Recent Posts

Events and Announcements: July 5, 2015

by Jessica Dorsey

Events

  • From 10-11 July 2015, as part of its summer Institute in Transnational Law, Duke Law School will be hosting a conference on the topic of “comparative foreign relations law.”  The conference, which will be held at the University of Geneva, will consider similarities and differences in how nations (and the European Union as an entity) handle various issues of foreign relations law, including the incorporation of international law, the process for concluding international agreements, the accommodation of federalism and other structural values, and the decision to use military force.  Scholars from various countries will present short papers outlining how these issues are addressed in their countries or in the EU, and scholars from the United States will draw comparisons to U.S. practice.  A number of the U.S. participants are Reporters for the American Law Institute’s current Restatement (Fourth) project on Foreign Relations Law, and this conference will provide a useful opportunity for them to gain comparative perspectives on the issues they are considering.

Announcements

  • ELSA International invites proposals from prospective case authors to write the Moot Court Case for the 14th edition of the ELSA Moot Court Competition on WTO Law. EMC2 is a simulated hearing of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel. Teams of interested students from all over the world prepare written submissions for the complainant and the respondent of a fictitious case involving WTO law. Teams then travel to regional rounds where they compete against each other before a WTO dispute settlement moot court panel composed of WTO and trade law experts. Case proposals should be made to mootcourts [at] elsa [dot] org by 15th of July 2015. The case author would be notified after 2 weeks and begin work with the Academic Board to develop the case over the summer of 2015, before the case is launched on 18th of September. More information can be found here.

Calls for Papers

  • The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 18 (2015) has issued a call for papers with the general theme: “Contemporary Armed Conflicts and their Implications for International Humanitarian Law.” The changing nature of contemporary armed conflicts, both in terms of actors involved and means employed, has important implications for the continuing relevance of international humanitarian law (IHL) as the legal framework governing the conduct of the parties. Please send your submission, between 5,000-8,000 words, related to one of the above themes, or any other theme fitting the general theme of Vol. 18, before 1 October 2015, to YIHL Editorial Board member Dr. Christophe Paulussen, c [dot] paulussen [at] asser [dot] nl, who will assist you with further questions concerning next steps, author’s guidelines, etc. The Editorial Board aims to publish Vol. 18 (year 2015) in December 2016. More information can be found here.
  • The UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence is a law journal run by postgraduate students of the UCL Faculty of Laws. The Journal appears twice a year and will be available open access. All submissions are assessed through double blind peer review. The Editorial Board is pleased to call for submissions for the first issue of 2016. The Board welcomes papers covering all areas of law and jurisprudence, accepting articles of between 8,000-12,000 words, case notes of 6,000-8,000 words and book reviews of 1,000-2,000 words. All submissions must comply with the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA). Contributions that have already been published or that are under consideration for publication in other journals will not be considered. The deadline for submissions is 16th October 2015. Manuscripts must be uploaded via the submissions section on the website. For further information and guidelines for authors please visit the website.
  • For its fifth anniversary, in 2016, Transnational Environmental Law (TEL)invites submissions that explore differentiation in transnational environmental law, covering both the evolving understanding of CBDRs in the context of international climate change law and the relation between transnational governance and differentiation generally. Successful submissions will be published in the TEL anniversary issue and a prize will be awarded for innovative scholarship. The  author of the winning article will be invited to give the TELAnniversary Public Lecture,  which will be held in Cambridge (UK) in autumn of 2016 and will be made available online as a podcast  to coincide with the release of the anniversary issue. TEL warmly welcomes submissions from authors at all stages of professional development and is particularly keen to encourage submissions from early-career scholars. To be considered for the Anniversary Issue, Scholarship Prize and Public Lecture, authors are requested to submit a 150-250w abstract to TEL [at] cambridge [dot] org by 30 September 2015. Completed articles (8,000-11,000w) and commentaries (3,000-6,000w) should be submitted by 31 January 2016 via TEL’s online platform at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tel_submissions. General submissions are also invited, and will be considered on a rolling basis, year-round. For any further queries, please contact TEL Editors-in-Chief at TEL [at] cambridge [dot] org.

Our previous events and announcements post can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us with a one-paragraph description of your announcement along with hyperlinks to more information.

