Search: crossing lines

...it should be subject to derogation during armed conflict. There is much Supreme Court precedent supporting the abridgment of private property rights during war. Milligan suggests that certain circumstances might permit abrogation of even more than property rights. Military necessity for intelligence does not stop with battlefield interrogation. Thus, I am not sure the extent to which we can draw clear lines for the temporal (to capture) or proximal (to the battlefield) applicability of the Fifth Amendment during an armed conflict, assuming it applies at all. What if a simple...

...the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect." Though the war may have been between the Koreas, this does not necessarily mean that the Armistice Agreement (see S/3079, available through UN ODS) only binds those States. Of course China also is a party to it, but more importantly General Clark, Commander-In-Chief of the United Nations Command committed the United Nations...

...thought was really interesting, but the comment ended up being so long (over a 1000 words) that I posted it over at my blog. Just thought I'd let you know. Feel free to comment! I'd love to continue the discussion, whether here or over there. Francesco Messineo Xavier, A very interesting reply along lines similar to what I would have asked Tobias. The 'superiorem non recognoscens' criterion is perhaps satisfied by the EU from the internal point of view of EU law itself - the ECJ being the final settler...

...medical supervision and restrictive guidelines could be viewed as something less than torture. The authors clearly knew they were drawing black and white lines in a very gray area. And since the cite the fact that over 26,000 US servicemen have been waterboarded as part of their training since 1992 (and many thousands more before that), then either: (a) the US routinely tortures its own servicemen; or (b) at some level of intensity, waterboarding is not torture. The authors chose (b). Is that clearly irresponsible, or just a point on...

...Maybe someone should review that for IHL? SMM Disagreeing with an earlier response... The fact that much of our young culture today is indoctrinated with plots and story lines from movies, television shows, and now video games it seems increasingly likely that these sort of plot developments and exposure to violations of International law could very easily have a lasting effect. Being a young male I have several friends who have joined the armed forces simply because they enjoyed the idea of being able to be a real life "First...

...(and the second sentence of Article 2(1) says that this commander is Russian) (http://smr.gov.ge/uploads/file/jpkf/1994-12-06%20Resolution_JPKF_Eng.pdf). The idea of 'restoring peace' seems to be something along the lines of what Russia has been saying, but I don't think that this would help much on its own. I am not entirely sure where one would put a decree by JCC in terms of treaty interpretation (since JCC has a Russian, S-Ossetian and Georgian members, perchance it is subsequent practice as per Article 31(3)(b)?). In any event, the text and context suggests that what...

...would skirt the CLCS process -- seems farfetched. I really doubt that all other states would agree to any end run around the Convention process that they have so long and so fully endorsed, in name and in practice (via submissions to the CLCS). Nor, I suspect would the U.S. itself regard the outer limits line as something to be agreed upon through a series of bilateral arrangements. States regard the setting of outer limits lines -- lines between the continental shelf and the Area -- as unilateral acts (to...

...suspicion that international law is a pretty weak instrument, especially when dealing with great powers. Nonetheless, states and other international actors use international law all of the time, and they certainly invoke it to try advance their own particular interests. So it’s good to have some idea what international law is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do. One of the challenges for IR students is that not all political science departments offer international law on a regular basis. Crossing campus to take international law at the...

...legal authority for enforcing the boundary line at all? Is there some statute out there that authorizes the Executive Branch to maintain the boundary line where it is and keep folks from crossing it, moving it, or building much larger obstructions than a 3 foot retaining wall? If not, could Medellin have the unintended consequence of wiping out our border with Canada until Congress legislates it? Now, I’d assume that the courts would not go so far, even if that’s the direction Medellin clearly points. For example, I’d expect that,...

...do not usually claim the right to exclude other nations’ aircraft from their ADIZ, as if it was sovereign territory. (For a recent discussion of the legal issues in ADIZ declarations, see here). Now, since China has usually been careful to avoid crossing into Taiwan’s ADIZ (or at least parts of Taiwan’s ADIZ), its decision to do so now is interesting and significant. But it is not a territorial incursion and it is not (technically) breaching “Taiwan’s airspace”. So news agencies should be careful not to report it as such....

...alleges violations of multiple provisions of the ICERD, crossing the obligations to eliminate racial discrimination, prohibit racial superiority propaganda, eliminate racial discrimination in all areas of access to rights (across a wide variety of rights), provide effective remedies for violations, and adopt measures to combat prejudices. This claim is that Rwanda is systematically violating the rights under ICERD of ethnic Congolese communities. Under CEDAW, the claim (paras. 159-164) is that violence against women amounts to a violation of the prohibition of discrimination against women (which is consistent with the CEDAW...

...since the U.S. does not recognize Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, why should it complain when China draws an ADIZ intended to protect airspace over those islands? This wrinkle in the U.S. position also explains Japan’s harsher reaction to the Chinese ADIZ. To Japan, China is literally demanding Japanese airlines report to its military before crossing airspace into or near Japan’s own national airspace. It would be like China demanding information from US airlines flying between San Francisco and Hawaii (Congress would explode with indignation). But from the U.S....