Archive of posts for category
Weekend Roundup

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!

Weekend Roundup: May 17 – 23, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Duncan shared his initial reactions on the DOJ charges against Chinese military officials over cyberespionage targeting US industries and Chimène Keitner examined the indictments from the perspective of foreign official immunity.

Julian looked into the aftermath of China’s decision to move an oil rig to a disputed area of the South China Sea. He argued that Taiwanese investors might be better off invoking the China-Vietnam BIT rather than the Taiwan-Vietnam Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement to claim compensation following anti-Chinese riots, and discussed what form Vietnam’s reported legal action could take.

ICC news came from Kevin and Kristen, with Kevin updating us on a constitutional amendment before the Ukrainian Parliament that would enable ratification of the Rome Statute, and posting a quote from Judge Van den Wyngaert’s dissent in Katanga in anticipation of Katanga’s sentencing. Kristen discussed the implications of Security Council veto on the referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC.

Guest posts this week touched upon a variety of topics: Christopher Gevers reported back from this week’s hearings at the South African Constitutional Court in a landmark universal jurisdiction case involving alleged crimes against humanity committed in Zimbabwe in 2007. Tyler Cullis, meanwhile, reviewed to what extent the US would be legally and politically able to ease sanctions against Iran as part of a nuclear deal. In the last guest post of the week, Gabor Rona commented on the recent Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence case on detention in a non-international armed conflict.

Finally, Deborah shared her views on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings on the AUMF, and as every week, you could also count on us to wrap up the news and list events and announcements.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

 

Weekend Roundup: May 10-16, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics brought you a symposium on Professor Jedidiah J. Kroncke’s article Property Rights, Labor Rights and Democratization: Lessons From China and Experimental Authoritarians. In their comments, Cynthia Estlund looked at parallels with the US, Eva Pils pointed to a discrepancy in transnational civil society’s concern for labour and evictee rights in China, and John Ohnesorge reflected on why labor issues have not received much attention in the world of law and developmentJedidiah Kroncke’s response can be found here.

Kevin added the Security Council’s refusal to pay for any expenses related to an ICC investigation in Syria as another reason to be skeptical about the likelihood of a referral. More on Syria in a two-part guest post by Naz Modirzadeh who responded to the open letter to the UN on humanitarian access to Syria.

Deborah shared her opinion on the Al Nashiri case and the question whether an armed conflict existed. In another guest post, Ezequiel Heffes offered four arguments why international humanitarian law covers detention in non-international armed conflicts.

Finally, Duncan looked at the US job market for international law academics, and Peter wondered if an “anti-passport” could be helpful to deal with the FATCA woes of potential Americans overseas.

As every week, Jessica wrapped up the news and listed events and announcements.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: May 10, 2014

by An Hertogen

A busy week on Opinio Juris with a book symposium on Just Post Bellum-Mapping the Normative Foundations. Kristen introduced the great definitional debate on the meaning of “just post bellum” (JPB). Jens Iversion contrasted JPB with transitional justice and Ruti Teitel discussed JPB as transitional justice. Jens Ohlin argued in his post that ideas about omission liability are stumbling blocks towards the acceptance of JPB. Where Eric de Brabandere offered a normative critique of JPB in international law, James Gallen was more optimistic that there was value in an interpretative conception of JPB. Jennifer Easterday focused on peace agreements as a framework for JPB, and Christine Bell explored the dynamics that have led to all these overlapping conceptualisations of international law’s role in post-conflict situations. Cymie Payne discussed the concept of environmental integrity central to her chapter and Dov Jacobs explained the thinking behind his chapter on the central role of sovereignty in JPB. Greg Fox shared his thoughts on how JPB discussions can navigate the unilateral/multilateral divide. James Pattison examined who has a duty to rebuild after a war and Carsten Stahn finished the symposium with a post on JPB and the ethics of care.

The Al-Nashiri prosecution also attracted commentary with Kevin expressing surprise at Judge Pohl’s order that hazarding a vessel is a war crime and arguing that the attack on the USS Cole did not take place in an armed conflict. David Frakt also wrote a guest post on the existence of an armed conflict in the Al-Nashiri case.

In another guest post, Hayk Kupelyants advanced an alternative interpretation of pari passu clauses.

Of our other regular bloggers, Julian discussed how Colombia’s Supreme Court had apparently followed the US Supreme Court’s lead in denying that ICJ judgments are self-executing under domestic law, and Peter evaluated the looming constitutional challenge against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

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

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: April 26-May 2, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Duncan posted an abstract to a book chapter arguing that IHL should adopt a duty to hack. He also argued that reports of the death of treaties are greatly exaggerated.

Peter marked May Day with a post on global consciousness of the non-elites; Kevin argued that the PTC II is not treating defence attorneys fairly; Julian wrote about Florida’s narrow ban on foreign law; and Ryan Scoville contributed a guest post on de jure and de facto recognition as a framework for Zivotofsky.