Three Quick Thoughts on Zivotofsky

by Peter Spiro

Long-awaited decision here finding the President to have exclusive recognition power, trumping Congress’ attempt to require birthplace of US citizens born in Jerusalem to be recorded as “Israel” on US passports issued to them.

1. Phew. Who knows what the response would have been in the Middle East if the Court had come out the other way. Maybe nothing, but it’s obviously still a tinderbox in which little sparks can lead to firestorms.

2. Though the President wins, Kennedy’s opinion cuts back on Curtiss-Wright, dismissing its broad characterization of executive power as dicta.

In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. For it is Congress that makes laws, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nation’s course. The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue. See, e.g., Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 523–532 (2008); Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 589; Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170, 177–179 (1804); Glennon, Two Views of Presidential Foreign Affairs Power: Little v. Barreme or Curtiss-Wright? 13 Yale J. Int’l L. 5, 19–20 (1988); cf. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 680–681 (1981). It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the Nation’s foreign policy.

The era of government lawyers playing the “Curtiss-Wright, so I’m right” card is officially over.

3. There’s a lot of “one voice” talk in Kennedy’s opinion, trumpeting the functional virtues of presidential control (see especially the bottom of p. 11). That’s disappointing to those of us looking for a move away from exceptional approaches to resolving foreign affairs disputes. Together with last year’s flame out in the big Treaty Power case, maybe the Court is having second thoughts about the normalization project. This was a bad vehicle for advancing that agenda (see thought #1), but now that the decision is on the books, it will retard it in more favorable ones.

But there are developments beyond the Court’s control at work on the ground. Remember the huge flap over the Tom Cotton letter to Iranian leaders earlier this spring. So much for “one voice.” Things are anything but normal when it comes to separation of powers respecting foreign affairs. Zivotofsky notwithstanding, we’re not going back to an old world in which Presidents had centralized control of the nation’s engagement with the world.

Guest Post: International Criminal Justice and Reconciliation: Beyond the Retributive vs. Restorative Divide (Part 1 of 2)

by Carsten Stahn

[Carsten Stahn is Professor of International Criminal Law and Global Justice and Programme Director of the Grotius Centre for International Studies.This two-part post is based on a talk given at the seminar on Reconciliation v. Accountability: Balancing Interests of Peace and Justice, organized by the Centre for International Law Research and Policy on 29 May 2015 at the Peace Palace.]

Introduction

Punishment and reconciliation are closely linked. In this post, I would like to explore one issue of this relationship, namely the link between the retributive and restorative justice. The core dilemma was identified by Hannah Arendt in her treatment of forgiveness in the Human Condition in1958:

 ‘men are unable to forgive what they cannot punish and are unable to punish what turns out to be unforgivable’.

This dichotomy still stands today. Since Nuremberg and Tokyo, there is a strong trend to recognize that the purposes of trials reach beyond retribution and vengeance. International criminal proceedings are increasingly associated with restorative features, because punishment alone has inherent limitations. Some harm may only heal with time. At the same time, certain acts may be beyond forgiveness. This argument is used to discard alternatives to punishment or short cuts to impunity, in particular in relation to core crimes.

These dilemmas arise in any mass atrocity context. They have a legitimate space in law and justice policies. They cannot, and should not be outplayed against each other, but stand in a dialectic relationship. The right equilibrium must be found anew in any specific context, through argument, contestation and persuasion.

The contribution of international criminal justice to reconciliation is modest. Reconciliation has of course many meanings. It extends beyond the victim-offender relationship that forms part of the criminal trial. It involves different levels: interpersonal forgiveness and collective dimensions (e.g., community-based, societal or national reconciliation). It contains retrospective (e.g., understanding of the past, healing, undoing of wrong) and prospective elements (e.g., social repair). Legal visions of time do not necessarily correlate with societal understandings. International criminal justice typically only covers fragments of the past, and glimpses of the imagination of the future.

Unlike a judgment in a trial, reconciliation can rarely be tied to a specific moment in time. It occurs as a process. As argued in the Handbook on Reconciliation after Violent Conflict, it is both a goal, i.e., an ideal state to strive for, and a process ‘through which a society moves from a divided past to a shared future’. It involves ‘social learning’ and a move beyond negative co-existence and the mere absence of conflict. Justice is only one element, alongside others such as the search for truth, forgiveness or healing.

