Author Archive for
Julian Ku

Meanwhile, China Draws a Provocative, Dangerous, But Perfectly Legal Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea

by Julian Ku

£¨Í¼±í£©[¶«º£·À¿Õʶ±ðÇø]¶«º£·À¿Õʶ±ðÇø»®ÉèʾÒâͼI don’t have any insights to offer on the big news this weekend, that legally-non binding-UNSC-resolution-violating agreement in Geneva.  But I did want to note one other big sort-of-law news item from the other side of the world: China’s announcement that it is drawing an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, including over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands.

China’s announcement has riled up both Japan (which has declared it “totally unacceptable”) and the United States (which has expressed “deep concerns.”)

Why all the fuss? China’s new ADIZ appears to overlap with Japan’s own ADIZ in some crucial places (like the Senkakus/Diaoyu) as well as South Korea’s and Taiwan’s.  China has declared that aircraft entering its ADIZ must report flight information to Chinese authorities (actually, its military) and (here’s the scary part), “China’s armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions.”  The U.S. is already hinting that it will test this resolve by flying aircraft through the ADIZ.  (Wonder which lucky US pilot draws that mission!)

Although provocative and dangerous, it seem clear to me that China’s ADIZ does not violate international law.  Indeed, China’s Foreign Ministry was perfectly correct today in its claim that its ADIZ is consistent with “the U.N. Charter and related state practice.”  Countries (led by the U.S.) have long drawn ADIZs beyond their national sovereign airspace as a measure to protect their national airspace.  This practice, although not exactly blessed by any treaty, does not appear to violate either the Chicago Convention or UNCLOS.  (See Peter Dutton’s very solid review of ADIZs here in the American Journal of International Law for a good discussion on this point).

If China has sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, then it is perfectly legal for it to declare an ADIZ beyond those islands to protect the airspace above those islands.  It is a little less clear why China needs the rest of the ADIZ, but it is presumably aimed at protecting its national airspace.  The U.S. State Department has already offered China an interpretive out of creating unnecessary conflict:

The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace. We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing.

Now the accuracy of this description of US practice could be questioned, but it is probably right. In recent years, the U.S. has allowed Russian bombers to fly through its ADIZ over Alaska.  If China follows this practice, this could help a great deal to diffuse tensions. One can only hope. Early signs are not promising,as China has essentially told the U.S. to shut up and butt out of this issue.

China’s ICJ Judge Xue Hanqin Publicly Defends China’s Non-Participation in UNCLOS Arbitration [Updated]

by Julian Ku

xue

[This Post has been updated]. One of the main benefits of attending a conference (rather than just reading descriptions of its proceedings), is the chance to have face-to-face exchanges with individuals you normally never get a chance to meet.  One of the unusual aspects of the Asian Society of International Law is that it draws lawyers from many different Asian countries, even Asian countries locked into disputes with each other.  Like the Philippines…and China.

Which is why I was so pleased to witness a frank exchange last week at AsianSIL’s biennial conference in New Delhi, India between two unofficial but influential representatives of each country’s legal positions in the upcoming Philippines-China UNCLOS arbitration. In one corner, Prof. Harry Roque from the University of the Philippines presented a relatively even description of the Philippines’ claim against China during a panel on the Law of the Sea in Asia (click here for his blogging on this same event).  In the other corner, was Judge Xue Hanqin, China’s member of the International Court of Justice.  Although she was not listed as a panel participant, she stood up after Prof. Roque’s presentation to offer a 15-minute extemporaneous defense of China’s position.

Judge Xue is no longer officially affiliated with the Chinese government, but she has served in high diplomatic positions before her current post.  One of her prior positions, indeed, was as China’s Ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) where she was involved in negotiations with Vietnam over maritime rights.  Moreover, she has served a general legal adviser to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including on its submission to the ICJ in the Kosovo advisory proceeding.  Her views are likely to be close or the same as the views of the Chinese government on these issues.  Since the Chinese government has offered almost no official explanation of its legal position, her statement may be the best we will get from China in the near future.[*UPDATE: On the other hand, Judge Xue wants to make clear she is not representing China in any official or unofficial capacity and that she does not endorse the summary of her views below. See below for her full disclaimer].

