevin then replied to a response by Jamie Orr on the issue of the CIA’s entitlement to invoke the public authority justification. Deborah analysed what procedural protection the Fifth Amendment requires before a citizens can be targeted and discussed the key legal limits on the scope of U.S. targeting authority identified in the memo.

Kevin posted how US drone strikes now also target citizens of US allies, as witnessed by the recent killings of two Australian citizens. More Australians made the blog, as Kevin wrote about Tony Abbott’s mistaken belief that the rule of law would be observed in Egypt’s prosecution of Peter Greste, the Australian Al-Jazeera journalist, and his colleagues.

Kevin also analysed the US self-defence argument in relation to the killing of Abu Khattallah, discussed Fatou Bensouda’s request for the UNSC to investigate the role of UN peacekeepers in covering up crimes in Darfur, and drew our attention to Charles Taylor’s detention situation in the UK, as discussed in his request to be transferred to a prison in Rwanda. Finally, he asked readers for insights on the OTP’s motivations when dropping its appeal against Katanga.

Deborah discussed potential international law obstacles against US airstrikes in Iraq, even at the request of the Iraqi government.

Lest you think this blog has become the Kevin and Deborah show, Kristen wrote about the relevance of Security Council acts for the formation of customary international law.

As always, we listed events and announcements (1, 2) and Jessica wrapped up the news. For those of you in the UK, you can see Kevin in action on Monday night during a LSE roundtable on Syria and international justice.

Have a nice weekend!

Why Did Katanga Drop His Appeal? And Why Did the OTP?

by Kevin Jon Heller

Many people are surprised that Germain Katanga has dropped his appeal, particularly given Judge Van den Wyngaert’s savage dissent. I’m not surprised in the least, because it locks in his sentence, which the OTP planned to appeal. Katanga’s 12-year sentence is even shorter than Lubanga’s, and he has already spent seven years in pre-trial detention. In fact, he’ll be eligible for sentence review in little more than a year.

To be sure, if Katanga thought he had a good chance of overturning his conviction on appeal, I’m sure he would have rolled the dice. But I think his assessment of that likelihood was spot-on. As I’ve noted before, the verdict was a disaster for the OTP — had the Trial Chamber majority not appointed itself backup prosecutors, Katanga would have walked. And despite Judge Van den Wyngaert’s impressive dissent, the Appeals Chamber was very unlikely to disapprove of the Trial Chamber’s unfair use of Regulation 55. After all, the Appeals Chamber has already issued two horrible decisions affirming its applicability.

The big question in my mind is why the OTP agreed to drop its appeal, which was obviously part of a quid pro quo. Unlike Katanga, the OTP had little to lose by appealing — there is no way the Appeals Chamber would have reduced Katanga’s sentence, and for the reasons above it’s equally unlikely it would have overturned his conviction.

If any readers know — or can intelligently speculate about — the OTP’s motivations, please weigh in below.

Are Security Council acts relevant to the formation of Customary International Law?

by Kristen Boon

Just like General Assembly resolutions can be indicative of state practice and opinio juris, I have always assumed that acts of the Security Council – an organ of the UN, composed of states – would be relevant as evidence and to the formation of customary international. Significantly, however, Security Council acts do not feature in the first report of the Special Rapporteur Sir Michael Wood, on the ILC’s current study on the formation of custom.  A word search reveals “zero” matches with Security Council, while the General Assembly comes up 13 times. There is no explanation in the report for why Security Council acts are not relevant to custom.

Given the Security Council’s power to legislate, this omission is both interesting and significant. One could surmise it is due to the Council’s composition – its members number 15 – as opposed to the universal membership of the General Assembly. Perhaps its not a big enough cross section, even though the P5 would presumably be big players in determining custom. Or perhaps it is related to the fact that the Council can act inconsistently, not always applying principles consistently in like cases. Further still, perhaps it emanates from distrust of the Council’s occasional role as a legislator. Indeed, if Security Council acts (and as a subsidiary matter, statements of Council members during meetings of the Security Council) are relevant to custom, then those same customary rules would bind the UN (and the Council as an organ of the UN), which raises important considerations with regards to the perennial debate about what legal limits apply to the Security Council.

The Council’s capacity to bind member states, and derivatively International Organizations, under Articles 25 and 48 is well established. Its ability to override inconsistent law under Article 103, and its demonstrated propensity to legislate in areas like anti-terrorism, and the many calls in the mid-2000s for Council power to be curbed through judicial review or other means, would lead one to expect at least consideration of the Council’s role.  It is noteworthy that in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat’s on the same topic, the Security Council is mentioned twice in relation to non-recognition of acts in breach of peremptory norms (citing the ILC’s commentary on State responsibility, which in turn cites Council resolutions on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the situation in Rhodesia.) I note that Greg Fox and I are interested in the question of Security Council legislation, and are now embarking on an empirical assessment of the Council’s law-making in relation to the field of armed conflict.  As a result, I may have a vested interest in the debate…  Nonetheless, what do readers think:  should Security Council decisions be considered in regards to the formation of customary international law?

Syria and International Justice at the LSE

by Kevin Jon Heller

I will be participating in a roundtable about Syria and international justice next Monday night at the LSE. It’s free and open to the public, so I hope at least a few OJ readers will come. You can also send questions to the following hashtag: #LSESyriaICC. We will try to answer at least a few of them!

Here are the event details:

Syria and International Justice
LSE Centre for International Studies Dialogue
30 June 2014
6.30-8pm at LSE
Thai Theatre
New Academic Building

With a draft Security Council resolution to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court vetoed, what, if anything, should the international community or other interested actors do to achieve justice in Syria?

SPEAKERS

Kevin Jon Heller, Professor of Criminal Law, SOAS. @kevinjonheller
Dov Jacobs, Asst Professor of Int’l Law, Grotius Centre. @dovjacobs
Mark Kersten, Researcher, LSE. Justiceinconflict.org. @MarkKersten
Jason Ralph, Professor of Int’l Relations, University of Leeds. @JasonRalph4
Leslie Vinjamuri, Senior Lecturer in IR, SOAS. @londonvinjamuri

CHAIR

Kirsten Ainley, Director of LSE CIS. @kirstenainley

The CIA and the Public Authority Justification: A Response to Orr

by Kevin Jon Heller

Jamie Orr has responded to my previous post on the drone memo, in which I argue that the OLC fails to adequately defend its conclusion that the CIA is just as entitled to the public-authority justification (PAJ) as the DoD. It’s a thoughtful response, and I appreciate Dean Orr taking the time to write it. But I don’t find his arguments convincing.

Orr begins by citing Art. 43 of the First Additional Protocol (AP I), which defines the armed forces as “all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates.” In Orr’s view, that means the CIA qualifies as “armed forces” under Art. 43, because the CIA is responsible to President Obama, the Commander in Chief:

The CIA may not be a part of the US military, not subordinate to the Secretary of Defense, but it is hard to claim it is not in any way an armed “group” or “unit” which is under the Command of the responsible party – the same person with responsibility for the military services, namely the Commander in Chief.

Orr’s argument, however, proves too much. By his logic, every armed organisation in the federal government that is ultimately responsible to Obama would qualify as the “armed forces” of the US — the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, even the US Marshals Service. That can’t possibly be correct.

To be fir, Orr recognises that it is not evident a “paramilitary” group like the CIA qualifies as the armed forces of the US and thus has the right to participate in hostilities. In particular, he acknowledges that, at a minimum, the CIA would have to comply with the four criteria set out in Art. 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (GC III): (1) responsible command; (2) a fixed distinctive sign; (3) open carry of arms; and (4) compliance with IHL. Here is his argument that it does:

(a) and (c) seem to apply (remotely piloted aircraft are operated in the open). The claim is made that (d) applies. Does (b)? Hard to say, but it’s also hard to understand how this criteria has modern relevance with stand-off weapons of any sort.

I don’t think it’s hard to say at all that (b) is not satisfied. CIA agents does not wear uniforms, nor do they wear anything that identifies them as CIA — particularly at a distance. And why would they? The CIA is an intelligence organisation that operates almost exclusively in secret; as noted by its own website, the CIA’s mission is “conducting effective covert action as directed by the President.” Fixed distinctive signs are the last thing CIA agents would ever wear.

Indeed, that’s almost certainly why Orr downplays the role of a fixed distinctive sign, saying that its “hard to understand how this criteria has modern relevance with stand-off weapons of any sort.” But that comment gives away the ballgame. Orr is not really arguing that the CIA is entitled to participate in hostilities because its members comply with the four criteria in GC III, art. 4. On the contrary, he is arguing that the CIA only has to comply with three of the four criteria — conveniently, the three with which it can comply. The inconvenient fourth criteria is simply wished out of existence. (And note that the question is not whether the CIA’s weapons have a fixed distinctive sign; it’s whether the CIA’s agents have one. Which they don’t.) Lex ferenda, not lex lata.

Jamie Orr has responded to my previous post on the drone memo, in which I argue that the OLC fails to adequately defend its conclusion that the CIA is just as entitled to the public-authority justification (PAJ) as the DoD. It’s a thoughtful response, and I appreciate Dean Orr taking the time to write it. But I don’t find his arguments convincing.

Orr begins by citing Art. 43 of the First Additional Protocol (AP I), which defines the armed forces as “all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates.” In Orr’s view, that means the CIA qualifies as “armed forces” under Art. 43, because the CIA is responsible to President Obama, the Commander in Chief:

The CIA may not be a part of the US military, not subordinate to the Secretary of Defense, but it is hard to claim it is not in any way an armed “group” or “unit” which is under the Command of the responsible party – the same person with responsibility for the military services, namely the Commander in Chief.

Orr’s argument, however, proves too much. By his logic, every armed organisation in the federal government that is ultimately responsible to Obama would qualify as the “armed forces” of the US and be entitled to participate in hostilities — the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, even the US Marshals Service. That can’t possibly be correct.

To be fair, Orr recognises that it is not evident a “paramilitary” group like the CIA qualifies as the armed forces of the US and thus has the right to participate in hostilities. In particular, he acknowledges that, at a minimum, the CIA would have to comply with the four criteria set out in Art. 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (GC III): (1) responsible command; (2) a fixed distinctive sign; (3) open carry of arms; and (4) compliance with IHL. Here is his argument that it does:

(a) and (c) seem to apply (remotely piloted aircraft are operated in the open). The claim is made that (d) applies. Does (b)? Hard to say, but it’s also hard to understand how this criteria has modern relevance with stand-off weapons of any sort.

I don’t think it’s hard to say at all that (b) is not satisfied. CIA agents does not wear uniforms, nor do they wear anything that identifies them as CIA — particularly at a distance. And why would they? The CIA is an intelligence organisation that operates almost exclusively in secret; as noted by its own website, the CIA’s mission is “conducting effective covert action as directed by the President.” Fixed distinctive signs are the last thing CIA agents would ever wear.

Indeed, that’s almost certainly why Orr downplays the role of a fixed distinctive sign, saying that its “hard to understand how this criteria has modern relevance with stand-off weapons of any sort.” But that comment gives away the ballgame. Orr is not really arguing that the CIA is entitled to participate in hostilities because its members comply with the four criteria in GC III, art. 4. On the contrary, he is arguing that the CIA only has to comply with three of the four criteria — conveniently, the three with which it can comply. The inconvenient fourth criteria is simply wished out of existence. (And note that the question is not whether the CIA’s weapons have a fixed distinctive sign; it’s whether the CIA’s agents have one. Which they don’t.)