It is questionable to what extent reconciliation should be framed as a primary goal of international criminal justice per se. International criminal justice can neither stop conflict nor create reconciliation. A Court can judge, but only people can build or repair social relations. A Chamber cannot order an apology by the perpetrator, nor forgiveness by victims. In fact, the liberal criminal trial may require respect of the will of those who do not choose to forgive. The experiences in the Balkans, Latin America and Africa have shown that healing and forgiveness are culturally-bound processes that are rooted in local cultures, and start at the level of the individual or community based structures. Reconciliation requires the recognition of a more inclusive common identity that transcends the justice trial. But international criminal law strengthens the claim that reconciliation should not be conceived ‘as an alternative to justice’. Moreover, the criminal trial can provide conditions that facilitate such complex processes. It may signal a rupture with the past that contributes to a process of reconciliation.

In the following, I will try to unpack some of the existing divides. I will first challenge whether restorative approaches are per se better suited to achieve reconciliation than retributive mechanisms. I will then explore certain means to improve the connection between international criminal justice and reconciliation.

1. Links between Reconciliation and Retributive Justice

Retributive justice mechanisms, such as international criminal courts and tribunals, are often criticized for their limitations, namely their emphasis on perpetrators, their individualization of guilt and focus on the past, and their risks. This includes detachment from local context and emphasis on universal justice models and standards. Restorative mechanisms of justice, including victim-centred and less formal forms of accountability, have gained increased acceptance as a middle ground between retributive justice and blanket pardon. They are viewed as more conducive to reconciliation, in light of their stronger focus on needs of victims, their proximity to community or group structures, and their flexibility in terms of process and sanction (e.g., restorative penalties). This either/or logic requires differentiation. Developments over past decades suggest that it is the linkage between these two models that may be most conducive to reconciliation.

1.1.Punishment as prerequisite for reconciliation

One first important point is that prosecution aimed at punishment is not necessarily an obstacle to reconciliation. In certain contexts, retribution may have a greater effect on reconciliation that certain restorative forms of justice that prioritize forgiveness or forgetting. Forgiveness often requires more than a mere apology or generic acknowledgments of responsibility. Victims might be more willing to forgive, or at least temper their feelings of revenge, if they know that the perpetrator will be punished. A recent example is the trial against camp guard Oskar Gröning before German Courts. Ausschwitz survivor Eva Moses Kor shook hands with Gröning. She noted that she could forgive because ‘forgiveness does not absolve the perpetrator from taking responsibility for his actions’ nor diminish the ‘need to know what happened there.’

1.2.‘Us vs. them’ divides

Second, reconciliation is linked to cognitive and affective change, grounded in social interaction. It is shaped by positive experience with the ‘other’ and a relationship of recognition and trust. As argued by Jodi Halpern and Harvey Weinstein, reconciliation ‘shows itself in the degree to which people actually can act as distinct individuals with mutual regard in the real world’. Prosecutor have a tendency to portray perpetrators as persons lacking in humanity. But there are many types of perpetrators in international criminal justice: Political leaders, executers, followers. Alette Smeulers has identified at least nine different species:

 

‘(1) the criminal mastermind; (2) the careerist; (3) the profiteer; (4) the fanatic; (5) the devoted warrior; (6) the professional; (7) the criminal and sadist; (8) the follower; and (9) the compromised perpetrator’.

 

One common feature is that many of them are ‘ordinary’ persons who turn into criminals because of context. International criminal justice offers a space to re-humanize, by breaking some of the inequalities and hierarchies inherent in system criminality, or de-constructing context. As argued by Pablo de Greiff, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, the criminal trial provides a forum to discard any ‘implicit claim of superiority made by the criminal’s behaviour’. In specific contexts, the victim and perpetrator (re-)encounter each other as mutual holders of rights, or as members of a common polity. These structural features can lay important foundations for longer-term processes of social repair or reconciliation. They can break up ‘us vs. them’ divides.

1.3.Acceptance of multiple truths

A third point relates to the relationship between reconciliation and truth-finding. One of the inherent features of a criminal trial is that it can produce different narratives, or even multiple truths, through assigned roles in the legal process, competing testimonies or conflicting decisions. International criminal justice is paved with such examples. It has produced many frustrating experiences for victims of crime. But this is not necessarily an impediment to healing or forgiveness. Reconciliation is not linked to the acceptance of a ‘single truth’ or narrative, but grounded in the acceptance or toleration of conflicting points of view. It lives from the ability to respect the ‘other’ and tolerate difference, despite opposite or conflicting views of events and facts. The strength of the criminal process lies in the fact that it offers a forum where contradictions and contestations may legitimately co-exist, based on the constraints of the law.