The following is based on my notes of her presentation. They are necessarily incomplete, but hopefully a fair summary of her views.

 

Notes from the Asian Society of International Law Biennial Meeting 2013, New Delhi

by Julian Ku

I’ve made the trek this week to New Delhi to attend the 4th Biennial Meeting of the Asian Society of International Law.  I’ll be presenting a paper on my favorite subject these days: The China-Philippines (Non) Arbitration. I’ve tweeted a few not very profounds thoughts on Day One here. AsianSil is quite a different type of meeting than the American Society of International Law meetings I am used to.  It’s a bit more formal, perhaps a little more of the feel of “foreign delegates” gathering for an international conference than an academic/public policy conference.  The hosts are very generous with their time and well-organized.

More substantively, I’ve found the different interests and approaches of Asian scholars to be illuminating.  Many Asian nations, including China and India, see themselves as still part the developing world trying to navigate a world dominated by western industrialized nations.  This theme seems to inform many of the opening speeches, including that by India’s Vice President Hamid Asari.  I will try to write something useful or interesting on Day 2 when I get a chance (or a better wifi connection).

Berkeley Journal of International Law Symposium Issue on Taming Globalization

by Julian Ku

I want to point readers to the recent issue of the Berkeley Journal of International Law which contains essays from a symposium last year on my book (with John Yoo) Taming Globalization.  It contains essays from Friend of Blogs Thomas Lee, Tai-Heng Cheng, as well as our own Peter Spiro.  All worth checking out.

A Quick Reaction to Oral Argument in Bond v. U.S.: Missouri v. Holland is in Real Trouble

by Julian Ku

Lyle Denniston is first out of the gate with his take on the oral argument in the much-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Bond.  His general take:

The argument in Bond v. U.S. (docket 12-158) reached the grand constitutional scale that has been its potential all along.   At the end of an hour-long hearing, it appeared that the government might just have to hope that it loses the case on narrow grounds, because it might lose it in a sweeping way.  Some of the Justices openly canvassed ways to cut back, perhaps sharply, on the national government’s power to negotiate or to implement global treaties — the very thing that U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., was trying so hard to head off.

For my own part, I was also struck by how none of the justices seemed impressed with the U.S. Solicitor General’s pleas for deference to the Executive Branch in the interpretation and administration of the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Several justices seemed to almost scoff at this argument at times, noting that it was not emphasized in the briefs.  The one exception, a reference to the brief filed by John Bellinger and former U.S. State Department Legal Advisors, was brushed aside fairly easily at argument.

So I think the case will turn out to be a straight-up domestic American federalism debate, with few foreign affairs concerns implicated in either the majority or the dissent.  If I’m right about this, then there seems little reason to doubt that we are headed toward a 5-4 decision in favor of the petitioner. The frequent use of the phrase “police power” is a bad sign for the government, since that is the one thing the Court doesn’t want to acknowledge giving to the federal government.  Moreover, the facts of this case, involving the federal prosecution of what is very close to a plain vanilla domestic dispute, should be enough to tie together a pro-federalism majority on the court.

Indeed, I think the unusual Nick Rosencranz inspired argument which separates the constitutionality of the treaty-implementation power from the treaty power  actually makes the federalism argument easier to swallow.  The pro-federalism justices can simply hold that constitutional limits the domestic implementation power does not necessarily limit the treaty power itself.   The President should not feel constrained to enter into treaties since this ruling does not reach the treaty power. Justice Scalia repeatedly embraced this argument, and even conceded that there are no similar limitations on a self-executing treaty.    It is a bit of an odd argument, since it does imply that a self-executing treaty could accomplish here what the statute could not, but that case would at least be left for another day.

I am also struck that there was not much fealty to Justice Holmes’ opinion in Missouri v. Holland. The US government did not rely on the authority of that decision very much, and Bond’s counsel came up with a way to distinguish it that no justice bothered to challenge.  So fealty to precedent does not appear to be much on their minds either.

