Archive of posts for category
Weekend Roundup

Weekend Roundup: April 6-12, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, we hosted a symposium on the latest issues of the Leiden Journal of International Law, introduced here by Dov Jacobs. The first article, On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, discussed the functions of international courts in the international legal order beyond their traditional dispute settlement role. In his comments, Andreas Føllesdal asked how a “function” is defined and whether the various functions of international courts contribute to our assessment of their effectiveness and legitimacy. Ruti Teitel suggested to open up the question of legitimacy. The authors’ response can be found here.

The second article in the symposium was by Darryl Robinson, entitled A Cosmopolitan Liberal Account of International Criminal LawJens Ohlin commented how the article had made him take a step back. Mark Drumbl raised points on moral agency and how ICL can understate responsibility in mass atrocity. Darryl’s response is here.

Another series of guest posts was by Jonathan Horowitz and Naz Modirzadeh who provided two posts (1, 2) discussing how international law could work in transnational non-international armed conflicts.

If writing a guest post for Opinio Juris is on your wish list, check out the call for papers for our upcoming New Voices symposium, aimed at international law students and early career professionals.

In our regular posts, Julian shared his impressions about the ASIL Panel on China and international law, discussing in particular the importance of sovereignty to China as a fundamental principle of international law. Julian also pointed out Judge Leval’s article in Foreign Affairs defending the ATS and agreed with his suggestions of how a modern legislator could limit civil jurisdiction for the enforcement of universal norms.

Kristen brought a request for an advisory opinion to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to our attention and wondered about the background of this request.

Deborah considered the McClatchy report that most drone strikes do not target senior al-Qaeda leaders, and speculated about what could the domestic and international legal basis for these strikes could be.

Chris posted about a conference this week at St John’s on the topic of Cyberconflicts. For more on upcoming conferences, see our events and announcements post.

Finally, as always, we provided you with our weekday news wraps.

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

 

Weekend Roundup: March 30 – April 5, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, we brought you the latest round in the Goodman-Heller debate on capture v kill, in which Ryan Goodman responded to Kevin’s comments on this blog a few weeks ago.

Kevin started his week by pointing to turmoil in Sweden’s prosecution of Julian Assange, following the resignation of the prosecutor and the decision by one of his accusers to fire her lawyer. He also addressed the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision to refer Chad to the Security Council over its non-cooperation in the execution of the ICC’s arrest warrant of Sudan’s President’s Omar al-Bashir. Kevin saw this as a risky move that can threaten the Court’s legitimacy if the Security Council does not act. Kevin also recommended a new casebook on international humanitarian law.

Julian criticized the glacial pace of progress of the ICJ proceedings, arguing that in the case between Australia and Japan on whaling it did nothing to cool the dispute. He also urged the NRA to hold its fire over the Arms Trade Treaty, arguing that the treaty is too weak to affect the right to bear arms.

Deborah hailed new guidelines for Armed Private Security Companies doing business with the UN as significant, and asked our readers for their opinions.

At the end of the week, we hosted a symposium by the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics on Professor Jenia Iontcheva Turner’s article Policing International Prosecutors.  In her comment, Professor deGuzman provided two reasons why international criminal courts should err on the side of the defendant when balancing his right to a fair trial with the rights of victims and the broader international community. Sonja Starr argued that the fairness of the trial is not just one factor in the analysis but rather the threshold question. Kevin likewise argued that the accuracy of the trial is essential, and expressed concerns about the article’s rhetoric. Alex Whiting in turn feared that a balancing approach might make the courts too willing to find procedural misconduct, particularly when their are differences in litigation culture between the judges and the defence counsel. These cultural differences were also raised by James Stewart who credited the article with changing his mind about prosecutorial misconduct.  Professor Turner’s response to the comments can be found here.

One of the commentators in the symposium, James Stewart, also provided a guest post in two parts (12) over the ICTY’s approach to complicity in the Perišić judgment.

Many of you are probably at ASIL’s Annual Meeting. In preparation, Jessica highlighted some of the main events. Chris posted about the newly establish Space Law Interest Group of which he is the co-chair and Deborah shared her notes on the discussion on targeted killing.