It is important to recognize, though, that Orr’s argument concerning Art. 43 of AP I and Art. 4 of the GC III is ultimately beside the point. Orr may think that, as a matter of international law, the CIA is part of the US’s armed forces and thus has the right to participate in hostilities. But the US government doesn’t. Footnote 44 in the drone memo makes that exquisitely clear…

OLC Memo Redux – The Bigger Picture

by Deborah Pearlstein

So did we learn anything new from the redacted OLC memorandum we didn’t already know from the earlier White Paper, Administration fact sheet, official speeches, testimony, and media leaks about the nature of the Administration’s legal theory supporting lethal targeting? Yes, several things, with important implications for operations going forward. The newly released memo has some key deficits (see, e.g., my criticism of its constitutional analysis), and as Kevin’s post notes, will not satisfy those (i.e. everyone except the United States) who reject the legal concept of a non-international/transnational armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda. But the analysis is detailed enough in this iteration to accomplish something the White Paper, etc. in important ways did not: identifying key legal limits on the scope of U.S. targeting authority.

Take the source-of-authority example. The earlier White Paper was remarkably successful in fudging whether the Administration was invoking the President’s Article II self-defense power under the Constitution, or the statutory AUMF, to support targeting operations. The White Paper likewise (notoriously) fudged whether it was invoking a UN Charter-based self-defense justification under international law (in which case concerns of imminence would be centrally relevant), or whether the United States believed itself in an armed conflict with AQAP such that the law of armed conflict applied (including limitations on who may be targetable). This memo is clear: the AUMF is the domestic source of legal authority, at least for the U.S. military, and the international law of armed conflict (LOAC) applies to constrain U.S. operations against AQAP. (While there is much redacted in the memo’s analysis of the nature of the CIA’s authority, it is certainly the case that the applicability of the “public authority” exception to the coverage of domestic murder statutes turns on a question of domestic, rather than international law. Here, even if the AUMF was not meant to authorize the CIA to do anything, the CIA has broad authority under Title 50 of the U.S. Code to engage in operations overseas, provided it has relevant Presidential approval and complies with requirements of congressional notification. In other words, I can imagine a straightforward explanation for why such an exception would apply to the CIA as well. That it is not evident from the memo is, I suspect, far more a function of redaction than absence of legal authority.)

The significance of the memo’s relative clarity (relative to the White Paper) is not that it forecloses the possibility that the Administration might carry out other targeting operations that are based solely on the President’s Article II self-defense power, drawing on its broad understanding of ‘imminence’ under international self-defense law; the memo is repeatedly at pains to limit its analysis to the particular circumstances of Awlaki’s case and foreclose nothing about the import of the law in other circumstances that might arise. Rather, the recognition that these bodies of law in such circumstances apply – and the analysis that accompanies that recognition – carries with it several implications for future operations.

For instance, as the memo acknowledges (citing relevant international law precedent), not every kind of violent clash rises to the level of a non-international armed conflict. The non-state party to the conflict must possess a sufficient level of organization (including an identifiable command structure) to count as a meaningful “party” to a conflict. AQAP, the memo concludes, is such a party. But for the same reason, the necessary implication of the memo’s reasoning is that a scattered set of vaguely sympathetic, violent bands of terrorists may well not rise to the level of a party to an armed conflict. More, the memo recognizes, there must be a certain level of ongoing violence between the parties – such that it is possible to distinguish between a circumstance in which the dramatic law of armed conflict is triggered, and a circumstance of sporadic violence by a criminal or terrorist group against a state in which ordinary criminal and human rights laws apply. In the memo, the existence of ongoing violence between the United States and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (circa 2010 when the memo was drafted) seems central to its conclusion that the level of sustained violence between the groups remained high enough to meet the armed conflict threshold. By the same token, assuming U.S. combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in the near term, that associated violence between the warring groups correspondingly drops there, and that Al Qaeda and the Taliban remain as relatively unsuccessful as they have been in recent years in carrying out attacks against the United States outside Afghanistan – this shift in the facts on the ground will have an important impact on the Administration’s continued ability to assert the applicability of LOAC. Put differently, when we leave Afghanistan, if violence drops as anticipated, LOAC-based domestic laws authorizing the use of force will run out.

Here’s another example. The memo – unlike the White Paper – directly engages the question who is targetable in LOAC. The White Paper made no mention of any LOAC targeting rules that limit Administration target selection, such as the rule that says civilians are not targetable “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (DPH) (AP II, art. 13). It likewise made no mention of the ICRC’s more recent guidance that in non-international armed conflicts, individuals who play a “continuous combat function” (CCF) are also targetable. Here, the memo appears squarely to embrace the CCF concept, quoting it directly: “’individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function,’ in which case they can be deemed to be members of a non-state armed group subject to continuous targeting.” CCF undoubtedly permits a broader range of targets in non-international armed conflict than had been permitted under the more limited DPH standard. But it is a standard – as opposed to no standard – nonetheless. One can serve a CCF if one is typically involved in the “preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities,” but not if one’s function, however “continuous,” is, for example, the financing of (or in other respects materially supporting) terrorist operations, which the ICRC does not count as “direct participation.”

Will/does the Administration always comply with these rules? What does the Administration think the scope of its targeting authority outside Awlaki’s case? These are among the still many questions unsurprisingly unanswered by the memo itself. But the identification of any legal standards is better than the preceding years of relative silence. We now have a better sense of the law as the Administration itself conceives it. If the Administration now fails to abide by the necessary implications of the applicability of these rules, we will be able to say, as definitively as the facts permit, its actions violate the law.

OLC Memo – The Due Process Piece

by Deborah Pearlstein

Much to say on the redacted version of the U.S. Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memorandum on targeted killing, released by a U.S. court yesterday. For now, let me start with U.S. constitutional law – namely, what does the Fifth Amendment require by way of procedural protection before a U.S. citizen like Awlaki may be lethally targeted?

Recall the earlier released DOJ White Paper on the topic had been clear its analysis was limited to the particular circumstances the intelligence community represented Awlaki presented: the use of “lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force if al-Qa’ida – that is, an al-Qa’ida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.” The memo’s effort to assess the due process requirements in this circumstance runs from page 38 to page 41. It begins by appropriately acknowledging that, because of Awlaki’s citizenship, the Fifth Amendment “likely” protects him even while he is abroad in such circumstances. The memo also correctly identifies Mathews v. Eldridge (a 1976 Supreme Court case assessing what process was due before the government could deprive an individual of property) as setting the test for assessing how much process is required in the targeting case as well; Mathews is the test the Hamdi Court applied in 2004 in determining that U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi, picked up on the Afghan battlefield, was entitled to notice of the reason for his detention and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral arbiter, once the exigency surrounding his battlefield seizure had past.

Here, the memo’s analysis becomes more problematic. Continue Reading…

Let’s Call Killing al-Awlaki What It Still Is — Murder

by Kevin Jon Heller

As everyone on Twitter knows by now, the US government has released the notorious memorandum in which the OLC provides the supposed legal justification for killing Anwar al-Awlaki. I’m a bit disappointed not to get a mention in the memo; people in the know have suggested that a post I wrote in April 2010 led the OLC to substantially rewrite it. Vanity aside, though, I’m more disappointed by the memo’s failure to adequately address the most important issue regarding the “public authority justification,” which is at the heart of the memo’s conclusion that it would be lawful to kill al-Awlaki: how can the CIA be entitled to the public-authority justification when the CIA had no authority to use force against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)?

To understand why that’s a problem, let’s step back and consider what the memo says about whether the Department of Defense (DoD) had the legal authority to kill al-Awlaki. Remember, the memo was written before al-Awlaki was killed, at a time when it wasn’t clear which organisation — the DoD or the CIA — would actually kill him. (It was also written long after al-Awlaki was put on the kill list, as Hina Shamsi reminds us.)

The memo begins by emphasizing (p. 14) that its analysis — for both the DoD and the CIA — turns on whether 18 USC 1119, the foreign-murder statute, incorporates the “public authority justification” (PAJ). Indeed, it notes in n. 24 that the PAJ is the only defence it will consider. The memo then concludes (p. 20), after five pages of analysis, that in fact s 1119 does incorporate the PAJ. It’s an impressive analysis, and I find it convincing. So let’s grant that the PAJ potentially applies to the killing of al-Awlaki.

The question then becomes: who can invoke the public authority justification? The memo has little problem concluding that the DoD would be entitled to it, because (p. 20) “the operation would constitute the ‘lawful conduct of war’ — a well-established variant of the public authority justification.” In reaching that conclusion, the memo argues (1) that the AUMF covers AQAP, (2) that al-Awlaki qualifies as a targetable member of AQAP; (3) that the US is involved in a NIAC with AQ, making the laws of war applicable; and (4) that the DoD had pledged to obey the laws of war in any lethal operation.

I would quibble with much of the analysis, particularly the memo’s discussion of the scope of the non-international armed conflict between the US and “al-Qaeda.” But I’m prepared to accept that, in the abstract, the DoD would be entitled to invoke the PAJ. My problem is with the memo’s casual assertion that the PAJ applies equally to the CIA, which actually killed al-Awlaki. Here is its conclusion (p. 32)…

Quote of the Day: Tony Abbott on the Rule of Law

by Kevin Jon Heller

Here he is, defending General Sisi, the new President of Egypt:

This is a general, but a general who has studied in both the United States and the United Kingdom, so he is certainly someone who is familiar with the rule of law.

Because everyone knows that you can’t learn about the rule of law outside the West. Duh.

PS. Abbott made his silly comment as a way of explaining why he was confident Egypt would not be unfair to Peter Greste, the Australian Al-Jazeera journalist accused — with no evidence whatsoever — of “spreading false news” and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Greste was just sentenced to seven years in prison. I guess Sisi didn’t pay enough attention in his US and UK classes.

Events and Announcements: June 22, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

Events

  • The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals will take place  on 18 July 2014 in Geneva. The seminar, the program of which is found here, will focus on the dialogue between the International Law Commission and international courts and tribunals. Members of the ILC, experts and practitioners will take part. The event is open to all.

Calls for Papers

  • The Editorial Board of Comparative Constitutional Law & Administrative Law Quarterly (CALQ) is inviting submissions for Vol. 2 No. 1 from legal academicians, professionals and students. The Journal attempts to initiate and foster academic dialogue concerning the subjects of Administrative Law and Constitutional Law keeping in mind a global perspective. More information can be found here.
  • Call for papers: Imagining post-neoliberal regulatory subjectivities @ Faculty of Law, University of Turku, Finland 15-17 October 2014. The Faculty of Law, University of Turku is pleased to announce a research seminar addressing post-neoliberal regulatory subjectivities. They have issued a call for papers dealing with different aspects of the “subjectivity turn”, understood here as the new art of neoliberal regulation aimed at producing actors with appropriate agency-a subjectivity. The papers could, for example, map the possible genealogies for the emergence of post-neoliberal law, or address the implications of anthropomorphic corporate regulation, or transformations in sovereign subjectivities. The organizers are able to pay for travel and accommodation for presenters.
  • Transnational Dispute Management has announced a new call for papers. The special will be edited by Craig Shepherd and Mike McClure and deals with “Arbitration in the Middle East – Expectations and Challenges for the Future.” 

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.

Analysing the US Invocation of Self-Defence Re: Abu Khattallah

by Kevin Jon Heller

Most of the discussion about Abu Khattallah’s capture in Libya has focused on the operation’s basis — or lack thereof — in domestic US law. Less attention has been paid to whether international law permitted the US to use force on Libyan soil. As Marty Lederman recently noted at Just Security, Abu Khattallah’s capture can potentially be justified on two different grounds: (1) Libya consented to the capture operation; or (2) the capture operation represented a legitimate act of self-defence under the UN Charter. The first justification does not appear open to the US; the available evidence indicates that the operation was conducted without Libya’s consent. So it’s not surprising that the US has claimed — in a letter submitted to the UN by Samantha Power on June 17 — that Article 51 permitted the operation:

The investigation also determined that [Abu Khattallah] continued to plan further armed attacks against U.S. persons. The measures we have taken to capture Abu Khattallah in Libya were therefore necessary to prevent such armed attacks, and were taken in accordance with the United States’ inherent right of self-defense. We are therefore reporting these measures to the Security Council in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Power’s letter obscures far more than it reveals. In fact, the US’s invocation of self-defence raises four very difficult questions:

  • Can a non-state actor launch an “armed attack” that triggers the right of self-defence?
  • If so, must that armed attack be attributable in some fashion to the state whose territory is the object of “self-defensive” force?
  • Do all uses of armed force qualify as an “armed attack” for purposes of Article 51?
  • Does the right of self-defence permit force to be used anticipatorily?

