I noted a few days ago that the OTP made a serious legal error when it suggested that Libya’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Saif could succeed even if Libya had to try Saif in absentia.  Fortunately, the OTP has recognized its mistake and withdrawn its submission:

Breaking news:  China has rejected arbitration under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea with the Philippines, dealing a heavy blow to the future of dispute settlement under UNCLOS (h/t China Law Prof Blog).  According to this China Daily report,

“Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing had an appointment with officials from the Philippines’ Foreign Ministry on Tuesday and returned a note and related notice after expressing China’s rejection,” spokesman Hong Lei said at a daily press briefing.

“The note and related notice not only violate the consensus enshrined in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), but are also factually flawed and contain false accusations,” Hong said.

As I have noted here (and as Prof. Clarke notes as well), the Philippines is now within its rights to ask the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to appoint all four remaining arbitrators for the Annex VII tribunal.  Once the President of ITLOS has done so, the duly constituted arbitral tribunal may act even without China’s participation.

Upon reflection, I am not really surprised China has decided to walk away from the Annex VII tribunal.  As I noted earlier, such tribunals have tended to combine their considerations of jurisdiction with those of the merits.  They have not generally bifurcated their proceedings, nor do they seem to have any obligation to do so.

This is a problem for China because while their jurisdictional challenge is pretty strong, their argument on the merits is undeveloped and fuzzy.  They have never exactly spelled out what they mean by having “indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea.   Do they mean it is a territorial sea? Or that they have general economic rights similar to an Exclusive Economic Zone?

So I am not shocked that China is walking away here. The question for the Philipppines is: what next? Do they continue with the Annex VII arbitration without China? Well, their DFA seems ready to move forward without China.  But would any award issued by this tribunal be pretty meaningless?

I’m not sure. I think that any award there would have little impact on China, but it should be useful in helping rally allies in Southeast Asia, especially within ASEAN.  It is not going to stop China much, but an award that undermines the legality of China’s claims is certainly better to have than not to have. But it is not nearly as much as it would have been if China had played ball (and lost).

China’s statement contains a curious and hard to understand argument.  According to the Chinese foreign ministry, the Philippines arbitration claim “complicates” resolution of conflicts in the South China Sea in violation of the Declaration on Parties’ Conduct in the South China Sea.    Presumably, China is referring to Article 5 of the Declaration:

5. The Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.

Does making an arbitration claim under Annex VII “complicate or escalate disputes”?  Given the whole context of Paragraph 5, I am highly doubtful of this argument. One must also note that the previous paragraph instructs all parties to

undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;

The explicit reference to UNCLOS (albeit the 1982 version) doesn’t really add much weight to the claim that the the Declaration somehow prohibits parties from resorting to UNCLOS arbitration.  If anything, it goes the other way.  Given that the Declaration is not technically binding under international law anyway, let’s just say this is the weakest of a series of weak arguments trotted out by China in this dispute.

So let’s just call this what it is: China is thumbing its nose at UNCLOS and it has now dealt a  serious, near fatal blow, to the UNCLOS dispute settlement system, at least in its ability to resolve serious disputes involving major powers.  UNCLOS arbitration is not going to restrain China in any significant way. At least, China doesn’t think it will pay any serious costs to walking away, which is why it is willing to accept the equivalent of a default judgment.

From the perspective of the United States, the China-Philippines episode is a cautionary tale. On the one hand, it suggests that those critics of UNCLOS worried about the impact of Annex VII arbitration tribunals need not fear them all that much.  On the other hand, this episode should put an end to the always silly argument that the US needed to join UNCLOS in order to use UNCLOS against China.  That was never really going to work, and we now have ample evidence.

My friend Jens Ohlin (Cornell) has just posted a very important article on SSRN entitled “Targeting and the Concept of Intent.”  Here is the abstract:

International law generally prohibits military forces from intentionally targeting civilians; this is the principle of distinction. In contrast, unintended collateral damage is permissible unless the anticipated civilian deaths outweigh the expected military advantage of the strike; this is the principle of proportionality. These cardinal targeting rules of international humanitarian law are generally assumed by military lawyers to be relatively well settled. However, recent international tribunals applying this law in a string of little-noticed decisions have completely upended this understanding. Armed with criminal law principles from their own domestic systems, often civil law jurisdictions, prosecutors, judges and even scholars have progressively redefined what it means to “intentionally” target a civilian population. In particular, these accounts rely on the civil law notion of dolus eventualis, a mental state akin to common law recklessness that differs in at least one crucial respect: it classifies risk-taking behavior as a species of intent.