Finally, as always, we listed upcoming events and announcements and summarized international law related news in our weekday news wraps

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

Weekend Roundup: March 23-29, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio JurisPeter wrote about the unlikely advocates of international law in amicus briefs submitted in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court this week.

Julian was disappointed that despite all the reporting on the Amanda Knox retrial, nobody in the media had bothered to read the US-Italy extradition treaty. Kevin also took aim at the media’s lack of knowledge of international law. He argued that recent reporting on the Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare grossly overestimates the likelihood that a hacker can legally be killed.

Further on cybersecurity, Roger argued that new restrictions on US federal agencies’ purchase of IT equipment produced in China by companies affiliated to the Chinese government are compatible with the US’ WTO obligations, because of the self-judging nature of the national security exceptions in the GATT and the GPA.

We also hosted a book symposium on Economic Foundations of International Law by Eric Posner and Alan Sykes. In his comment, Andrew Guzman focused on why states should accept more delegation to international institutions. Emilie Hafner-Burton and David Victor discussed how the book helps to identify new areas of international law open to empirical research. Rachel Brewster asked whether a liability rule is always the best option to operate remedies under international law, and Steve Charnovitz disagreed with some of the book’s analysis of the WTO. The authors response to the comments can be found here.

In other posts, Julian updated us on the appointment of a second arbitrator in the Philippines-China arbitration under UNCLOS, and James Hathaway’s  guest post announced the Summary Conclusions of the Roundtable on the Future of Refugee Convention Supervision, proposing the establishment of a Special Committee of Experts to oversee compliance with states’ obligations under the Refugee Convention.

If you’re keen to read more over what for many of you will be the long Easter weekend, check out Deborah’s post about her Foreign Policy article, co-authored with Phil Carter, Obama’s first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, on the use of criminal courts in counter-terrorism efforts. Ken also recommended the series on contemporary issues of IHL over at the ICRC’s blog Intercross. And, as usual, we had our weekday news wraps, which celebrated its first birthday this week.

Finally, we also listed upcoming events and announcements, and Anupam Chander provided a guest post on the newly established ASIL Interest Group on International Law and Technology that will meet after next week’s ASIL Annual Meeting.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and enjoy your (long) weekend!

 

Weekend Roundup: March 16-22, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, CIA drone strikes remained in the spotlight. Continuing on last week’s post, Kevin tried to get to the bottom of the CIA’s involvement in drone strikes and whether it is sufficient to trigger criminal liability, which sparked a long discussion in the comments with John C. Dehn. Deborah welcomed news reports about a possible transfer of the CIA’s programme to the Defense Department, whose targeting authority she argued is better constrained. She added, though, that the organizational shift would not solve all problems unless transparency improves to ensure political accountability.

We also kept you up-to-date with recent developments in international law. Kristen reported on the decision of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to expand the scope of the Convention, and Kevin wrote about the latest episode in the battle between Libya and the ICC over al-Senussi. And of course, there were our daily weekday news wraps.

In other posts, Duncan wondered whether high school cyberwar teams include legal advisors; Ken upheld his yearly tradition of posting Joan of Arc’s Declaration of War in 1429; and Roger posted the Google rankings of the most influential international law journals.

If you need inspiration on topics for articles to submit to these journals, check out our events and announcements for a collection of conferences and calls for papers.

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: March 9-15, 2013

by An Hertogen

Our main event this week was a book symposium on Curtis Bradley’s new book “International Law in the US Legal System“. On the first day, the symposium focused on treaties with comments by David Moore and Jean Galbraith.  Attention turned to international delegations on day two. Julian welcomed the book’s attention to questions of constitutional structure, but disagreed that accession to the International Criminal Court would not create delegation problems. Kristina Daugirdas asked whether the presumption of non-self-execution as a solution to questions of delegation could make it harder for the US to comply with its international obligations. On day three, Bill Dodge and Mark Weisburd discussed the position of customary international law in the US legal system. Finally, Mike Ramsey and Ingrid Wuerth discussed war powers and international law, and Curtis Bradley responded to all comments.