Finally, Jessica wrapped up the news and listed events and announcements. Kristen also publicized the call for this year’s ASIL Mid-Year Research Forum.

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: April 19-25, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, we teamed up with EJIL:Talk! to bring you a transatlantic symposium on Karen Alter’s book The New Terrain of International LawYou can find Karen’s introduction to her book here, followed by comments by Tonya Putnam, Roger Alford and Jacob Katz Cogan. Karen’s reply is here.

Other guests this week were Paula Gaeta who explained why she is not convinced by the ICC’s latest decision on President al-Bashir’s immunity from arrest, and Mike Ramsay who discussed Argentina v. NML Capital and the FISA.

Deborah commented on Steve Vladeck’s essay on post-AUMF detention and posted a surreply to his response over at Just Security

Peter looked at Courts’ involvement in foreign affairs following the US Supreme Court’s decision to accept the Jerusalem passport case on the merits.

Julian explained why in his opinion the Marshall Islands’ US complaint and ICJ applications against the world’s nuclear powers is not going to get very far.

Kristen argued that if we want more effective multilateral sanctions, we should examine not just the design of sanction regimes, but also their termination.

Finally, Jessica wrapped up the news and I listed events and announcements. To all our junior readers out there, there is now less than a week to enter an abstract for our second Emerging Voices symposium.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a great weekend!

Weekend Roundup: April 5-18, 2014

by An Hertogen

This fortnight on Opinio Juris, Julian examined whether the US could legally deny Iran’s new U.N. Ambassador a visa to New York and provided his take on the three main arguments in favor of the visa denial. In a rare instance, Kevin agreed with Julian and elaborated with a post on the security exception in the UN Headquarters’ Agreement.

David Rivkin and Lee Casey surprised Julian with their calls to deploy “lawfare” against Russia. More surprises for Julian arose out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s decision to revive the In re South Africa Apartheid Litigation under the ATS.

In other posts, Kristen wondered how the current gap in international law on the protection of disaster refugees could be filled; Roger discussed the emerging trend of relying on investment arbitration to enforce international trade rights; Craig Allen contributed a guest post on the principle of reasonableness applied by ITLOS in the M/V Virginia G case; and Kevin shared his thoughts on Ukraine’s ad hoc self-referral to the ICC.

Duncan announced the Oxford Guide to Treaties he edited is now available in paperback, and welcomed the publication of a papers presented at a Temple workshop on the writings of Martti Koskenniemi.

As always, we listed events and announcements (1, 2) and Jessica wrapped up the news (1, 2).

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: March 29-April 4, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian wondered if the ICJ’s judgment in the Whaling in the Antarctic would ring in the end of the Whale Wars. He also curiously awaits the release of the Philippines memorial filed with the PCA in the UNCLOS arbitration against China and assessed China’s reaction to the submission.

Meanwhile, Kevin handed out advice on how to get yourself convicted of terrorism and Chris compared Russia’s rhetoric regarding Crimea to its rhetoric regarding intervention and recognition in Kosovo and South Ossetia.

We also hosted a symposium on the two latest issues of the Harvard International Law Journal. Martins Paparinskis discussed Anthea Roberts’ article on state-to-state investment arbitration, followed by Anthea’s reply. Next, Tim Meyer and Monika Hakimi discussed her article justifying unfriendly unilateralism, followed by a discussion between Christopher Whytock and Greg Shill on judgment arbitrage. Michael Waterstone discussed an article on equal voting participation for Europeans with disabilities. Karen Alter and Suzanne Katzenstein rounded up the symposium with a discussion on the creation of international courts in the 20th century.

Finally, Jessica wrapped up the news and listed events and announcements. If you’re a PhD student, post-doc or have recently started your career and would like to write something for Opinio Juris in July or August, don’t miss the call for abstracts for the second edition of our Emerging Voices symposium.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: March 22-28, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin accused the ICC of fiddling while Libya burns, and relayed news in the Libyan press that Al-Senussi’s and Gaddafi’s trial will start mid-April. He also analysed whether Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s possible representation of LRA victims at the ICC would amount to a conflict of interest.

Roger followed up on his earlier post about using trade remedies to enforce arbitration awards to argue that these remedies are WTO compliant.

Kristen discussed sanctions against Russia and Julian asked whether the US’ spying on Huawei violates international law.

Finally, Jessica wrapped up the news, I listed the events and announcements, and Chris closed of the week with some laughs courtesy of the Internationally Wrongful Memes tumblr.

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: March 15-21, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, we continued last week‘s YLS Sale Symposium with a post by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen describing Sale’s legacy as a game of cat and mouse between law and politics, a post by David Martin on the realms of policy and law in refugee protection. In a two part post (1, 2), Guy Goodwin-Gill looked at state practice preceding Sale and argued that the case was not the watershed moment it is seen to be. T. Alexander Aleinikoff discussed a way forward to ensure that the rights of refugees are adequately protected. Harold Koh closed off the symposium with his reflections on Sale’s legacy.