This problem represents a clash of legal cultures. International lawyers trained in civil law jurisdictions are nonplussed by this development, while the Anglo-American literature on targeting has all-but-ignored this conflict. But when told of these decisions, U.S. military lawyers view this “reinterpretation” of intent as conflating the principles of distinction and proportionality. If a military commander anticipates that attacking a building may result in civilian casualties, why bother analyzing whether the collateral damage is proportional? Under the dolus eventualis view, the commander is already guilty of violating the principle of distinction. The following Article voices skepticism about this vanguard application of dolus eventualis to the law of targeting, in particular by noting that dolus eventualis was excluded by the framers of the Rome Statute and was nowhere considered by negotiators of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. Finally and most importantly, a dolus eventualis-inspired law of targeting undermines the Doctrine of Double Effect, the principle of moral theology on which the collateral damage rule rests. At stake is nothing less than the moral and legal distinction between terrorists who deliberately kill civilians and lawful combatants who foresee collateral damage.

I am completely in agreement with Jens concerning recklessness/dolus eventualis.  The more difficult issue, which the essay touches on, is whether knowledge/dolus indirectus qualifies as intent in the targeting context. I believe it does, for all the reasons I’ve previously discussed on Opinio Juris. (See here and here, for example.)  Jens is more agnostic, at least for now.

As Larry Solum would say, read Ohlin!

Last May, I offered some critical thoughts on Opinio Juris about Charles Taylor’s 50-year sentence at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  I have just finished a short essay (8,000 words) on Taylor’s sentence that will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of International Criminal Justice; you can find the essay on SSRN. Here is the introduction:

On 30 May 2012, despite concluding that he was liable for crimes committed in Sierra Leone only as an accessory, Trial Chamber II of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) sentenced Charles Taylor to 50 years imprisonment – the second longest sentence in the Tribunal’s history. This article provides a critical analysis of Taylor’s sentence, asking whether it comports with the principle – widely accepted by international tribunals – that a sentence must not be ‘out of reasonable proportion with a line of sentences passed in similar circumstances for the same offences’. The article concludes that Taylor’s sentence is, in fact disproportionate in comparison to other sentences imposed by the SCSL – Augustine Gbao’s 25-year sentence in particular.

In reaching that conclusion, the article is mindful of how difficult it is to reliably compare sentences. Sentencing is highly discretionary, and no two cases are ever completely alike. Moreover, sentencing judgments rarely explain in a systematic way how the judges have decided upon a particular sentence; as Boas et al. have noted, ‘it often seems as though the trial chamber has simply pulled the number out of the air’. The Taylor Sentencing Judgment, unfortunately, is no exception. A mere 40 pages long – in contrast to the 2,499-page Trial Judgment – it discusses the gravity of Taylor’s offences, his individual circumstances, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, but makes little attempt to explain why those factors require a 50-year sentence.

The article itself is divided into four sections. Section 1 provides a brief summary of the Sentencing Judgment. Section 2 explains why the Trial Chamber has overestimated the gravity of Taylor’s offenses. Section 3 argues that the Trial Chamber misapplied a number of aggravating factors and impermissibly double-counted others. Finally, Section 4 criticizes the Trial Chamber’s refusal to consider Taylor’s contributions to the Sierra Leone peace process as a mitigating factor.

Comments and criticisms welcome!

The OTP has weighed in on Libya’s ongoing challenge to the admissibility of the case against Saif Gaddafi. In its view, although there are serious questions concerning whether Libya is investigating the same conduct as the OTP, Libya is currently willing and able to conduct a genuine prosecution. Unfortunately, its conclusion regarding ability rests on a very serious legal error. Here are the relevant paragraphs (emphasis mine):

42. However, the Prosecution also notes that not all detention centers, including apparently the one holding the suspect in this case, are under the control of the Minister of Justice and Libya has no access to certain detainees held in these centers. Further, abuses and deaths have occurred in detention centers in 2012,

43. Most notably, Libya does not clarify whether it has gained custody over Saif Al-Islam and when his transfer to Tripoli will be effected…

44. Nonetheless, the investigation of the case against Saif Al-Islam has progressed and the Libyan legislation does permit a trial in absentia. Hence, and in light of the evidence submitted and notwithstanding the challenges faced by Libya as a post-conflict country, the Prosecution concludes that Libya appears, at this time and in light of the materials considered, able to conduct the proceedings.