All commentators wholeheartedly recommended the book, so maybe it can follow in the footsteps of Duncan’s book “The Oxford Guide to Treaties“, about which we had a symposium late last year, and win an ASIL Certificate of Merit.

Deborah asked whether the US needs a new authorization to use force against the new jihadist groups in North Africa and the Middle East that are only distantly related to the “original” Al Qaeda, or whether other options that are already legally available would be sufficient.

Our bloggers have been active lately: Kristen Boon posted the abstract to her essay on lex specialis and the responsibility of international organizations, while Roger’s teaching took him to the Philippines where he witnessed first hand how microfinance had helped transform a mountain village.

Speaking of affecting change,  if this post on Lawfare, pointed out by Ken, is correct, Kevin may have achieved every academic’s dream of our work (a blog post even!) affecting government policy. In a follow-up post, Kevin argued why a CIA drone operator cannot invoke the public authority defense. In other posts, Kevin continued the debate on the power to capture or kill  with his response to Ryan Goodman’s rebuttal over at Lawfare. Kevin also posted about Philippe Sands’ decision to quit the LibDems over their support to the UK’s new justice and security bill, counted the legal errors in an article in the Jerusalem Post reporting about the request by an Israeli law firm to the ICC Prosecutor to open an investigation against the Palestinian President Abbas and nine Hamas members, and updated us on Libya’s latest procedural steps in slowing down the admissibility challenge.

As every week, we listed events and announcements  and provided you with daily weekday news wraps.

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

Weekend Roundup: March 2-8, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin argued why the OPCD’s small victory over the return of documents seized by Libya may be important in the longer run because of its consequences for Libya’s admissibility challenge. He also quoted from Libya’s latest submission on the admissibility challenge to argue why it should lose the challenge. Shifting his focus to the US, Kevin asked three questions about AG Holder’s response to Rand Paul.

Tactics were the key word for Julian this week. He assessed two proposals for legal tactics that the US could use to win the cyberwar with other countries, and discussed Argentina’s tactics in the NML v. Argentina sovereign bond litigation.

Kristen Boon pointed out topics of interest at the Human Rights Council’s 22nd session, while Ken Anderson flagged the ongoing debate over at Lawfare and at Jens Ohlin’s Lieber Code about Ryan Goodman’s EJIL article on the power to kill or capture enemy combatants, as well as Jens’ response essay on SSRN.

We also had a wide range of guest posts this week. In a post that unsurprisingly attracted a lot of comments, Sigall Horovitz described how Israel can legally avoid, at least for seven years, an ICC investigation into the West Bank Settlements.

William Dodge updated us on Samatar’s certiorari petition to the US Supreme Court with a post summarizing the who, what and exceptions to state, status-based and conduct-based immunity.

We hosted a symposium on the latest issue of the Harvard International Law Journal. The first article, by Ginsburg, Elkins and Simmons, dealt with an issue that also got some attention on the blog last week: the impact of international human rights treaties on domestic constitutions. Christopher N.J. Roberts’ comments wondered whether the UDHR can be considered a template for domestic changes and what the impact of domestic legal culture is on the understanding of similar rights. Tom Ginsburg responded here.

The second article of the symposium was Natalie Lockwood’s article on International Vote Buying, for which William Burke-White provided the response. He questioned whether a legal prohibition on vote buying would be effective, but applauded the article for its re-examination of the role of economic power in the international community. Natalie’s response addressed whether vote buying and diplomacy can be separated as well as the difference between economic coercion and vote buying.

The third article discussed was Ashley Deeks’ one on Consent to the Use of Force and International Law Supremacy. Comments were provided by Opinio Juris’ own Duncan Hollis. He responded in two posts: one on issues of international law supremacy and another on whether international law should be able to invalidate consent if it manifestly violates the domestic law of the consenting state.

The final article was Moira Paz’ The Failed Promise of Language Rights: A Critique of the International Language Rights Regime, with Efrat Arbel as commentator. Moira’s response is here.