Without national security or precedent, the Government’s argument is much weaker, and I agree with Denniston that its best outcome is a very narrow construction of the statute (which Justice Breyer seemed to be leaning toward with his emphasis on the statute’s exception for a “peaceful purpose” and which he repeatedly urged the US government to do as well). I think one could get 8 votes for a narrow construction of the relevant statute.  But I think there is appetite on the Court to go farther. Will they?

The Nationalists Strike Back: The “No-Spy” Agreement Solution to the NSA Spying Scandal

by Julian Ku

I agree with Peter that there is a move to universalize (through accretion) a norm against spying via Article 17 of the ICCPR.  But unlike Peter, I think it will get nowhere.  Instead, I was struck by how the German complaint against the NSA program has not really been phrased in terms of how it violates international norms or laws.  Rather, it seems that the Germans (and French) are really hurt because they don’t have a “no-spy” agreement with the U.S. like Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand do (The so-called “Five Eyes” or AUSCANNZUKUS)

In other words, the problem is not that spying itself is illegal or morally wrong, but that it is illegal and morally wrong to spy on your allies and friends.  Spying on other countries might very well be morally and legally justified (e.g.: North Korea, Iran, China, Russia).  A universal anti-spying norm could very well be the opposite. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Germany and France would seriously support a universal anti-spying norm that would constrain their own very robust spying efforts.

With this in mind, it is worth considering whether and how the U.S. should adopt new “no-spy” agreements, something President Obama seems willing to consider.   I actually think a “no-spy” agreement is a better approach than unilaterally disarming in the spy wars.  Do we really think the French will stop trying to spy on the U.S. once the U.S. pledges to stop spying on France?  Better to at least commit the French to a deal.

From a foreign relations law perspective, “no spy” agreements are curious.  They are sole executive agreements and they may or may not have a binding character under international law. Certainly, they are not formal treaties.  The U.S. Congress probably has incomplete knowledge of exactly what is in these agreements and how they are operating.

Stewart Baker is already up with congressional testimony (dated today) on criteria for any new “no-spy” agreements.  Interestingly, the main thrust of his testimony is that Congress should start exercising a little oversight, at least if the U.S. starts buying off allies with new “no spy” agreements.  He has some pretty stringent requirements (a cooling off period for any new agreements that must all be submitted to Congress for review, a report on compliance,etc).  He doesn’t go so far as to require Congressional approval for any new no-spy agreements, but he might as well.  I doubt Congress would go that far, and I think there will be some questions over whether Congress has the legal authority to constrain these kinds of executive agreements.

In any event, my prediction is that the fallout from the latest NSA scandal will be a flurry of “no-spy-on-you” promises and then a series of new “no spy agreements” for certain favored “allies”.  I think Germany will talk about a universal anti-spying norm, but this initiative will eventually die largely because no large nation really wants it.

Does Japan’s Pledge to Shoot Down Chinese Drones Violate International Law?

by Julian Ku

The government of Japan has issued a new policy authorizing its military to shoot down foreign (read: Chinese) drones that enter the airspace over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. China’s Ministry of Defense has issued a statement suggesting that such an action would be an “act of war” and declaring that China’s manned and unmanned flights do not in any way violate international law.

Interestingly, I think both sides could act in good faith and comply with international law, and still get involved in a nasty dangerous military conflict.  Of course, the nub of the problem is that both Japan and China claim sovereignty over the same airspace, e.g. the Senkakus/Diaoyu.  So both countries could claim to be acting in “self defense” over their sovereign territory in either shooting down or reacting to the downing of a Chinese drone.

One interesting question is whether downing a Chinese drone that was unarmed, and that was not clearly military, would be a violation of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Many of the Chinese drones are associated with the PRC’s various coast guard equivalents, and are not associated with their military.  Article 8 of that Convention has a pretty clear ban on the flight of “pilotless aircraft” over the territory of another member state.   So Japan has Art. 8 on its side. But China would never concede the basic sovereignty question, thereby making Article 8 pretty unhelpful. Still, would the Japanese shoot down a clearly unarmed “manned” plane that encroached on the Senkakus? So why shoot down the unarmed drones?  Plainly, Japan will have to offer some evidence of the drones’ threat to bolster any attack it makes.