In this post, I want to put aside the first two questions. I have no doubt that a non-state actor can launch an armed attack within the meaning of Article 51, and my views on the “unwilling or unable” test are well-known. It’s worth spending some time, though, on the third and fourth questions.

The third question is interesting because it’s not clear that all uses of force qualify as “armed attacks” for purposes of Article 51. The UN Charter itself distinguishes between the “use of force” (Art. 2(4)) and “armed attack” (Art. 51), and the ICJ has suggested in both Nicaragua and Oil Platforms that at least some uses of force may be so de minimis that they do not entitle the victim state to use force in self-defence. (As opposed to taking other countermeasures.) On the other hand, customary international law seems to indicate that the threshold of force for an armed attack is extremely low. Here is Tom Ruys’ conclusion in his magisterial book “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter (p. 155):

In the end, customary practice suggests that, subject to the necessity and proportionality criteria, even small-scale bombings, artillery, naval or aerial attacks qualify as ‘armed attacks’ activating Article 51 UN Charter, as long as they result in, or are capable of resulting in destruction of property or loss of lives. By contrast, the firing of a single missile into some uninhabited wasteland as a mere display of force, in contravention of Article 2(4) UN Charter, would arguably not reach the gravity threshold.

In sum, the following general conclusions can be made: (1) the travaux of the Definition of Aggression suggest that a minimal gravity is indeed required and seem to rule out the aforementioned Option 3; (2) ‘concrete’ customary evidence nonetheless makes clear that the gravity threshold should not be set too high and that even small-scale attacks involving the use of (possibly) lethal force may trigger Article 51.

If Ruys is right — and he has examined state practice and opinio juris far more carefully than any other scholar writing on the use of force — the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi almost certainly was, in fact, an “armed attack” for purposes of Art. 51.

What, then, about the fourth question? Here is where the US claim of self-defence regarding the Abu Khattallah operation becomes problematic. The US clearly cannot use the original Benghazi armed attack to justify the operation — although a state’s response to an armed attack may not have to be immediate, the prohibition on armed force in Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter would be meaningless if a state could “pocket” an armed attack and respond to it with armed force much later — nearly two years later, in the case of Benghazi. Indeed, Power seems to acknowledge as much when she emphasises that Abu Khattallah was planning further armed attacks. Does that planning mean the capture operation was a legitimate act of self-defence by the US?

Answering that question, of course, requires us to address the temporal limits of self-defence under Art. 51. Three basic positions on that issue are possible:

  • Self-defence permits the use of force only in response to an armed attack; force cannot be used pre-emptively or preventively (“responsive self-defence”)
  • Self-defence permits the use of force to pre-empt an imminent armed attack but not to prevent a temporally more remote armed attack (“pre-emptive self-defence”)
  • Self-defence permits the use of force to prevent even a temporally remote armed attack (“preventive self-defence”)

Unfortunately, because of the US’s typical lack of transparency concerning its use of force, Power’s letter says nothing about the time-frame of the armed attacks Abu Khattallah was supposedly planning. (Nor does it provide any evidence of that planning, but that’s another question.) The time-frame doesn’t matter, however, if responsive self-defence is the correct position — as noted, the capture operation cannot be justified as a response to the original Benghazi attack.

Most readers — at least those in the West — will no doubt be inclined to reject responsive self-defence as too narrow, even though it is the only position consistent with the text of Article 51, which permits self-defence “if an armed attack occurs.” Surely customary international law does not require a state to wait until an armed attack has already taken place to defend itself, no matter what the UN Charter says.

This issue is much more difficult issue than it may appear. Those interested should read the relevant section of Ruys’ book; I’ll just quote his bottom line (pp. 341-42):

In light of the available evidence, it can be concluded that there has indeed been a shift in States’ opinio iuris insofar as support for pre-emptive self-defence, fairly rare and muted prior to 2001, has become more widespread and explicit in recent years. At the same time, it seems a bridge too far to claim that there exists today widespread acceptance of the legality of self-defence against so-called “imminent” threats. Such assertion tends to forego the opposition of a considerable group of mainly Latin-American, north-African and Asian States. In the present author’s view, it would therefore be more appropriate to argue that the crack in opinio iuris among States has widened, without, however, identifying one approach or the other as the majority view. The implication is that, taking account of the Charter “baseline” and the absence of a concrete precedent in State practice which convincingly demonstrates the international community’s support for some form of anticipatory self-defence, it is impossible to identify de lege lata a general right of pre- emptive – and a fortiori preventive – self-defence.

Ruys’ reference to the UN Charter’s “baseline” is important, because Art. 51’s adoption of responsive self-defence indicates that states who support a more relaxed concept of self-defence, such as the US, have the obligation to find sufficient state practice and opinio juris to establish a broader rule. And such state practice and opinio juris is simply lacking — unless, as is too often the case with custom, we simply ignore the views of the Global South.

Even if responsive self-defence is too narrow, however, that does not mean the Abu Khattallah operation was a legitimate act of self-defence. If the US had evidence that Abu Khattallah was about to launch another armed attack, it is reasonable to assume Powers would have said so in her letter. That she failed to do so thus seems to indicate — though is clearly not dispositive — that the US did not believe another armed attack was imminent when it launched the capture operation. Power’s letter may well indicate, therefore, that the US is promoting the broadest understanding of self-defence possible — preventive self-defence instead of pre-emptive self-defence. If so, as Ruys notes (pp. 336-38), the US is on shaky ground indeed:

[T]here can be no doubt that even among States adhering to the “counter-restrictionist” view, support for self-defence against non-imminent threats is virtually non-existent. Apart from the fact that the sponsors of Operation “Iraqi Freedom” avoided this justification, it may be observed that many States, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Uganda, Singapore or Liechtenstein, which professed support for anticipatory self-defence after 2002, nonetheless placed great weight on the imminence requirement. Germany, for instance, expressly denounced an erosion of the Charter framework and State practice via the notion of “preventive self-defence.” Likewise, the French politique de defense unequivocally “rejects… the notion of preventive self-defence.”

What is more, even the “traditional” adherents of the counter-restrictionist interpretation of Article 51 generally appear to uphold the imminence requirement. Despite bold statements by its Prime Minister on the need to adapt the UN Charter, Australia’s response to “In Larger Freedom” was rather cautious: it simply “[supported] reaffirmation by the Secretary-General that Article 51 of the Charter adequately covers the inherent right to self-defence against actual and imminent attack.” Israel called for an explicit recognition in the World Summit Outcome that States may use force in self-defence “in the event of both actual and imminent attacks.” As far as the British position is concerned, Attorney- General Lord Goldsmith in 2004 declared before the House of Lords that: “It is… the Government’s view that international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorize the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat that is more remote.”…

[W]e may therefore conclude that the trend in State practice has been broadly similar to that in legal doctrine: support for anticipatory self-defence has increased, but has by and large restricted this concept to imminent threats.

Again, in the absence of additional information, we cannot categorically reject the US’s insistence that the Abu Khattallah operation was a legitimate act of self-defence. But there is considerable reason to be skeptical. Indeed, the US’s lack of transparency concerning its understanding of Art. 51 of the UN Charter may well indicate it has adopted a position that even its closest allies formally disavow.

Bensouda Accuses UNAMID of Covering Up Sudanese Crimes

by Kevin Jon Heller

I’m not sure how I missed this, but these are very strong — and atypically blunt — allegations by Fatou Bensouda:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Fatou Bensouda urged the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to investigate reports that the UN peacekeeping force in Darfur (UNAMID) deliberately contributed in covering up crimes in the restive region.

In reference to US-based Foreign Policy (FP) magazine reports, Bensouda asked the council to authorize a “thorough, independent and public inquiry” probe into allegations that UNAMID being subject to “manipulation” through acts committed “with the intentional effect of covering up crimes committed against civilians and peacekeepers”.

FP obtained confidential internal UN memos from UNAMID ex-spokesperson Aicha ElBasri that asserts how the UN peacekeeping force suppressed negative information on violations that occurred in Darfur by Sudanese government and other parties.

The ICC prosecutor said that the responsibility for the “cover-up” may lie “with a handful of individuals” but warned that it undermines the credibility of the peacekeeping mission.

Africa Review adds some additional detail to ElBasri’s disturbing allegations:

Last April, former Unamid spokeswoman Aicha Elbasri, revealed that the unit had misinformed the UN by withholding important details about Darfur.

Unamid has observed the government forces indiscriminately bombing entire villages, targeting civilian and military targets alike. However, these observations are never publically reported in the regular updates by the UN Secretary General to the UNSC,” Ms Elbasri claimed.

She reported that the UN peacekeeping mission did not tell the world that the Khartoum government failed to disarm the Janjaweed militias; that it, conversely, reintegrated them into paramilitary forces under new names, and let them continue committing their widespread, systematic attacks directed against the civilian population in Darfur.

The UNAMID situation obviously requires a UN investigation, so it’s encouraging to see that Bensouda request was quickly supported by both Australia and Rwanda. The UK’s statement, however, is disappointingly tentative, suggesting that the Secretariat — and not the Security Council — should investigate. Given the seriousness of the allegations, that’s simply not good enough.

Bombing Iraq Doesn’t Just Pose Serious Questions of Domestic Law, International Law May Be a Problem, Too

by Deborah Pearlstein

My blogospheric colleagues have begun debating whether the Administration has sufficient domestic legal authority to proceed with what the Times has called a “targeted, highly selective campaign of airstrikes against Sunni militants in Iraq” – reportedly now under contemplation. Jack Goldsmith, for example, thinks it might, under the 2002 statute authorizing the President to use military force against the government of Iraq for the purpose of ridding it of its “weapons of mass destruction.” My friends at Just Security and elsewhere have usefully debunked this notion, and related others (like the idea I’ve argued against here, that ISIS can be considered any kind of “associate” of Al Qaeda).

But while I’d contest the idea that the discussion so far is “premature” – it is no doubt precisely a topic with which Administration lawyers are currently struggling – the doubtful legality of such a set of strikes under domestic law is made even worse by the likely illegality of such strikes under international law. That is, even if the United States could come up with a domestic statutory basis for some military action in Iraq – extant Title 50 covert action authorities are quite broad, for example – it would still struggle for the approval of our allies on international legal grounds. Here’s my thinking. Continue Reading…

Charles Taylor Requests Transfer to Rwanda

by Kevin Jon Heller

Full disclosure: Taylor is represented by John Jones QC, who is my colleague at Doughty Street Chambers.

Charles Taylor has filed a disturbing motion with the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Residual Mechanism, requesting that he be transferred from prison in the UK to a prison in Rwanda because of his mistreatment by the British government. Here are the key paragraphs from the motion’s introduction:

Charles Taylor is the first and only person sent by an international court to serve their sentence, against their wish, outside of their continent of origin. This previously invariable practice accords with a basic requirement of humane treatment: that prisoners should be able to receive periodic visits from their families. International human rights standards, including as recently affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in Khodorkovskiy, prohibit sending a prisoner unnecessarily for away from the habitual residence of family members, or otherwise creating obstacles that prevent periodic visits.

That is precisely the consequence of Mr. Taylor’s detention in the United Kingdom (“UK”). The extraordinary cost and difficulty of travel for Liberian citizens to the UK, given the financial circumstances of Mr. Taylor’s family, means that Mr. Taylor will seldom, if ever, see his wife and three young daughters, let alone the rest of his family, again. That deprivation will continue, given the length of Mr. Taylor’s sentence, for the remainder of his life unless significant measures are taken to facilitate those visits. The UK has, to the contrary, obstructed such visits. Visa requests by Mr. Taylor’s wife and two of his young daughters have been denied even though the UK was well aware of the purpose of the requested visit. Mr. Taylor has not seen his wife and children since being transferred to the UK eight months ago. This already constitutes a human rights violation: the ECtHR has specifically held that even shorter periods of deprivation of family contact constitute a violation of the right to family life.

