Recent Posts

Taking Complementarity Seriously: Why is the International Criminal Court Not Investigating Government Crimes in Congo?

by Patryk Labuda

[Patryk I. Labuda is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and a Teaching Assistant at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He is currently on exchange at Harvard Law School.]

The International Criminal Court (ICC) faces many problems. Some of them are well known, for instance its inadequate budget, accusations of anti-African bias, and withdrawals from the Rome Statute. But there is a far more insidious cancer that is eating away at the Court’s legitimacy: complementarity. As with so many other developments at the ICC, it is the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that foreshadows some of the Court’s long-term dilemmas, many of which received too little attention in Rome. This post explores how the Prosecutor’s confused approach to complementarity undermines the Court’s mission in the DRC and, potentially, in other situation countries going forward.

The ICC and Congo

To hear Fatou Bensouda tell it, the ICC’s intervention in the DRC is something of a success story. The Court’s track record there seems positive, especially when contrasted with other ICC situations: Thomas Lubanga and Germain Katanga have been tried and convicted, and Bosco Ntaganda is currently on trial. Another Congolese, Jean-Pierre Bemba, is the Court’s only high-profile convict to date, even if his conviction formally stems from the situation in the Central African Republic. Thus, with the possible exception of Mathieu Ngudjolo’s acquittal in 2012, Congo is usually portrayed as a beacon of hope for an otherwise beleaguered institution struggling to gain legitimacy in Africa. But is this narrative of success compelling?

A cloud of suspicion has hung over the ICC’s activities in the DRC ever since Joseph Kabila ‘invited’ the first Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, to launch an investigation in 2004. Kabila’s ‘self-referral’ succeeded beyond his wildest dreams: lacking a strategy for a country the size of Western Europe, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) initiated sporadic prosecutions which targeted only Kabila’s rivals, including Bemba who had almost defeated him in the 2006 presidential election. In stark contrast, the Congolese government’s crimes received no scrutiny in The Hague.

Thirteen years after Kabila’s invitation, the ICC’s neglect of government crimes is coming home to roost. The DRC is in the news for all the wrong reasons. Kabila’s refusal to relinquish power, despite being constitutionally required to do so, has stoked mass violence on several occasions, leaving dozens dead in the streets of Kinshasa and other cities. After a series of damning reports (see here and here), last month the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights formally requested a commission of inquiry to examine ‘recurrent reports of grave violations’. Most importantly from the ICC’s perspective, these reports show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the violence is part of a governmental strategy to keep Kabila in power at all costs. The pattern is familiar: each time the political opposition organizes protests, state agents – police and military – resort to deadly force. Yet despite thousands of cumulative deaths, reports of dozens of mass graves, and even graphic videos of summary executions by government troops, the ICC has been virtually absent from the debate about accountability.

Why, despite such overwhelming evidence of state criminality, has the ICC not investigated Kabila and his supporters? Continue reading…

The Post-Election Crisis in The Gambia: An Interplay of a Security Council’s “Non-Authorization” and Intervention by Invitation

by Benjamin Nussberger

[Benjamin Nussberger is a PhD student and research fellow at the Institute for Peace and Security Law at University of Cologne. He is currently pursuing a LLM degree at Columbia Law School.This post is a response and addendum to Professor Helal’s post Crisis in The Gambia: How Africa is Rewriting Jus ad Bellum.]

The Security Council did it again. Intentionally? No answer. Striking? It seems so.

After famous resolution 2249 (2015) concerning the Syrian war, after under-the-radar-flying resolution 2216 (2015) concerning the Saudi military intervention in Yemen, the Security Council did it again responding to the constitutional crisis in The Gambia with its resolution 2337 (2017): it “non-authorized” the use of force. This however should not be equated with a prohibition of the use of force. Rather, it seems, the Security Council not only leaves open, but apparently also opens and encourages alternative avenues for States to legally resort to force – without the Security Council’s express authorization.

Accordingly, by analyzing resolution 2337 (2017) more closely and further scrutinizing the intervention by invitation doctrine against the facts of the post-election Crisis in the Gambia (which may be recalled here and here), I would like to take up and develop Professor Helal’s reflections on the role of the intervention by invitation doctrine. Professor Helal raises concerns about the ineffectiveness of Adama Barrow, concluding that the intervention by invitation is “at best questionable.” Moreover, I would like to interweave this with a response to Professor Hallo de Wolf’s fear that “this latest example of regional intervention [in The Gambia] will come to reside next to others in the unfortunate category of illegal, yet legitimate interventions (…)” and that “it would appear nobody cares for the legality or illegality of ECOWAS’s use of force as long as the bad guy was displaced.”

A “non-prohibitive non-authorization”

I agree with Professor Helal: An express authorization of any use of force cannot be deduced from resolution 2337 (2017), as none of the indicators generally accepted to signify the authorization of the use of force are present. The Council does neither act under Chapter VII nor Chapter VIII. The Council does not determine a threat to international peace and security. It does neither decide nor authorize. It does not use the key term “necessary measures”, and thus refrain from basing its language on the ECOWAS Authority’s 17 December summit and the AU Peace and Security Council’s communiqué of 13 December 2016. To scatter any doubt, members of the Security Council, e.g. Uruguay (as well as Bolivia, and Egypt), reaffirmed this conclusion underscoring that “nothing in resolution 2337 (2017) can be interpreted as express authorization of the use of force.” (emphasis added) While a previous draft had included the Council’s full support to ECOWAS’ commitment “to take all necessary means”, this had been apparently watered down to comfort Russian objections. Thus, there is nothing in resolution 2337 (2017), which may be read to constitute an express mandate or endorsement of military force.

