This week on Opinio Juris, we continued a few conversations from last week. Kevin Jon Heller clarified his argument about the retroactive acceptance of the ICC’s jurisdiction, and challenged the assumption that Palestine was not a state before last week’s UNGA vote. Deborah Pearlstein advanced three reasons for the importance of Jeh Johnson’s recent speech on the conditions for calling an end to the war on terror.

Continuing on the war on terror, Kevin expressed concern over the extension of US targeting policy in Afghanistan to “children with potential hostile intent“.

A few posts dealt with the growing divide between US law and international law. In a guest post on the Feinstein amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, Jonathan Hafetz argued that the amendment widens the rift between US constitutional law and international law by deepening discrimination against non-citizens.  Peter Spiro and Julian Ku both wrote about the Senate’s rejection of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Peter argued that the rejection does not prove that sovereigntism lives, but rather that the supermajority required by the US constitution’s Treaty clause is outdated. He also posted a link to a Daily Show segment on the vote. Julian argued that sovereigntists should have held their fire for other treaties that, contrary to the CRPD, may actually have an impact on US law. In another post, Julian argued that a unilateral US intervention in Syria if the Assad regime deploys chemical weapons would be illegal under international law.

Following a recent meeting of the International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, Kristen Boon discussed possible incentives to avoid overfishing. Kristen also discussed whether the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (CERDS) could fill the legal void surrounding land grabbing.

As always, we also provided a list of upcoming events and weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

Posting was light this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. We hope all our US readers had a very happy Thanksgiving holiday!

Peter Spiro commented on the territorialist approach in Obama’s speech on citizenship during this week’s visit to Burma.

Deborah Pearlstein posted about the ABA’s recent journalists’ guide on national security law, to which she contributed a chapter on international law in US courts.

Kristen Boon reported on the UN Security Council’s debate on maritime piracy, and the resulting presidential statement, and wondered about the role of the Security Council in this area. Continuing on this “watery” theme, Ken Anderson wrote about a new set of amendments agreed by Mexico and the US to the 1944 Colorado River Pact and Julian Ku blogged again about Argentina’s claim under the UNCLOS against the seizure of its naval training ship in Ghana. In his post, he agreed with Matthew Happold’s argument that the ITLOS does not jurisdiction because this is not an UNCLOS question.

Julian also pointed out that Colombia is already looking for alternative legal mechanisms to resist this week’s ICJ judgment in its dispute with Nicaragua, and was critical of the suggestion by Geoffrey Robertson QC that international law might be able to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis.

Kevin Jon Heller posted about an interview with Judge Sow about the Charles Taylor trial. Further on Africa, Ken Anderson discussed how the UN is considering deploying surveillance drones in Eastern Congo.

As always, we listed upcoming events and provided daily news wraps. Our readers may also be interested in the job of Assistant Dean for International Affairs at the University of Michigan Law School, mentioned by Peter.

This week on Opinio Juris, we finished last week‘s symposium on the Oxford Guide to Treaties, recently edited by our own Duncan Hollis. Peter Spiro discussed Kal Raustiala’s chapter on NGOs and treaty-making, and argued that we should look beyond traditional treaties to understand the full scope of NGO participation in international lawmaking. A final set of posts discussed the increasing public nature of treaties. Geir Ulfstein argued that treaty law alone cannot answer all the important legal questions that arise as a result of treaty bodies exercising public powers, but needs input from institutional law. Catherine Brölmann’s post also discussed the combination of contractual and institutional elements in constitutive treaties. Geir and Catherine’s posts led Duncan Hollis to reflect on how treaty law can lead to “secondary fragmentation” – fragmentation in the “rules on rules”.  Christian Tams argued that this “fragmentation” indicates the limits of general treaty law which often only provides residual rules or no rules at all.