Even if these legal impediments were to be surmounted, neither the UK nor the RSCSL has demonstrated any willingness to overcome the inherent difficulties and cost of travel to the UK so as to permit family visits of even a minimally acceptable frequency. The United Kingdom and the RSCSL are jointly and severally responsible for the violation of not only Mr. Taylor’s right to family life, but that of his family members. An immediate remedy is required to put an end to this ongoing violation, and a remedy is readily available to the RSCSL: terminate his enforcement in the UK and transfer Mr. Taylor to Rwanda.

Mr. Taylor’s isolation is exacerbated by the conditions in which he is, and must be, held in the UK. Mr. Taylor has been confined to the prison’s hospital wing, effectively in isolation, since his arrival there. The prison authorities believe, correctly, that Mr. Taylor is too much of a target and too vulnerable to be accommodated within the general prison population. The seriousness of the danger is underscored by the interception of an anonymous letter, possibly originating from within the prison itself, threatening Mr. Taylor with bodily harm and death. Radislav Krstić, whose crimes were less notorious than those for which Mr. Taylor has been found responsible, suffered a near-fatal attack by fellow inmates in a UK prison in 2010. The ICTY was apparently sufficiently concerned about the UK’s ability to ensure adequate conditions of detention for Mr. Krstić that he was transferred back to The Hague. The RSCSL should be equally concerned about the real threat faced by Mr. Taylor, and the unsuitability of a UK prison to ensure that he is kept in a situation that meets the minimum standards required by international law.

The RSCSL should accordingly exercise its authority pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Enforcement of Sentences Agreement between the Court and the UK on 10 July 2007 (“SCSL-UK Enforcement Agreement”) and immediately terminate the enforcement of Mr. Taylor’s sentence, and order that he be transferred directly to Rwanda or, in the alternative, to The Hague pending further deliberations. Rwanda is a location that will permit reasonably frequent family visits and provide Mr. Taylor with a safe environment without being segregated from all other prisoners.

The motion’s allegations, which are supported by hundreds of pages of annexes, are profoundly unsettling. I’d like to say I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more about Taylor’s situation, but I’m not: the media generally pay attention only to individuals accused of international crimes, producing article after article about the allegedly cushy conditions in the UN Detention Unit — the so-called “Hague Hilton.” Once defendants are convicted, journalists seem to lose interest in them. I hope this new motion will spur more coverage of post-conviction detention, which is anything but cushy even in places as “advanced” as the UK — as Taylor’s situation demonstrates.

It will be interesting to see if the SCSL takes the motion seriously. It should.

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, June 16, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

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

Africa

  • Three armed groups from northern Mali have agreed to begin peace talks with the government aimed at resolving long-standing disputes in the country. 
  • More than 50,000 children in South Sudan face death from disease and hunger, the United Nations has warned while seeking over $1bn to support those hit by six months of civil war.
  • Entire elephant populations are dying out in many African countries due to poaching on a massive scale, wildlife regulator CITES has warned, while also hailing the continent for improving its crackdown on ivory smuggling.

Asia

Europe

Middle East and Northern Africa

Americas

UN/Other

Lethal Drone Strikes — Not Just for American Citizens Any More!

by Kevin Jon Heller

Not surprisingly, drone strikes that kill American citizens have received the most attention in the press. So it’s important to emphasize that the US kills citizens of its allies, as well, such as the two Australians recently vaporized in Yemen:

TWO Australian citizens have been killed in a US airstrike in Yemen in what is the first known example of Australian extremists dying as a result of Washington’s highly controversial use of predator drones.

The Australian has been told the two men, believed to be in their 20s, were killed in a Predator drone strike on five al-Qa’ida militants travelling in a convoy of cars in Hadramout, in eastern Yemen, on November 19.

The men were Christopher Havard of Townsville and a New Zealand dual citizen who went by the name “Muslim bin John’’ and fought under the alias “Abu ­Suhaib al-Australi’’.

The Australian government, which insists it was given no ­advance warning of the strike, has positively identified the remains of the men using DNA analysis, with samples taken from families of the two men.

[snip]

A senior counter-terrorism source told The Australian the men were “foot soldiers’’ for al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qa’ida’s regional franchise based in Yemen.

It is understood US authorities notified Australian officials about the possibility Australian citizens might have been “collateral damage’’ in the strike, part of an ongoing campaign by the US and Yemeni governments to wipe out AQAP militants.

“The Americans advised us that they had intelligence that suggested they may have been in the car and may have been collateral damage,’’ the source said.

Note that although the drone strike did not target the two Australians, the Australian government knows for a fact that the men were “foot soldiers” for AQAP. And how does it know this? What evidence does it have? Who knows — taking a page from the US, the government won’t say. And some journalists are not impressed. Here is The Guardian‘s Antony Loewenstein:

Yet, uncertainty be damned, the Australian government seems to keep on supporting the CIA killings with most of the media following without question.

Fairfax Media headlined one story “Abbott government defends drone strike that killed two Australian Al-Qaeda militants” without challenging that the two men were, indeed, militants or affiliated with Al-Qaida – they may or may not have been, but innocent civilians have been killed by drones before. The sentence “alleged militants, according to the government” never appeared in the article (this is a relatively common habit in journalism – see for example this essential take-down of a New York Times report on drone killings in Yemen).

I’ve reported independently from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and accurate journalism requires finding reliable sources on the ground (or corresponding with individuals through email, phone, encryption or Twitter) who can confirm or challenge the official version. It’s not rocket science, though definitive information can be scarce in a war zone.

In the last days I’ve reached out to various sources in Yemen (some of the best are herehere and here) and asked Sanaa-based Baraa Shiban to comment. His answer is revealing. “The lack of transparency has became a fixed strategy for the US in its drone war. The US announced recently the death of almost 30 militants in a training camp in Abyan, south of Yemen, but can’t release a single name; this tells it all.”

Taking the word of security sources and the state, when this information is so often wrong or deliberately skewed by anonymous officials whostrategically leak to justify their counter-terrorism policies, is sadly all too common. “We don’t know the facts” is not a shameful statement. To be skeptical shouldn’t be a flaw, but an asset.

Skepticism as an asset, not a flaw. What a radical idea…

Hat-Tip: Bianca Dillon.

Events and Announcements: June 15, 2014

by An Hertogen

Events

  • BIICL is organising an event on ‘Due Diligence: From Rhetoric to Practice’ on Monday June 16, 2014 from 3.00-7.45pm. The event brings together expert speakers from a variety of backgrounds, including lawyers, academics, the private sector and non-governmental organisations. Their expertise will highlight the pertinent aspects of the UN Guiding Principles as a framework for all current approaches in this area as well as their practical implementation. More information and registration is here.
  • The Geneva Academy is holding an events on June 16 on The Situation of Women’s Rights 20 Years after the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. More information is here.

Announcements

  • Pretoria University Law Press (Pulp) has just published an original book on the highest courts of Brazil, India and South Africa (BISA countries). The book Transformative Constitutionalism: Comparing the Apex Courts of Brazil, India and South Africa, published in December 2013 and now fully available online, is the first scholarly account on how the BISA highest courts manage to implement their respective transformative constitutions, including a critical view on instances where those courts fall short of it. You can read the book 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: June 7 – 13, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin had a chuckle at Libya’s newest excuse why it missed the deadline for filing submissions to the ICC. He also called your attention to the work of Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO collecting testimonials from IDF on the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

Deborah discussed ongoing confusion between al Qaeda and ISIS, and the wider implications of such confusion for war policy decisions.

Julian wrote about the PR battle between China and Vietnam on the South China Sea and posted a link to his and John Yoo’s Forbes piece criticizing Bond v United States as a missed opportunity. In other treaty-related news, Duncan wondered how significant a new protocol to the ILO Convention on Forced Labor would be.

Michael Ramsey wrote a guest post on the latest round over the battle between Argentina and its bondholders over the application of the FSIA, and Chris closed the week with a tribute to Andreas Lowenfeld who passed away on June 9.

Finally, Jessica listed events and announcements and wrapped up the news.

Have a nice weekend!

Andreas Lowenfeld: A Life Illuminating the Path

by Chris Borgen

lowenfeld

photo: NYU Law School

I am sad to mark the passing of one of the giants of international law, and one of my teachers, Professor Andreas Lowenfeld of NYU Law School. His career was exemplary; Andy operated at the highest levels of practice and academia. In an era when so many scholars and practitioners become hyper-focused on one or two specific areas, Andy not only had incredible depth and precision, but also brought the panoramic view and sweeping vision of an earlier generation of international lawyers. Though perhaps best known for his work in international litigation and arbitration, that description does not capture his career. Consider this excerpt from his New York Times obituary:

Professor Lowenfeld was a towering figure in the fields of public international law, trade and economic law, private international law, and international arbitration. He served on the NYU Law faculty for 47 years, influencing generations of lawyers, and continued to teach International Litigation and Arbitration and International Monetary System among other courses until as recently as Spring 2013. Professor Lowenfeld wrote more than 18 books and authoritative legal treatises and over 115 law review articles and argued before the United States Supreme Court, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague. He made landmark contributions to legal scholarship and practice on issues as varied as extraterritorial jurisdiction, international arbitration, international monetary transactions, trans-border child abduction, international monetary law, investor-state dispute settlement, economic sanctions, enforcement of foreign judgments, aviation law, sovereign immunity, international trade, and civil procedure. His most recent work was a comprehensive treatise on International Economic Law. An avid supporter of the interaction between academics and practitioners, he was frequently an arbitrator in international disputes, public and private. He served as a Reporter on two major projects of the American Law Institute and was a lecturer twice at the Hague Academy, first in 1979 and later in 1994. In the 1994 lectures, he proposed criteria for a global community free of strict legal rules and based instead upon what he termed “reasonableness, not certainty.” One of the hallmarks of his work was his commitment to eliminating what he viewed as an unnecessary divide between public and private international law. In 2007, he was awarded the Manley O. Hudson Medal of the American Society of International Law for his lifelong achievements in the field of international law.

(Read the rest of the obituary here. See also this tribute from 2009.)

And that doesn’t even cover his years in the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations where:

[h]e provided strategic counsel to those presidents during the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; the so-called “Chicken War,” in which the U.S. and the European Common Market sparred over poultry tariffs; and the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic.

Andy Lowenfeld’s scholarship and his career argued against the “unnecessary divide of public and private international law,” setting the stage (along with Philip Jessup) for the current focus on  complex regulation, transnational law, and dispute resolution. He taught us how public and private international law interact in an interconnected system and, by his example, he showed us how diverse aspects of the international legal profession could be integrated into a coherent career.

I have the great fortune of having been one of Andy’s students. My second year at NYU, I took the general course in international law, which was then team-taught by Andy Lowenfeld and Theodor Meron. Learning international law from “Ted and Andy” as we affectionately referred to them (behind their backs, that is) was everything you would expect from such lawyers: a lively dialogue interweaving law, history, politics, and economics.  I was also Andy’ s student in what was perhaps his signature course, his International Litigation and Arbitration seminar. Here he paired each JD student with a foreign LL.M. to brief and argue an issue in a case, before a bench made up of 3 of our classmates. It was a wonderful bit of experiential learning that has stayed with me and taught me as much about how to be a good teacher as to how to be a good litigator.

In the years since I graduated from law school, Andy Lowenfeld remained generous with his time and wise counsel. I may have become a professor, but he never stopped being my teacher.