The non-authorization, however, should not be interpreted as a prohibition of a use of force. As mentioned earlier, some States did favor an endorsement of military means in the earlier stage of drafting. And this may also be traced in the resolution: the Council “expresses its full support to the ECOWAS in its commitment to ensure by political means first, the respect of the will of the people of The Gambia as expressed in the results of 1st December elections” (para 6, emphasis added). What is more, the Council “welcomed” the ECOWAS’ and AU’s decisions, in which both organizations announced to take “all necessary measures to strictly enforce” the election results. Statements of Russia and Britain back this interpretation. Russia’s deputy ambassador Petr Iliichev was quoted later: “if diplomacy fails, Barrow can request military or other assistance.” and Britain’s deputy ambassador Peter Wilson was quoted: “it’s very clear that if president Barrow asks for assistance, then that’s something as the legitimate president of Gambia he’s perfectly entitled to do.”

Accordingly, viewed against the drafting history, this allows to conclude that the Security Council was aware of an eventual military solution – and by elegantly framing it as support for peaceful and political means of dispute settlement first, it left the door to the resort to force in accordance with the UN Charter ajar.

Intervention by invitation

So what might this mean for the only viable justification for a resort to military means – an intervention by invitation?

As a short reminder, the doctrine of intervention by invitation is firmly rooted in State practice and accepted by the ICJ (Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case). It assumes that if a State’s government has requested military assistance, the invited State(s) might use force on the requesting State’s territory – without violating Article 2(4) UN Charter. Admittedly, it remains unclear whether, and if so when, the new president, Barrow, had issued such an invitation or request for military help to put him into power. Assuming he did, could this justify a military solution of the conflict?

As a side note, it shall be mentioned that the ECOWAS intervention in the Gambian constitutional crisis does not constitute State practice, shedding light to the murky waters of an intervention by invitation in a “civil war situation”, which recently has been subject to much debate: For the simple, but – as, e.g., the US has rightly commented – commendable fact that The Gambia did not immerse in armed confrontations.

Hence, if the president’s consent enfolds justifying effect, (only) dangles on the fundamental question: who is president? Who may legitimately call for military support by a foreign State, where competing claims to the presidency, entitled to act and speak on behalf the State, are advanced?

I agree that it is essentially this question, which puts the intervening States’ reliance on the doctrine of intervention by invitation alone on shaky grounds. This, however, is nothing exceptional or new, but rather common in scenarios of intervention by invitation. Two criterions are discussed in State practice and literature for answering this question. Traditionally, the government’s effectiveness has been a decisive component. More recently, legitimacy aspects arguably play an increasingly important role for determining a government’s representativeness. In the Gambian post-election crisis, both criteria are not unproblematic. As regards the effectiveness criterion, and as Professor Helal has rightly pointed out, Barrow was trapped in exile in Senegal, unable to take office at that moment in time. So his effectiveness appeared basically limited to an external dimension when the use of force began. The international community virtually unanimously recognized him as president and maintained diplomatic relations with him, and no longer with Jammeh. On the other hand, Jammeh’s effectiveness may be reasonably challenged as well: only some paramilitary units expressly said to defend him. The Gambian army chief declared not to involve the army into the political dispute; the Gambian navy decided to side with Barrow. Jammeh stood in isolation in the international community. This leaves two persons without a clear preponderance regarding effective control. Regarding the latter aspect, one may however ask in how far Jammeh’s ineffectiveness would have an impact on ineffective Barrow’s capability to call for help?

The legitimacy criterion seems to be clearer. Barrow has been elected president. He can base his claim to presidency on the will of the Gambian people expressed in “peaceful and transparent” elections, as the Security Council has observed (SC Resolution 2337, preamble 4). Nonetheless, this strong legitimacy basis has some scratches as well. Jammeh invoked irregularities taken place in the elections and referred the issue to the Constitutional Court – an argument advanced and a process taking place, which is not unknown, uncommon and without acceptance in “world-leading” democracies as well. Moreover, Jammeh declared a state of emergency, reacting to “unprecedented and extraordinary amount of foreign interference in the country’s internal affairs.” The Gambian parliament extended Jammeh’s mandate for 90 days, until the Supreme Court decided upon the matter. In this respect, the parliament also attempted to change the relevant constitutional provisions. Obviously, the parliament’s argumentation may be contestable from a rule of law as well as a political perspective, especially if one takes the circumstances and timing into consideration. The Security Council’s reaction in resolution 2337 (2017) seems to aim to express these concerns: “strongly condemning (…) the attempt by the Parliament on 18 January 2017 to extend President Jammeh’s term for three month beyond his current mandate.” In light of international norms of democracy (e.g. Art. 23 (4) of the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, to which the Security Council refers to) this raises difficult questions, exhibiting the tension in which international norms on and international assessment of democracy operate: Does all this still constitute a legitimate democratic process or does it exceed the competency of the parliament? What standard should apply? Is the parliament prohibited to change its constitution? And who should have the last word in deciding on the electoral process and the Gambian constitution: the State’s elected people’s representatives or the international community? The Security Council responded only with deafening silence, announcing the outcome of its assessment: this attempt was strongly condemnable (and illegal?). With all this in mind, one may also want to raise one more question: if we are very strict on this – how to assess an inauguration procedure taking place in the State’s embassy within a foreign country?

Despite these issues, which are yet another example illustrating that a clear-cut assessment in contested situations remains utopian, the international community takes an unambiguous position: The ECOWAS and the AU recognize Barrow as President of The Gambia. The Security Council also makes it very clear that it holds Barrow to be president of Gambia from 19 January 2016 onwards. In this respect it is also interesting to note that the Security Council reminds Jammeh of his contradictory behavior, by calling upon him to keep to the letter and spirit of his concession speech delivered on 2 December 2016 (para 5).