Libyan criminal law may permit a trial to be held in absentia, but the Rome Statute does not. Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute is explicit on this point — a state cannot be considered “able” to prosecute a defendant if it does not have that defendant in custody (emphasis mine):

In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

This is not a question of whether Libya will give Saif a fair trial; it is a question whether Libya’s can hold a trial at all, as “trial” is defined by the Rome Statute. And according to the plain language of Article 17(3), Libya is not currently able to try Saif. Unless it actually effectuates Saif’s transfer, therefore, its admissibility challenge must fail.

According to the White Paper (p. 6), a US citizen “who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against US persons or interests” cannot lawfully be killed unless, inter alia, “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of attack against the United States.” Early criticism of the White Paper has focused on how it defines imminence. The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, for example, says that it “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.” That’s actually something of an understatement; as I’ll discuss in this post, the White Paper’s entire approach to the concept of imminence is deeply confused — and deeply problematic from the standpoint of international law.

The first thing to note is that it’s not clear why the White Paper even discusses imminence. As I noted in my previous post, the White Paper’s central premise is that all targeted killings of “senior operational leaders” in “al-Qa’ida or its associated forces” take place in the context of a global non-international armed conflict (NIAC) and are thus all subject to the laws of war (IHL). The White Paper also takes the position that the laws of war apply to a U.S. citizen in the same way that they apply to a non-citizen; it specifically argues (p. 3) that because ”the military may constitutionally use force against a US citizen who is part of enemy forces,” the DoJ “does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or its associated forces from a use of force abroad.”

Although I reject the White Paper’s claim that the US is engaged in a global NIAC with “al-Qa’ida and its associated forces,” I have no problem with the idea that US citizenship does not affect the targetability of an individual who is otherwise a legitimate target under IHL. But why, then, discuss imminence at all? It is black-letter IHL that a legitimate target can be targeted at any time; it is not necessary to show that the target is an imminent threat, regardless of how imminence is defined. Given that the White Paper assumes both that all targeted killings of US citizens take place in armed conflict and that US citizenship does not affect targetability under IHL, it should consider whether a US citizen poses “an imminent threat of attack against the United States” — or against anything else — to be completely irrelevant.

So why does the White Paper graft an imminence requirement onto IHL?  There are two possible explanations…

There is much to say about the DoJ White Paper on the targeted killing of US citizens, which reflects the US’s idiosyncratic interpretation of international law. In this post I want to focus on the White Paper’s primary — and in my view fatal — flaw: its complete failure to address the relationship between the organized armed groups that it considers to be engaged in a single non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with the US.

The White Paper begins with the standard premise that “[t]he United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida and its associated forces” (p. 2). It then claims that the armed conflict in question is a global NIAC that extends to any member of “al-Qai’da and its associated forces” anywhere in the world (p. 3; citations omitted; emphasis mine):

[T]he United States retains its authority to use force against al-Qa’ida and associated forces outside the area of hostilities that targets a senior operational leader of the enemy forces who is actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans. The United States is currently in a non-international armed conflict with al-Qa’ida and its associated forces. Any U.S. operation would be part of this non-international armed conflict, even if it were to take place away from the zone of active hostilities.

After making that claim, the White Paper does something interesting: it explicitly addresses the argument that the existence of a NIAC between the US and al-Qaida must be determined according to the test established by the ICTY in Tadic – the test adopted by the ICRC, by the ICC, and by nearly all international law scholars. Here is what it says (pp. 3-4; some citations omitted)…

Here’s a gem from Libya’s latest submission in its challenge to the admissibility of the case against al-Senussi (emphasis mine):

The Libyan Government observes that there has been a recent increase in filings in this case, no doubt due to the retention of new counsel for Mr Al-Senussi. Libya of course understands that counsel for Mr Al-Senussi will rightly want to explore all avenues of recourse for his client. However, it is hoped that in the future the Defence for Mr Al-Senussi will not file unfounded and repetitive applications before the Court containing serious allegations against the Libyan Government which are premised solely on inaccurate media reports. It is an unfortunate fact that inaccurate media reporting is frequent and inevitable and it is for this reason counsel are encouraged to properly substantiate all future allegations made to the Court, the Security Council, the UN Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Yes, you read that right: the Libyan government, which has spent the past year baselessly impugning the integrity of the OPCD, now has the temerity to accuse al-Senussi’s lawyer, Ben Emmerson QC, of filing “unfounded and repetitive” applications with the Court based on unsubstantiated allegations. Ben Emmerson QC, who currently serves as the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights and as the British judge on the ICTY’s Residual Mechanism; who has been a special advisor to the ICC Prosecutor and to the judges at the ECCC; and who has literally decades of experience litigating cases at international courts and tribunals.