Weekly News Wrap: Monday, June 8, 2015

by Jessica Dorsey

Africa

Middle East and Northern Africa

Asia

Europe

Americas

Oceania

  • Islamic State militants have used chlorine as a weapon and are recruiting highly trained technicians in a serious bid to develop chemical weapons, Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned.

UN/World

Events and Announcements: June 7, 2015

by Jessica Dorsey

Call for Papers

  • PluriCourts, Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo, is organizing an international symposium entitled ‘The Present and Future Role of Investment Treaty Arbitration in Adjudicating Environmental Disputes’. The symposium will be hosted at the faculty of law of the University of Oslo on November 5 and 6, 2015. The symposium will focus on investment treaty arbitration from a forward-looking perspective on how future practice might be shaped or reformed in a way that can both promote environmental sustainability and protect responsible and legitimate foreign investments. Organizers invite scholars, practitioners and doctoral students to submit paper proposals for presentations on topics related to the symposium’s theme. The deadline for submission is July 15, 2015. For more information, please visit the website of the symposium.

Announcements

  • Di Tella University, Argentina, is delighted to announce that the second issue of the Latin American Journal of International Law (Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional -LADI-) is now available online. The Journal, published in Spanish, is the first Latin American publication devoted to promoting the discussion of general topics of Public International Law from different perspectives in the region. In its first two numbers, the Journal has published works by authors such as Martti Koskenniemi, Christine Gray, David Luban and Susan Marks, as well as interviews to prominent international lawyers such as former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. The latest issue can be found here.

Our previous events and announcements post can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us with a one-paragraph description of your announcement along with hyperlinks to more information.

 

 

Appeal Launched in Haiti Cholera Case

by Kristen Boon

Plaintiffs have appealed the January 9, 2015 decision of the Southern District of New York, that the United Nations is immune in the case Delama Georges et al. The appeal brief, filed by the International Institute for Justice in Haiti, is available here: Georges v UN – Principal Appellate Brief 5.28 Final.

The contentions on appeal are as follows:

1.  Whether the District Court erred in ruling that Defendants UN and MINUSTAH are entitled to immunity despite having violated their treaty obligation to provide a mode to settle private law claims

2. Whether the District Court erred in ruling that Defendants Ban and Mulet are entitled to immunity in this case simply because they “hold diplomatic positions”

3.  Whether the District Court erred in failing to address the U.S. Plaintiffs’ argument that granting immunity in this instance violates their constitutional rights to access the federal courts.

These arguments hew closely to the position espoused in the SDNY, while emphasizing the UN’s failure to provide reasons and a remedy for what plaintiffs persuasively contend is a private law claim. The plaintiffs focus on Sections 2 and 29 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN (CPIUN). The first sections grants immunity to the United Nations from all forms of legal process, while the latter provision requires the UN to settle private law disputes by alternative means. As argued at the October 2014 hearing, the plaintiffs contend that the United Nations and MINUSTAH have violated article 29 in failing to provide the plaintiffs with an alternative forum, and that this failure constitutes a material breach of the treaty.  One issue that is not fully explored is whether private litigants can benefit from an alleged breach and request suspension, if that treaty was concluded between states.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the District Court erred when relying on the Brzak case, because it does not mention a breach of section 29 of the CPIUN. The Plaintiffs also contend that granting immunity in this case violates the constitutional right of a U.S. citizen plaintiff to have access to the courts. The plaintiff’s brief states that “granting immunity in this case impermissibly infringes on the right [of the plaintiff], which includes the right to bring a well-pleaded civil lawsuit for recognizing causes of action”.