As always, we also provided a listing of events and announcements and weekday news wraps.

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

 

Weekend Roundup: February 23 – March 1, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, it was too early for Talk Like a Pirate Day, but we certainly talked a lot about pirates. The reason of course was the Ninth Circuit’s decision to agree with Japanese whalers that the Sea Shepherd’s activities amount to piracy. Julian wasn’t fully confident that “private ends” are broader than financial enrichment, and Kevin strongly disagreed with Judge Kozinski’s argument that a “rich history” supports the conclusion that all acts not taking on behalf of a state are for private ends. In two later posts, Kevin responded to comments disagreeing with his claim that politically-motivated acts are traditionally excluded from the definition of piracy, and added his final word (for now). Kevin also described another problem with qualifying the Sea Shepherd’s actions as piracy: that some states -not including the US- do not consider the area where the events are taking place as part of the high seas, but rather as under Australia’s sovereignty.

Kevin also revisited Libya’s admissibility challenge in the Saif Gaddafi case. Considering Libya’s decision to let the trial in Zintan go ahead before the trial in Tripoli on the same charges as the ICC case, he argued that Libya is unable to obtain custody over Saif, and followed up with a post asking whether Libya is even willing to prosecute Saif.

Following a call by Chinese lawyers for the Chinese government to ratify the ICCPR, Julian asked whether international human rights treaties are a suitable vehicle for domestic legal reform. His post was censored from his China Weibo account, on which you can read more here. Roger addressed Julian’s question with a post on a recent empirical article concluding that there is no clear evidence that the leading international human rights instruments have influenced domestic constitution writing, although he argued that the evidence shows that the agreements may have had an impact during their drafting process.

Jennifer Trahan provided a guest post on recent speeches by former State Legal Advisor Harold Koh on the Obama administration’s policy towards the Rome Statute and the ICC.

Ken advertised his C-SPAN Book TV interview, which will air again today, and can also be watched online here. Also competing for your attention this Saturday is the Annual Conference of the Duke Law, Ethics, and National Security Center, which is live-streamed on the web. If more reading is what you’re after, Roger posted a link to his new article applying the Broken Windows Theory to international corruption, and Duncan recommended a series of draft papers on the ILC’s recent Guide to Reservations that are made available on EJIL:Talk! in preparation of a special EJIL issue on the topic. He also looked forward to the return of IntLawGrrls to the blogosphere this coming International Women’s Day. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this cartoon on Drone Heroes, posted by Kevin, says a lot more than that.

Finally, as always, we posted our weekly events and announcements and the weekday news wrap.

Have a nice weekend!

 

Weekend Roundup: February 16-22, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian returned to his old favourite of the Whale Wars, and argued that the US courts can most likely exercise personal jurisdiction over Sea Shepherd, even in relation to its movements in the Southern Ocean.

Julian also covered a more recent favourite: the Philippines’ UNCLOS arbitration against China. He first reported on an article in the Chinese press quoting an unnamed expert advising the Chinese government not to take the Philippines’ claims too lightly. The advice, however, wasn’t followed, and Julian analysed what China’s decision not to walk down the arbitration path meant for UNCLOS arbitration involving major powers and for the discussion on UNCLOS ratification in the US. When the Philippines’ government decided to continue with the arbitration anyway, Julian didn’t consider this to be a futile exercise, or at least not any more futile than when China had decided to participate.

Kevin didn’t share Julian Assange’s optimism that a successful run in the upcoming Australian elections would lead the US to have to drop charges against him. As our regular readers will remember, Kevin argued last week that the ICC’s OTP committed a serious legal error when it argued that even an in absentia trial would mean that Libya’s admissibility challenge of the case against Saif Gaddafi could pass. It is no surprise then that Kevin was happy to see the OTP retract its submission this week. Kevin also recommended Jens Ohlin’s new article on “Targeting and the Concept of Intent“.

Kristen put the spotlight on International Peace Institute’s recent recommendation to give the African Union a bigger role in transitional justice issues in Africa. Kristen also posted the UN’s letter rejecting the Haiti Cholera claims, but thought the letter didn’t explain why the dispute was a public rather a private claim. Ken added to the discussion with an anecdote from his own experience while working in Bosnia.