But perhaps my favorite memory of Andy was from when I was the Director of Research and Outreach at the ASIL. Andy was a panelist on an international arbitration panel we organized for a Fifth Circuit judicial conference in San Antonio. After the panel, he told me we should go visit the Alamo. So, one hot summer afternoon we toured the Alamo together; I will always remember his enthusiasm in examining the exhibits, especially anything having to do with the deeds, land grants, and international agreements concerning the disposition of territory. He interspersed our conversation about the history of the U.S.-Mexico border with reminiscences from the State Department, career advice, some thoughts on scholarly projects I was considering, and anecdotes from his incredible career. At one point there was a boy, who was maybe seven years old, standing near us and holding a large faux-parchment facsimile of a document, probably recently acquired from the gift shop.  Andy started questioning the boy about the topic of the text on his souvenir, whether or not the reproduction was accurate, and so on. (The boy stared, then shrugged; Andy walked on.) It made me smile watching Andy attempting a Socratic dialogue with a first grader. Even while walking around the Alamo, Andy Lowenfeld was first and foremost an educator and a mentor.

I want to close with a few of Andy’s own words, taken from his magisterial International Economic Law (Oxford, 2d. ed 2008). In the preface, he argues against the skeptics and describes (with perhaps a wink to Louis Henkin) a realistic appreciation of international economic law:

This book is not founded on a claim that all states and all economic enterprises behave at all times according to all the rules, nor that the rules are clear and universally agreed at all levels. But one would not say that there is no criminal law because crimes continue to be committed and are not always punished, or that there is no family law because marriages break up, husbands beat their wives, and children are abused. In fact international conventions, collaborative arrangements, roughly uniform national laws, and customary laws apply to much of the international economy; while there is no global sheriff, and the system of remedies does not reach as far as the system of rules, there are a surprising number of consequences of deviant behavior, and a growing number of fora for resolving disputes among states and between states and private participants in the international economy.

Almost 1,000 pages later, the closing passage puts more than his treatise into perspective: :

It is evident that this book has made more use of narrative and illustration, and less of flat normative statements than might have been expected from a treatise. This approach reflects my belief that the answers cannot be understood without the question, and that abstract statements cannot be comprehended without awareness of the underlying facts and continuing controversies.

This is not to deny the normative character of international economic law. But international economic law—like all law but perhaps more so—is a process. Any attempt to define the law as of a given moment cannot help but distort. The process continues, and the hope is that this book has illuminated the path.

[Emphasis added.]

It has. And so has Andreas Lowenfeld’s life.

 

 

The Supreme Court Misses an Opportunity to Place Constitutional Limits on the Treaty Power in Bond v. United States

by Julian Ku

My co-author John Yoo and I have a piece up on Forbes today arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court missed a grand opportunity in Bond v. U.S. to place constitutional limits on the treaty power.  We take aim at Missouri v. Holland head-on.  We criticize the interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act adopted by the opinion for the Court of Chief Justice Roberts and argue this decision has echoes of his opinion in Sebelius on the Affordable Care Act. Here is an excerpt:

Holmes was wrong in 1920, however, and the Obama administration is wrong today. The Founders’ original understanding supports a federalism limitation on the treaty power, and this is especially compelling in light of today’s far-reaching and ambitious modern treaties. Unfortunately, the Court’s opinion refused to directly reject Missouri’s mistaken approach.

 

 

An End-of-War Policy Diversion

by Deborah Pearlstein

Since I’ve given the New York Times grief in the past about using the name “Al Qaeda” to refer to non-Al Qaeda radical Islamist groups, I wanted to give them due credit for yesterday’s piece describing the takeover of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as having been accomplished by Sunni militants. The Times piece even includes a helpful pull-out explainer box describing the origin and evolution of ISIS and its now broken relationship with Al Qaeda central.

Would that everyone had made such strides. The Washington Post’s piece on the same set of events appropriately headlines its article, attributing the attacks to generic “insurgents,” but in paragraph two of the text describes the group as “an al-Qaeda offshoot.” More paragraphs down it explains: “ISIS is an expanded and rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that the U.S. military claimed it had tamed, though not defeated, ahead of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.” It’s not until the very final graf of the lengthy piece one gets this: “Earlier this year, the leader of ISIS, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly fell out with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was harshly critical of some of the group’s extreme methods. Though no longer directly affiliated with al-Qaeda, however, the group shares essentially the same goal of establishing a global Islamic state.”
The Post piece is misleading. As I’ve described, Zawahiri’s Al Qaeda (i.e. bin Laden’s Al Qaeda) didn’t just “fall out” with ISIS, it publicly and officially broke off all ties and condemned the group after ISIS refused repeatedly to comply with Zawahiri’s orders. If one is going to describe the group as an Al Qaeda offshoot in para two, this critical fact belongs in the same paragraph, not buried at the end.

This might seem more like nit-picking the Post if it were not for what seems to be its emblematic character – emblematic of a broader kind of category error in policy thinking about the post-bin Laden world. So forgive the diversion from legal analysis for a moment and take David Rothkopf’s piece today in Foreign Policy, anachronistically (and ominously) titled, “We Are Losing the War on Terror.” Set aside the fact that neither the President nor the courts has used the catch-phrase “war on terror” since circa 2008 (indeed, both have rejected it on the grounds that it is legally useless and politically obscures the actual and identifiable groups with which we have been at war). One might also set aside the misleading suggestion early in the Rothkopf piece that the growth in terrorist attacks worldwide is directed at (or indeed, has much to do with) Americans; I explained in an earlier post how that is not the case, and Rothkopf grudgingly acknowledges as much toward the end.

The larger problem of Rothkopf’s piece is that he ties the current proliferation of radical Islamist groups in the Middle East with “the war [Bowe Bergdahl] went to Afghanistan to fight.” A world of geopolitical water has gone under the bridge since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001. And we will be doing ourselves a huge geopolitical and strategic disservice if we pretend we now face the same – or any – kind of war.

We went into Afghanistan in 2001 because Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda had launched a series of terrorist attacks against the United States, culminating in the unprecedented carnage of September 11; we went in to destroy bin Laden’s ability to do such damage to our country again and to root out the Taliban government that had provided bin Laden’s group a safe base from which to operate. In 2001, bin Laden’s Al Qaeda had no claims to (or plausible hope of claims to) governing a state or territory of a state; the Middle East was governed by a set of seemingly intractably stable state dictatorships. Since the Arab Spring, the situation in that part of the world is radically different, and many groups now have claims to (and some even hope of) taking over the task of governance. In 2001, bin Laden’s Al Qaeda had named the United States as the enemy, had directed its terrorist operations toward us, and had killed our citizens. How many of the 49 Salafi-jihadist groups whose existence Rothkopf laments can say the same? No doubt some of them. But equally as little doubt that many of them hold greater interests that are primarily regional and nationalistic in nature.

Ultimately, I think Rothkopf sees this as well. And none of the foregoing is to suggest that the current turmoil in the Middle East, the sectarian radicalism, even the threats that are directed against the United States (such as by AQAP) are untroubling or may be safely ignored. Far from it. But if we think simply about the changing dynamics in the Middle East as an extension of the “war we went to fight” in 2001 – even in the interest of rhetorical connection – we empower those who would simply extend existing war authorities, and will be missing the opportunity, and the imperative, of describing the world’s current problems for what they are.

New ILO Treaty on Forced Labor Victims

by Duncan Hollis

With all the talk of the End of Treaties and Treaty Survival, it’s worth noting that the wheels of multilateral treaty-making have not come to a complete stop.  Earlier today, the ILO adopted a Protocol to ILO Convention No. 29, the 1930 Forced Labour Convention.  On paper, the 1930 Convention was a success — it currently has 177 parties.  But it’s also considered outdated within the human rights community, which has emphasized the continuing and significant costs of forced labor in humanitarian and economic terms, necessitating new legal tools to limit or mitigate the effects of this horrible practice.

Some of the 2014 Protocol’s provisions are standard treaty fare on modern global problems — i.e., requiring “national” plans of action and domestic legislation on forced labor issues.  Other provisions reflect the need to update the 84 year old Convention itself (i.e., deleting provisions on forced labor in overseas “colonies”).  The heart of the treaty appears to be Article 4:

Article 4
1. Each Member shall ensure that all victims of forced or compulsory labour, irrespective of their presence or legal status in the national territory, have access to appropriate and effective remedies, such as compensation.

2. Each Member shall, in accordance with the basic principles of its legal system, take the necessary measures to ensure that competent authorities are entitled not to prosecute or impose penalties on victims of forced or compulsory labour for their involvement in unlawful activities which they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subjected to forced or compulsory labour.

I’d be interested in reactions from those who follow the ILO and forced labor subjects more closely. Is this Protocol significant in the ongoing efforts to deal with human trafficking and forced labor? How important is the expansion of the right to relief to include migrants who might otherwise be labeled “illegal” via their immigration status?  And is the “entitlement not to prosecute” that significant a requirement?  It presumably still gives State authorities the ability to prosecute forced labor victims engaged in ‘unlawful’ behavior like sex work or drug offenses even if they were coerced into doing so. Thus, it seems more like an aspirational goal than a provision that will mandate changes in State behavior. Comments most welcome.

Guest Post: Argentina and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Round 2

by Michael Ramsey

[Michael D. Ramsey is the Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego Law School. Professor Ramsey previously prepared an analysis of this case for the Judicial Education Project supporting the bondholders, for which he was compensated.]

In a new claim in the long-running battle between Argentina and holders of its defaulted bonds (see here), the question is whether a U.S. court can order Argentina not to pay some bondholders unless it also pays others.  Again, Argentina says the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) protects it, and again it tries to make the Act’s text say something it does not.

To recap, a decade ago Argentina stopped making payments on some of its bonds, and the private bondholders (including NML Capital) sued Argentina in federal court in New York (as the FSIA and the contracts governing the bonds allowed them to do).  Argentina refused to pay the resulting judgments against it, so the bondholders are seeking enforcement.  One approach is to seek discovery of Argentina’s worldwide assets; whether a U.S. court can make such an order is the subject of the first Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital case, argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in April.

The bondholders’ second strategy involves a clause in the bond contracts known as the equal treatment or pari passu clause.  To oversimplify, after Argentina initially failed to make payments on the bonds, it persuaded many of the bondholders to accept new bonds, with substantially reduced payments (but some hope of salvaging part of their investment).  NML Capital (and a few others) refused to take the deal, and sued for full payment of the original bonds instead.  Argentina now wants to pay the new bondholders (that is, those who agreed to the refinancing) while refusing to pay the holders of the old bonds.

But that sort of discrimination among bondholders, the U.S. court held, violates the “equal treatment” clause in the original bond contracts: the clause says that the old bonds have to be treated equally to any new bonds, and clearly they aren’t.    Argentina had already said it wouldn’t obey a court order to pay on the old bonds.  So the holders of the old bonds asked the court for an injunction barring payment on the new bonds unless the old bonds receive equal treatment.  The district court granted the order and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Now Argentina is bringing this claim to the U.S. Supreme Court on petition for certiorari (scheduled to be considered at the June 12 conference).  As with the case involving the discovery order, its supposed shield is the FSIA.  But again, Argentina is trying to make the FSIA do something it does not.  Argentina concedes that the FSIA allows the bondholders’ suit: Argentina waived its sovereign immunity in the bond contracts, and the FSIA allows suit where immunity is waived (Section 1605(a)(1)).  The FSIA further says (Section 1606) that non-immune sovereigns are (subject to specific exceptions) liable to the same extent as private litigants.

The only plausible exception (and the only one Argentina argues) Continue Reading…

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, June 9, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

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

Africa

Asia

Europe

Middle East and Northern Africa

Americas

UN/Other

  • The kidnapping of 200 Nigerian girls and several recent horrific murders of women is expected to raise pressure on the world community to take concrete action to punish those responsible for sexual violence at a global summit in London this week. 
  • A UN group tasked with formulating a proposed set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) will for the first time considerzero draft of a possible text at its next meeting later this month

The Battle of the South China Sea Editorials

by Julian Ku

The conflict between China and Vietnam over a Chinese oil rig has (thankfully) calmed down a little bit, with fewer reports of rammings and water cannon fights in the South China Sea.  But the war of press release and government-sponsored editorials has heated up and all of them are wielding international law as a weapon of authority and legitimacy.