One important development is that six amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs appeal, with 54 signatures in total.   These briefs represent a range of different interests and flag a diverse set of issues for the court.    Here are links and summaries of the main arguments:

  • ConLawScholarsAmicus focuses on the constitutional right held by the plaintiff to gain access to the courts.
  • EuroLaw Amicus Brief[3] brief focuses on when UN immunity should be limited, and discusses the reasonable alternative means test. It also highlights cases that have drawn a distinction between acts that are essential to the IO and those that are supplementary. Finally, it refers to due process requirements and highlights cases challenging UN sanctions like Kadi.
  • Haitian-AmericanAmicus: This brief was filed by members and family members of the cholera affected population. This brief presents a three-tiered argument for why the district court erred in upholding the UN’s immunity. First, the harm from the cholera epidemic is ongoing and worsening; Second, the UN is not entitled to immunity when it breaches its obligations to provide remedies; Third, the UN should be required to abide by the same Rule-of-law Principles that is espouses as central to its mission in Haiti.
  • HumanRightsGroupsAmicus: This brief focuses on the idea that the UN is bound by substantive international law, and obligated to give a remedy. It argues that the United Nations cannot seek to avoid the substantive obligations of international law which reject the possibility of the broad immunity claimed by the United Nations. Moreover, it suggests that there is a duty to provide a remedy when the UN caused the “arbitrary deprivation of life.”
  • IntlLawScholars Amicus: This brief focuses on the UN Charter and the SOFA between Haiti and the UN, and argues that the relationship between Articles 105 of the Charter and Articles 2 and 29 of the CPIUN is such that given the private nature of the injury, a remedy is required. This brief also cites to Beer and Regan for the idea that lack of effective alternative for private claims is grounds to waive immunity, and notes in Brzak alternative process was available.
  • UNOfficialsAmicus: This is a brief written by six former UN officials and has three main arguments to it: (1) Immunity was never meant to provide a mechanism for the UN to act with impunity, (2) Allowing the claims to go forward will enhance the UN’s legitimacy and its ability to fulfill its mission, (3) Allowing the claims to go forward will not open the flood gates because this is an unprecedented situation.

Moving forward, the defense has 14 days to respond to propose a briefing schedule. As a non-party, it is not clear whether the US will agree to that timeframe however.

 

Thanks to my Research Assistant Dan Hewitt for his help in reviewing the filings.

Is Law Losing Cyberspace?

by Duncan Hollis

The ALL CAPS headline of the last few hours involves news that social security and other identifying information for some 4 million U.S. federal workers was compromised in a cyber exploitation that, if one believes the unofficial finger pointing, came at the behest of the Chinese government.  Of course, it was just yesterday, that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Adam Segal was reporting how China was crying foul over “OceanLotus” a cyber exploitation that counted various Chinese governmental agencies and research institutes among its victims (and where the fingers were pointed back at the United States). And that’s to say nothing of the Snowden disclosures or the tens of millions of people whose personal data has been compromised via data breaches of an ever-expanding list of private companies (e.g., in February 2015 the U.S. health insurer Anthem admitted that up to 80 million people in its databases had their personal data compromised).  Now, maybe such data breach stories are hyperbolic, offering big numbers of potential losses that do not necessarily mean actual data compromises, let alone consequences for the associated individuals.  Nonetheless, the current zeitgeist seems to be the normalization of cyber insecurity.

As someone who believes international law has an (imperfect) role to play in preserving international peace and stability, I find the current scenario increasingly worrisome.  The level and breadth of cyber exploitations suggests a world in which actors are engaged in a race to the bottom of every data well they think might be useful for their own purposes, on the theory that their adversaries (and their allies) are all doing the same.  In such a world, law seems to be playing a diminishing role.

To be clear, domestic law certainly may constrain (or facilitate) a State’s cyber operations, as all the anxiety associated with the expiration of the PATRIOT Act and this week’s passage of the USA FREEDOM Act suggest. For those of us who care about international law, however, it seems increasingly marginalized in the current environment.  We’ve spent much of the last several years, focused on how international law applies to cyber-operations with huge efforts devoted to questions of line-drawing in what constitutes a prohibited use of force in cyberspace under the jus ad bellum or where the lines are for an attack under the jus in bello.  The Tallinn Manual is the paradigmatic example of this (often quite good) work.  More recently, States and scholars have moved on to cyber operations below these lines, with attention shifting in Tallinn and elsewhere to which cyber operations may generate counter-measures and defining when cyber operations violate the duty of non-intervention.

Such efforts have (so far) had relatively little to say on the question of a cyber exploitation that is best characterized as espionage.  With the exception of U.S. efforts to decry “economic” cyber espionage (as opposed to national security cyber espionage), most international lawyers have shrugged their shoulders on the legality of governments (or their proxies) stealing data from other governments or their nationals.  The conventional wisdom suggests intelligence agencies will be intelligence agencies and we should let this play out via diplomacy or power politics.  To the extent international law has long failed to prohibit espionage, the thinking goes, by analogy it should also leave cyber espionage alone.  And if that’s true, international law has little to say about China taking whatever data it can on employees of the U.S. federal government.

