General

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, April 28, 2014

Your weekly selection of international law and international relations headlines from around the world: Africa South Africa is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its first ever all-race, democratic election that ended decades of racial oppression under the apartheid system. International mediators have called on South Sudan's rebel leader to meet his rival President Salva Kiir to prevent an ethnic-fuelled conflict turning into a...

Weekend Roundup: April 19-25, 2014

This week on Opinio Juris, we teamed up with EJIL:Talk! to bring you a transatlantic symposium on Karen Alter's book The New Terrain of International Law. You can find Karen's introduction to her book here, followed by comments by Tonya Putnam, Roger Alford and Jacob Katz Cogan. Karen's reply is here. Other guests this week were Paula Gaeta who explained why she is not convinced by...

Detention Post-Gitmo II: A Surreply to Steve Vladeck

Thanks to Steve Vladeck for his thoughtful response to my critique of his paper posted earlier this week. In great sum, Steve has a paper out proposing that the United States hold the remaining Gitmo detainees in the United States under a domestic immigration detention statute to ease the way for Congress to repeal the AUMF statute (under...

Emerging Voices Deadline Approaching!

To all doctoral students and early career academics or professionals who would like to contribute to our blog in July or August, remember that applications for our second Emerging Voices symposium are still open until May 1. We'd love to hear from you! More information is here....

For More Effective Sanctions, Time to Examine Question of Termination

Over the last two decades, the key policy question surrounding multilateral sanctions has been effectiveness. Because of studies that suggest that sanctions are effective only about one-third of the time, there has been a concerted effort to develop so-called “smart sanctions,” which increase the effectiveness of Security Council sanctions at the front end by targeting specific groups, individuals, and entities....

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, April 21, 2014

Your weekly selection of international law and international relations headlines from around the world: Africa Nigerian Islamist militant group Boko Haram is still holding 85 girls it abducted from a raid on a secondary school in northeastern Borno state this week. The UN is condemning what it calls the "targeted killings" and wounding of hundreds of civilians based on their ethnic origins in...

Supreme Court Takes Jerusalem Passport Case on the Merits

NY Times dispatch here. The Supreme Court will now confront the question of whether Congress can force the Secretary of State to include the birthplace "Jerusalem, Israel" at a U.S. citizen's option. This could be a huge case or a not-so-huge case. If the Court affirms the D.C. Circuit's ruling below and strikes down legislation purporting to constrain the Secretary of...

On Steve Vladeck’s Post-AUMF Detention

Nothing like spring break (yes, we break right before semester’s end) to do a little catch-up reading – starting this week with Steve Vladeck’s new essay grappling with one of the nation’s most intractable problems: closing Guantanamo. Among the many challenges associated with the prison’s continued existence, Steve highlights its role in preventing serious consideration of repealing the AUMF (the federal statute authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda and associated groups). The Gitmo detainees are held under the domestic authority of the AUMF; as long as the government wishes to continue to hold at least some of the Gitmo prisoners (as it does), Congress can’t repeal the law without risking their potential release. Despite the winding down of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, the serious weakening of core Al Qaeda, and the President’s announced desire to move the nation away from a permanent wartime footing – AUMF repeal is essentially impossible as long as we are concerned with maintaining the legality of the Gitmo prisoners’ detention under domestic law. So how to keep Gitmo from becoming the detention tail that wags the wartime dog? Steve proposes that even without an AUMF, we could continue to hold the approximately 45 Gitmo detainees the executive sees as the intractable core (those the administration has designated unprosecutable but too dangerous to release) under the authority of another federal law: Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Section 412 – which Steve notes has not been used once since its enactment in 2001 – requires the Attorney General to take into custody any alien he has reasonable grounds to believe is (for example) a member of a terrorist organization, or endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or “is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.” The alien may be detained for up to a week until the commencement of immigration removal proceedings or criminal prosecution, or for “additional periods of up to six months” if his “removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” and if release “will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.” Steve’s diagnosis of the relationship between Guantanamo Bay and the AUMF is spot on in some critical respects. The uniquely problematic nature of the Guantanamo detention program skews the current debate about the need for continuing use-of-force authority, just as surely as it has skewed broader debates about U.S. counterterrorism detention, trial, and interrogation policies for the past dozen years. For a host of reasons, the Gitmo population is singularly unrepresentative of the challenges that would be posed by counterterrorism detention or trial following the arrest of any terrorism suspect today: Gitmo detainees were denied basic Geneva protections (including any initial hearing about who these men actually were); some detainees were transferred there following periods of unlawful (even torturous) detention elsewhere; criminal counterterrorism laws that are today used for prosecution were much narrower extrajudicial scope in 2001; Congress maintains unprecedented restrictions on the transfer of detainees to the United States for any purpose; and so on. Indeed, as Steve recognizes, given all that has gone before, closing Gitmo now involves only bad options; the policy task is to choose which among these bad options is least worst under the circumstances. Despite the low bar, I have to admit I’m still unconvinced that Section 412 is the least worst way to go.