As I have argued elsewhere, an unambiguous international assessment and determination of relevant legal facts (in the case at hand the presidency) constitutes an important facet and indicator for States’ assessment of the question whether an intervention by invitation is permissible. Particularly, the Security Council’s assessment bears relevance. This invites us to shortly recapitulate. In a nutshell, the Security Council says the following in resolution 2337 (2017): It does not authorize the use of force. It does not prohibit the use of force. It takes note of and even welcomes the ECOWAS plans to eventually solve the conflict by military means. And it draws a remarkably clear and unambiguous picture of the conflict and its understanding of the legal facts relevant for a justification of a use of force.

It is my submission that the Security Council thereby (indirectly) assesses the related and relevant legal and factual questions. It hints to its understanding that a use of force may be legal if based on the doctrine of intervention by invitation, and thus equips any legal argumentation of the State resorting to force with greater legitimacy, persuasiveness, strength, and legal value. The case at hand is particularly illustrative, as the Russian and Britain diplomats quoted above even expressly voice their opinion that a military solution to the conflict may be based on Barrow’s request.

This strategy of “non-prohibitive non-authorization combined with fact-clearing, strengthening of alternative avenues of justification” is not new. Lately, the Security Council seems to have increasingly applied this approach to address various conflicts. For example, resolution 2249 (2015) concerning Syria created a skillful constructive ambiguity, enabling and de facto strengthening States to rely on self-defense measures, as Paulina Starski has explained here. In the still ongoing Yemen conflict, the Council’s resolutions and presidential statements as well as resolution 2216 (2015) clarified substantial legal facts relevant for the justification of the intervening coalition (for a detailed account see here). In both cases, some States had initially called for a mandate, which the Council was not ready to grant. In both cases, these States were comfortable and pleased with the above-sketched outcome. In both cases, the Security Council was aware of the States using force and their respective justifications. In both cases, the Council clarified facts, assessed the underlying legal concepts, and opened up and strengthened legal avenues justifying a use of force – be it self-defense or the intervention by invitation doctrine. In both cases, States invoked the resolution in addition to the general justifications, such as consent or the right to self-defense. And in both cases, except for some scant protests, a big international outcry against the intervention’s legality was inexistent. To the contrary, especially in the case of Yemen, the international community was almost unanimously ready to accept the resort to force as legal. Finally, in this respect both cases resemble the crisis in The Gambia. It is not the place to revisit and critically assess this strategy in detail. Yet, it invites us to pose questions in how far it contributes to an evolution or even changes the contemporary system of collective security.

Accordingly, in line with these developments and lines of arguments, if there has been an invitation, an intervention by ECOWAS may be arguably seen to be in accordance with international law. Different reasons for this conclusion may be advanced. One could read the incident as an additional example of State practice heralding the farewell of effectiveness as decisive criterion and turning to the criterion of legitimacy. But this seems not to be the main motivation. Strikingly, the Security Council does use the word “legitimate” other than when determining that Jammeh is no longer the “legitimate president.” Unlike to comparable incidents (e.g. Yemen Res 2216 (2015)) Barrow is not explicitly endorsed as “legitimate president”. Hence, I submit that the best understanding of the Gambian crisis, avoiding difficulties of legitimacy and effectiveness, is the following: accepting the Security Council’s assessment as a decisive indicator (amongst others), the non-prohibitive non-authorization, indirectly opening and strengthening the alternative avenue of the doctrine of intervention by invitation, eventually leads to the international community’s acceptance of ECOWAS intervention being in accordance with international law.

So, yes, the justification of “intervention by invitation” alone may be seen to stand on shaky grounds. But, no, the international community does not “not care” about the legality. Rather, it provides a strategy to legally resort to military force if diplomatic means fail – yet, admittedly, only for the time after inauguration, leaving the problem of the threat to use force unresolved. It is another question though, whether this strategy is commendable.

Strangely Enough, President Trump Can Use His Executive Power Over Immigration to Advance Human Rights and Battle Corruption

by Julian Ku

statue-of-liberty-1210001__340The legal battle over President Trump’s recent executive order has cast a spotlight on the president’s broad and potentially abusive powers over U.S. immigration laws.  But it is worth remembering that this power can be used in many different ways, including in ways that the President’s critics would support.  This past December, Congress delegated to the president broad discretionary powers to use his executive power over immigration to protect international human rights and to battle against corruption. These powers could advance the protection of human rights far more effectively than any Alien Tort Statute lawsuit.  But a successful use of this new law would require President Trump and his critics to work together. And this prospect seems awfully hard to imagine right now.

Enacted as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act and modeled on a similar law targeting Russia only,  the “Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act” delegates to the President broad powers to impose targeted sanctions on foreign persons who commit or materially assist the commission of “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” or “acts of significant corruption.”  In particular, the President is authorized to deny or revoke visas to foreign “persons”, or simply deny them entry.  A foreign “person” is specifically defined to include dual nationals.  (The exercise of this power might sound familiar to those of us still wrestling with the impact of last week’s immigration order.)

The Global Magnitsky Act goes farther than visa denial, however, and also authorizes the President to block “all transactions in property” of a foreign person that are in the United States or are in the possession of a U.S. person.   “Blocking” means that the property is frozen so that the owner cannot exercise any power or control over it despite still retaining title.

In order to impose such sanctions, the President simply needs to determine, based on “credible evidence,” that a foreign person either is “responsible” for a “gross violation[]” of internationally recognized human rights or acted as an agent for that person.  The same “credible evidence” standard applies to sanctions for corruption, or “materially assisting” corruption.

Taken together, it is hard to read this law as anything other than a grant of highly discretionary or possibly unreviewable power for the President to block the entry and/or freeze the assets of any foreign national he thinks is connected to human rights violations or corruption.  It might be unreviewable because courts are hesitant to review presidential exercises of a delegated power to impose sanctions, and even if it did, it would be nearly impossible for a court to find the lack of “credible evidence”.