And what are the unsubstantiated allegations Emmerson has supposedly made on the basis of “inaccurate media reports”? There are only two such allegations mentioned in the motion that so aroused Libya’s ire: (1) that Libya intended to put al-Senussi on trial in a month (para. 2); and (2) that Libya paid Mauritania $200,000,000 to extradite al-Senussi (para. 29). The first allegation did indeed prove to be inaccurate, but Emmerson can hardly be blamed for making it — the news article in question simply quoted Taha Bara, the official spokesperson for Libya’s Prosecutor General, to that effect. If the spokesperson was somehow misquoted, Libya made no attempt to correct the record. As for the second allegation — well, I’ve dealt with the persuasiveness of Libya’s response to that one before. I’ll simply note here that Libya’s response (para. 18) to Emmerson’s “unsubstantiated allegation” relied solely on the unsubstantiated allegation of the former Libyan Deputy Prime Minister, as quoted in a news article.

Pot, meet Kettle.  I’m sure you’ll be fine friends.

We know what is stake at in Libya’s admissibility challenge regarding Saif Gaddafi: either a fair trial at the ICC that will likely result in a lengthy prison sentence or an unfair trial in Libya that will almost certainly result in execution. Libya has done nothing to disguise the unfairness of its national proceedings, but it has generally pretended to be concerned with Saif’s right to a fair trial in its many filings at the ICC. So I was very surprised to find Libya argue in its most recent motion that Saif’s lawyers, the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD), should not even be allowed to see the evidence it provides the Pre-Trial Chamber in support of its admissibility challenge:

29. In its 7 December 2012 Decision concerning Mr. Gaddafi the Pre-Trial Chamber requested Libya to make available sample investigative materials. Libya has made such samples available (as set out in Annexes 4 to 7 and 15 to 17), prior to the accusatory phase of proceedings on an exceptional basis as a demonstration of its genuine commitment to fully cooperate with the Court in these admissibility proceedings. Libya requests however that this material be treated as being submitted to the Chamber on an ex parte basis. This is necessitated by the strict non-disclosure requirements of investigative material prior to the accusatory phase of proceedings under Article 59 of the Libyan Code of Criminal Procedure (as set forth in the Application of Libya), and for
obvious reasons of confidentiality.

30. Article 59 requires non-disclosure of investigative material under threat of criminal punishment. It provides that:

Investigation procedures and their results shall be considered confidential.
Investigators, prosecution members and their assistants of clerks and experts who are related to the investigation or attend to their profession or post shall undertake not to disclose same. Anyone who breaches this provision shall be punished in accordance with Article 236 of the Penal Code.

The unfairness of Libya’s ex parte request is obvious — the OPCD can hardly challenge Libya’s claim that the national proceedings against Saif satisfy the principle of complementarity if they don’t have access to the supporting evidence. Which is, of course, precisely the point of the request.

To be sure, Libya doesn’t acknowledge the real reason it doesn’t want the OPCD to see its evidence. Instead, it chooses to once again attack the integrity of the OPCD’s lawyers…

Libya has filed a lengthy response to a series of Pre-Trial Chamber questions about the domestic proceedings against Saif. There is much of interest in the motion, but what particularly caught my eye is Libya’s open admission that it has repeatedly interrogated Saif and confronted him with witnesses in the absence of defence counsel. Here are the relevant paragraphs (emphasis mine):

49. In the period since 1 May 2012, testimonies regarding the actions of Saif Al-­Islam Gaddafi have been obtained from individuals who previously operated at the highest civilian and military levels of the Gaddafi regime. These individuals include [Redacted]. Mr. Gaddafi himself has also been interviewed on a number of occasions since 1 May 2012 (the last occasion being on 13 November 2012), and has been confronted with witnesses who have given testimonies in his case during such interviews.