Of course, conventional wisdom is often conventional for good reasons.  From a national security perspective, there are important interests that militate against regulating or constraining data collection from abroad.  Yet, I worry that we’re reaching a tipping point where in conceding international law can do little to nothing for the problem of cyber exploitations, we are effectively conceding the rule of law in cyberspace.  It’s understandable that, from a rational perspective, States will want to do as much of this activity as their technical capacity allows.  But, such self-centered policies have generated a dramatic collective action problem.  The current cyber system is certainly sub-optimal, whether you consider it in economic, humanitarian, or national security terms. The economic costs of the status quo are by all accounts growing, whether in terms of losses of data and IP, or the costs of cleaning up after exploits occur.  Similarly, the ability of individuals to preserve their privacy is rapidly diminishing, and the right to privacy along with it.  And, of course, national governments are fighting, and losing, the battle to keep their own data (and secrets) secure.

All of this leads me to ask whether it’s time to revisit the question of how international law deals with data breaches?  I recognize some may say “no” or that after long and careful thought the answer may remain the same.  But, the rising importance and success rates of data breaches across the globe suggests it’s high time for international law to at least engage these questions more closely.

What do others think?  Is international law losing in cyberspace or is there still a chance that it can play a regulatory role over modern cyberthreats, even if only an imperfect one?

 

China Defends Itself on South China Sea: “We are against the arbitrary distortion of the international law.”

by Julian Ku

There is no shortage of commentary on the growing US-China tensions over China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea. I’ve already added my two cents on the legal aspects here, but it’s worth trying to understand China’s defense of its actions.  Here is China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman at a press conference responding to comments from US and Japanese leaders that China should abide by international law.

The international law has been constantly brought up by some countries when it comes to the South China Sea issue. If they did read closely the international law, then please tell us which article in the international law forbids China to carry out justified construction on its own islands and reefs? Which article allows the vessels and aircraft of one country to monitor the islands and reefs of another country at a close distance? Which article gives the green light to one country’s infringement upon another country’s sovereignty and legitimate rights and interests with the excuse of navigation freedom? We are against the arbitrary distortion of the international law. If it is not a practice of double standard, then it must be driven by some hidden motives.

Let me take the two (rhetorical) questions in order:

1) “[W]hich article in the international law forbids China to carry out justified construction on its own islands and reefs?

China has a point here. There is no explicit prohibition under international law on construction on a country’s own “islands and reefs.”  That is why the US calls on China to stop land reclamation don’t have a strong legal basis, especially since it appears most of the other South China Sea claimants have also engaged in some (smaller scale) land reclamation.

On the other hand, it is far from clear China is building out on “islands”. It is likely that it has possession only of “rocks” or maybe even just “reefs.” And it is far from clear that China has title to whatever land features it is using.  But land reclamation alone isn’t a violation of any international law that I am aware of.

2) “Which article allows the vessels and aircraft of one country to monitor the islands and reefs of another country at a close distance? Which article gives the green light to one country’s infringement upon another country’s sovereignty and legitimate rights and interests with the excuse of navigation freedom?”

Here, China is on much shakier ground. As I explained at too much length here, UNCLOS is probably best interpreted to allow surveillance and monitoring by foreign military vessels and aircraft up to 12 nautical miles of a country’s territories, and within those 12 nm if the territory is only a rock or a reef.  China doesn’t agree with this interpretation, and this is the crux of the dispute with the U.S.

Overall, I think China has a strong legal point on land reclamation, but a weak legal point on surveillance and freedom of navigation.  The obvious “compromise”  (or maybe the word is “standoff”) here is for the US to tacitly accede to China’s land reclamation, and for China to tacitly accede to US military surveillance up to and perhaps within 12 nautical miles.  Since the US can’t actually stop China from continuing its land reclamation, and China can’t stop US surveillance, this “compromise” seems like a safe bet. I will note, however, that China’s actions have unleashed the hawkish wing of the China-watching establishment in the U.S. and, over the long term, this may be the most important outcome of this standoff.  The US is taking off the gloves against China and a containment strategy with our new best friends in Vietnam and India  is becoming increasingly likely.