Thus, President Trump has a new sweeping, possibly unreviewable power to deny entry into the U.S. and/or freeze the property of foreign nationals on the basis of human rights violations or corruption.  Previously, the President would have had to invoke a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose such sanctions, and violations of human rights were not specifically authorized as the basis for imposing such sanctions.  The Global Magnitsky Act thus hands President Trump a pretty powerful tool to support and advance the cause of international human rights.   Will he use it?

It is hard to predict anything for certain about our new president, but the statute does build in some mild procedural encouragements for him to use this new power.  For instance, the President must issue a report to four congressional committees (Senate Banking, Senate Foreign Affairs, House Finance, and House Foreign Affairs) reporting on sanctions he has imposed within 120 days of the law’s enactment (April 7, 2017).  Moreover, the President must also respond within 120 days to any request by the chair and ranking member of one of the congressional committees to impose human rights sanctions.  If the chair and ranking member of one of the House committees and one of the Senate committees sends him a request to impose corruption related sanctions, he must also respond within 120 days.  The Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor is authorized to submit the names of possible sanctions targets to the Secretary of State for review. Moreover, nothing in the statute prevents the President from acting on his own.  Human rights NGOs, many of whom are the Trump administration’s fiercest critics, could also submit lists if they choose.

Even if President Trump uses this power, will it have any effect? How many “gross violators” of human rights or corrupt foreign government officials want to enter the U.S. or have property or assets here?  It is hard to say for sure, but the number is probably more than zero.  It might even be a lot more than zero.  In any event, it is also worth noting that the sanctions imposed by the Global Magnitsky Act are almost as severe as any judgment that could be collected in a lawsuit brought under the Alien Tort Statute.  Will petitioning the White House to impose sanctions replace ATS lawsuits?  Probably not, but if used aggressively, the Global Magnitsky Act would have a much greater impact in support of international human rights than any five ATS lawsuits put together.

It is still too early to tell how this law will work in practice.  But human rights and anti-corruption NGOs should be dusting off their political lobbying skills and start approaching the State Department and the chairs and ranking members of the relevant congressional committees with names. Since Maryland Senator Ben Cardin sponsored the Global Magnitsky Act and is the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I bet he would be more than happy to submit some names to President Trump.    Such lobbying is a lot easier than filing an ATS lawsuit, and has a much higher chance of having a real impact.   But it will also mean petitioning an unpopular president to exercise his much vilified executive powers on their behalf. Will a future photo from the Oval Office depict President Trump signing a Magnitsky Act executive order while officials from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stand beside him to applaud him?  As I said, this is awfully  hard to imagine today, but stranger things have happened.

Panel on Travel Ban & Immigration Orders

by Kristen Boon

Seton Hall Law School (where I am a professor) organized an excellent panel on the travel ban and immigration restrictions last Thursday, Feb 2.    For those who wish to learn more about the legal effects of the executive order, I encourage you to watch it here.

You will see presentations by Professors Lori Nessel, Ed Hartnett and Jonathan Hafetz discussing the immigration orders, their constitutionality, and possible challenges to those orders.  The panel was moderated by Professor Jenny-Brooke Condon.

This is a fast moving issue – please note this panel predated multiple developments and decisions by judges in several jurisdictions over the weekend, which considered the constitutionality of the travel ban.

To stay current, you can access all briefs and decisions at this link, which has been setup by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse at the University of Michigan Law School.

Dear Mr President: 40% of Zero is Zero

by Kevin Jon Heller

Kill me:

Funding will be taken away from any organisation that is “controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism” or is behind the persecution of marginalised groups or systematic violation of human rights.

The order has singled out peacekeeping, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Population Fund. The UNPFA targets violence against women, fights to keeps childbirth and abortion, where it is legal, safe, and was a key presence in safeguarding women in Haiti following Hurricane Matthew.

The order demands decreasing US funding towards international organisations by at least 40 per cent. Mr Trump has included the International Criminal Court here, yet the US currently pays nothing to the ICC.

When asked why he wants to reduce funding to an organisation the US doesn’t fund, President Trump reportedly responded, “the Prosecutor, Frederick Douglass, is a rabble-rouser.”

Event: Australia, Refugees, and International Criminal Law (February 13)

by Kevin Jon Heller

I want to call readers’ attention to what should be — despite my participation — a fantastic event at City Law School the week after next. Here is the info:

City, University of London: The Refugee Crisis and International Criminal Law: Are Australian Agents and Corporate Actors Committing Crimes Against Humanity?

City Law School invites you to a panel discussion of international criminal law aspects of the refugee crisis, with a focus on the Australian detention facilities. The discussion will follow the announcement and launch of a new major initiative by the Stanford International Human Rights Clinic and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN).

Refugees and asylum seekers are currently under attack in many developed countries, including in European states, the US, and Australia. International criminal law has developed around the need for international institutions to intervene on behalf of the most vulnerable populations, when states are unwilling or unable to do so. Can international criminal prosecution help counter the current encroachment upon refugee rights? Currently, the most flagrant examples of such encroachment are Australian practices, which have also served as a model for migration restrictionists around the world. Our focus will be on the treatment of refugees in Nauru and Manus Island by Australian officials and agents, including corporate actors. At issue, however, are not only legal questions. As important are contemporary political conditions, in which the international criminal court is under sustained critique for a seeming bias against African leaders; and in which Western governments and populist movements are proposing new policies that violate refugee rights. Does the concept of Crimes against Humanity accurately capture the conditions of detention and practices of mass deportations? And, if there are international crimes committed, are these grave enough for the International Criminal Court to investigate? Can and should International Criminal Law shift its focus from instances of spectacular or radical evil to the normalised and ‘banal’ violence waged by Western states as a consequence of the structures of global inequality?

