Whoops, spoke too soon about the WSJ's anti-ICC editorial. It does indeed contain a lie -- and its a doozy: What’s more, no amount of reform of the founding treaty will change the ICC’s inherent flaw. The ICC is a child of the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction,” which holds that courts can adjudicate crimes committed anywhere in the...
Adding to our already energetic discussion about the ICC and Kampala is the WSJ Editorial Board's contribution today. I share many of the editorial's skeptical views of the ICC and I think even Kevin would not find any "lies" in this article. Here is the crux of their critique, which I mostly share: From the Balkans to East Timor to the...
From the Judgment: It was further argued that Germany alone could decide, in accordance with the reservations made by many of the Signatory Powers at the time of the conclusion of the Briand-Kellogg Pact, whether preventive action was a necessity, and that in making her decision final judgment was conclusive. But whether action taken under the claim of seIf-defense was in...
My UN Dispatch friend Mark Leon Goldberg notes today that a group of Representatives are circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter urging their colleagues to support a resolution "opposing the United States joining the Rome Statute or participating in the upcoming review conference." Reading the letter is an infuriating experience, not only for its ridiculously bad grammar -- how does one...
Julian beat me to the punch regarding the new Council on Foreign Relations report, From Rome to Kampala: The U.S. Approach to the 2010 International Criminal Court Review Conference. Not surprisingly, I don't share Julian's enthusiasm for it. On the contrary, I think it's extremely disappointing, little more than a reiteration of the same tired talking points that the...
In many ways, it is more important to note the continuity between Obama and Bush administration policies than to dwell on their differences. Given the political antecedents of the two administrations, the areas where they have adopted the same policy is a sure-fire sign that there is broad consensus in the U.S. on a policy. I think we are getting...
Eli Lake has a fantastic essay at Reason.com on the myriad ways in which Obama has replicated the worst excesses of the Bush administration with regard to national security. He rightly identifies the source of the problem -- the AUMF, which was passed in a fit of hysteria three days after 9/11 and has no natural expiration date. Here is...
Harold Koh's ASIL speech drew lots of attention for his defense of the legality of U.S. use of aerial drones. But Koh also spent much of the speech explaining and defending the U.S. decision to reorient its relationship toward the International Criminal Court. He noted U.S. attendance (as an observer) at the ICC Assembly of States Parties in November, and U.S....
Eric Posner has an editorial today in the Wall Street Journal today that uses the recent indictment of Judge Garzon in Spain as an opportunity to dust off the traditional far-right attack on the concept of universal jurisdiction and the existence of the ICC. It's a remarkably misleading editorial, one that deserves a thorough response. Mr. Garzon wanted to prosecute Pinochet...
UNTOLD STORIES: HIDDEN HISTORIES OF WAR CRIMES TRIALS A two-day international symposium to uncover and explore some of the less well-known war crimes trials, both international and domestic. Melbourne Law School 15th and 16th October 2010 Presented by The Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, Melbourne Law School, and supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant Organizers: Gerry Simpson, Tim McCormack, Kevin Heller,...
I don't fully understand the nature of the legal charges against Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon. It sounds like, from this Economist article, that he is being accused of some version of "prosecutorial" and "judicial" misconduct for refusing to follow the terms of Spain's 1977 amnesty law preventing investigations into Franco-era crimes. Garzon apparently held that there is a consensus that...
As the Washington Post notes, the Obama administration has authorized the CIA to assassinate Aulaqi wherever he is found. It is very unlikely that CIA agents qualify as lawful combatants -- they don't distinguish themselves from the civilian population, they don't carry their arms openly, etc. So, let's assume that CIA agents manage to kill Aulaqi in Afghanistan. I assume...
