In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Syria Insta-Symposium

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 | |

23 Apr

[Roger L. Phillips is an international criminal law practitioner. He also maintains Communis Hostis Omnium , a blog about maritime piracy. This post is cross-posted there.] The majority opinion in Kiobel precludes Alien Tort Statute claims for foreign conduct against foreign victims, leaving a small door for potential future claims that involve extraterritorial conduct so long as they touch and concern US territorial interests. But, when does a claim “touch and concern” the territory of the United States? Roger Alford notes that piracy may present an incident of...
23.04.13 | |

06 Mar

...(despite the fact that some textwriters use the wrong test for imputation re: self-defense). Aurel Sari Jordan, thanks for the comments. I don't think that the limitation 'in contravention of the Charter' adds much for our purposes. The point of that qualification is simply to recognize that there could be instances where the first use of armed force does not qualify as an act of aggression because it is in accordance with the Charter, as in the case of force used or authorized by the Security Council. Since aggression is...
06.03.14 | |

09 Mar

...against premature recognition and foreign-installed regimes) — the internationally authoritative criterion for an apparatus’s standing as the State’s government (Roth, at 30). First, it should be noted that the “effective control” doctrine conforms to the Montevideo criteria, according to which international personality is found in a territorially coherent political community under the long-term effective control of an independent government (Roth, at 7). Moreover, granting the effective government the legitimacy to act in the international arena stems from the effective government’s capability to fulfill its international obligations (UN Doc. S/1466). Accordingly,...
09.03.14 | |

09 Mar

[Remy Jorritsma (LL.M.) is a lecturer and teacher at the Department of International and European Law of Maastricht University.] This contribution intends to demonstrate that Ukraine and Russia are involved in an international armed conflict, triggering the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In particular, this post explores two relevant issues: the question of valid consent, and the legal qualification of the recent military hostilities. In the Security Council meeting of 1 March 2014 the representative of Russia asserted that [the Prime Minister of Crimea] went to the...
09.03.14 | |

22 Apr

“[E]ven where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application. Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.” That is the operative language in Kiobel. Which raises the question, if mere corporate presence is not enough, what kind and how much territorial activity within the United States is enough? After Kiobel, that will be a critical question for future...
22.04.13 | |

19 Apr

[Ishai Mooreville is an attorney at Baker & Miller PLLC, Washington, DC. His forthcoming article on the 1795 Bradford Opinion regarding the Alien Tort Statute can be found here.] The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author alone, and the author has not received any compensation from any party for writing this article. The question of personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Kiobel, which was raised during oral argument and mentioned in passing in Justice Breyer’s concurrence, may have had a significant effect on the outcome...
19.04.13 | |

19 Apr

A few posts yesterday suggest that the reports of the death of the ATS have been greatly exaggerated. Oona Hathaway argues that “[t]hose celebrating the demise of the ATS may thus find themselves surprised to discover that the end result of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday may not be the end of the ATS after all, but instead a renewed focus of ATS litigation on U.S. corporations.” Marty Lederman argues that “the language and history of the ATS provide no basis for wholly rebutting the presumption against extraterritoriality;...
19.04.13 | |

13 Mar

...are any more submissions for potential posts, we need to receive them by 3:00 pm Friday (US Eastern Time) so that those selected can be posted this weekend. Although this symposium is drawing to a close, we at Opinio Juris will continue writing about the ongoing issues in Ukraine. Once again, thank you, everyone, for participating in this discussion and contributing to our understanding of the situation in Ukraine. We hope you will continue to participate as we continue exploring the international legal issues in the conflict over Ukraine’s future....
13.03.14 | |