The Council of Europe continues to monitor death penalty practices around the world and call out friendly states that fall short of full abolition. Last week the Council passed a resolution (full text here) reiterating its support for abolition and calling on Belarus (as a potential member state), Japan and the U.S. to join the consensus of democratic, human rights...
Our friends at the International Law Association pass along the following registration information for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Conference in Taipei, which features a terrific line-up of speakersi: The 2011 International Law Association (ILA) Asia-Pacific Regional Conference will take place in Taipei, Taiwan from May 29 to June 1, 2011. The conference theme is “Contemporary International Law Issues in the Asia Pacific:...
The U.S. has made no move to interrogate or seek custody of Indonesian militant Umar Patek since he was apprehended this year by officials in Pakistan with the help of a CIA tip, U.S. and Pakistani officials say. The little-known case highlights a sharp difference between President Obama’s counter-terrorism policy and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Under Obama, the CIA has killed more people than it has captured, mainly through drone missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas. At the same time, it has stopped trying to detain or interrogate suspects caught abroad, except those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The CIA is out of the detention and interrogation business,” said a U.S. official who is familiar with intelligence operations but was not authorized to speak publicly.The article goes on to discuss the policy paralysis underlying this condition. But I want to add one caution. The article says, and it has been said many times in recent years, that the lack of a detention regime gives incentives to favor targeted killing. Despite having made exactly this point myself many times, however, it bears noting that there are plenty of independent reasons for using targeted killings in many situations — avoiding detention is almost certainly far less important than the current meme suggests. Even if there were some protocol for detaining and interrogating people, there are plenty of circumstances in which seeking to capture is too risky and other operational reasons. Put another way, it's not as though people are sitting around the government all day saying, hey, here's a terrorist, we can't really capture him, so let's kill him! Some level of background incentive is there, no doubt, but it's background to a much more complicated decision-making foreground. More interesting is that the article’s main focus is on a person captured by Indonesia from a CIA tip, not targeted with a missile. Even in that case, in which it is not a choice between targeted killing and detention, the CIA still does not want custody, even though the article says that experts believe that the CIA could get far more and better information if it controlled the detention and interrogation process. This is far from an ideal situation, of course. While on the topic of targeted killing and drone warfare, let me point readers to a conference at University of Pennsylvania Law School this weekend, a joint effort among lawyers, philosophers, diplomats, and national security and military personnel. It’s an impressive lineup - including Deborah Pearlstein and John Dehn - and you can even get CLE credit, I believe. (I’ve put the announcement below the fold.) I’ll be talking at the Penn conference about an ethical tension between jus in bello and jus ad bellum. Targeted killing through drones results (I will take by assumption) in less civilian damage in the category of jus in bello. According to a common argument made today, however, that greater “efficiency” in jus in bello considerations thereby makes resort to force by the United States too easy, as a jus ad bellum matter, and indeed possibly “inefficient.” Why? According to this argument, the lack of personal risk to US personnel in drone warfare lowers to an inefficient level the disincentives upon the US to use force. I have many problems with this argument. But I do think it’s an interesting one from a philosophical perspective, because even if the jus in bello and jus ad bellum considerations are not strictly inconsistent, there is at least substantial tension between them. Moreover, the ideas of “efficiency jus in bello” and “efficiency jus ad bellum” are interesting all on their own, even if I think that particularly the idea of an efficient level of violence, or an efficient level of incentives and disincentives to resort to force, premised around personal risk to US personnel, is deeply incoherent. But the incoherency seems to me to take part in an even deeper, and still more wrong, idea that an “efficient level of resort to force” can be extracted independent of the idea of “sides” in war with incommensurate ends. I’m not a philosopher, though, and find all this philosophy stuff difficult. So I have been careful to load up my remarks with a lot of practical stuff about where, on the basis of my conversations, reading, discussions, etc., with lots of different folks, both targeted killing and drone warfare are likely to go. Since those are just my perceptions of where the technology, practices, and policies are going, there's plenty to dispute. The conference has a great lineup of experts from many fields, however — so even if my remarks are a big miss, in good conscience I can still highly recommend it to you.
I read with great interest Professor Bainbridge's post a few weeks ago about self-publishing legal scholarship. The discussion Bainbridge linked to in that post by Joe Konrath and Barry Eisler about self-publishing (and expanded upon here) is even more interesting. (Eugene Volokh's posts from 2009 are also quite useful.) Self-publishing of fiction appears to be the wave...
The Office of Legal Counsel has released an opinion asserting the constitutionality of President's Obama's use of force against Libya. Here's how it frames the question: [T]he President’s legal authority to direct military force in Libya turns on two questions: first, whether United States operations in Libya would serve sufficiently important national interests to permit the President’s action as Commander in...
The American Branch of the International Law Association has a call for panel proposals for International Law Weekend 2011, which takes place October 20-22 in New York City. The theme of this year's ILW is "International Law and National Politics." The call for proposals can be found here, and includes the following information about submissions, which are due to the...
There's a great article by Professor Adam Goodheart in the New York Times describing how Union Major General Benjamin Butler, a lawyer by training, used the laws of war to help end slavery in America. When three fugitive slaves presented themselves to Butler at Fort Monroe, he had to quickly decide what to do with them. The Confederate...
I am happy to pass along the following announcement for the forthcoming conference at Pace Law School on the use of empirical methods in teaching and writing about international law. Early registration closes this Wednesday, April 6. Here is the message from interest group co-chairs Cindy Galway Buys and Tom McDonnell: The Teaching International Law Interest Group of the...
Have you worked on post-conflict justice issues? Have you been part of a rule of law project in a conflict zone? If so, you may be of help to our colleague Professor Elena Baylis (Univ. of Pittsburgh), who is working on a really terrific empirical project on post-conflict justice. Here is the information from Elena which includes eligibility...
Tomorrow, the Center for International and Comparative Law (CICL) of St. John's University School of Law will have its inaugural symposium. Peggy and I are CICL's Co-Directors, and we are looking forward to what we hope will be a great kick-off. The symposium, entitled Challenges to International Law, Challenges from International Law: New Realities and the Global Order, is co-sponsored by...
The UN Security Council's approval of the no-fly zone over Libya serves to answer the thorniest jus ad bellum questions, but there are also jus in bello questions that need to be answered. Most importantly, what kind of conflict is this? Before the UN became involved, the conflict was clearly a conflict "not of an international character" (NIAC) between...
