In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Syria Insta-Symposium

16 Sep

[Stephen Tierney is a Professor of Constitutional Theory, University of Edinburgh and Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law.] In the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 the United Kingdom Government committed itself to respect the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum. This suggests that, in the event of a Yes vote, the transition to independence will be relatively straightforward, as will the pathway to Scotland’s international recognition and membership of the United Nations – see here. How then would Scotland’s move to statehood be characterised under international law?...
16.09.14 | |

15 Sep

[David Scheffer is the Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law.] If the Scottish people vote in the majority on September 18th to become an independent nation, then a host of legal issues will descend immediately upon Holyrood, where the Scottish Parliament sits in Edinburgh, and Westminster, the legislative center of the United Kingdom Government in London. Some of these issues can be overcome if there is a willingness to negotiate in good...
15.09.14 | |

02 Jun

[We are grateful to continue our discussion on Samantar with a comment from Prof. William Dodge of the UC Hastings College of Law. Please keep following us for more thoughts in future posts and click “Related Posts” to see earlier contributions on this question.] Like my colleague Chimene Keitner, I wrote an amicus brief supporting respondents (co-authored with Mike Ramsey), and I too am happy with the result in Samantar. Although Curt Bradley’s post magnanimously notes that his position lost 9-0 in Samantar, it would be wrong to...
02.06.10 | |

17 Mar

...of Governors that makes the decision on membership is not the collection of the individual votes of IMF’s member states. The member states’ votes are not equal; for instance, the United States’ voting share is approximately 17% while Ukraine’s is approximately 0.6 %. On the other hand, the recent admission of South Sudan as the 193rd member state of the United Nations has left little doubts as to its statehood status. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the country to the “community of nations.” Collective non-recognition impedes a secessionist entity’s...
17.03.14 | |

10 May

...the relevant conduct-regulating rule comes from international law and thus already applied when and where the activity underlying the claim arose. The Court thus had to apply the presumption to what everyone agrees is a jurisdictional statute, and that application does indeed contradict the Court’s explicit refusal to apply the presumption to a jurisdictional statute in Morrison. I’ve decided to include most of these points in a symposium essay here if you are interested: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2246138 Stephanie Mandell Response...YOu may want to follow US v Ross Mandell and Adam Harrington out...
10.05.13 | |

02 Jun

...my view, it is entirely appropriate that the Court read the FSIA as it was written, and left it to the district court to address Samantar’s claim of common law immunity in the first instance. In arguing for immunity, Samantar seemed to take for granted that, if the FSIA applied to individuals, he would enjoy immunity for torture and extrajudicial killing. He argued that, both under the common law and the FSIA, “individual immunity … was coextensive with the law of state immunity and always immunized a foreign official for...
02.06.10 | |

02 Jun

Benjamin Davis The question that is unstated in these instant analyses is whether these general comments refer to civil suits or criminal prosecutions also. I would be grateful if persons would speak to that. Given Noriega, it would seem that these discussions would not reach criminal prosecutions at all. Best, Ben Roger Alford Ben, That's a great question. I would assume that individual immunity from criminal prosecution is governed in part by the VCCR, at least with respect to consular officials. Not sure about other government officials. Roger Alford Richard...
02.06.10 | |

08 May

[Jordan Wells is a third-year law student at New York University School of Law.] The discussion up to this point naturally has centered on the “touch and concern” language of the majority opinion and what that opinion and the concurrences mean for ATS cases involving law of nations violations that occur abroad. Relatively little analysis has focused on the original questions on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari—namely, whether corporations are immune from suit under the ATS and whether that immunity is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction...
08.05.13 | |

02 Jun

[We are pleased to share comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Samantar v. Yousuf from Professor Curtis Bradley , who has written a great deal on the issue considered by the Court yesterday. We hope to share comments from other informed observers on the decision over the next couple of days ]. As I bask in the glow of not having a single Justice in Samantar accept the theory of the FSIA that Jack Goldsmith and I had proposed, the following thoughts occur to...
02.06.10 | |

29 Apr

[Katherine Florey is Professor of Law at UC Davis] I come late to this discussion. Professors Alford and Whytock have adeptly explored the question of whether international human rights litigation might be reframed under state tort law. To their observations, I would add the following: Because state choice-of-law methodology is incredibly diverse, it is difficult to make predictions or generalizations about the overall prospects for human rights cases in state court. Regardless of what the general landscape might hold, however, it is easy to imagine scenarios in which...
29.04.13 | |

25 Mar

Thanks to Marty for his pointer on the decision and his instant analysis (which despite being instant, is also still quite interesting). Throughout the day today and into tomorrow, Opinio Juris will post thoughts and comments on the Medellin decision from leading commentators and scholars, in addition to (of course, our substantial “in-blog” expertise. Stay tuned!...
25.03.08 | |

24 Apr

[Milan Markovic is an Associate Professor of Law at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law.] When the Supreme Court originally granted certiorari in Kiobel, many feared that it would bar ATS suits against corporations entirely. The Supreme Court’s actual decision bars ATS claims that do not “touch and concern” United States territory. I tend to agree with Marty Lederman that there are at least three categories of ATS cases that might survive Kiobel, but even if Kiobel requires substantial conduct on U.S. territory, the decision should not alter...
24.04.13 | |