Also continuing from last week was our Ukraine Insta-Symposium. Boris Mamlyuk argued for a better empirical understanding of the facts on the ground to assess the legality of intervention in Ukraine. As the events in Crimea unfolded, questions of recognition and annexation came into the spotlight with a post by Anna Dolidze on the non-recognition of Crimea, one by Chris analyzing the legality of recognition of a secessionist entity, and one by Greg Fox on the Russian-Crimea treaty.

In other posts, Duncan tried to read the tea leaves in the US Senate confirmation hearings for the new head of US Cyber Command. Julian reported from a hearing of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the legality of overseas electronic surveillance and predicted that international law will receive short shrift in the Board’s final report. Andrés Guzmán Escobari rebutted an earlier post by Julian and argued that Bolivia’s ICJ case against Chile to obtain access to the Pacific Ocean is reasonably strong. Roger closed off the week with a post on the use of trade remedies to enforce arbitration awards.

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

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a great weekend!

Weekend Roundup: March 9-15, 2014

by An Hertogen

We had a busy week on the blog, so if you haven’t been able to keep track of it all, here is a summary of what happened.

We continued the Ukraine Insta-symposium with posts by Remy Jorritsma on the application of IHL to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and by Sina Etezazian on Russia’s right to protect its citizens in the Crimea and Ukraine’s right to use of force in self-defence. A post by Greg Fox and one by Tali Kolesov Har-Oz and Ori Pomson discussed the limits of government consent to intervention, while Robert McCorquodale discussed Crimean self-determination and the international legal effect of a declaration of independence. Ilya Nuzov provided a transitional justice perspective; and Rhodri Khadri examined if any useful lessons for the Crimean crisis can be drawn from the solution to the Åland Islands. Julian responded to Boris Mamlyuk’s critique on US international law scholars by exploring Russia’s position.

A second symposium this week, introduced here by Tendayi Achiume, Jeffrey Kahn and Itamar Mann, summarized the presentations of last weekend’s symposium at Yale Law School on the rise of maritime migrant interdictions twenty years after the US Supreme Court’s Sale judgment. Ira Kurzban described the events leading up to the Sale judgment and Jocelyn Mccalla discussed the impact of Sale on Haitian immigration and advocacy. In a two part post, Bill Frelick discussed the international and US domestic initiatives to counter Sale‘s implication that the non-refoulement principle does not apply extra-territorially. Azadeh Dastyari put the spotlight on the lesser known use of Guantanamo Bay for the detention of refugees. Maritime migrant interdictions are not a uniquely US phenomenon, as demonstrated by Paul Power’s discussion of Australia’s “Stopping the Boats” policy and Meron Estefanos’ post about the impact of the EU’s refugee policy on Eritrean refugees. Bradley Samuels used the example of non-assistance at sea in the Mediterranean to discuss the increasing reliance on architectural representations of space as evidence in litigation.The symposium will continue next week, so stay tuned!

In other posts, Kristen Boon updated us on the latest developments in the Haiti cholera case, and John Knox, the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment, guest posted about the mapping report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council earlier this week. Despite their win, Kevin declared the Katanga conviction a difficult day in the office for the OTP. Kevin also asked us to identify a historical figure in a picture of the ’70s, and was disgusted by a phishing e-mail preying the situation in Syria.

Finally, Jessica compiled the weekly news and I listed events and announcements.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and to all our readers for the lively discussions this week!

Weekend Roundup: March 1-8, 2014

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, we continued to follow the situation in Ukraine as it unfolded with an insta-symposium. Alexander Cooley gave an overview of the power politics at play, while Chris posted about Russia’s use of legal rhetoric as a politico-military strategy, and about how language affects the evolution of international law. This last post built on a discussion between Julian and Peter in which Julian argued that the crisis shows the limits of international law, while Peter took aim at the Perfect Compliance Fallacy.

Further issues of compliance with international law were raised by Aurel Sauri, who analysed when the breach of a Status of Forces Agreement amounts to an act of aggression, by Mary Ellen O’Connell’s post on Ukraine under international law, and by Julian who asked whether a Crimean referendum on secession would be contrary to international law. In a follow-up post on the referendum, Chris surveyed the current state of international law on the right to secede and self-determination. In response to a reader’s comment, Chris also delved into the issue of recognition to figure out who speaks for Ukraine.

Peter examined the legality of Russia’s extension of citizenship to non-resident native Russian speakers and pointed to the legal basis for President Obama’s decision to impose entry restrictions in response to the Ukrainian crisis.

In other news, Julian asked why the US did not call the knife attack in the Kunming railway station a terrorist attack, Charles Blanchard provided a guest post on autonomous weapons, and Duncan updated us on the US Supreme Court’s latest treaty interpretation case.

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

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!