Syria dominated (and continues to dominate) the headlines this week, and we featured many takes on the developing situation through our Syria Insta-Symposium.
From our regular contributors, Julian pondered whether President Obama would reveal the international law justification on his position regarding intervention in Syria and Kevin questioned US Secretary of State John Kerry’s classification of Syria as the United States’ “Munich Moment.”
Peter and Deborah both discussed US domestic/constitutional implications at length. Peter called President Obama’s decision to consult Congress on military intervention a “watershed moment” and wondered if his lawyers were consulted in this apparent about-face move, while Deborah classified it as a wise decision by Obama. They both offered commentary on the text of the Senate draft AUMF (Peter here, and Deborah here) and Deborah also pointed to a discussion she took part in among scholars on the Huffington Post. Julian also weighed in on the AUMF, concluding that the UN Charter does not matter to the US Senate’s deliberations on authorizing force in Syria and Ken discussed the role of the Security Council in light of his recent ASIL Insight and posting at Lawfare.
From our guest contributors, Jennifer Trahan started off the symposium by taking on contentious subject matter in a post discussing the legality of a strike by the United States. John Quigley weighed in with his thoughts on intervention while Andre Nollkaemper sketched out the two paths States might choose to take for intervening: either acting inside or outside of international law. Marty Lederman weighed in with a two-part posting, the first talking about the intersection of the UN Charter and the US Constitution, and the second addressing the role of the UN Charter in the US Congressional debate. The former theme of Marty’s two posts was also featured in Charlie Kels‘ contribution discussing the intersection of the two legal regimes. Stephanie Carvin urged readers to bring practical judgment back in rather than solely relying on legal solutions, while Sondre Torp Helmersen crafted a reply to Stephanie’s post. Krista Nelson offered an analysis on the significance of using chemical weapons in international law.
Otto Spijkers offered a perspective on whether states could stand idly by in the Syria situation by comparing bystander obligations at the international level to Dutch domestic law. Ezequiel Heffes and Brian Frankel talk about the decision-making process in R2P situations, and Mark Kersten wonders whose R2P it is, anyway.
And in non-Syria news this week, Julian pointed out that Japan has threatened to take Korea to the ICJ over victims’ compensation claims in the Second World War, Kevin described why Kenya won’t withdraw from the ICC and Kristen covered Friday’s verdict in the Dutchbat case from the Dutch Supreme Court holding the Netherlands responsible for the deaths of three men at Srebrenica.
As usual, we provided our Weekday News Wraps as well as upcoming Events and Announcements. Have a great weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, the possible intervention in Syria took centre stage. Julian rounded up statements by the UK, Russia and France on the legality of a military intervention without UN authorization, and declared that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention suffered a massive blow when the UK House of Commons rejected a resolution on military strikes. Deborah discussed why the doctrine of humanitarian intervention cannot provide legal support for US context. In the US context, Julian wondered why President Obama takes a different position from candidate Obama on the need for congressional authorization.
Kevin provocatively asked what sets chemical weapons apart from conventional weapons that makes their deployment a relevant factor for intervention. Kevin also argued why the UNSC cannot ask the ICC to investigate only the crimes committed by the Assad regime, and pondered the ICC’s options should the UNSC make such a referral anyway. He also referred to a post by Bill Schabas on the dynamic interpretation of the Rome Statute to include chemical weapons, and posted this tumblr as an accurate depiction of his position.
On August 28, Roger marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, whereas Chris joined the Peace Palace‘s 100th birthday bash. While in The Hague, Chris visited the Permanent Court for Arbitration which will handle the Philippines-China arbitration. Chris had further visits scheduled with the ICC and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and will report more about those visits in the next few days.
In international courts related news, Julian wondered whether recent comments by Colombia’s Vice President indicated that Colombia was set on ignoring the ICJ ruling in its dispute with Nicaragua, and Kevin shared his thoughts on Judge Harhoff’s disqualification in the Seselj case.
In our Emerging Voices symposium, Drew Cohen examined Botswana’s call on the South African Development Community to examine election fraud in Zimbabwe; Matiangai Sirleaf advocated a thicker conception of justice that would include issues of distributive justice in transitional justice efforts; and David Attanasio proposed a change to the Inter-American Human Rights system to deploy it in the fight against drug cartels and other militarized criminal organizations in Latin America. Efrat Bouganim-Shaag and Yael Naggan finished the week with a post on peace-time crimes against humanity and the ICC.
Peter posted about international law on Twitter, and looked for our 5000th follower (we’ve reached that milestone since!).
Finally, as always, we listed events and announcements and Jessica provided you with her weekday news wraps.
Thank you to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin welcomed the new international criminal law blog Beyond The Hague to the blogosphere and sparked much debate with his post based on Judge Harhoff’s recent comments about the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s Perisic adoption of the specific-direction requirement and followed-up with a second post on the topic clarifying what the specific-direction requirement entails. Kevin also questioned the latest in the Libya and Saif Gaddafi situation, with Libya’s statement that they aren’t able to surrender him, but they could, in fact, prosecute him.
Kristen pointed to the recently released fifth report from the UN Secretary General on R2P and highlighted several interesting topics that are strangely missing, including discussion about Libya, military intervention or the Security Council, extraterritorial obligations of states, the ICC and new technology. Duncan called our attention to a novel agreement between the US and Germany not to spy on one another and asked wondered how it would work in practice.
In our Emerging Voices series, Žygimantas Juška spoke about the role of standby counsel based on his experience at the ICTY on the Karadzic Defense Team, Elizabeth Stubbins Bates’s post investigated whether the dissemination of IHL was sufficient in promoting the compliance thereof, a spirited exchange of commentary ensued with John Heieck’s piece controversially suggesting that Russia and China breached their duty to prevent war crimes in Syria, Bharat Malkani pondered whether international law may forbid complicity in the death penalty in light of a recent sentencing in Kenya, and Elizabeth Holland rounded out the week talking about the effect of counterterrorism measures balanced against humanitarianism needs, particularly about access to areas controlled by armed groups.
We also listed events and announcements and we provided you with your daily news wraps, as usual.
Thank you to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin continued his discussion of the al-Bahlul amicus brief started last week. He pointed out how the Prosecution had disclaimed JCE before the trial and the military commission was asked not to consider this mode of liability, making its invocation in the amicus brief unacceptable in his opinion. Kevin pointed out that JCE was also rejected in Khadr, and recommended a student note on material support for terrorism and JCE. He also responded to Peter Margulies’ reply and sur-reply over at Lawfare. In a guest post, David Frakt, who was detailed as al-Bahlul’s military defense counsel, pointed out a factual error in the amicus brief.
Our Emerging Voices symposium returned after last week’s break: Leslie Schildt posted about the UN’s Intervention Brigade in the DRC; Frances Nguyen argued that “forced marriage” should be taken out of the “other inhumane acts” box and be recognized as an international crime; and David Benger wrote on the limits of the ICC’s Regulation 55.
Kevin discussed how mainstream US media are focusing only on Wikileaks but ignoring how the NYTimes also published the documents leaked by Bradley Manning. Following Bradley Manning’s conviction for espionage, Kevin corrected a common misperception about the meaning of “bad faith” in the Espionage Act. He also updated us on Libya’s latest admission that it intends not to cooperate with the ICC, and added that Libya’s representative is arguably in violation of the ICC’s Code of Professional Conduct. Kevin will not be updating us anymore on Crossing Lines though.
As always, we listed events and announcements and provided weekday news wraps.
Thank you to our guest posters and have a nice weekend!