International Human Rights Law

From the government brief arguing that the media and witnesses in the 9/11 trial should not be permitted to hear the defendants describe being tortured by the US government: "Each of the accused is in the unique position of having had access to classified intelligence sources and methods," the prosecution says in court papers. "The government, like the defense, must protect...

At his new blog, Derek Gregory posts the following photo, which shows American soldiers applying the "water cure" during the war in the Phillippines, which lasted from 1899-1902: Of course, not everything old is new again.  Five Army officers were convicted by courts-martial for using the "water cure" during the Phillippine War, with one reviewing authority unequivocally describing the interrogation method...

Julian beat me to Eric Posner's new Slate article on the legality of drone strikes.  I don't agree with everything in it, but I think it's notable that Posner -- echoing his sometime co-author Jack Goldsmith -- rejects the idea that international law permits self-defense against a non-state actor whenever a state is "unable or unwilling" to prevent the NSA...

I'm currently writing an article for the Journal of International Criminal Justice on the legality of signature drone strikes under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.  I will link to the article when it's done (two weeks or so), but I couldn't resist posting the following quotes -- the first from the New York Times, describing the Obama...

On September 19, the Supreme Court of Nevada ordered a new evidentiary hearing for Mexican national Carlos Gutierrez on his ability to overcome the State's procedural bars to further consideration of his death sentence.  I've posted a copy of the court's order here. Gutierrez was one of 51 Mexican nationals whose convictions and sentences were the subject of the ICJ's Avena decision....

[Beth Stephens is Professor of Law at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey-Camden.] Monday’s oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Inc. focused on the search for a coherent limit to the reach of the Alien Tort Statute. The need for some limit is uncontroversial: even the most ardent advocates of human rights accountability agree that not all cases...

I am still digesting the transcript of the Kiobel reargument today, although I can say that nothing in the argument today has changed my view that this brief (which both Ken and I signed) represents the best approach to resolving the case.  I will say, however,  that nothing in the argument suggested that any member of the Court is considering...

I realize this should have gone to our announcements section, but it seems well worth flagging.  As OJ readers are probably aware, the Kiobel case is being re-argued today in the Supreme Court.  Tomorrow my law school, Washington College of Law, American University, in DC, is holding a post-argument discussion with some stellar folks - Paul Hoffman (lead counsel for plaintiffs), Katie Redford (Earthrights International), John Bellinger (former DOS Legal Adviser and Arnold & Porter partner), and Andrew Grossman (Heritage Foundation).  WCL's own Steve Vladeck will moderate.  The event will also be live-streamed. Tuesday, October 2, 12-1:20, lunch included, and CLE credit available.  Registration required.  The flyer with online registration information is below the fold.