Vietnam’s government has been flooding the Internet with various articles, interviews, and statements accusing China of violating international law by moving an oil rig into waters Vietnam claims as its own.  See here, here, and here.  In general, these are pretty effective, although I do think Vietnamese scholars lose a bit of credibility when they insist that China has “no legal grounds” for its actions. Meanwhile, the Philippines has continued its steady drumbeat of legal articles, including this fascinating essay by Philippines Supreme Court Judge Antonio Carpio.

China has struck back with several English-language articles of its own from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency.  These have been much less effective or credible, and not just because China has a weaker (although not indefensible) legal position.  Here’s a doozy from the opening paragraph of a recent Xinhua offering:

China’s repeated rejection of Manila’ s plea for arbitration in the dispute in the South China Sea is by no means defiance of the tribunal in The Hague. On the contrary, it shows China’s respect for international law.

I understand what they are trying to say, but this argument just sounds bad.  China has no legal obligation to participate in the UNCLOS arbitration, but its non-participation is hardly a sign of respect for international law when that arbitral tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction.

This Xinhua essay on the Vietnam dispute is much better.  Most importantly, it relies on China’s territorial claim to the Xisha (Paracel) Islands as the basis for China’s right to place the oil rig.  It does not claim any rights here flow from the so-called “Nine Dash Line” that often gets all the press and is undoubtedly the weakest part of their legal argument.  It focuses on the threats to the safety of Chinese sailors and workers, and Vietnam’s legal obligations under the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.  

Of course, international law is not China’s strongest suit here. But it is interesting to see how China is using international law to support its actions.  Moreover, all China has to do is muddy the waters by establishing that international law does not plainly compel any particular outcome (as Vietnam and the Philippines seem to argue).  If the international legal arguments are fought to a draw, China is in a good position to win the overall game.

Breaking the Silence (About the IDF’s Treatment of Palestinians)

by Kevin Jon Heller

I want to call readers’ attention to a remarkable Israeli NGOBreaking the Silence, which collects the testimony of Israeli soldiers about the brutalization of Palestinians during the occupation. Here is the NGO’s self-description:

Breaking the Silence is an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories. We endeavor to stimulate public debate about the price paid for a reality in which young soldiers face a civilian population on a daily basis, and are engaged in the control of that population’s everyday life.

Soldiers who serve in the Territories witness and participate in military actions which change them immensely. Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still explained as extreme and unique cases. Our testimonies portray a different, and much grimmer picture in which deterioration of moral standards finds expression in the character of orders and the rules of engagement, and are justified in the name of  Israel’s security. While this reality is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye, and to deny that what is done in its name. Discharged soldiers returning to civilian life discover the gap between the reality they encountered in the Territories, and the silence about this reality they encounter at home. In order to become civilians again, soldiers are forced to ignore what they have seen and done. We strive to make heard the voices of these soldiers, pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled.

We collect and publish testimonies from soldiers who, like us, have served in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem since September 2000, and hold lectures, house meetings, and other public events which bring to light the reality in the Territories through the voice of former combatants. We also conduct tours in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills region, with the aim of giving the Israeli public access to the reality which exists minutes from their own homes, yet is rarely portrayed in the media.

Founded in March 2004 by a group of soldiers who served in Hebron, Breaking the Silence has since acquired a special standing in the eyes of the Israeli public and in the media, as it is unique in giving voice to the experience of soldiers. To date, the organization has collected more than 700 testimonies from soldiers who represent all strata of Israeli society and cover nearly all units that operate in the Territories. All the testimonies we publish are meticulously researched, and all facts are cross-checked with additional eye-witnesses and/or the archives of other human rights organizations also active in the field. Every soldier who gives a testimony to Breaking the Silence knows the aims of the organization and the interview. Most soldiers choose to remain anonymous, due to various pressures from official military persons and society at large. Our first priority is to the soldiers who choose to testify to the public about their service.

What makes this kind of work so effective, of course, is that it is impossible to disregard the soldiers who provide the testimonials — or at least all of them — as “anti-Israel.” On the contrary, these soldiers are true patriots, doing their part in a repressive political environment to save Israel from its Netanyahus and Liebermans.

The Guardian has an excellent story today about Breaking the Silence. You can read it here. And make sure to check out the NGO’s superb website, where all of the testimonials can be found.

Hat-tip: my colleague Anicee Van Engeland.

Events and Announcements, June 8, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

Call for Papers

  • The American Society of International Law has extended the deadline for submissions of scholarly paper proposals for the ASIL Research Forum to be held during the Society’s Midyear Meeting in Chicago November 6-8, 2014. Papers can be on any topic related to international and transnational law and should be unpublished.  Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome. Interested paper-givers should submit an abstract (no more than 1000 words in length) summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the Forum. Review of the abstracts will be blind.  Proposals should be submitted online by June 15, 2014. To submit a proposal, or for more information, please click here. 

Event

  • ALMA and the Radzyner School of Law of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) have announced the next session of the Joint International Humanitarian Law Forum. The session will be held on June 18, 2014, 18:30. The speakers and topics are:
    Yahli Shereshevsky, PhD candidate, Hebrew University: “Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence and the battle over the laws of war.” and Ido Kilovaty, PhD candidate, Georgetown University: “Cyber Warfare and Jus ad Bellum: Does Economic Cyber Coercion Violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter?” For more information, click here.

Announcement

  • Vacancies for: Book Review Editor, an Assistant Editor, and two Editorial Assistants for the journal Transnational Environmental Law (TEL) is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to the development of new ideas on law’s contribution to environmental governance in a global context. TEL is published by Cambridge University Press, and appears twice annually. For further information about the journal, including its full mission and scope, see: http://journals.cambridge.org/TEL A Book Review Editor. For more information, click 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.

Libya’s Chutzpah

by Kevin Jon Heller

I had a good chuckle this morning when I read Libya’s latest attempt to avoid complying with its obligation to surrender Saif Gaddafi to the ICC. (Which, of course, it may be genuinely unable to do, given that he’s still being held in Zintan. But that’s another story.)

The source of my amusement is Libya’s new excuse for not being able to file submissions on time:

[D]uring May 2014, there has been a surge in attacks against the Government, particularly in Tripoli and Benghazi, such that the UN Support Mission in Libya has recently expressed its concern over these “various acts of violence, including the assaults on official institutions”. These ongoing exigencies have prevented the Libyan authorities from providing up-to-date instructions on the salient issues. In view of these circumstances, the Government is, understandably, currently focusing its resources on restoring stability and order.

If you followed Libya’s failed admissibility challenge closely, you know that Saif’s defence team at Doughty Street Chambers (full disclosure: I’m now an academic member there) consistently argued that the violence in Libya prevented it from effectively trying Saif. Libya just as consistently rejected that argument, insisting that the violence had no effect whatsoever on its ability to conduct judicial proceedings.

To recap Libya’s position, then: the violence in the country doesn’t prevent the government from prosecuting Saif. But it does prevent it from filing a legal brief withe the ICC.

As I said, I had a nice chuckle.

Weekend Roundup: May 24 – June 6, 2014

by An Hertogen

This fortnight on Opinio Juris, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v United States. Peter argued how the Court ducked the question about the federal treaty power and provided a Bond cheat sheet. A guest post by Jean Galbraith focused on the notable silences in the Bond opinions, and David Golove and Marty Lederman described the outcome as stepping back from the precipice.

Kevin reminded readers about the ICRC’s free database of customary international humanitarian law and posted links to the ICRC’s President lecture to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He warned that a UNGA-created non-consensual hybrid tribunal on Syria could backfire against the US, and raised two problems with the polling questions of a recent study of Pakistani attitudes towards drone strikes.

Kristen updated us on the new briefs filed in the Haiti Cholera case, and on the launch of a high level sanctions review at the UN, while Chris discussed the many hurdles in the path of the Eurasian Economic Union.

As always, Jessica wrapped up the news (1, 2) and we listed events and announcements (1, 2). In other news, Kevin announced how he is joining Doughty Street Chambers as an Academic MemberJulian wished all the best to former Washington University law professor Peter Mutharika who was named Malawi’s new President; and Chris posted the search announcement for a new Executive Director at ASIL. Our New York based readers may also want to attend the Human Rights Film Festival starting next week.

Thank you to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

Human Rights Watch Film Festival–New York Starts Next Week

by Chris Borgen

The New York iteration of the Human Rights Watch Film Festival will be held June 12-22. A list of films to be screened in New York is available here. HRW explains the goal of the festival:

Through our Human Rights Watch Film Festival we bear witness to human rights violations and create a forum for courageous individuals on both sides of the lens to empower audiences with the knowledge that personal commitment can make a difference. The film festival brings to life human rights abuses through storytelling in a way that challenges each individual to empathize and demand justice for all people.

In selecting films for the festival, Human Rights Watch concentrates equally on artistic merit and human rights content. The festival encourages filmmakers around the world to address human rights subject matter in their work and presents films from both new and established international filmmakers.

A trailer for the festival is on Youtube. I have not yet looked through all of the film and event descriptions, but four that that caught my attention include the screening of collection of short films from Syria, followed by a discussion of “emergency cinema;” E-Team, about HRW’s war crimes investigations team; Watchers of the Sky, tracing responses to genocide from Nuremberg to the Hague; and Sepideh–Reaching for the Stars, the story of a young Iranian woman who wants to become an astronaut. Every film description I looked at, though, seemed very interesting. Check out the whole list.

Unfortunately, the Human Rights Watch Film Festival is coming to the end of its 2014 tour but here is a listing of cities where it has played. Dates/ locations of the 2015 festival to be announced.

Executive Director Search at the American Society of International Law

by Chris Borgen

As many readers of this blog know, Elizabeth Andersen, the  Executive Director of the American Society of International Law, has been named the new director of the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative. Consequently, the ASIL has a search underway for a new Executive Director. The search announcement states, in part:

The American Society of International Law (“ASIL” or “the Society”) seeks an accomplished leader with vision, proficiency in international law, and proven management abilities to serve as its next Executive Director, starting in the second half of 2014…

…The Executive Director works closely with an active Executive Council and President (the latter is elected every two years). The successful candidate for the Executive Director post will be proficient in international law, and demonstrate strong administrative ability and experience, effective fundraising capacity, and an ability to relate to and represent the diverse and multinational membership of academics, private practitioners, jurists, government officials, and students in their various endeavors relating to all facets of international law. In addition to coordinating with Society leaders, the Executive Director manages an annual budget in excess of $3 million; supervises a staff of 17 (14 of whom are full-time employees) in planning and executing day-to-day operations; facilitates the dissemination of scholarly and informational output in print, electronic, and conference settings; raises funds for the Society by seeking grants and other contributions from foundations, corporations, law firms, individuals, and other sources; implements outreach programs to a variety of external constituencies including the U.S. Congress, the judiciary, the media, law-making bodies, think tanks, international organizations, academia and others; and administers programs outside as well as within the United States.

Please see the full text of the announcement for further  details about the ASIL, the position, and the application process.  Please note that that applications should be received by June 15, 2014.

Having been the Society’s Director of Research and Outreach from 1999-2002, I can say that serving on the ASIL’s staff is an incredible experience. Although running any NGO is a demanding task (more accurately, it is a conglomeration of many, many, demanding tasks…), there are few positions in the international law that place one at such a nexus in the profession as being the Executive Director of the ASIL.

My best wishes to the applicants and to the the Search Committee.

 

 

High Level Sanctions Review Launched at the UN

by Kristen Boon

A new High Level sanctions review has been initiated at the UN, sponsored by the UN Missions of Australia, Finland, Greece and Sweden, in combination with Brown University and the sanctions consulting firm CCI. The purpose of the review is to assess existing sanctions and develop forward looking recommendations to enhance effectiveness. A similar process took place in 2006, known as the Informal Working Group on General Issues of Sanctions, which resulted in some important policy documents for sanctions regimes.