In our regular posts, Julian Ku questioned whether Argentina’s claim under the UNCLOS against the seizure of its naval training ship had any chance of success. Peter Spiro discussed the status of honorary consuls after Jill Kelley, one of the central figures in the Petraeus scandal, demanded “diplomatic protection” based on her status as Korea’s honorary consul in Tampa. Kevin Jon Heller was appalled by the assumptions of the online “Tell Me How This Ends” game, as all available strategies required a blatant violation of jus ad bellum, and Kristen Boon wrote about a panel on the Responsibility to Protect she chaired during the Canadian Council of International Law conference.

R2P was also the topic of Spencer Zifcak’s article discussed as part of the latest Melbourne Journal of International Law symposium. The article examines the current standing of coercive intervention under the R2P doctrine after Libya and Syria. In his response, Ramesh Thakur pointed to three points missing from the analysis. Thomas Weisz argued that R2P is only an emerging norm and that its enforcement will depend on a confluence of political circumstances and military capacity. Spencer Zifcak’s reply to the comments can be found here.

A second article, by Darryl Robinson, examined why command responsibility had become so complicated, and blamed one early misstep. Ilias Bantekas’ response focused on causality whereas Jens Ohlin proposed to consider command responsibility as both a separate offence and a mode of liability. Darryl Robinson responded to these comments here. James Stewart wondered whether a failure to punish subordinates could be assimilated to ex post aiding and abetting. Darryl Robinson responded here.

The final article of the MJIL Symposium, by Michelle Foster, argued why Australia’s MOU with Nauru about the processing of refugee applications is at risk of violating the Refugee Convention. Mary Crock agreed with this assessment and discussed the effects that the new arrangements have already had. Susan Kneebone examined the application of principles of state responsibility. Michelle Foster’s response can be found here.

As always, we kept you up to date with a listing of upcoming events and our daily news wrap.

Have a nice weekend!

With the US elections dominating the headlines this week, Peter Spiro argued that the impact of the US president on populations who are unable to vote in the election, and are not even allowed to make campaign contributions, reveals another limit of state-based institutions. Deborah Pearlstein asked whether President Obama’s promise that a “decade of war is ending” includes the “war” against al-Qaeda, and started thinking about the law and policy implications as the US shifts from the war paradigm to a counter-terrorism framework.

Two posts dealt with immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Kristen Boon discussed the sensitivity and the legal significance of head of state immunity, which was on the agenda this week at the UNGA’s Sixth Committee. In a guest post, William Dodge tried to make sense of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Yousuf v. Samantar.

The main event on the blog this week was the symposium on the Oxford Guide to Treaties, edited by our very own Duncan Hollis, who introduced the symposium on Thursday morning. The symposium continues on Monday, so stay tuned for more!

A first series of posts dealt with the question of reservations. David Stewart addressed objections to reservations and  severability, and argued that the severability rule could be a disincentive to broad treaty adherence. Harold Koh asked what happens when a treaty reservation is invalid? Ed Swaine also addressed the severability issue and asked how it could be made less severe. Marko Milanovic defended the compromise reached by the International Law Commission in its 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, and described the conceptual moves made to achieve the compromise.

A second series of posts focused on treaty interpretation. Richard Gardiner started the conversation pointing to various considerations beyond those listed in article 31 VCLT that can inform treaty interpretation. Jean Galbraith discussed the diverging ways taken by international and US domestic approaches to treaty interpretation, with international law accepting a strong teleological approach in contrast to the textual approach that has re-emerged in the US.

Finally, as always, you can find a list of upcoming events and our daily news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, our thoughts are with our US East Coast readers affected by Superstorm Sandy. We hope you and your loved ones are safe and sound.

Posting was light this week because of the storm, which forced us to postpone a symposium on Duncan Hollis’ edited volume, The Oxford Guide to Treaties, to next week. But Sandy also provided inspiration for a few substantive posts. Kristen Boon highlighted recent developments in international disaster law and Peter Spiro built on this asking whether in the long term there should be a global FEMA.

The Washington Post’s series of articles on “The Permanent War” prompted Ken Anderson to compare the different attitudes of the US political community and the international legal community towards accepting US “counter-terrorism on offense” policies from a legal and policy perspective, and discuss strategic considerations for advocacy groups to challenge the convergence towards acceptance of these policies within the US political community. In another post, Ken mentioned the little-known law of edged weapons.