New Edited Collection on the ICC

by Kevin Jon Heller

Oxford University Press has just published a massive new book on the ICC, “The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court,” edited by Leiden’s Carsten Stahn. Here is the publisher’s description:

The International Criminal Court is a controversial and important body within international law; one that is significantly growing in importance, particularly as other international criminal tribunals close down. After a decade of Court practice, this book takes stock of the activities of the International Criminal Court, identifying the key issues in need of re-thinking or potential reform. It provides a systematic and in-depth thematic account of the law and practice of the Court, including its changes context, the challenges it faces, and its overall contribution to international criminal law. The book is written by over forty leading practitioners and scholars from both inside and outside the Court. They provide an unparallelled insight into the Court as an institution, its jurisprudence, the impact of its activities, and its future development.

The work addresses the ways in which the practice of the International Criminal Court has emerged, and identifies ways in which this practice could be refined or improved in future cases. The book is organised along six key themes: (i) the context of International Criminal Court investigations and prosecutions; (ii) the relationship of the Court to domestic jurisdictions; (iii) prosecutorial policy and practice; (iv) the applicable law; (v) fairness and expeditiousness of proceedings; and (vi) its impact and lessons learned. It shows the ways in which the Court has offered fresh perspectives on the theorization and conception of crimes, charges and individual criminal responsibility. It examines the procedural framework of the Court, including the functioning of different stages of proceedings. The Court’s decisions have significant repercussions: on domestic law, criminal theory, and the law of other international courts and tribunals. In this context, the book assesses the extent to which specific approaches and assumptions, both positive and negative, regarding the potential impact of the Court are in need of re-thinking. This book will be essential reading for practitioners, scholars, and students of international criminal law.

The book includes my essay on Regulation 55 and an essay on co-perpetration by Jens. At £195, most people won’t be able to buy a copy. But four chapters are available for free download and most libraries are sure to acquire it.

Congratulations to Carsten on a tremendous accomplishment!

Inter-temporal International Law? Or How Would Modern International Law Have Treated “Unconditional Surrender”?

by Julian Ku

Seth Tillman of Maynooth University has a clever “parody” letter (scroll to the bottom) in the most recent Claremont Review of Books.  I can’t really do it justice here, but it is an amusing take on how modern international law might have critiqued the relentless Allied demands for unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan in 1945.  Also, I particulalry appreciate his efforts to reproduce mid-20th century typography.

Weekly News Wrap: Tuesday, June 2, 2015

by Jessica Dorsey

Africa

Middle East and Northern Africa

Asia

Europe

  • Greece’s cash-strapped government has failed to deliver on a promise to reach an agreement with rescue lenders over the weekend.
  • An ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday it would be unrealistic for British Prime Minister David Cameron to expect to achieve changes to European Union treaties before the country holds a referendum on its membership of the bloc.
  • A separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine is revealing increasing evidence, but not yet conclusive legal proof, of Russian state involvement, senior United Nations human rights officials said on Monday.
  • More than 5,000 migrants on their way to Europe have been saved from boats in distress in the Mediterranean since Friday, according to EU authorities, as the corpses of 17 migrants have been brought ashore in Sicily aboard an Italian naval vessel.
  • Russia has imposed an entry ban on 89 European politicians and military leaders, according to a list seen by Reuters, a move that has angered Europe and worsened its standoff with the West over Moscow’s role in the Ukraine conflict.

Americas

  • US President Barack Obama has said that Myanmar needed to take seriously the issue of how it treats the Rohingya people, if it wanted to be successful in its transition to a democracy.
  • U.S.-led forces targeted Islamic State militants in Syria with 13 air strikes from Sunday morning through Monday morning and conducted another 10 strikes against the group in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Monday.

Oceania

  • The leader of Australia’s opposition Labor Party introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage on Monday, adding the backing of a major party to growing public support for the issue after last month’s landmark ‘yes’ vote in Ireland.

UN/World

  • The United Nations said it would be forced to slash or shut down almost half its aid operations in Iraq without an immediate injection of new funds, at a time when a humanitarian crisis triggered by Islamic State insurgents is intensifying.
  • Governments must address human trafficking and slavery in a global development pact later this year, Nobel Peace Laureate Kailash Satyarthi said on Monday, warning that the credibility of humanity was at stake if countries failed to deliver.