This new review will focus on three issues:

  • UN integration and coordination on the implementation of UN sanctions (addressing opportunities to improve sanctions integration and coordination among the UN entities supporting the Council’s sanctions function, including sanctions committees, expert groups, the Ombudsperson and the Secretariat)
  • UN sanctions and related institutions and instruments. (addressing the intersections between UN sanctions and other international instruments and institutions dealing with international security, such as international arms control and disarmament mechanisms, international financial and economic regulatory systems, and international criminal justice institutions)
  • UN sanctions, regional organizations, and emerging challenges (Addressing opportunities to optimize UN sanctions as an effective tool in response to serious and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, enhance coordination with regional sanctions, and explore new applications to address evolving threats to international peace and security)

This promises to be an important endeavor. While some member states stressed that there was no need to “reinvent the wheel”, others noted the importance of coordinating with the ICC and not overburdening developing states.

From my perspective, this process will be relevant to international lawyers for three reasons:

  • There are increasingly complex questions about how sanctions committees interact with other mechanisms. Are sanctions, which target individuals, incompatible with peacekeeping exercises, which usually have a mandate of neutrality? How should sanctions, which focus on conflict prevention and peace building, interact with international judicial mechanisms, which focus on deterrence, and longer term judicial processes for individual criminal responsibility? Relatedly, how can the work of the ICC and sanctions committees be better coordinated?
  • What process of review should apply to targeted sanctions generally? Currently only the Al Qaida sanctions regime is overseen by an administrative review mechanism in the form of the UN Ombudspersons office. Individuals and entities targeted under other sanctions regimes only have access to a “focal point” which is viewed as being not much more than a mailbox, given its limited mandate. The ECJ’s Kadi decision of 2013 raised stakes on due process, finding that even the Ombudspersons office does not meet the standard of effective protection. The battle between sanctions regimes and courts has begun, with potentially significant stakes for the supremacy of Security Council resolutions under Art. 103 of the Charter, and the ability of states to implement sanctions in the face of court challenges.
  • Finally, the situations in which sanctions are applied are increasingly innovative. Hate speech, poaching of wildlife products, protection of civilians, exploitation of natural resources – these are but a few of the justifications for imposing sanctions in the last decade.   These indicate a broadening view of what constitutes a threat to the peace and a deepening interest in using sanctions as a broad based tool.

To watch the opening meeting and see the statements, the video is available here.

Guest Post: Stepping Back from the Precipice in Bond

by David Golove and Marty Lederman

[David Golove is the Hiller Family Foundation Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law. Marty Lederman is a Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. This contribution is cross-posted at Just Security.]

The Supreme Court has finally issued its decision in United States v. Bond.  Although it appeared the Court might be on the brink of a momentous decision that would have substantially diminished the historical reach of the treaty power, or of Congress’s power to ensure the nation’s compliance with its treaty obligations, none of the radical theories put before the Court attracted more than three votes.  Bond clearly is significant.  But its significance lies not in what the Justices did, but instead in what a majority of them declined to do.  In short, the decision sustained the constitutional status quo.

In an opinion written by the Chief Justice, a six-Justice majority did what one of us had proposed (and the other had hoped the Court might do)—namely, to use a plain-statement presumption in order to construe the statute in question so that it does not apply to the discrete conduct involving the two private individuals in this particular case.  The Chemical Weapons Convention, and the federal statute implementing that treaty, were drafted broadly, presumably so that they would not fail to cover the sorts of cases of dangerous use of chemicals that the treaty-makers plainly had in mind.  The result, however, is that the words of the statute, read literally, would also make a federal crime out of virtually any “nonpeaceful” use of toxic chemicals, including all run-of-the-mill poisonings traditionally handled under state law.  This goes well beyond anything that motivated the treaty-makers.  The Chief Justice is surely correct that, notwithstanding the breadth of the treaty and statutory language, “there is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”  The paradigmatic case that the treaty is designed to address, wrote the Chief, is the sort of chemical attack depicted in John Singer Sargent’s haunting 1919 painting “Gassed.”  But as the Chief jibed, “[t]here are no life-sized paintings of [Carol Anne] Bond’s rival washing her thumb” after she had touched the toxic chemicals that Bond had spread on her car, mailbox and front door.*

The Chief Justice therefore construes the federal statute not to cover Bond’s conduct.  [See Curt Bradley in defense of the Court’s plain-statement analysis.]  The precise scope of the majority’s statutory construction remains a bit obscure.  (Presumably the law is not limited to conduct that is apt to inspire great paintings!)  But this much is clear:  The Court explains that the statute does apply in cases where toxic chemicals are used for “assassination, terrorism, and acts with the potential to cause mass suffering”—presumably even if such offenses are wholly intrastate and/or where they do not involve any foreign nationals.  The Chief writes that such cases do not implicate federalism concerns because “[t]hose crimes have not traditionally been left predominantly to the States.”  But of course it has predominantly been state law that traditionally handled such “noneconomic, violent criminal conduct,” and the Chief Justice does not explain why creation of a parallel federal offense would not implicate the federalism concerns reflected in the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions since Lopez (1995).  Accordingly, the Court’s confirmation of Congress’s power to implement treaties by criminalizing such conduct is quite important, as we explain further below.

The most important aspect of Bond, however, was not its statutory interpretation but the fact that the ground-breaking constitutional limitations offered up to the Court each failed to attract the support of a majority of Justices.

a.  Limiting Congress’s Power to Implement Treaties

The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that even in cases where the President and the Senate conclude a valid treaty, Congress lacks any specific power to pass legislation necessary and proper to ensure that the United States abides by its treaty commitments.  This deeply counterintuitive argument—that the Necessary and Proper Clause empowers Congress to enact legislation to help the President and the Senate make treaties, but not to help the federal government implement the nation’s agreements—was first suggested by Cato’s lawyer, Professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, in 2005 (that is to say, more than two centuries after adoption of the relevant constitutional provisions).  As we explain in Part II of our amicus brief in Bond, this argument is simply implausible on historical, textual, and structural grounds—not to mention inconsistent with a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the unanimous opinion in Neely v. Henkel (1901) and Justice Holmes’s celebrated 1920 decision in Missouri v. Holland.

In his opinion concurring in the judgment in Bond, Continue Reading…

Bond Cheat Sheet

by Peter Spiro

As David Kaye notes, treaty-power advocates everywhere may be breathing a collective sigh of relief with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States. I’m not so sure how big a difference it makes, given the Senate’s persistent refusal to put an expansive treaty power to work. From an academic perspective the decision is a big let-down. No big pronouncements on Missouri v. Holland, the treaty power, the future of federalism in a different world.

On the substance, we have Jean’s excellent post below as well as Curtis Bradley’s characteristically precise analysis on AJIL Unbound. As Curt points out, the straight-up application of the federalism clear-statement rule in the foreign affairs context is significant. Perhaps a little tension with Charming Betsy? But this is incremental stuff, not the kind of ruling that marks a major pivot on the Court’s part in foreign relations law. The money quotes in the majority opinion relate to domestic affairs of a decidedly mundane kind, as Roberts decries an application of the treaty that “would sweep in everything from the detergent under the kitchen sink to the stain remover in the laundry room.”

The Court may have understood this to be too freaky a case on which to peg a major ruling (hence also the silence from the Left side of the Court). The parade of horribles may be theoretically long and broad when it comes to imagining the ways that treaties might subsume core state authorities. But when it comes to making that specter a little more concrete, Justice Scalia is left conjuring up a multilateral “Antipolygamy Convention” with which Congress then trumps state intestacy laws. Really? (Scalia is known to write his concurrences and dissents from scratch. That was once a good thing; now it may be a bad. His concurrence here has a sloppy feel to it.)

For his part, Justice Thomas walks us through the original understanding of the Treaty Power in calling for its limitation to international relations. With due respect to the many rigorous scholars of an originalist orientation, I must admit that I have less patience for this oracular stuff the older I get. It never coughs up determinate answers. (How could it, in this context perhaps more than any other.) In what should be a candidate for SCOTUS understatement of the year, Thomas concludes: “I acknowledge that the distinction between matters of international intercourse and matters of purely domestic regulation may not be obvious in all cases.”

As foreign affairs law becomes increasingly doctrinalized, with a slew of major cases over the last 15 years, this is one area that will now remain up for grabs (the persistence of the century-old Holland decision notwithstanding). Maybe that’s not a bad thing for methodological and pedagogical purposes. As the Court plays the Marbury card more frequently (Scalia does it here), a last-word mirage rises in which the Court seems to be calling all the shots. But the new global architecture is far too immense and intricate for the Court to stay on top of it. Better to stay attuned to non-judicial mechanisms of constitutional evolution.

Roundtable at the NY City Bar on International Law and the Crisis in Ukraine

by Chris Borgen

For those in the New York City area who may be interested, tomorrow (June 4th) I will be participating in a roundtable discussion with Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Nations, concerning the crisis in Ukraine.   Mark Meyer, Moldova’s Honorary Consul in New York (and a member of the law firm Herzfeld & Rubin), will moderate the discussion.

The roundtable will take place at the New York City Bar on June 4th from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm, with a reception to follow. Full details are available here.

For some of my recent posts on this topic, please see: 1, 2, and 3.

Guest Post: Silences in the Bond Case

by Jean Galbraith

[Jean Galbraith is an Assistant Professor at Rutgers School of Law – Camden]

Thank you to Opinio Juris for letting me guest blog on Bond.

The most notable thing about the Bond decision is a resounding silence.  As a matter of law, it should have been easy to find for the government.  The statutory text reads plainly in the government’s favor, and constitutional text, practice, and precedent easily support the conclusion that the federal government can override federalism interests in implementing constitutionally valid treaties.  Yet not a single justice sided with the United States.  This silence is particularly perplexing given that three justices at oral argument seemed sympathetic to the government.

That is the major silence, but there are silences of reasoning in the opinions as well.  In what follows, I focus on two silences.  The first is the lack of consideration in the majority opinion of how treaty-implementing statutes might differ as a matter of statutory construction from ordinary statutes.  The second is the startling absence of constitutional history from the Framing onward in Justice Scalia’s concurrence.

The Majority Opinion

As Peter Spiro has noted, the majority ducks the constitutional question of whether the Treaty Power plus the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to criminalize domestic poisonings like that of Ms. Bond.  Following a hint dropped by Justice Kennedy at oral argument, the Court does this by holding that there needs to be a “clear statement that Congress meant the statute to reach local criminal conduct.”  It isn’t enough for Congress to use broad language that seems to cover the act at issue; instead, Congress apparently has to do something more to signal specific intent to reach “local” conduct.  Congress didn’t do so here, so Ms. Bond wins.

I won’t deconstruct the merits of this approach, although I think Justice Scalia does a good job in his concurrence of showing why it is problematic.  But I do want to mention that it leads to an interesting divergence between the interpretation of a treaty and the interpretation of implementing legislation.  The Court spent very little time on the interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention itself, merely noting its “doubts” that the Convention was meant to reach ordinary domestic poisonings.  If it had wanted to, the Court could doubtless have done more to interpret the Convention this way (e.g., by explicit discussion of “object and purpose” or perhaps by drawing on rule-of-lenity-related principles in international and comparative law).  But instead the Court accepted a wedge between the interpretation of a treaty and of its implementing legislation.  Federalism principles do not matter to treaty interpretation (given that these principles are country-specific) but do matter to the interpretation of implementing legislation.  If this canon of construction is about Congressional intent, then it strikes me as odd, because there is a countervailing consideration not mentioned by the Court. This is that when Congress uses language that closely tracks a treaty’s language in implementing the treaty, Congress presumably does so because it wants convergence rather than divergence with the treaty.