51. The procedure for prosecution team interviews is that a private meeting is scheduled, to be attended by the witness and prosecution lawyers (other people are not permitted to be present at such meetings). The witness is then asked to swear an oath that he or she will tell the truth in answering the questions posed by members of the prosecution team. The questions asked of the witness and the witness’ answers to these questions are then written down, and each page of the witness testimony is sealed by the witness with their signature and/or fingerprint, as well as the signature of the attending representative/s of the prosecution team. The accuracy of witness testimonies which might be contested by the suspect are verified through a process under Libyan law known as confrontation (Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code). During this process the accused person in the investigation (i.e. Mr. Gaddafi) is presented with each witness whose account differs from that given by him, and is given the opportunity to refute the testimony of that witness in front of one or more member of the prosecution investigative team.

These uncounseled interrogations and confrontations categorically violate Libyan criminal procedure. (As readers know, I don’t think it’s relevant whether they violate international standards of due process.). Here is what Libya said in its original admissibility challenge…

I’ve been catching up on the lastest filings regarding Libya’s complementarity challenges, and I’ll have a post tomorrow about some shocking admissions by Libya concerning its planned domestic prosecution of Saif Gaddafi.  But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out now that Libya is denying — in writing, but apparently with a straight face — that it paid Mauritania $200,000,000 to extradite al-Senussi:

Serious evidential issues apply to Mr. Al-Senussi’s manifestly unsubstantiated allegations that Libya incited or provided “aid and assistance” to a violation of Resolution 1970 by Mauritania through the offer and payment of a sum of money in return for receipt of Mr. Al-Senussi. As outlined in Mr Al-Senussi’s Application, Libyan Government records establish that the payment of 250 million dinars to Mauritania which was approved by the Libyan General National Congress and recorded in a GNC Decision of 14 November 2012 (ie. more than 70 days following the extradition of Mr Al-Senussi to Libya from Mauritania), was made by way of bilateral aid “as a donation to the Mauritanian people”. Indeed, the former Libyan Deputy Prime Minister, Mostafa Abu Shagur, who was in office at the time of Mr Al-Senussi’s extradition, has confirmed that the payment made was consistent with Libya’s many other investments in Mauritania and was made specifically in order to assist the Mauritanian economy.

See?  The $200,000,000 wasn’t a bribe.  It was merely a good-hearted “donation to the Mauritanian people” from the generous and compassionate Libyan government.

If the ICC judges buy that, I have a nice bridge they might be interested in…

Nothing in the Human Right’s Council’s report is particularly novel; it’s long been obvious that both the settlements and the transfer of Israeli civilians into the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting the report’s most important conclusions:

100. The facts brought to the attention of the Mission indicate that the State of Israel has had full control of the settlements in the OPT since 1967 and continues to promote and sustain them through infrastructure and security measures. The Mission notes that despite all the pertinent United Nations resolutions declaring that the existence of the settlements is illegal and calling for their cessation, the planning and growth of the settlements continues both of existing as well as new structures.

101. The establishment of the settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem is a mesh of construction and infrastructure leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian State and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

102. The settlements have been established and developed at the expense of violating international human rights laws and international humanitarian law, as applicable in the OPT as notably recognised by the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion.

103. The settlements are established for the exclusive benefit of Israeli Jews; settlements are being maintained and developed through a system of total segregation between the settlers and the rest of the population living in the OPT. This system of segregation is supported and facilitated by a strict military and law enforcement control to the detriment of the rights of the Palestinian population.

104. The Mission considers that in relation to the settlements Israel is committing serious breaches of its obligations under the right to self-determination and “certain obligations under international humanitarian law”, including the obligation not to transfer its population into the OPT. The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying Power of parts of its own population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. Ratification of the Statute by Palestine may lead to accountability for gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims.

105. The existence of the settlements has had a heavy toll on the rights of the Palestinians. Their rights to freedom of self-determination, non-discrimination, freedom of movement, equality, due process, fair trial, not to be arbitrarily detained, liberty and security of person, freedom of expression, freedom to access places of worship, education, water, housing, adequate standard of living, property, access to natural resources and effective remedy are being violated consistently and on a daily basis.

Based on those conclusions, the HRC report demands that Israel “cease all settlement activities without preconditions” and “immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT.” Interestingly, the report also encourages both states and corporations to ensure that their business dealings with Israel do not support the settlements — even if that means terminating those dealings…