Kevin Jon Heller posted an abstract of his draft article on the legality of signature strikes. He also wrote about the UK’s Supreme Court rejection of the argument that al-Qaeda operatives are not protected persons under article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, as argued in an OLC memo authored by Jack Goldsmith.

Looking forward to next week, Peter Spiro asked whether Americans abroad could determine the US presidential election.

As each week, we brought you daily news updates and a list of upcoming events. Kristen Boon also drew your attention to the upcoming annual conference of the Canadian Council of International Law.

Have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, we welcomed Kristen Boon as our newest permanent blogger. In her opening post, she examined why the Security Council’s work on Children and Armed Conflict has turned out to be controversial. She also asked readers’ opinion on a recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture claiming that there is an emerging customary norm that the death penalty is a form of torture or cruel and degrading treatment. Finally, she discussed a trail blazing class action against the UN over a cholera outbreak in Haiti. The claim was filed by the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, but the UN has yet to respond. Kristen discussed possible reasons for the delay in the response and also analysed whether the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations could provide a basis for liability.

The foreign policy debate in the US Presidential election provided inspiration for our bloggers. Peter Spiro noted how international law was generally ignored during the debate, but at least it wasn’t reviled as during the time of George W. Bush. Julian Ku and Kevin Jon Heller both discussed Gov. Romney’s claim that Iranian President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide. Julian argued that the ICJ would be the most likely forum or otherwise the ICC if a Security Council referral could be obtained. Kevin disagreed with Julian’s assessment that the US courts would not have jurisdiction. Further on the upcoming US elections, Julian called the threats by Texas officials to arrest OSCE election officials a kerfuffle about nothing.

Julian followed up on earlier posts, arguing that the US could legally engage in military action against the attackers of its embassy in Benghazi, even if the attackers are not linked to al Qaeda.

We also drew your attention to some new and old scholarship. Kevin plugged a new article by James Stewart on “Overdetermined Atrocities” and the release of a paperback edition of his book on the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. At the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Peter Spiro revisited Abram Chayes’ book on the legal aspects of the crisis. Finally, Duncan Hollis posted about the ALI’s announcement to start work on a 4th Restatement on the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, to be co-ordinated by Sarah Cleveland and Paul Stephan.

As always, we listed upcoming events and provided you with our weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, we hosted a book discussion on Informal International Lawmaking, a new volume edited by Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses Wessel and Jan Wouters, hot of the presses from OUP. In a post on the conceptual approaches adopted by the authors, Joost Pauwelyn explained what they mean by “informal” international lawmaking and what the book hopes to add to the debate on non-traditional forms of international law. David Zaring asked where the boundaries of “informal” law stop and discussed the legitimization technique used in the book, a move away from the traditional state consent.

Ramses Wessel discussed the legal nature and impact of informal international law. In his comment, Tai-Heng Cheng focused on the relationships between international social norms, legality and normativity. Ramses Wessel’s reply argued that the notion of ‘presumptive law’, developed by Jan Klabbers, could be useful to understand the important normative role that informal law can play, and that actual effects and the acceptance of norms in legal orders are important factors to determine normativity.

Jan Wouters summarized the findings on the accountability and domestic implementation under informal international lawmaking. Chris Brummer’s comment added to this from the perspective of international financial law, and also flagged how courts are often side-lined by the non-binding nature of informal law.

To conclude the symposium, Joost Pauwelyn argued why we are now seeing more informality than ever before, and pointed to the recent WTO Decision in US-Tuna II as an example of how informal international law can affect dispute settlement by courts, and Jan Wouters and Sanderijn Duquet closed off with some further thoughts on accountability.

In what can be seen as an example of informal international lawmaking, Peter Spiro and Duncan Hollis discussed the negotiations of the International Telecommunications Union’s regulations later this year in Dubai. Peter pondered different models for the participation of the large number of industry representatives on the US delegation to the negotiations on an international telecommunications treaty. Duncan reported on a set of White Papers on cyber norms, resulting from a series of interdisciplinary workshops in which he has been involved.

