Search: Symposium on the Functional Approach to the Law of Occupation

inside their own borders. For purely selfish reasons, they insisted that crimes against humanity be linked to aggressive war, failing which they would not be deemed offences at international law. In that way, Nazi atrocities against Jews within Germany could be punished as crimes under international law, while segregation and lynching in the southern United States (and similar acts attributable to Britain, France and the Soviet Union) escaped the net of international criminal liability. When these same powers concurred in the adoption of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations...

[Moisés Montiel Mogollón is a lawyer advising individuals, companies, and States on matters of international law, human rights, and other international areas at Lotus Soluciones Legales . He is an Adjunct Professor of International Law at Universidad Iberoamericana (Mexico City) and Universidad Panamericana (Guadalajara).] In the wake of the Russian invasion on Ukraine, which the UN General Assembly has already politically qualified as an act of aggression, and, as Ignacio de Casas has pointed out, has seen an impressively strategic use of international litigation on the part of Ukraine, the...

...or express the capacity of a new, historically cohesive political community (‘Europe’) to rule itself through institutions ‘constituted’ for that purpose. In that critical regard, the leading bodies of the Member States—executive, legislative, and judicial—have remained the political-cultural locus of self-government in the EU. This is true even as the Member States have delegated significant and often autonomous regulatory power to the European level for numerous functional and political reasons. How has European public law come to terms with this separation of power and legitimacy? That is the central question...

of certain rights to terrorist suspects that are nonnegotiable in a civilian context. While public opinion data is nuanced, the Bush administration’s supposed menace to civil liberties and human rights has not had traction as an electoral issue; to the contrary, its opponents in Congress have feared electoral retribution for hampering the fight. For prevailing opinion in the academy, the press, and the human rights world, however, the standards of international humanitarian law represent moral absolutes, the administration’s flexible approach to them an affront to the rule of law, and...

killing and wounding people. But legally, can Iran’s response be characterized as an unlawful armed attack, given that it was provoked by Israel’s own wrongful use of force? There is an argument that Iran’s counterstrikes, however deadly, were not an “armed attack” triggering Israel’s (or the U.S.’s) self-defense rights, but rather a lawful response by Iran in self-defense to Israel’s aggression. In international law, an aggressor state cannot readily cloak itself in self-defense if the victim of its aggression retaliates. Allowing that would invert the law: the original lawbreaker would...

...posted some observations on what private lawyers can bring to public international law. Here is another example. If there’s one thing that private attorneys have been grappling with in recent years (especially in the U.S., which takes financial transparency particularly seriously), it is the elucidation of best practices for financial accounting, disclosures, and decision-making. Some of the insights we have gained due to recent corporate scandals can be put to use in the service of building better international organizations. The U.N. will only be as good as we make it....

Journal: In zones of armed conflict, targeted killing can be a lawful tactic. But outside the context of armed conflict, targeted killing is legal only as a last resort and in the face of a truly imminent threat to life–and then only because the immediacy of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. Outside these narrow circumstances, targeted killing amounts to the imposition of a death sentence without charge, trial or conviction. Ben Wittes disagrees with the op-ed in a post today at the new Lawfare. His argument, however, is unconvincing:...

...perpetrators across the globe, a wealth of previously elusive information has opened up to bolster justice and truth-telling efforts, in turn spurring the growth of the open source investigative field over the last decade. However, the existing community of practice in this field is non-functioning. The status quo is for outsider researchers to form an echo chamber, mirroring, contributing to, and entrenching harms already thriving in the documentation-to-justice pipeline. Instead, how do we take good intention and turn it into truly good practice? The issues discussed below demonstrate flawed approaches...

...custody (see S. 147, the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act of 2009); • House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers proposed legislation to create a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe Bush administration practices of detainee treatment and warrantless wiretaps; and • Published rumors emerge that Anne-Marie Slaughter (past president of the American Society of International Law and author of, among other works, A New World Order) may be tapped to head the State Department’s big-think Office of Policy Planning....

to avert from the law. Post Gaza, the law’s impartiality and its blindness in the pursuit of justice remain on paper only. In Amarata Sen’s understanding of justice, he argues that professing for ideal justice is limited and exclusionary as it fails to address the everyday injustices faced by people, which hinder the application of the law universally. When discussing the application of international rules and laws the Global South has learnt, through experience, that the social, political and systematic realities of people is the context in which the law...

who is protected. Yet deception has always been a central feature of warfare. From camouflage and dummy tanks to stealth aircraft and electronic countermeasures, militaries routinely mislead the adversary. International humanitarian law distinguishes between lawful ruses of war and unlawful perfidy. Article 37 of Additional Protocol I defines perfidy as acts that invite the enemy’s confidence in a protected status under the law of armed conflict, with the intent to betray that trust. Ruses, by contrast, are acts intended to mislead or induce mistakes without violating any legal rule. The...