Speakers: Ms Diala Shamas, Supervising Attorney and Lecturer, Stanford Law School International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic; Dr Cathryn Costello, Andrew W. Mellon Associate Professor in International Human Rights and Refugee Law, fellow of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford; Professor Kevin Jon Heller, Professor of Criminal Law, SOAS, University of London; Dr Ioannis KalpouzosLecturer in Law, City Law School, City, University of London; Legal Action Committee, Global Legal Action Network; Dr Itamar Mann, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Haifa; Legal Action Committee, Global Legal Action Network; Ms Anna Shea, Researcher and Legal Advisor, Refugee and Migrant Rights, Amnesty International.

The event takes place on Monday 13 February 2017 at 18:00 at City, University of London, College Building, St John Street, EC1V 4PB – Room AG21. The event will be followed by a wine reception. Attendance is free. You may sign up here.

Hope to see some OJ readers there!

The Important Role of International Law in Legal Challenges to Trump’s Anti-Refugee Order

by Jonathan Hafetz

[Jonathan Hafetz is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law.]

President Trump’s recent executive order temporarily barring the entry of refugees and others has provoked widespread protests, inflicted unnecessary suffering, and undermined the United States’ reputation across the world.  Several district judges have temporarily blocked its enforcement, at minimum preserving the status quo (by halting the removal of individuals who had traveled to the United States) until the legal challenges can be resolved.  The most recent ruling, issued by a federal judge in Los Angeles, went as far as to enjoin the federal government from denying entry into the United States to holders of valid immigrant visas from countries covered by Trump’s order.  I believe Trump’s order violates the U.S. Constitution, as I’ve briefly described here and Adam Cox has discussed at length here.  It also transgresses international law.  And while the international law violations may not alone trigger the order’s invalidation by a federal judges, they strengthen the domestic law challenges—statutory and constitutional—to the order.

Trump’s order suspends entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, bars Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocks entry into the United States for 90 days of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.  The Trump administration (via Department of Homeland Secretary John Kelly) subsequently sought to clarify that legal permanent residents (LPRs) from those seven countries were not categorically banned but would instead be issued waivers on a case-by-case basis. A more recent White House “clarification” states that the order will not apply to any LPRs. How much weight judges will accord these post hoc damage control efforts is another question, particularly given the continuing evidence of the order’s arbitrary enforcement and Trump’s own proven disregard for facts and for the truth.  Further, this clarification does not address claims by non-LPRs.

The order contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol by discriminating among refugees based on religion and country of origin.  The ban also violates applicable human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits non-discrimination across a broad range of state action, including entry decisions, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which bars racial and religious discrimination in immigration decisions.  (See Jay Shooster’s excellent post here). Further, as Shooster notes, both the ICCPR and CERD prohibit laws with discriminatory effects and thus do not require proof of intent (although there is ample evidence of discriminatory intent behind Trump’s executive order, as noted below).  For example, a 2004 decision by the UN Human Rights Committee interprets the ICCPR’s anti-discrimination prohibition to encompasses action that has an “exclusive and disproportionate effect on a certain category of persons.”

The federal court rulings thus far show Trump’s order is vulnerable to anti-discrimination challenges based on national origin and religion.  The Trump administration’s claim that the order is not directed at Muslims is undercut by Trump’s repeated statements openly expressing disfavor of Muslims.  Indeed, in signing the order, Trump vowed to “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States.”  And Rudy Giuliani stated that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and asked him to assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

Because the relevant treaties are non-self-executing, their bite in litigation over the executive order will be in their interaction with domestic law.  One statutory argument some petitioners will advance is that the executive order violates section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  Enacted in 1965—and motivated by a long history of discrimination in immigration law—this provision bars discrimination in “the issuance of an immigrant visa” based, inter alia, on nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.  International law bolsters claims that section 202(a) should be interpreted to prohibit the type of national origin discrimination imposed by Trump’s order against those seeking permanent residence status.

The Trump administration is relying heavily on section 212(f) of the INA, which allows the president to suspend entry of any class of aliens where it would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  But, although broad, this grant of authority should prove vulnerable where, as James C. Hathaway notes, there is no “serious data linking refugees to a terrorist threat” and where the evidence instead points to religious animus as the motivating factor.  Here again, non-discrimination provisions under international law will reinforce construction of federal law against the order’s validity.

International law also supports constitutional challenges, particularly the claim that removal without judicial review violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law, individuals have a right apply for asylum, cannot be removed to a country where they face a risk of torture or persecution, and are entitled to a determination on their claims.   Federal law implements these non-refoulement obligations by providing for individualized determinations and judicial review.  A categorical ban that denies those fleeing persecution the opportunity to seek relief and review—as required under international law and provided for by federal statute—violates due process.

While constitutional arguments will remain front and center, the order’s incompatibility with international law—not to mention with U.S. international interests—should magnify judicial skepticism about the expansive readings of the plenary power doctrine and executive authority that Trump will advance in defending the order.

Why You Shouldn’t Panic Over President Trump’s Draft Executive Orders on Funding for International Organizations

by Julian Ku

Because I am on sabbatical this semester, I have been lying low during these first few (very busy!) weeks of the Trump administration.  But I have noticed that the sheer volume of Trump administration actions, and reactions to its actions, is confusing both its supporters and its critics.  While Trump has already taken actions that are worthy of severe criticism (see, e.g., his much-maligned immigration executive order), some of his other proposed actions are being overblown as further threats to the Republic.  This type of overstatement and mischaracterization is as damaging to Trump’s critics as they are to the Trump administration itself.

For instance, two draft Trump executive orders on international organizations and multilateral treaties leaked late last week causing a flurry of instant condemnation on social media and elsewhere.  The initial reports about these orders, especially on twitter and in headlines, suggested that Trump would by executive order “to dramatically reduce funding of United Nations.”  New York Magazine’s summary of the draft order is particularly sensational:

….Donald Trump is preparing to decimate this tool of American hegemony [the U.N.] — and global peacekeeping and poverty reduction — with a stroke of his pen.