Also of interest in relation to our book symposium is Harold Koh’s recent speech on 21st century international lawmaking to which Duncan drew our attention. In his speech, the legal advisor to the US State Department also explored alternatives to formal treaties and the role of non-state actors.

Another event that attracted attention on the blog was the DC Circuit’s opinion in Hamdan v. United States, holding that material support for terrorism was not a war crime before 2001. Kevin Jon Heller welcomed the decision, and in a later analysis argued why the historical case against considering conspiracy as a war crime is even stronger than that against material support for terrorism. Deborah Pearlstein discussed what Congress should take from Hamdan.

In other posts, Kevin dealt with a lot of quotes this week. First, he gave the award of Orwellian Quote of the Day to a US government request for a protective order in the 9/11 trials at Guantanamo Bay to avoid the publication of details about torture of the defendants. In the aftermath of the second US Presidential Debate, Kevin reviewed the transcript of the debate and of Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden to check what was said and what wasn’t about the Benghazi attacks. He also posted about a claim by the head of the American Family Association that Hitler’s Stormtroopers were male homosexuals.

Julian Ku felt little sympathy for Argentina whose naval training ship, the ARA Libertad, is the subject of an attachment claim in Ghana, brought by investors trying to recoup money they lost when Argentina defaulted on its sovereign bonds in 2002.

As always, we provided you with daily news wraps and a list of upcoming events. Julian also reminded us about the upcoming International Law Weekend in New York City, organized by the American Branch of the ILA, from October 25-27.

Finally, we look forward to next week, when Kristen Boon will join us as a new regular contributor. Welcome Kristen!

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

This week on Opinio Juris, Eric Posner’s Slate article about the legality of US drone strikes in Pakistan attracted the attention of Julian Ku and Kevin Jon Heller. Julian wondered whether Koh’s “conversion” on the issue will serve as a shield against international arguments about the illegality of the strikes. Kevin in turn expressed hope that Posner’s rejection of the “unwilling or unable” test will stop the spread of this standard from the US into non-US opinio juris.

Kevin reflected, twice, on how history tends to repeat itself, drawing parallels between the definition of combatant in the Vietnam War and for present day ‘signature strikes’, and about the use of the ‘water cure‘ during the war in the Philippines (which was however found to constitute torture in later reviews).  A picture of that water cure was posted on a new blog, called Geographical Imaginations, which Kevin welcomed to the blogosphere.

Duncan Hollis flagged that the case of Carol Anne Bond is back on the US Supreme Court’s radar screen following an application for certiorari and, if accepted, may provide an opportunity to revisit Missouri v. Holland.

We also provided a platform this week to the Leiden Journal of International law, for a symposium on its latest issue. A first article discussed was the editorial by Jean d’Aspremont who lamented the diffused power of interpretative power in international law and the resulting ‘wordfare’ about naming. Comments were provided by Francesco Messineo and Michael Kearney. Jean’s response is here.

A second article, by Jean Galbraith, assessed to what extent good deeds are taken into account in sentencing in international criminal law. Meg deGuzman and Mark Drumbl provided commentary, to which Jean replied here.

Finally, as every week we provided you with a list of upcoming events and with our weekday news wraps.

Thank you to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

This week, there was no escaping the second oral argument in the Kiobel case that kicked off the US Supreme Court’s term on Monday. If you are not familiar with this case, it concerns the enigmatic Alien Tort Statute which, as part of the Judiciary Act 1789, holds that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” SCOTUSblog provides more background on the case here and here.

First of the mark here at Opinio Juris was Deborah Pearlstein posting on the early consensus about how oral argument was going. Peter Spiro posted a link to the transcript of the oral argument, and argued that things did not go that well for Shell, but stopped short of making predictions about the final outcome. Roger Alford predicted that the Supreme Court will limit application of the ATS to claims by foreign plaintiffs against foreign corporations for conduct on foreign soil. In a later post, Deborah discussed three possible readings of an exchange between Justice Scalia and the US Solicitor General on whether the Court should give deference to the views of the State Department.

