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

...the UN Charter, to defend the rule of law, to show solidarity with Ukraine, to stand up against oppression and imperialism, to prevent future acts of aggression against one’s own territory, or to make the point that leaders, including those of a P5, are not beyond accountability. These considerations and political motives are up to the states. What is relevant on a legal level is that the path taken is in accordance with international law and that states are of the opinion that they act in accordance with international law....

Here is another persuasive account of why the U.S. is disadvantaged by not joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The case is fairly simple: There is a lot of oil and natural gas up there, and the U.S. can’t negotiate with other countries to divvy it up until it signs on to UNCLOS. The 5.5 million-square-mile area north of the Arctic Circle — part of the U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark (which owns Greenland), Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden — contains up to 25 percent of the...

...consulate simply because I had the presence of mind to hire a lawyer and refuse to make a statement to the police. And if incarcerated, I would want them to make their statutorily required prison visits to me as well! John Corbett Peggy, In this case, it appears that the defendant chose not to hire an attorney. Given that fact, the question then seems to become whether the defendant's failure to demand an attorney can be seen as the functional equivalent of a waiver of his/her right to contact and...

[ William S. Dodge is Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. From August 2011 to July 2012, he served as Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State, where he worked on the amicus brief of the United States to the Fourth Circuit in Yousuf v. Samantar. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the State Department or of the United States.] In Yousuf...

...insofar as the approach sees the courts as agents of the domestic legal system, where “internationalists” see them as advancing the international order, as part of the global community of courts. I take the point, but the problem here is that everyone ultimately conceives themselves to be constitutionalist — in the sense of maintaining positions that are consistent with the Constitution —, even those who see federal courts as an entry point for the incorporation of international law. I don’t think the discursive high ground will be so easily captured....

...The question though is, what exactly is the flaw in the Obama policy? Is it not being tough enough on Sudan? Or is it being too tough? Kristof can’t seem to decide. His complaint seems to be that Obama is unengaged. (This seems to be a common complaint about Obama, and I think it is unfair. I am not an Obama supporter, but he does have a lot on this plate right now). In any event, I think we can all agree that the goal here is to prevent the...

as organized crime or war crimes, so why not terrorism? The second set of issues relates to the differences in procedural and substantive law between these specialized courts and regular civilian courts. There would again be little or no problems under human rights law to have bench trials instead of jury trials, to limit the hearsay rule or the exclusionary rule, as long as sufficient fair-trial guarantees exist. But when it comes to detention and to my knowledge of international and European case-law, a regime of preventative detention, even if...

...compared to now. I am wondering if when we are talking about ‘the prolonged implosion of governmental structures and the ensuring incapacity of the government to provide political goods to its internal and external constituencies’ we should speak in terms of levels of dysfunctionality of the state as opposed to failure. It focuses our attention on the functions that are not being met and the solutions to addressing those functional deficiencies. I sense with failed a "paternal' even "neo-colonialist" vision or weight to the words that is problematic. Best, Ben...

so. Status-based immunity. Under international law, status-based immunity covers the current-holder of particular offices, generally limited to the so-called troika of head of state, head of government, and minister of foreign affairs. Conduct-based immunity. Under international law, conduct-based immunity covers officials not entitled to status-based immunity and to all former officials. (2) What?—i.e. what acts are covered by the particular immunity at issue? State immunity. Under international law, state immunity covers public acts (acta jure imperii) but not private acts (acta jure gestionis). Status-based immunity. Under international law, status-based immunity...

...still have his Georgia H.O.P.E. scholarship if the United States doesn't successfully have him returned. There are some dishonest people in the US Office of Children's Issues who should be fired for their egregious abuse of power, efforts to obstruct law enforcement, and . . .. I would love to be interviewed regarding this matter and to provide documentation on the Sweeney-Villa: Abduction in Fiuggi Case. There is no excuse for creating a Fake Hague and for telling law enforcement not to follow the constitutional law of the land. Nor...

...lawyer’s job is to provide analysis to a client, in whose shoes the lawyer by definition does not him or herself stand. The client always has the ability to accept or reject the analysis. The idea that the existence of an alternative buyer is assumed is erroneous, and does not derive from the analysis, or anything contained in it. The suggestion made is not that the real estate transactional analysis is inaccurate, but that it is irrelevant. The suggestion is that consideration is not required, and that Israel should sell...

...who have NEVER been afforded the protections or rights of Enemy Prisoners of War under the law of armed conflict, OR the right to contest their U.S. military-assigned status, who are being treated by the American judiciary as LEGITIMATELY-defined POWs or non-POW detainees with a lawfully-assigned status, despite their never having been able to dispute it in front of a "competent tribunal," as clearly required by international law. Even the belatedly-ongoing habeas hearings in the D.C. District are ignoring the violations of the law represented by the absence of Article...