On the other hand, is China overreacting to call those Japanese threats an “act of war”? I suppose that is technically true if one accepts that China’s drones are flying over Chinese airspace.  Still, it is hard to imagine that downing a drone (where no one is hurt or killed) could have the same  significance as downing a manned plane.

I think Japan is trying to test China, and draw lines on matters that wouldn’t necessarily escalate into armed conflict.  It just might work, but it is sure risky.

Did the U.S. Set a Precedent for the China/Russia Boycott of UNCLOS Arbitration? Sure! But So What?

by Julian Ku

Wim Muller, an associate fellow in international law at Chatham House, takes issue with my observation that China’s rejection of Annex VII UNCLOS Arbitration may have influenced Russia’s similar rejection of UNCLOS proceedings in the Greenpeace arbitration.  Other commenters take issue with my further claim that Russia’s rejection is another “body blow” to ITLOS dispute settlement. I offer my (“typically tendentious”) response below.

Muller’s criticism, I believe, is mostly just a misunderstanding of my position.  I don’t disagree that the U.S. and other countries have walked away from binding international dispute settlement and this could have set a precedent here.  But my point is narrower:  China and Russia are, as far as I know, the first states ever to reject participation in UNCLOS dispute settlement, and their actions are a serious challenge to the future of UNCLOS dispute settlement, which is supposed to be a key and integral part of the UNCLOS system. Thus, although UNCLOS dispute settlement is not exactly a model of success, it has never before suffered the spectacle of two member states rejecting its tribunals’ jurisdictions (within the same calendar year no less).  I would be surprised if the U.S. example from 1984  was more relevant to Russia’s decision than China’s decision from February of this year.  I don’t think any UNCLOS state has ever rejected the jurisdiction of the ITLOS with respect to provisional measures or “prompt release” procedures.  Indeed, it is worth noting that Russia has not only availed itself of the “prompt release” procedure on one occasion, but it has also submitted to ITLOS “prompt release” jurisdiction in two prior cases.  To be sure, it did not contest jurisdiction in those cases and neither involved similar facts.  But it is striking that Russia has gone from active UNCLOS dispute settlement player to effective boycotter.

UNCLOS dispute settlement is not “voluntary.” It is a system of compulsory  and binding dispute settlement.  Indeed, UNCLOS itself makes clear in Art. 288(4) that UNCLOS tribunals have the power to determine their own jurisdiction.  By refusing to participate in UNCLOS dispute settlement based on their own unilateral claims about jurisdiction, China and Russia are essentially telling the tribunal that they will not accept jurisdiction, no matter what the tribunal determines about jurisdiction, and despite the plain authority those tribunals hold under Art. 288(4).  It may not be a “body blow” but it is not exactly a resounding vote of confidence in UNCLOS dispute settlement either.

Now, Muller seems to be arguing

Shocker! Russia Walks Away from UNCLOS Arbitration and Will Ignore Netherlands Petition Over Greenpeace Detentions*

by Julian Ku

[Update below] It looks like China has started a trend. In a surprising statement (at least to me), Russia has announced it will not participate in the ITLOS arbitration brought by the Netherlands related to the detention of Greenpeace activists last month.

“The Russian side has informed the Netherlands and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that it does not accept the arbitration procedure in the Arctic Sunrise case, and is not planning to take part in the tribunals,” the ministry said in a statement Wednesday, adding Moscow is still “open to the settlement” of the case. The statement did not elaborate.

The ministry insisted Russia is not obliged to recognize the authority of the maritime tribunal, saying the Russian government does not have to participate in disputes that concern “sovereign rights” and “jurisdiction.”

Hmm. This formulation sounds familiar somehow.  Actually, Russia is citing its UNCLOS declaration, which excludes dispute settlement under UNCLOS “concerning law-enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction.” But it echoes the Chinese objection as well.