The Trump administration has drafted an executive order that would radically reduce American funding of the U.N. and other international organizations. The order would terminate all U.S. funding to any international body that meets any one of a long list of criteria. Among other things, the order would bar American funding of any organization that gives full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, supports programs that fund abortion, or that is “controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism.” (Emphasis added).

The problem with this summary is that it is totally inaccurate.  The actual draft executive order simply forms a committee to study and provide recommendations on whether and how to cut U.S. funding to the U.N. and other international organizations.  The order does not “terminate” anything with “a stroke of a pen.” Its most aggressive section would simply require the Committee to “recommend appropriate strategies to cease funding” international agencies that grants membership to the Palestinian Authority or supports terrorism.  Funding for these agencies is already prohibited by U.S. statute, so this is really an order to think of ways to comply with U.S. law.  To be sure, the order takes a much harsher and negative view of funding international organizations than prior U.S. administrations, but the order is hardly the end of the United Nations as we know it.  This is especially true if we recall that Congress, and not the President, has the power to fund or not fund international organizations like the U.N..

The draft executive order on multilateral treaties is potentially more significant because the President has broad powers to withdraw from treaties.  But the order itself simply creates another committee to review U.S. participation in all multilateral treaties that the U.S. is negotiating, in the process of considering ratification, or already ratified and joined.  The committee is instructed to recommend whether the U.S. should continue negotiating, ratifying, or being part of those treaties.

The only unusual part of this process is to elevate treaty review to an interagency committee. But such a review process is reasonable for any new administration.  The only real action in the draft order is a moratorium on submitting new treaties to the President or the Senate absent a committee recommendation.  This might slow down the already slow treaty ratification process, but given the glacial pace of Senate consideration of most treaties, I doubt this “moratorium” will have much an effect.

There is plenty to criticize and even protest in the new Trump administration’s flurry of executive orders and statements.  But Trump’s critics need to carefully distinguish between what is truly troubling and what bears watching, and what is not really significant. Otherwise, they risk undermining their credibility and the effectiveness of their critiques.  These two draft executive orders bear watching as a signal of the new administration’s priorities.  But they are not a cause for panic.

So everyone take a step back, and read beyond the headlines or twitter summaries before reacting and overreacting.  There is and will be plenty to criticize in the new administration.  Save your ammunition for when it is truly needed.

The Draft Executive Order on Detention and Interrogation

by Deborah Pearlstein

It is early days, and much we don’t know – including, indeed, whether the draft Executive Order the new Administration is contemplating (as reported by the New York Times and Washington Post) is indeed an official document of the new Administration. For the time being, let me offer a few reasons why I’m worried, and reasons why I’m not (completely) (yet).

Why Worry

As reported, the draft order calls not only for considering the resumption of a CIA detention and interrogation program (discontinued under the Obama Administration), but also for reassessing existing directives for how law enforcement agencies should proceed following the arrest of a member of Al Qaeda (or associated forces) in determining the propriety of potential military custody (here’s current guidance); and for considering whether to reanimate detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, which has not received a new detainee since 2009. The draft order would revoke Executive Orders on these topics issued by the Obama Administration when it first took office and replace them with guidance that, among other things, pointedly does not make express the requirement that anyone in U.S. custody be treated consistent with the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or any other relevant treaty obligation the United States has undertaken; the draft order mandates only compliance with the domestic “laws of the United States.”

These are bad – disastrously bad – ideas, for reasons I and more importantly others (including a vast and bipartisan swath of our military and intelligence communities) spent much of the past 15 years establishing in detail. (Perhaps I’ll save a reiteration of the catalog of those reasons for another post.) Of particular concern at this stage, it did not take direct orders to troops to engage in torture across U.S. detention operations. Most of the detainee torture and abuse that happened in the years after 9/11 did not involve the waterboarding of “high value” terrorists. Most of the torture and abuse involved low-level troops and U.S. agents, holding low-level (or wholly innocent) detainees. The reasons for this were several – each important – but one of them was the administration’s equivocal relationship with the international legal regime on which training had long been based. (For a summary description recalling what happened and why at the wholesale level, see, e.g., this old piece of mind that seems unfortunately relevant again.) The Bush Administration’s public and private equivocation on its attention to these rules left, at the very least, a vacuum in guidance, into which vacuum rushed a series of directives that left little doubt that interrogators’ gloves, in any theater of operations, were meant to come off. Even if this administration does nothing else at all from this day forward on detention and interrogation issues, the draft order has already done some damage. Again.

Why Not Worry (Too Much) (Yet)

On the concerning topic of CIA detention, interrogation operations more broadly, and the future of Guantanamo Bay – mostly what the order does is require reconsideration of policies in place. It does not order the re-establishment of a global detention apparatus. Yet. In a functional administration, what would follow from this order is an interagency assessment of the value, including, among others, the Department of Defense and the CIA. Here’s when we get to test whether those internal executive branch checks so many of us have written about in recent years are really capable of slowing the train. There is some reason for optimism. Among others, Secretary of Defense Mattis is on record as an opponent of torture, a view he has (reports indicate) not hesitated to express to his new boss. And while incoming CIA Director Pompeo has expressed differing views in different contexts, there is little doubt members of the intelligence community below the director level retain an acute institutional memory of the personal and professional jeopardy they endured the last time a CIA Director asked them to “get chalk on their cleats” in pushing the line between lawful interrogation and abuse. It seems hard to imagine what more the new president could do to alienate those intelligence community professionals than he has done in the months since his election. Actually re-establishing the system of CIA detention and interrogation would require not only willing cooperation but personal courage of the people the President has compared to the Nazis. Even had that “chalk on their cleats” CIA Director not changed his mind (now agreeing, along with Obama’s former CIA Director, that CIA should never undertake waterboarding again), that is asking, as it were, a lot.