Justice Scalia’s Concurrence

Continue Reading…

Supreme Court Ducks Broad Treaty Power Ruling in Bond v. United States

by Peter Spiro

The decision is here. The Court found unanimously that the federal government overreached in prosecuting Carol Anne Bond under a federal statute implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention for what was otherwise a simple assault in a lovers’ quarrel. The six-justice majority decided the case on non-constitutional, statutory grounds — interpreting the statute (and the treaty) not to cover such conduct, but not addressing broader questions relating to the scope of the federal power to invade otherwise exclusive state authorities through the vehicle of international agreements.

So Missouri v. Holland stands. And it’s likely to stand for the foreseeable future. This was a freak case, a rare application of the treaty power cleanly posing the federalism question. Congress isn’t exactly free and loose in making use of its putatively limitless authority under the Holland opinion.

For those favoring national powers, this is probably the best that could have been hoped for. The Roberts Court has been ratcheting back the foreign affairs power on other fronts, and there was a wide expectation that this case would supply another important episode in advancing that agenda. The ruling is consistent with that agenda insofar as the Chief Justice’s opinion here treats the statute as it would any other. It’s not given a more expansive reading because it involves a treaty or foreign affairs. In that respect, Bond reflects the normalization of foreign relations law. But only in a small-ball kind of way. Constitutionally limiting (or affirming) the treaty power would have been much, much more significant.

We should have more soon on the ruling, the concurrences, and the future of the treaty power during the course of the week here at OJ.

Washington University Law Professor Sworn in as Malawi’s President

by Julian Ku

So, Professor of Law, what are you going to do after you retire from your tenured post teaching and finish writing all the articles and books you want to write? Well, I guess I’ll become President (of Malawi)!

On Saturday, [Peter] Mutharika, now 74, a soft-spoken professor with a proper English-educated accent and who smoked a pipe while he taught in the 1970s, shocked many of his former colleagues and students when he was officially named the southeastern African country’s president after a tumultuous election that took more than a week to resolve.

It was an ascent to power just three years after his formal retirement from Washington University.

Congrats to Professor (er, I mean President) Mutharika!   It is not very often that a professor of international commercial law and contracts becomes a head of state.  It sounds like there are many serious obstacles facing him (and only a few of those are related to his background as a U.S. law professor), but I am sure all of us in the U.S. law academy wish him the best!

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, June 2, 2014

by Jessica Dorsey

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

Africa

Asia

Europe

Middle East and Northern Africa

Americas

UN/Other

A Problematic Study of Drone Strikes in Pakistan (Updated)

by Kevin Jon Heller

Lawfare reports today on a study published in Political Science Quarterly about how ordinary Pakistanis view US drone strikes in their country. According to the post, the study “[c]hallenge[s] the conventional wisdom” that there is “deep opposition” among Pakistanis to drone strikes and that “the associated anger [i]s a major source of the country’s rampant anti-Americanism.”

I don’t have access to the study itself, but the polling questions quoted in the Lawfare post seem seriously flawed. Here are the three primary questions about drone strikes:

How much, if anything, have you heard about the drone attacks that target leaders of extremist groups – a lot, little, or nothing at all?

Please tell me whether you support or oppose the United States conducting drone attacks in conjunction with the Pakistani government against the leaders of extremist groups.

Now I’m going to ask you a list of things that the United States might do to combat extremist groups in Pakistan. For each one, please tell me whether you would support or oppose it. [The respondent is then offered]: Conducting drone attacks in conjunction with the Pakistani government against leaders of extremist groups. 

There are two significant problems with these questions. First, it seems like a major stretch to describe the US drone program in Pakistan as being carried out “in conjunction with the Pakistani government” — a formulation that implies that Pakistan and the US are working together. I accept reports that say Pakistan has tacitly or secretly endorsed the US drone program. But the Pakistani government’s public position has always been that the drone program is being conducted without its consent. The “in conjunction with” language is thus seriously misleading — especially given that the ordinary Pakistani will likely be far more familiar with the government’s public position than with the private one revealed in secret cables. Indeed, the second and third questions could easily be interpreted to be asking a hypothetical question (“would you like drone strikes more if they were conducted in conjunction with your government?”), instead of as an assertion of a past and present state of affairs.

The second problem, however, is even more serious. All three questions assert — and assume — that drone strikes in Pakistan target “leaders of extremist groups.” But that is almost certainly not the case. Here, for example, is what the Stanford/NYU “Living Under Drones” report says:

National security analysts—and the White House itself— have found that the vast majority of those killed in drone strikes in Pakistan have been low-level alleged militants. Based on conversations with unnamed US officials, a Reuters journalist reported in 2010 that of the 500 “militants” the CIA believed it had killed since 2008, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-high- level organizers” of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups. His analysis found that “the C.I.A. [had] killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high- level” during that same period. More recently, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun of the New America Foundation reported that fewer than 13% of drone strikes carried out under Obama have killed a “militant leader.” Bergen and Braun also reported that since 2004, some 49 “militant leaders” have been killed in drone strikes, constituting “2% of all drone-related fatalities.”

Unless all of these reports are incorrect, the US drone program in Pakistan has never focused on “leaders of extremist groups.” It is thus extremely misleading for the study to ask ordinary Pakistanis whether they support drones strikes that target such leaders. Would the results be the same if the study had asked participants whether they “supported or opposed the United States conducting drone attacks against low-level fighters believed to be members of extremist groups”? I doubt it.

It is a truism of the polling business that poll results are only as good as the questions participants are asked. In the case of the drone study reported in Lawfare, there is reason to be skeptical of both the questions and the answers.

UPDATE: After an email exchange with one of the authors, I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that the questions were formulated and asked by Pew, not by the research team. That said, I still question how useful the answers are, given the problems discussed above.

Events and Announcements: June 1, 2014

by An Hertogen

Calls for Papers

  • Following a successful conference organised by the Qatar University, College of Law and the Qatari Branch of the ILA on the Syrian Crisis and International Law they now plan for a special issue of the International Review of Law on the same theme.  To this end, they are looking for contributions discussing: public international law, including collective security and the use of force as well as papers exploring the applicability of the Responsibility to Protect theory; international humanitarian law and international human rights law including the relationship of the two bodies of law in the Syrian context; international criminal law – procedural and substantive aspects; refugee protection and the international ramifications in the Arab region. The International Review of Law is a bilingual (English & Arabic content), open-access, peer-reviewed international law journal published by QScience.com. Those interested in contributing are requested to respond to this call for papers by sending in their submissions by August 15th, 2014. More information is here.
  • The University of Virginia School of Law’s Human Rights Program and the Virginia Journal of International Law are calling for papers for the Virginia Law Human Rights Student Scholars Writing Competition (HRSSWC). This global competition is designed to encourage student scholarly inquiry into human rights topics and afford emerging student scholars an opportunity to develop their research and contributions by interacting with Virginia’s pre-eminent international law faculty. The HRSSWC welcomes all student papers relating to human rights law from current J.D., LL.M., and S.J.D. students from the United States and abroad. May 2014 graduates may also submit papers written as part of their law school curriculum. Entrants are encouraged to view this topic broadly, submitting any work that furthers understanding of a substantive area of human rights law. The student author of the top paper will receive a cash prize of $500 and expedited consideration for publication in the Virginia Journal of International Law. Additionally, the winning author will be invited to present his or her paper at a special Human Rights Student Scholars Workshop involving Virginia’s international law faculty, VJIL editors, and Virginia law students. The deadline for submission is June 27, 2014. More information is here.
  • The Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University (RAU) in cooperation with the International and Comparative Law Center and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Armenia announce the 7th Yerevan International Conference for Young Researchers on International Humanitarian Law, which will be held from October 30 to November 1, 2014 in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia and will be dedicated to the 150th anniversary of adoption  of the First Geneva Convention. Young researchers in the field of IHL under the age of 35 are invited to take part in the Conference participants pre-selection process. In order to apply the applicants should complete the application form by September 14, 2014 and submit a research paper strictly within the scope of the announced conference topics presented in the Call for papers. See also the Conference’s Facebook page.

Events

  • On 14 June 2014, Edge Hill University (UK) is hosting an international conference titled “The ‘Cross-Fertilization’ Rhetoric in Question: Use and Abuse of the European Court’s Jurisprudence by International Criminal Tribunals”. Speakers will discuss the outcomes of the presentations made by the participants in a workshop held at Edge Hill the day before. The main purpose of this initiative is to critically assess the manner in which human rights standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights have been used (or misused) by international criminal tribunals. The programme is here.
  • On Friday 20 June 2014 the Society of Legal Scholars International Law Section and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will co-host the 23rd Conference on Theory and International Law. The theme of this year’s conference is Sovereignty in the 21st Century. This conference will address aspects of both the theoretical and practical dimensions of sovereignty in the 21st century. Further details (including a link to the conference programme) are available here.
  • To commemorate the 150th anniversary of the first Geneva Convention, the Geneva Academy is holding a panel on Challenges Raised by Increasingly Autonomous Weapons on June 24, 6-8pm, at the Maison de la Paix, rue Eugène-Rigot 2 in Geneva. More information is here.
  • The Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at American University’s Washington College of Law is organizing various panels for its 2014 Human Rights Month. For those of you outside DC, you can watch the panels via live webcast here.
  • From June 27-28, 2014, Bangor Law School and the Bangor Centre for International Law will host a conference on proof in international criminal trials, kindly supported by the British Academy. You can find the programme here, and register online here.

Announcements

  • Oil, Gas & Energy Law has issued a special issue on the Energy CommunityEnergy Community is the primary instrument in EU external energy policy. The large number of contributions to this special on the Energy Community edited by Dr Dirk Buschle (Deputy Director and Head of Legal of the Energy Community Secretariat) illustrate the diversity and complexity of the topic. Instead of providing a coherent account of where the Energy Community stands today, this special provides numerous tie-ins for the future debate. It provides for an inspiring reading on the current issues and future options for the Energy Community.

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.

Constructing the Eurasian Economic Union

by Chris Borgen

The New York Times reports that:

The presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus formally signed an agreement on Thursday to create a limited economic union — an alliance hobbled by the absence of Ukraine but one long pursued by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to confirm his country as a global economic force.

“Today we are creating a powerful, attractive center of economic development, a big regional market that unites more than 170 million people,” Mr. Putin said during the ceremonies. He underscored the significant energy resources, work force and cultural heritage of the combined nations.

This treaty, which was signed this past week but is not expected to come into force until January 2015, marks the next step in transforming the still-nascent Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) into the Eurasian Union (EEU). Russian pressure for Ukraine to turn away from association with the European Union and towards Moscow-led Eurasian integration was one of the roots of the current crisis.

As the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with China and the Central Asian states is Russia’s answer to U.S. military alliances, Eurasian economic integration is meant to be Russia’s response to EU and U.S. economic power.  According to a chronology in a report by the Centre for European Policy Studies, the creation of the EEU was first suggested by the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 1994. There was not much movement until the negotiation and signing of a customs union treaty among Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in 2007. The basic requirements of the Eurasian Customs Union came into force in 2010, which were essentially trade policy coordination measures establishing a common external tariff among its members. However, the deepening Eurasian economic integration was given a boost by an op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in October 2011.

In early 2012, the member states deepened ECU’s institutions by starting the operations of the Eurasian Economic Commission, a supranational entity that was contemplated in the 2007 treaty,  to manage the external trade regulations of the member states, including relations with the WTO. That also marked the establishment of  the “single economic space” (SES) among the member countries which, in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies paper, “envision[ed] further regulatory convergence and harmonisation of national laws” in particular economic sectors.

The treaty that was signed on May 29th is ostensibly to move from customs union towards a full economic union, with free movement of goods, capital, and people among the member states, but reality has so far proven to be less sweeping and heroic than the rhetoric that marked the occasion. The most obvious issue is that the EEU was originally envisioned to include not only Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, but also Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and especially Ukraine. Ukraine would have added  a populous country with  economic potential and an an economy that (unlike Russia and Kazakhstan) was not based on natural resource exploitation. But Russia’s intervention in Ukraine  backfired: not only did it fail to bring Ukraine into the EEU fold but, according to a Radio Free Europe report, it has weakened the EEU by having: Continue Reading…