I had written a post on the Netherlands memorial in support of its action against Russia in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea seeking “provisional measures”, but I forgot to publish it. Which is just as well.  Because it looks like Russia is going to ignore whatever arbitration proceedings are constituted under Annex VII (following the Chinese example).  I can’t tell from this report, but it may be that Russia may ignore the ITLOS “provisional measures” hearing that is likely to be scheduled soon as well.

As Greenpeace’s attorneys rightly point out, ““If the Russian Federation believes the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the normal and proper thing to do would be to raise this at the hearing,”  This would apply to China and the Philippines as well.  If Russia does simply walk away, this is another body blow to the dispute settlement under the UNCLOS system, especially considering that Russia has accepted the jurisdiction of the ITLOS in past disputes.

*After this post went up, I noticed that Russia has also dropped the piracy charges against the Greenpeace activists, charging them now with hooliganism. This doesn’t seem to affect their position on ITLOS arbitration, though. But perhaps settlement will be easier?

China’s Definition of the “Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” Leaves Out International Adjudication

by Julian Ku

China’s U.N. Ambassador made a typically anodyne statement recently to the U.N. General Assembly on the Rule of Law at National and International Levels. But there are a few interesting nuggets worth noting that reflect China’s skeptical attitude toward international adjudication.

Anyone who follows the Chinese government’s diplomatic statements will know that it repeatedly stresses the U.N. Charter’s obligation on states to seek peaceful settlements of international disputes.  But the Chinese here and elsewhere define this obligation more narrowly than many international lawyers or other states might define it.  From the “Rule of Law” statement:

The Chinese government actively upholds peaceful settlement of disputes, proposes to settle international disputes properly through negotiation, dialogue and consultation, thus maintaining international peace and security.

So far so good.  But for many international lawyers, and for many states, the “peaceful settlement of international disputes” would also include other means listed in Article 33(1) of the Charter.

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

(Emphasis added.)

Now Article 33(1) simply lists options, it does not mandate all states use every one of these processes to resolve disputes.  But it is striking how the Chinese government goes out of its way to downplay arbitration and judicial settlement from its public statements on “peaceful settlements of disputes” and in a statement about the importance of the rule of law at the international level.  Indeed, this particular statement on the rule of law goes out of its way to denounce the abuse of arbitration and judicial settlement.

The Chinese delegation believes that the decision to resort to arbitrary or judicial institutions to settle international disputes should be based on the principles of international rule of law and premised on equality and free will of states concerned. Any action to willfully refer disputes to arbitrary (sic) or judicial institutions in defiance of the will of the states concerned or provisions of international treaties constitutes a violation of the principles of international rule of law and is thus unacceptable to the Chinese government.

Hmm… I wonder what country has willfully referred a dispute to arbitration in defiance of China’s will recently?

I am not criticizing China’s legal position here, which seems eminently defensible and reasonable.  I do think that its approach, which privileges a state’s will and “sovereign equality” as a principle of international law, will naturally lead it to de-emphasize arbitration and judicial settlement. And since China’s opposition to the Philippines’ arbitration is based on a theory of state non-consent and lack of jurisdiction, I think it is unlikely to climb down from this position and accept the legitimacy of the UNCLOS arbitration.

Which is why I find it hard to accept the theory put forth by the Philippines lead U.S. counsel, Paul Reichler, as to why China will ultimately accept the arbitral tribunal award in that dispute. In an interview in the WSJ, Reichler relies on the reputational damage China will suffer if it defies the arbitral tribunal and the advantages China would get out of a “rules-based” system.  But China’s view of a “rules-based” system does not necessarily require it to submit to arbitration to set the “rules.”  China already has a robust vision of how it can be a “rule of law” nation and avoid arbitration and judicial settlement. Nothing the UNCLOS tribunal does will likely change this view.  Indeed, to the extent that other nations share its views, it will also lessen any reputation damage it suffers from a negative award.