All outside the executive branch, there are checks against detainee torture and abuse now that did not exist in 2001. Some of them are critically important changes in U.S. domestic law since 2001 (Steve Vladeck notes some here), including limits on the kind of interrogation techniques that can be used by any U.S. agency against any detainee in U.S. custody. It would take an act of Congress to undo these laws, and it is not at all clear (I’d say unlikely) the administration could muster 50 votes to support the repeal in the Senate (where Republican Senator (and torture survivor) John McCain stands manifestly in opposition). It is especially less likely in light of the vastly more robust – and today, profoundly energized – domestic NGO community than existed in 2001. In 2001, a tiny handful of (underfunded) domestic NGOs had programs focused specifically on the human rights or civil liberties consequences of U.S. national security policy. Today, one can name a half-dozen such programs off the top of one’s head, all of which boast solid funding and a staff of deep knowledge and experience.

And then there are the allied nations that were essential to hosting the CIA’s secret global detention system the first time around, nations who unblinkingly rushed to our aid in both sympathy and self-interest after the 9/11 attacks. The new administration enjoys no such sympathy now. Indeed, several of the foreign states who aided the CIA in its efforts have faced their own domestic consequences for their role in facilitating U.S. efforts. (Here, for example, is the European Court of Human Rights decision concluding that Poland violated its human rights obligations for hosting a CIA black site in which two CIA prisoners who were waterboarded.) It is difficult to imagine they (or others having witnessed their experience) will be eager to volunteer their services again. Of course the new administration seems keen to make new and different friends.

A student asked me today where I was on a scale of concern to panic. The answer is much closer to the former at this stage than the latter. I’m counting on the constraints we’ve spent the past decade and a half reinforcing to get to work.

RIP, Sir Nigel Rodley

by Kevin Jon Heller

It is with great sadness that I report the passing of my friend and Doughty Street colleague Sir Nigel Rodley. Cribbing from the statement issued by the International Commission of Jurists, of which Nigel was President:

Elected President of the ICJ in 2012, he was serving his third term as such. He had been first elected to the Commission in 2003 and re-elected in 2008 and 2013. He served as a member of the Executive Committee from 2004-2006.

He was also a Council member of JUSTICE, the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists.

Professor Sir Nigel Rodley was a towering figure in the area of international human rights, playing many roles as an educator, as an academic, as an activist and as an advocate.

He established and expanded the first human rights law department at Amnesty International in the 1970s and 1980s, leading the organization’s work on the development and promotion on international legal standards.

He spent eight years, from 1993 to 2001, as the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture, visiting dozens of countries and working tenaciously toward the eradication of torture worldwide.

From 2001 to 2016 he served on the UN Human Rights Committee, including a period as it Chairman, where he often served as the intellectual author of the Committee’s most prominent accomplishments.

I’m sure many Opinio Juris readers knew Nigel, someone for whom the expression “towering figure” seems specifically invented. Although our paths had crossed both virtually and physically for a number of years, I did not get to know Nigel particularly well until we went to Beijing together a couple of years ago as part of a Chatham House project entitled “China and the Future of the International Legal Order.” I was fortunate enough to spend a great deal of time with Nigel during that trip, including flying back with him. (Nigel almost missed the trip because he left his wallet in our taxi.) After that, we were fast friends.

You would be hard pressed to find a kinder, more gracious person than Nigel. He will be sorely missed — by me and by anyone else who had the pleasure of knowing him.

Requiescat in pace, Sir Nigel.

Crisis in The Gambia: How Africa is Rewriting Jus ad Bellum

by Mohamed Helal

[Dr. Mohamed Helal is an Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law & Affiliated Faculty, Mershon Center for International Security Studies – The Ohio State University.]

Academic writing and political commentary on jus ad bellum are overwhelmingly focused on the policies, practices, and positons of major military powers. Countries such as the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, and regional pivotal states that have been belligerents in major armed conflicts, such as India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, Israel and its Arab neighbors, Turkey, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and a few others, have attracted the most attention in scholarship on the law governing the use of force by states. One region that has received lesser attention is Africa.

This is unfortunate because recent developments in Africa are challenging some of the cardinal principles of jus ad bellum. The unfolding crisis in The Gambia is one example. Adama Barrow, a real estate developer, defeated long-term incumbent Yahya Jammeh in the presidential election held on December 1st, 2016. Unexpectedly for an eccentric Gaddafi-like authoritarian leader, who vowed to rule The Gambia for a billion years and claimed the ability to cure AIDS and infertility, President Jammeh conceded defeat and promised a peaceful transfer of power. However, on December 9th, in an equally surprising volte-face, Jammeh declared that he was rejecting the election results citing what he called “serious and unacceptable abnormalities.”

President Jammeh’s power-grab was roundly condemned by the international community. In addition to the customary criticism and expressions of concern from international and regional organizations, a summit of the leaders of the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS) adopted a resolution on December 17th recognizing the results of the December 1st election, pledging to attend the inauguration of President-elect Barrow on January 19th, 2017, and deciding to take “all necessary measures to strictly enforce the results of the 1st December 2016 elections.” The phrase: “all necessary measures,” is universally recognized as international law-speak for the authorization of the use of force.

After mediation efforts failed, ECOWAS issued an ultimatum to President Jammeh: either relinquish power by midnight on January 19th, or ECOWAS will forcefully intervene to install President-elect Barrow. Signaling that it meant business, ECOWAS forces from Senegal and Nigeria were mobilized on the border with The Gambia, and warned that they will intervene if President Jammeh failed to comply with the organizations’ ultimatum. On December 21st, a statement by the President of the Security Council noted that the Council welcomed and was encouraged by the decisions of the ECOWAS summit. Similarly, the African Union Peace and Security Council endorsed the election results and announced that it would not recognize Jammeh as President of The Gambia after January 19th.

