In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Recent Posts

07 Jun

I know Ken's busy finishing his book and can't yet reply to Marko's remarkable post.  (And personal congrats, Marko, on the lectureship.  Nottingham is lucky to have you!)  When he does, I hope he'll address the criminal-law aspects of his belief that self-defense justifies targeted killings outside of armed conflict.  I have two scenarios in mind, borrowed and adapted from...

|
06 Jun

Despite the increasingly desperate nature of the attacks on Judge Goldstone, I never thought an academic institution would give in to the hysteria: In response to an enquiry by the Alternative Information Center (AIC) about its reported removal of Judge Richard Goldstone from the Board of Governors, Hebrew University of Jerusalem responded by email that: "The Hebrew University of Jerusalem...

|
05 Jun

OJ's good friend Marko Milanovic has offered a super-substantive response to my brief comments re self-defense in my not-yet-response to Professor Alston's report on targeted killing and drones.  I will have things to say about that and also my reactions to the interior of the Special Rapporteur's report - happy to say that I avoided any $100 a day fines...

|
05 Jun

The Gaza Flotilla raid has launched an unbelievable amount of public commentary related to public international law because so much of the debate is framed around the legality of Israel's raid, its blockade of Gaza, etc.  Some of the discussion has been interesting and useful (see again Kevin's posts on legality of the blockade).  But then there is the continuing...

|
05 Jun

This would be amusing, were the Obama administration not backing Israel's insistence that any investigation into the attack on the flotilla be conducted (read: whitewashed) by Israel itself: When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts. On June...

|
04 Jun

[Peter "Bo" Rutledge is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Georgia Law School and the author, with Gary Born, of International Civil Litigation in United States Courts] I’ve been thinking a lot about Samantar since its release as I expect it’ll occupy an important place in the next edition of Gary’s and my International Civil Litigation (we’re working on...

|
04 Jun

I'm not about to get into a debate over whether there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza; you either think there is or you don't, and facts won't matter.  So I thought I would simply post the following chart from that notorious left-wing propaganda outlet The Economist and let readers judge for themselves whether the blockade is designed solely to...

|
04 Jun

In addition to saying kind things about me, which I appreciate, Julian noted in his earlier post that Eric Posner has an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal that uses Lincoln's blockade of the Confederate States of America (CSA) to defend the legality of Israel's blockade of Gaza.  I find the editorial very unconvincing, for two reasons.  First, it provides...

|
03 Jun

I have been flattered to be called out on the topic of drones, targeted killing, the CIA, and related issues arising mostly from the release today of Professor Philip Alston's UN special rapporteur report (press release here).  Deborah has a useful summary and some important quotes from the press release in her earlier post.  I've read the report once, and am reading it again, but am not ready to comment.  Well, not quite.  I'm under pressure to produce some commentary for some newspaper and print journalism, while getting the grading completed before my faculty's $100 a day late fine kicks in ... sorry to punt, but I'm not quite sure I want to weigh in with a quick blog post as yet on the topic (okay, this gets a little longer than planned, but it's not really a response to the report). I will say, though, that Philip's careful discussion, set against the way in which the State Department frames the issues, is a demonstration once again of the ways in which public international law seems to be increasingly discourses passing in the night.  It's one reason I hesitate to take the issue up here - I'm not persuaded that we all speak a sufficiently shared methodological language in these highly intertwined legal-political issues to be able to do much more than set out a view and the sources that we find persuasive.  The importance of actual historical state practice of leading states, or not, on the one hand, versus the importance of such things as pronouncements of the ICJ or other tribunals or statements by UN bodies or rapporteurs or military manuals of states that don't actually fight, or not, on the other ... you see the problem. So, yes, I endorse the "independent" self-defense view as an alternative legal basis for the use of force, which is to say, I reject the view that uses of force are a binary exhausted by law enforcement and armed conflict (I've posted another round of this discussion and the CIA in the second hearing testimony that I've just posted at SSRN).  Given the existence of an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, among other parties at this point, whether any particular drone strike is an act within the armed conflict or an exercise of independent self-defense is open to interpretation, with the possibility of overlapping rationales in some cases. I endorse the State Department's view of this, as I understand it from Legal Adviser Koh's ASIL speech, and think it nothing novel - merely the reassertion of US legal views - going well back before the Obama, Bush fils, and Clinton administrations, to Reagan and Bush pere, and no doubt well before that even.  If a state cannot or will not control its territory to prevent it from being used as safe haven for terrorists or terrorist groups, then even the important international legal rule of territorial sovereignty can be overcome by an affirmative defense of self-defense; that use of force might be in the form of armed conflict, but it might be something that does not rise to that level of hostilities and thus constitute an act of self-defense use of force simpliciter.  That use of force is justified under jus ad bellum and is directed against the threat - the terrorists - and because it is a use of force, it must meet standards that are, as the Legal Adviser said, the principles underlying armed conflict rules, distinction and proportionality and, I would add, necessity in the first place in determining to target.  Necessity giving rise to self-defense; distinction in defining the target; proportionality in the evaluation of collateral damage.
|
03 Jun

[Prof. Beth Stephens of Rutgers Law School at Camden has litigated and written widely on related issues. Additionally, she served a counsel for one of the (victorious) respondents in the Samantar case.  We are of course honored that she is able to share her views with us. Again, a reminder that "Related Posts" will send you to a collection of all...

|
02 Jun

[We are grateful to continue our discussion on Samantar with a comment from Prof. William Dodge of the UC Hastings College of Law. Please keep following us for more thoughts in future posts and click "Related Posts" to see earlier contributions on this question.]   Like my colleague Chimene Keitner, I wrote an amicus brief supporting respondents (co-authored with Mike Ramsey), and...

|