During our special Kiobel Roundtable, Curtis Bradley argued that the presumption against extraterritorial application is a better fit than the stronger presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the scope of the ATS. In his post, William Dodge also pointed out that suggestions by respondents to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality did not appear to gain traction with the justices. He also touched on the questions of the availability of alternative fora and of corporate liability for human rights violations. Chimène Keitner focused on transitory torts, rejected Shell’s claims that federal courts should not consider any claims arising outside the US and discussed how much deference should be given to the political branches to avoid offending foreign countries.

A few contributors raised the issue of the purpose of the ATS. Julian Ku expressed disappointment that the parties did not offer a persuasive theory of the purpose of the ATS. Meir Feder asked whether the ATS addresses national or universal interests. In a similar vein, Beth Stephens discussed how to define a coherent limit on ATS cases, and argued that the devil is in the details. Thomas Lee argued that the real purpose of the ATS was about protecting safe conducts and not about piracy or ambassadorial infringements, as is often assumed.

Doug Cassel argued that the Supreme Court should only require the prior exhaustion of foreign and international remedies “in ATS cases brought exclusively under universal jurisdiction, and not in ATS suits against US companies”. He added that any exhaustion requirement should respect the exceptions recognized by international law.

Aside from our Kiobel posts, Kevin wrote about the passing of historian Eric Hobsbawn. Ken Anderson reposted part of Gary Bass’ review of John Witt’s book “Lincoln’s Code“, discussed Aryeh Neier’s call for a no-fly zone over Syria, and examined the differences between the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and the landmark case of Reid v Covert. Julian discussed reports that the US is preparing a retaliatory military strike into Libya over the killing of Ambassador Stevens, and posted about the refusal by the Japanese PM to submit the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute to the ICJ. Finally, Duncan Hollis posted about a recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court to implement the ICJ’s Avena judgment, despite there being no requirement to do so, as the US Supreme Court held in Medellin v. Texas.

As always, we also brought you a list of upcoming events and our weekday news wraps.

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

This week on Opinio Juris, one of us was facing a legal challenge of his own. You can read Kevin Jon Heller’s account of Chevron’s subpoena for 9 years of IP-logs for his gmail-account here.

Ken Anderson is back to blogging, and discussed the leading issues at this week’s opening of the UN General Assembly in a post that also reflected on whether a sitting US President has anything to gain from a meaningful UN speech during an election year. In a different post, Ken reproduced the text of Obama’s speech as prepared for delivery. Further on UN appearances, Kevin wondered whether Benjamin Netanyahu’s “red line” about Iran’s nuclear bomb could still be taken seriously.

Other posts also dealt with Iran. Kevin asked why progressive bloggers were so willing to overlook the MEK’s involvement in the assassination of Iranian scientists when claiming that the organization has not been involved in terrorist attacks for years, and Deborah Pearlstein wrote about new drone technology reportedly developed by Iran.

In a guest post, Chantal Meloni argued why the Palestine-ICC saga is far from over, despite the April 3, 2012 update by the OTP. Another guest post, by Polina Levina and Kaveri Vaid, argued that the allegations of torture in a recent Human Rights Watch report qualify as war crimes under the Rome Statute, and are thus relevant for the OTP’s preliminary investigation into the situation in Afghanistan.

Our journal symposia are also back after the Northern Hemisphere summer break. The Harvard International Law Journal kicked off with a symposium on “The Democratic Coup d’Etat“, an article by Ozan Varol. The article argues that not all military coups are alike from an anti-democracy perspective. Joel Colón-Ríos’s response advanced on a more restricted concept of a democratic coup that focuses not only on the end result but also on the process through which the change came about. David Landau argued how the article illustrates the absence of an accurate vocabulary about military coups and how it raises further questions about the constitutional implications of various models of military entrenchment in post-coup constitutions. William Partlett provided a pragmatist response, and Brad Roth criticized the article’s reduction of democracy to “a narrow set of institutions and procedures”. Ozan Varol’s response to the comments can be found here.

