In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Recent Posts

08 Oct

The brief says this with regard to the mens rea of aiding and abetting (knowledge) in Furundzija and Vasiljevic (pp. 10-11): Further, it may be questioned whether the mens rea discussion in these opinions was necessary to their holdings. Liability in those cases likely could have been premised on co-participation in a joint criminal enterprise (such as a rogue paramilitary unit),...

|
08 Oct

I’m traveling and can’t stop to comment, but check out Charlie Savage’s New York Times story describing the secret DOJ memo, reportedly principally authored by David Barron and Marty Lederman, that provided the justification for putting Anwar Al-Awlaki on the targeting list in the first place.  Crucial reading on the targeted killing and drone debate. One thought, however. As Jack Goldsmith and...

|
08 Oct

Professors Samuel Estreicher, John McGinnis, Michael Ramsey, Mark Weisburd, Ernest Young and myself, in partnership with the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a brief amicus curiae today in Doe v. Nestle, a Ninth Circuit Alien Tort Statute case. In the wake of the Second Circuit's decision in Kiobel, but also the DC and Seventh Circuit decisions, the question of whether and...

|
07 Oct

The leaks are already starting about the U.S. government's process for determining who to target for drone strikes.  Here is the latest. (Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. There is no public record of...

|
07 Oct

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 is to be divided in three equal parts between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakkul Karman for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work. We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world...

|
06 Oct

As readers know, a few of us on the blog have been debating whether the law of neutrality has any relevance to the United States' conflict with al-Qaeda.  I'm thus delighted to announce that three essays on that very issue are now available on SSRN as part of a mini-symposium hosted by the Texas International Law Journal.  The lead essay...

|
06 Oct

Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes have been arguing for several days now at the Lawfare blog that the Obama administration should release either the Justice Department opinion approving the Al-Awlaki attack, suitably redacted, or some statement that puts out in some detail its legal reasoning.  The Washington Post has evidently read those posts closely, as it comes out today with a strong editorial endorsing the same thing.  I broadly agree with these arguments. I am equally concerned, however, with something that both Goldsmith and Wittes raised in their posts, viz., the increasing absurdity of a system of “covert” action in which, as the ACLU’s Benjamin Wizner put it in an amusing exchange with the White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan at Harvard Law School a few weeks ago, they must be not be acknowledged though we can read about them in the newspaper.  The problem is that this eventually goes from amusingly absurd to de-legitimating.  It is amusing so long as the operations are successful — the Awlaki killing, the Bin Laden raid — and the (still illegal) leaks to the press are all about taking credit. It turns into something a lot less fun when something goes bad, as something inevitably will in operations of this kind, and these same extra-legal channels of wink-wink-nod-nod are used as parties try to deflect blame, put it on someone else, utilize press leaks to shift responsibility: this is not accountability, finally, it’s a natural but deeply flawed way of avoiding true accountability.  It involves informal mechanisms for taking credit when something good happens, and offloading it on someone else when something bad happens.  It’s a bad, but unfortunately tempting, idea when the news is good and when the news is bad.
|
05 Oct

Despite high rhetoric being flung across the Security Council yesterday, Russia and China's vetoing of the European-drafted resolution condemning Syria's brutal crackdown on civilians should come as no surprise. There are a number of political-tuned reasons to explain why this Resolution failed. The first relates to the disappointment and anger expressed by China and Russia at the intervention in Libya. Both...

|
04 Oct

Russian and China issue a dramatic double veto of the US-backed measure directed against Syria; nine Council members voted in favor, and India, Brazil, South Africa, and Lebanon abstained.  Welcome to the New Post-Hegemonic World Order?  It's too soon to tell and our Data Set is insufficiently full.  Still, it does recall David Rieff's observation that a multipolar world is...

|
04 Oct

If you can't see it, it can't and doesn't really matter that much. That seems to be the attitude of many of us to key issues of international concern. Take for example, a core contradiction in many people's hesitation to support the adoption of a carbon tax to combat climate change: it's fine to tax the trash we put out on the curb, but it's not fine to tax the trash we put in the air. The state of international criminal law privileges direct forms of violence. This is an extension of the dominant understanding of peace as negative peace, the absence of large-scale, direct forms of violence. The holy trinity of international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – constitutes physical violence perpetrated against victims. While the criminalization of some acts which “shock the conscience of humanity” is surely one of the most important developments in contemporary international politics, it has, perhaps inevitably, come at the expense of more structural or indirect forms of violence. Famine becomes something to support with donations and sympathy but not an issue for which anyone can be held responsible. Neglecting to protect vulnerable populations in the wake of environmental disasters becomes a challenge for humanitarian aid rather than an issue of criminal neglect. The real and potential destruction of peoples' livelihood through environmental degradation becomes a matter of business, job-creation and green politics and not a matter of justice – even when it risks eviscerating entire nations. Indeed, what about the more silent killers which threaten the life and livelihood of millions of people? There are those who have begun to challenge the monopoly of international crimes as direct forms of violence. This past week in London, a mock trial was held at the British Supreme Court where top lawyers played out two cases: one concerning the extraction of oil in Canada's notorious tar sands and one regarding BP's disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The charge? Ecocide, defined by its most forceful champions, Polly Higgins as:
“The extensive damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.”
While the notion of ecocide is an attempt to criminalize large-scale environmental degradation, it is critical to highlight, in this context, how environmental degradation can create human death and suffering. This is not to be anthropocentric. But a much under-examined reality within international justice is the indirect, structural violence that is inflicted when states shirk their responsibilities to protect citizens from the effects of environmental trauma – whether from ecocide or natural disasters.
|