As the January 19th deadline elapsed, events kicked into high-gear. Adama Barrow was sworn into office in The Gambia’s Embassy in Dakar, Senegalese forces crossed into The Gambia to enforce the ECOWAS resolution of December 17th, apparently pursuant to a request by-now President Barrow, and the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2337, its first for 2017. The resolution, tabled by Senegal, does not authorize the use of force by ECOWAS. Rather, acting under Chapter VI, the Council endorsed the decision of ECOWAS and the AU to recognize Adama Barrow as President, welcomed ECOWAS’ decisions of December 17th, and expressed support for ECOWAS’ commitment to “ensure, by political means first, the respect of the will of the people of The Gambia.” With ECOWAS troops already in his country, on Saturday January 21st President Jammeh left The Gambia, apparently after shipping a number of his luxury cars and pocketing $11 million from the treasury.

The situation in The Gambia and international reactions to the crisis challenge certain aspects of jus ad bellum. Because Opinio Juris readers are probably familiar with the basic contours of jus ad bellum, suffice it to say that the UN Charter establishes a blanket prohibition on both the threat and use of force by states. The Charter does, however, admit two exceptions to this general prohibition: force used in self-defense against an armed attack, and forceful action authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

If based on a request by President Barrow, the Senegalese-led ECOWAS intervention beginning on January 19th fits – albeit imperfectly – within the established rules of jus ad bellum. As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case, jus ad bellum permits governments to invite foreign states to militarily intervene on their own territory. In fact, previous ECOWAS interventions, such as in Sierra Leone and Liberia were justified on requests by the governments of those states. The potential trouble with ECOWAS’ ongoing intervention in The Gambia, however, is that it was undertaken pursuant to a request from what is essentially a government-in-exile. In fact, Adama Barrow probably does not even qualify as a government-in-exile, but rather, should be considered a president-in-exile. The right of a president-in-exile, who has never exercised governmental authority or effective control over the territory of the state, to authorize foreign armed intervention is, at best, questionable and unsupported by ample precedent. (See: Intervention by Invitation).

Moreover, the run-up to ECOWAS’ intervention in The Gambia also challenges the prohibition on the threat of the use of force. Ian Brownlie defines a threat of force as “an express or implied promise by a government of a resort to force conditional on non-acceptance of certain demands of that government.” Accordingly, the decision of the ECOWAS summit on December 17th, which demanded that President Jammeh relinquish power and authorized the use all necessary measures to enforce the election results, combined with the mobilization of ECOWAS forces in the weeks before January 19th, constitutes a threat of force. As the ICJ opined in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the test of the legality of threats of force is: “if the use of force itself in a given case is illegal – for whatever reason – the threat to use such force will likewise be illegal.” The problem here is that enforcing election results or installing a democratically elected leader into office are not legitimate grounds for the use of force according to jus ad bellum. Despite attempts by a few governments and some scholars to advocate the so-called doctrine of pro-democratic intervention, which permits the resort to force to promote democratic government or prevent illegitimate takeovers of power, the overwhelming opinion is that this practice violates the UN Charter. Interestingly, however, the UN Security Council appears to have endorsed this threat of force by ECOWAS against President Jammeh. As aforementioned, the Presidential Statement of December 21st welcomed the actions of ECOWAS, and Resolution 2337, while falling short of authorizing the use of force and expressing its preference for the use of political means to settle the conflict, welcomed the decisions of the ECOWAS summit.

The chain of events and outcomes of a single conflict probably do not suffice to fundamentally alter rules as foundational to the international legal order as the prohibitions on the threat and use of force. The ongoing crisis in The Gambia does, however, pose some difficult legal questions and challenges certain aspects of jus ad bellum. Moreover, ECOWAS’ willingness and preparedness to threaten and use force to promote democracy is only one example of African practice that challenges the traditional rules of jus ad bellum. Another interesting development in Africa that has attracted limited academic attention (See here) is the ability of the African Union to authorize armed intervention to prevent genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This right, enshrined in Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act, is essentially an African version of the Responsibility to Protect. What is notable, however, is that the African Union is not required to seek Security Council authorization before approving such an intervention. This directly challenges Article 52 of the Charter, which obliges regional arrangements to acquire Security Council authorization before engaging in enforcement action.

As Jeremy Levitt noted, “most policymakers, international lawyers, and legal academics outside of the continent consider African states to be objects rather than subjects of international law … The geopolitical, Eurocentric, and linear bias in Western legal academia, among others, is truly unfortunate.” Events in The Gambia and other developments in Africa suggest that African practice in jus ad bellum, and indeed in all fields of international law, deserves greater scholarly and policy attention.

GOP Wants the US to Leave the United Nations

by Kevin Jon Heller

Finally, a Republican bill we can all get behind! The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017:

A bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in early January that, among other things, calls for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations. Sponsored by Senator Mike Rogers, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (aka H.R. 193) had been previously introduced by the Alabama senator to no avail back in 2015 (then H.R. 1205), when he cited reasons ranging from spending waste to enabling an intercontinental “dictators’ club,” which sounds like a manuscript Ann M. Martin decided to leave in her desk drawer.

I believe in sovereignty — and in restoring it when it is lost. So I support the bill. And no more UN membership, of course, means no more permanent veto for the US. So no more holding peacekeeping missions hostage whenever the international community doesn’t let the US play by its own rules. No more US propping up its own preferred dictators while criticising the preferred dictators of others. No more US protecting Israel from the consequences of its actions. Sounds pretty good!

Does anyone know how to introduce similar bills in the Duma and the NPC? I hear Russia and China are suffering a sovereignty deficit, as well.