In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: jens iverson

07 Apr

...any particular political situation. Jens Iverson This is not my area of expertise, but I think an interesting related question is whether members of a civilian intelligence service who are directly involved in an armed conflict are themselves legitimate targets under international humanitarian law. The question is not so much whether those members qualify as "lawful" combatants, but whether they are combatants at all (or for that matter whether they qualify as civilians directly participating in hostilities, see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/p0990?opendocument for recent, excellent work on this subject). Perhaps that seems abstract...
07.04.10 | |

27 Sep

Jens Iverson Perhaps this language ("authorize Member States to acquire, control, transport, transfer") is included out of a fear that the CWC's restrictions (or other restrictions) would have hindered the extraction of chemical weapons and related material from Syria. If states had such concerns (e.g. allowing such material to be imported or transported across their territory) they should be reassured by this language....
27.09.13 | |

16 Apr

...you kindly recast your initial posting. It comprises one long and yet incomplete sentence which I just cannot follow, at least for the first half. You may be making a good point, but, if so, it is lost in the current version. Jens Iverson Gautam Bhatia - As I understand it, Koh has been part of the effort to end torture as practiced under the Bush Administration. Koh has not minimized the definition of torture to only include extreme cases, nearing organ failure or death. (I admit to being a...
16.04.15 | |

26 May

...Conventions. Jens Iverson This is interesting on a number of levels. I think I understand the specific defense put forth with respect to the use of landmines along the border in Korea. They're an inexpensive, defensive weapon, good maps can be made for eventual demining, they're deployed in a manner so that civilian death and maiming will be minimal, etc.. South Korea and North Korea are unlikely to sign on to a ban that restricts their stockpiling and use any time soon. That said, focusing on the exceptional case where...
26.05.10 | |

31 Jan

Jens Iverson I think all of the contributions on this issue are very interesting and provide good material for further analysis. As someone who worked for over five yearsin an NGO focused on the ICC (the CICC) and who works at the ICTY now, I have frequently heard the claim that international criminal tribunals will inevitably grasp for expanded jurisdiction or other institutional claims to power. Mr. Cogan states this by saying that these institutions lack sufficient internal controls. I respectfully disagree. While arbitral bodies may be in competition for...
31.01.08 | |

12 Sep

Jens Iverson This is an interesting post, as always. I think it raises a number of questions, though. To highlight a few excerpts: "The idea that the latest diplomatic developments are attributable to the US’s “credible threat” of military action in Syria, then, is anything but credible." "He had to have known that using chemical weapons so openly would be of little military benefit and would run the risk of international condemnation and even military intervention. So I find it unimaginable that he would have used them anyway." "Assad gives...
12.09.13 | |

02 Apr

Jens Iverson The ATT won't effect NRA members. If the NRA is a member-controlled, member-oriented group, the NRA won't object to the ATT. If the NRA has been taken over by an extremist clique and now serves as an industry lobbying group for small arms manufacturers and retailers, it will object. (Spoiler alert: it's already objected.) (In the first scenario, the NRA would also listen to their membership and support anti-gun violence measures that are widely popular amongst NRA members.) Remember, it's the National Rifle Association, not the National Gunowners...
02.04.13 | |

21 May

...the P5 of the UNSC - negotiate what the authors agree is a non-legally-binding agreement, only to then make the agreement legally binding on themselves through a UNSCR? To my mind both the context and the actual wording of UNSCR 2231 make clear that it did not act to make the JCPOA itself legally binding. Jens Iverson I'd appreciate the authors amplifying this point: "To adhere to the idea that simply because of the use of the phrase ‘calls upon’ in the Resolution, states are free to refrain from its...
21.05.18 | |

04 May

Kumar A very good analysis. Agree with your views. Jens Iverson A creative response (not only to Syria, but to Ukraine and other situations) would be greater use of Chapter 6 authority and resurrecting Article 27.3, which states: "3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.” Avigael...
04.05.18 | |