Appeals Chamber Fails To See the Forest — Complementarity Edition

by Kevin Jon Heller

Earlier this week, the Appeals Chamber rejected Cote d’Ivoire’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Simone Gbagbo. The challenge was based on Gbagbo’s 20-year sentence for disturbing the peace, forming and organising armed gangs, and undermining state security. Like the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber concluded that Gbagbo’s domestic convictions failed to satisfy Art. 17’s “same conduct” requirement, making her case admissible. Here are the key paragraphs:

99. The Pre-Trial Chamber found that the conduct underlying the alleged economic crimes was “clearly of a different nature” from the conduct alleged in the proceedings before the Court, and therefore “irrelevant”.171 The Pre-Trial Chamber further found that according to the documentation provided by Côte d’Ivoire, in particular Annex 8 to the Admissibility Challenge, the alleged conduct was characterised as [REDACTED].172 In view of the description of the alleged acts provided in the material submitted by Côte d’Ivoire, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was not unreasonable for the Pre-Trial Chamber to find this conduct to be of a different nature to Ms Gbagbo’s alleged conduct in relation to the crimes against humanity of murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhumane acts, on the basis of which the Warrant of Arrest was issued against her by the Court. In addition, Côte d’Ivoire does not explain why “excessively rigid distinction” between the crimes allegedly investigated domestically and those before the Court is erroneous.

100. As regards crimes against the State, the Pre-Trial Chamber noted that in the domestic proceedings it is alleged that Ms Gbagbo [REDACTED].173 The Pre-Trial Chamber further noted that, in the domestic proceedings, “there are references to, inter alia, the allegations of [REDACTED].174 The Pre-Trial Chamber observed that the provisions criminalising such alleged conduct are included in the section of the Ivorian Criminal Code concerning felonies and misdemeanours against the safety of the State, the national defence and the public security.175 The Pre-Trial Chamber concluded that the alleged conduct only includes [REDACTED] and therefore the domestic proceedings in question “do not cover the same conduct” that is alleged in the case before the Court.176 The Appeals Chamber finds that it was not unreasonable for the Pre-Trial Chamber to find, on the basis of the description of the alleged conduct contained in the documents provided by Côte d’Ivoire, read in light of the applicable provisions of the Ivorian Criminal Code, that this conduct, characterised as infringing [REDACTED], is not the same as that alleged before the Court. In addition, as indicated earlier, Côte d’Ivoire does not explain why “excessively rigid distinction” between the crimes allegedly investigated domestically and those before the Court is erroneous.

I have no doubt that the Appeals Chamber’s application of the “same conduct” requirement is correct. But I think it is important to once again ask a basic question about the requirement: what does the ICC gain by insisting that Cote d’Ivoire surrender Gbagbo to the Court to face a second prosecution? 20 years is a significant sentence — five years longer than Lubanga’s, and eight years longer than Katanga’s. Even if the OTP manages to convict Gbagbo, she is very unlikely to receive a substantially longer sentence. So why should the ICC waste the OTP’s precious and overstretched resources by trying Gbagbo again?

My answer, not surprisingly, remains the same: it shouldn’t. The ICC simply cannot afford the kind of hyper-formalism that underlies the “same conduct” requirement. As I have argued elsewhere, the Court should defer to any national prosecution that results in a sentence equal to or longer than the sentence the suspect could expect to receive at the ICC, even if the national prosecution is based on completely different conduct than the ICC’s prosecution.

In fairness to the Appeals Chamber, it’s worth noting that Gbagbo’s attorney challenged the Pre-Trial Chamber’s application of the “same conduct” requirement; she did not challenge the requirement itself. That’s a shame, because I think Gbagbo’s case perfectly illustrates why the Appeals Chamber should jettison the “same conduct” requirement. Would it? Probably not — as I note in my article, the requirement does have a clear textual basis in Art. 20 of the Rome Statute (“upward” ne bis in idem). But the Appeals Chamber has proven remarkably willing to ignore the Rome Statute when it proves inconvenient, so it would have been worth a shot — especially as the “same conduct” requirement is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of complementarity’s emphasis on the ICC being a court of last resort . At the very least, challenging the requirement would have forced the Appeals Chamber to explain why the requirement’s waste of OTP resources is warranted. I would have liked to read that explanation.