In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Topics

24 Aug

I wanted to flag for interested readers an upcoming event at the British Institute of International & Comparative Law (BIICL). On September 10, BIICL will host its Fifteenth Investment Treaty Forum, with a focus on recent developments in international arbitration procedure. Topics will include disclosure of evidence, state privilege, transparency of hearings, and whether or not investment arbitration is (or should be) different from...

|
23 Aug

Last month the Second Circuit issued a remarkable ruling that threatens to upend the longstanding rule of successor state liability for the credit obligations of predecessor states. It did so by ruling that the automatic assumption of liability of sovereign debt of the predecessor state under international law is not a “commercial activity” within the meaning of the FSIA....

|
23 Aug

In the interests of being fair and balanced (as always!), I thought I would post on this good response by David Bosco to Jeremy Rabkin's recent essay on the International Criminal Court in The Weekly Standard (which I discussed here).  Although I am not totally convinced by it, I think Bosco offers the best possible defense of the ICC that would...

|
21 Aug

[caption id="attachment_13148" align="alignright" width="150" caption=" "][/caption] The WSJ has an article on the U.S. Defense Department's push for a criminal prosecution of Wikileaks for releasing U.S. government documents on the Afghanistan war. Several officials said the Defense and Justice departments were now exploring legal options for prosecuting Mr. Assange and others involved on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property. Bringing a case...

|
19 Aug

I have been negligent in failing to post on two excellent assessments of the recent ICC Review Conference in Kampala and its ultimate decision on aggression.  Both assessments (one by Heritage's Brett Schaefer and the other by George Mason's Jeremy Rabkin) give the Obama Administration some credit for limiting the damage to U.S. interests at Kampala.  But both ultimately conclude...

|
19 Aug

Dave has kindly sent another post on piracy.  Here it is. Kevin graciously offered me the chance to respond to his contrasting reading of the logic of Judge Jackson’s decision dismissing the piracy charge. But since we both reach the same ultimate conclusion—that the correct legal definition of piracy should be that contained in the 1958 High Seas Treaty/1982 UN Convention...

|
19 Aug

I have to respectfully disagree with Dave's interpretation of Judge Jackson's decision.  The decision is almost certainly incorrect from the standpoint of the law of nations; as Dave rightly points out, the definition of piracy in the High Seas Convention and in UNCLOS likely represents the customary standard.  But I think Judge Jackson's decision makes complete sense given the US's...

|
17 Aug

In the first U.S. court opinion on piracy since 1820, a U.S. judge in Norfolk, Virginia has dismissed piracy charges against Somali defendants in United States v. Said. The Court held that attempted piracy is not piracy for the purposes of U.S. criminal law.  (h/t  Eugene Volokh). As I mentioned in an earlier post, the relevant U.S. statute criminalizing piracy leaves...

|
17 Aug

Foreign Policy has added a new blog to its roster that should be of interest to readers.  Here is the description of the blog, named The Multilateralist and run by David Bosco, an assistant professor at American University's School of International Service and the author of the excellent Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making...

|
16 Aug

Omar Khadr's trial began a couple of days ago at Guantanamo.  Here is what the prosecutor said in his opening statement: This trial is about holding an Al Qaeda terrorist accountable for his actions and vindicating the laws of war. Two small problems with this.  Throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers is not an act of terrorism.  And four out...

|
14 Aug

The WSJ has a nice discussion of the tricky legal arguments in the upcoming trial of alleged pirates in U.S. federal court.  Apparently, the prosecutors and defense attorneys are battling over the fact that U.S. statutes criminalizing piracy leave the definition to "the law of nations". Now the court in Norfolk must contend with the defense motion to dismiss the piracy...

|