Michael Lewis provided a guest post questioning how clear the dividing line between API and APII is, and ought to be.

If you’re planning to watch the Oscars this weekend, make sure to have a look at Deborah’s latest post on Zero Dark Thirty in which she discusses another forgotten element of the real story in the movie: the possibility of regret by those involved in the authorization of torture.

If your weekend plans include writing that long neglected paper, don’t make the mistakes listed by Roger when he stepped in the discussion on why academic writing is so bad. Check out our list of events and announcements too, maybe there is conference that is looking for just that paper!

Finally, as always, we provided you with our weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: February 9-15, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian noticed the apparent truce between the American right and the ICC, but didn’t go as far as calling it peace. Further on the ICC, Kevin pointed out a flagrant mistake at the Washington Times, and argued that the OTP was wrong in concluding that Libya is able to try Saif Gaddafi, because the Rome Statute does not consider a trial in absentia to meet that standard. Talking about criminal prosecutions, Peggy asked whether Pope Benedict XVI could be sued in the child sex abuse cases, when he retires later this month.

Julian discussed the latest interim order in the saga of the Lago Agrio case between Chevron and Ecuador, and wondered whether there is anything stopping Ecuador from dragging its feet in complying with the order. Roger weighed in in the comments.

In another post, Roger reflected on the role of intellectuals as Doubters-in-Chief of a society, and how often we take this for granted in a free society. Following the reference to the importance of citizenship to society in Obama’s State of the Union address, echoing earlier speeches, Peter argued that this is unfortunately more of an ideal not reflected by reality.

Peter also drew our attention to the issue of private rights of action under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that is likely to reach the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit split with the Fourth Circuit.

To finish off the week, Deborah gave her view on the increasingly popular argument to create a drone court with jurisdiction to review targeted killing decisions.

If you want to read more this weekend, can we refer you to Kevin’s new his essay on Charles Taylor’s sentencing or an essay by Noam Lubell and Nathan Derejko on the Geography of NIAC, recommended by Kevin? Or, if you’d rather turn to writing, check out our events and announcements post. Kevin also posted a call for papers for the newly launched London Review of International Law. In the spirit of the Review’s intention to include “non-traditional forms of engagement with international legal themes”, Roger posted the poem Cruel Window No More.

You can also find our summary of international law news in our weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

Weekend Roundup: February 1-8, 2013

by Jessica Dorsey

This week on Opinio Juris, Duncan started us off by discussing privileges and immunities for diplomats and posed the question of what the public should know in cases like DWIs. His next post offered a discussion of the Native American mutual defense treaty involving the Tar Sands Projects.

Kevin weighed in this week on affairs at the ICC, including this post outlining Libya’s contempt for the Office of Public Counsel for the Defense in the Saif Gaddafi case, and on a related note, with respect to the Al-Senussi case, he pointed out that Libya has now taken to insulting Al-Senussi’s defense counsel.

Kevin also pointed out a recent discussion started by Robert Howse on Prawfsblawg discussing the future of American legal education. Professor Howse was kind enough to then offer a guest post in response to Kevin’s thoughts.

The US Department of Justice’s White Paper was leaked this week, and Kevin pointed out its fatal flaw in international law (the lack of discussing organization with respect to Al Qaeda) and called attention to its confused approach to imminence and capture.  Deborah also had a post outlining her initial thoughts and critique of the White Paper. She also pointed out that Obama has ordered the release of classified memos to congressional oversight committees regarding targeted killing, calling it a step in the right direction.

Roger had a post discussing the recent decision in a Dutch district court against Shell and alternatives to ATS litigation in the United States and a post about John Kerry’s opening speech in his position as US Secretary of State, following Hillary Clinton. He also called attention to his latest article, which has just been published in the Virginia Journal of International Law, analyzing section 1782 discovery proceedings in the context of BIT arbitration.

