I don’t know how seriously to take Prof. Francis Boyle, who is literally dying to file an application in the ICJ on behalf of Iran against Israel and the U.S.   Still, this interview in the Iran English language news site suggests something might happen soon. And Iran might get a sympathetic hearing at the ICJ.  And it would raise interesting legal issues, even if it had no practical effect on the Israeli Air Force.

The somewhat surprising answer from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is “Yes!”, or at least an acknowledgement that  ”the Nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans–soldiers and civilians alike.”  This is one takeaway from an address he made today at the American Enterprise Institute. In essence, this is the official Executive Branch response to this summer’s blockbuster (and my view dangerously wrongheaded) Boumediene opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is a lot more to the address as described by the WPost here, but for international lawyers, it is interesting that the U.S. A-G thinks it is important to clarify the existence of an armed conflict with Al-Qaida.  As a political move, this is an interesting move, since it would force members of Congress to go on record about whether or not this is really a “war” and it will no doubt eliminate a lot of political posturing.  On the other hand, acknowledging the existence of an armed conflict seems a bit redundant for U.S. law purposes under the September 11 Resolution, and it is unlikely to persuade international lawyers much either way.  So we’ll see if this goes anywhere.  Here are the key excerpts from the address:

It looks like Duncan’s analysis  of the potential problem in the Betancourt hostage rescure was on target. Bloomberg reports:

A Colombia soldier wore a Red Cross emblem during the rescue of 15 hostages earlier this month, President Alvaro Uribe said.

Uribe, who apologized for the use of the symbol, said the move wasn’t sanctioned by the government and the soldier did it because he feared for his life.

In a both metaphorical and literal last gasp effort, Mexico has won an "indication of provisional measures" from the International Court of Justice ordering that the United States (and Texas in particular) take all necessary measures to stop the pending executions of Mexican nationals.

The United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that Messrs. José Ernesto Medellín Rojas, César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Rubén Ramírez Cárdenas, Humberto Leal García, and Roberto Moreno Ramos are not executed pending judgment on the Request for interpretation submitted by the United Mexican States, unless and until these five Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration …

The basic idea here is that: 1) the ICJ judgment requires the U.S. to provide "review and reconsideration" and the U.S. basically has admitted that it has not done so. 2) the ICJ therefore is demanding that the U.S. stop the executions until it has given review and reconsideration, or more precisely, until the ICJ can examine more closely whether or not review and reconsideration needs to be provided. 

I appreciate Kevin’s thoughtful and evenhanded assessment of the ICC Prosecutor’s complex decision to seek the arrest of Sudan’s president.  There are indeed good arguments both for and against the ICC Prosecutor’s move.

I’m torn myself.  I have articulated many times before my skepticism of the ICC’s effectiveness in helping to end the violence or even to bring justice for Darfur. I stand by my view that the ICC referral is basically the Security Council’s effort to deflect further action, and the fact that the ICC investigation cannot in any way help the peace process (at least in the short term).  But I can understand the argument Kevin cites below from "Enough": How could things get any worse?

Still, by indicting a sitting Head of State, the ICC is essentially seeking regime change…