Russia Charges Greenpeace Protesters with Piracy, When Will the Netherlands File Its ITLOS Action?

by Julian Ku

I’m late to this story, which has already outraged Greenpeace and other supporters worldwide.

Greenpeace activists who were seized while protesting against Arctic oil drilling face up to 15 years in a Russian jail after being formally charged with piracy.

The 14 charged include four British nationals. Kieron Bryan, a freelance videographer, and the activists Alexandra Harris, Philip Ball and Anthony Perrett were all accused of “piracy as part of an organised group”. The offence carries a prison sentence of between 10 and 15 years.

Altogether there are 30 activists from 18 different countries being held in jails in the Russian port of Murmansk. They were travelling aboard the Arctic Sunrise, a Greenpeace ship that last month mounted a protest against the Prirazlomnaya oil rig. The drilling platform, in the Pechora Sea, is operated by the Russian energy group Gazprom. As two activists tried to scale it, Russian border guards descended on to the boat from helicopters and escorted it back to Murmansk with those on board kept under armed guard.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich has been first out of the box in the U.S. blogosphere, denouncing the piracy charges as “groundless.”  Based on the facts as alleged, I think he is right. Even if the Greenpeace activists were pursuing a “private end,” scaling an oil rig doesn’t seem to satisfy the “ship” requirement in UNCLOS (to which Russia is a signatory by the way).

So assuming Eugene is right (which is always a safe bet), are there any international legal remedies for groundless piracy charges?  In fact, Russia has recognized the competence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under UNCLOS Art. 292 “in matters relating to the prompt release of detained vessels and crews.”

So it seems that the Netherlands (since the Greenpeace ship was Dutch-flagged) should be able to bring an action under Article 292 arguing that the detention of the Greenpeace ship was not in compliance with UNCLOS (and citing Eugene’s point about how this isn’t piracy). Article 292 allows the Netherlands (the flag state) to send the question of the legality of the detention to ITLOS 10 days from the time of the detention. ITLOS seems to have the authority to determine whether there should be a release, and should have the authority to order Russia to release the vessel and crew upon posting of a bond.

I see no legal obstacle to such a Dutch action, and I think the 10 days waiting period has run.  The Dutch Government has apparently demanded the release of the ship and crew, and has sent consular officials to see the detained activists.  I assume the next step is a legal action at ITLOS. They might as well do this now, since any ITLOS hearing will take another 15 days at lest.

It is worth noting that Russia has already been subject to an Art. 292 ITLOS proceeding before, in the 2007 incident involving 2 Japanese fishing vessels.  ITLOS ordered the release of the one of the vessels upon posting of a 10 million rouble bond, and Russia complied with this order within 10 days. I am curious whether Greenpeace would be willing to post a bond here, or whether it could be so easily settled.  Still, with this precedent,  I would expect an ITLOS filing any day now.

It’s Autumn in New York, Which Means International Law Weekend 2013

by Julian Ku

[I am passing along a message from Professor Ruth Wedgwood about the upcoming International Law Association meeting in New York. Hope to see many of you there!]

International Law Weekend 2013 – the world-famous autumn festival of the migratory flock of international lawyers, brought to you by the American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association – begins on Thursday night, October 24, 2013, at the Great Hall of the Association of the  Bar of the City of New York, 42 West 44th Street, NYC, and continues at 9 a.m. Friday and Saturday, October 25-26, at the Lincoln Center facilities of Fordham Law School, at 140 West 62nd Street, NYC.   Advance Registration is available at http://ila-americanbranch.org/ or http://www.ilsa.org/conferences/16-conferences/16-ilw-new-york.

As always, admission is free for all students, faculty, lawyers, and staff from co-sponsoring institutions, as well as all members of the American Branch of the International Law Association, the International Law Students Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  Staff members of the United Nations and Permanent Missions to the United Nations can also attend for free.  The registration fee remains a modest $175 for the two days combined for all other practicing lawyers and members of the public.  And for the first time, there will be 14 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit available to all lawyers in attendance, accepted by New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  The CLE credits are also provided free.