Also active this week were Ken, who posted an update to his earlier post on the rising price of olive oil, and Kristen, who called attention to a recent conference organized by the University of Georgia Law School designed to define the word “scarcity” as it applies in international law.

And last but not least, as usual, we featured our Events and Announcements post as well as our Weekday News Wraps.

Weekend Roundup: January 26 – February 1, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian kicked off on a lighter note with a Chinese cartoon on the maritime dispute between China and the Philippines.

IHL and ICL lawyers were well catered for throughout the week, starting with a guest post by Michael W. Lewis, who discussed two more issues raised at the Boundaries of the Battlefield symposium: “elongated imminence” in response to an armed attack and the lack of operational experience of those writing on international humanitarian law. Kevin later took issue with the suggestion that Israel’s Six Day War supports an “elongated” concept of imminence.

Alexander Wills added two more arguments in favour of allowing states to make article 12(3) declarations under the ICC Statute and for these to have retroactive effect. Also on the ICC and Palestine, Julian shared his two reactions to a NY Times op-ed by Professor George Bisharat calling for an ICC investigation, which triggered a lively discussion in the comments.

A potential ICC’s claim was far from Israel’s only worry this week, with the UN Human Rights Council strongly condemning Israel’s settlements policy. Kevin commented on the report’s main conclusions here. And then there is of course Iran’s threat; Kevin updated his timeline of estimates of when Iran will have the bomb.

And if these posts were not enough, Ken recommended Benvenisti and Cohen’s new article on SSRN addressing the laws of war from an principal-agent perspective.

Two more guest posts graced our blog this week. Başak Çalı provided her final guest post in a series on international judicial review, in which she assessed the legal policy implications of the variable standard used by the European Court of Human Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz analysed the changes and the continuities in renditions under the Obama administration. He expressed particular concerns about the use of proxy detention and the substantive reach of US counter-terrorism legislation.

Finally, Roger posted a chart depicting the legal system of the world, and updated it with a more accurate one.

As always, we kept you informed with our weekday news wraps and a list of events and announcements. Deborah also advertised a panel discussion of Zero Dark Thirty hosted by Cardozo Law School on February 11.

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

Weekend Roundup: January 19-25, 2013

by An Hertogen

This week on Opinio Juris, Duncan was thrilled that the Supreme Court had finally reached a decision on whether to grant certiorari in Bond v United States, a case that requires revisiting Missouri v Holland. Julian though questioned whether Bond v United States will matter, although he gave his own two cents on the treaty power and federalism later.

Julian clearly got more excited about the Philippines’ move towards UNCLOS arbitration in the South China Sea dispute with China, which he labelled a game-changer. In further posts on this arbitration, he reflected on China’s options, disagreed with the Chinese argument that it could still withhold agreement to set up a tribunal and reflected on the irony that the Japanese ITLOS President gets to appoint an arbitrator on China’s behalf if China fails to do so.

Julian was surprised by John Bellinger’s op-ed on intervention in Syria, which John Bellinger then clarified in a guest post. Julian also noted a slight shift in the US foreign policy establishment against drone strikes with a recent critique on current policy by the Council of Foreign Relations

Kevin meanwhile was (nearly) rendered speechless, not once but twice, first by the US Air Force’s claim that US militarism is a fitting tribute to Martin Luther King and then by an article quoting Jeh Johnson as stating that MLK would approve the US’ current wars. He also thought that it was pathetic for Susan Rice to object to a “State of Palestine” nameplate in the UN Security Council. And this brings me to his next post on Palestine, summarizing why it matters formally that Palestine ratifies the Rome Statute on top of its ad hoc declaration under article 12(3).

In other posts, Kevin found a further reason to disagree with Judge Pohl’s decision in al-Nashiri, this time because of Hamdan II. Peter Spiro looked at President Obama’s second inaugural speech from the perspective of citizenship and concluded that the speech was mainly intended for domestic consumption. Julian had not noticed last weekend’s conclusion of the negotiations on an international agreement on the control of mercury and wondered about the negotiation dynamics. Finally, Kristen provided a list of International Law Apps and wondered whether we’ll see more of them in the future.

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

Have a nice weekend!