In other announcements, Jessica welcomed Armed Groups and International Law to the blogosphere, and we posted about upcoming events and wrapped up the news. 

Many thanks to all our guest posters and have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, we posted Harold Koh’s speech on international law in cyberspace, delivered earlier this week, as part of our efforts to make important international law speeches more readily available.

The decision by the Obama administration to requalify the tragic events in Libya on September 11 as a terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous reaction provides a further basis, according to Julian Ku, for the legality of any US retaliation using armed force, including on the basis of the UAMF.

Julian also followed up on last week’s post on articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, which confirms the inviolability of embassy premisses and of the person of the diplomatic agent. This time the issue arose in China where protesters attacked the car of US ambassador Gary Locke and “egged” the Japanese embassy. In further posts, Julian addressed the controversy over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands that triggered the egging incident. He speculated that Japan is probably not interested in bringing the sovereignty dispute before the ICJ because it already possesses the disputed islands. He pointed out how the US, despite its official stance of neutrality, may still be dragged into the dispute based on article V of the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security which applies to any territory under the administration of Japan.

Kevin Jon Heller reported on the trial of Buzeid Dorda, a senior intelligence officer in the Gaddhafi regime, which has been suspended multiple times now after constitutionality challenges by the defence based on due process violations by the prosecution. Kevin argued that this could give support for the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber to reject Libya’s admissibility challenge against Saif, because his domestic case has seen more systematic due process violations.

Kevin was critical of the Obama administration’s decision to no longer list the MEK, aka the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran, as a terrorist organisation, noting that the group was found to be involved in plots to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists only recently.

Peter Spiro pointed to the ground-breaking creation of three privatized cities in Honduras, and Robyn Curnow contributed a guest post on the Pussy Riot sentencing, in which she shone a light on how the charge of hooliganism may have increased the appeal of the case in the West due to the different connotations of this term in different jurisdictions.

Finally, as every week, we posted a listing of upcoming events and our weekday news wrap.

Have a nice weekend!

The attacks on US embassies in the Arab world did not escape our bloggers’ attention this week. Duncan Hollis posted about host states’ duties to protect diplomatic and consular premises, and questioned whether Libya and Egypt could be held responsible for the attacks. Julian Ku asked which responses to the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens would be legal under US constitutional and international law.  In another post, Julian referred to news reports that the US sent two navy destroyers, marines, investigators and intelligence personnel to Libya to find those responsible for the attack.

The anti-Muslim video that stoked the unrest prompted Peter Spiro to explore the boundaries of free speech. In a post that attracted many comments, he argued that the killing bolsters the case for banning hate speech. He also asked whether those opposed to banning hate speech are equally opposed to Google’s decision to block access to the offensive video in Libya and Egypt.

In other posts, Chris Borgen wrote about the case of Ramil Safarov, described in more detail in this post by his St John’s colleague Mark Movsesian. Chris also posted about the decision of the NYU Journal of International Law and Policy – one of Opinio Juris’ journal symposia partners – to become a peer-reviewed journal, with José E. Alvarez as managing editor.

Kevin Jon Heller referred us to Mark Kersten’s scoop that Libya obtained custody of Al-Senussi by allegedly paying Mauretania $200 million, more than the ICC’s yearly operating budget. Following news that Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, the Guantanamo detainee who was passed away last week, had been cleared for release three years ago, Kevin predicted that “fifty years from now, Gitmo will be a the top of the list of things the Texas Board of Education wants banned from students’ history books”.

Duncan Hollis posted an abstract of the first chapter of his new book The Oxford Guide to Treaties. The entire chapter can now be downloaded from SSRN.

Finally, Mel O’Brien contributed a guest post about trafficking in women and girls discussed during the 52^nd session of the Committee on the Elimination of the Discrimination Against Women.

As always, we also provided you with a listing of upcoming events and our daily compilations of international law news.

Have a nice weekend!