In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Recent Posts

05 Mar

This post is part of the Harvard International Law Journal Volume 54(1) symposium. Other posts from this series can be found in the related posts below. Ashley Deeks’ Article, "Consent to the Use of Force and International Law Supremacy," is a deeply provocative and thoughtful work that makes two very important contributions to international legal scholarship. First, she exposes and explores a latent ambiguity in the role consent plays in the use of force context. Second, and more ambitiously, Deeks proposes invalidating consensual agreements to uses of force (and other security, intelligence, and law-enforcement activities) where the acting State did not inquire and ensure that its activities comported with the host State’s own laws. In doing so, she argues that international law no longer needs – or deserves – the supremacy it claims when it conflicts with certain domestic laws. In this post, I want to take up this second, larger, claim about international law supremacy (in a second post, I’ll offer my reactions to her proposal to have international law invalidate consensual agreements that do not comport with the host State’s domestic law). Let me begin by emphasizing that I’m persuaded by Deeks’ descriptive claim that cases of “unreconciled consent” (where a host State consents to foreign State uses of force, drone deployments, renditions, etc., which the host State couldn’t perform under its own domestic laws) are occurring with increasing regularity. I’m also persuaded that unreconciled consent is a problem, particularly where the “permission” is granted in secret among executive agents who all have an interest in greater flexibility to operate free from any legal constraints.
|
05 Mar

A recent Lawfare post by Jack Goldsmith noted the appearance of NYU professor Ryan Goodman's controversial new EJIL article, "The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants." It was followed by an even more provocative summary of it in Slate.  Both pieces have launched a very interesting debate between Goodman, on the one side, and a group of well-known LOAC scholars...

|
05 Mar

The head of the IAEA has urged Iran to allow international inspectors access to a military site near Tehran to explore whether nuclear tests have been carried out there. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, has urged the US to publish a Bush-era detention and rendition program report. On the island of Borneo, Malaysian troops attacked an armed Filipino group with...

|
04 Mar

[William W. Burke-White is Deputy Dean and Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School.] This post is part of the Harvard International Law Journal Volume 54(1) symposium. Other posts from this series can be found in the related posts below. Natalie Lockwood’s article, "International Vote Buying," recently published in the Harvard International Law Journal, makes an important contribution to a set of understudied questions around the legality and appropriateness of international vote-buying. Lockwood quickly admits that international law itself says little about the legality of such vote buying and, therefore, examines the question through an analogy with the legal rules governing vote buying in a variety of domestic contexts. She recognizes, however, that the analogy, while informative, is imperfect. There are significant differences between nature of domestic polities in which such vote buying is generally subject to legal prohibition and the nature of the international community. Yet, the analogy helps inform our thinking about whether vote buying should be prohibited at the international law. In this brief response, I seek to do two things. First, I want to question both the effectiveness and appropriateness of a legal prohibition on vote-buying. Second, I want to suggest that more significant contribution of Lockwood’s article goes far beyond vote-buying and helps refocus debate on the changing nature of power and influence in the international system.
|
04 Mar

[Christopher N.J. Roberts is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.] This post is part of the Harvard International Law Journal Volume 54(1) symposium. Other posts from this series can be found in the related posts below. Convergence The most important studies stimulate a host of unlikely conversations. In this regard, “Getting to Rights,” a path-breaking article that examines...

|
04 Mar

This post is part of the Harvard International Law Journal Volume 54(1) symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. This symposium features a series of four responses to articles published in the Harvard International Law Journal's volume 54(1). Over the next few days we will be presenting the responses, as well as commentary from...

|
04 Mar

Sudan's government has violated UN sanctions on the Darfur region by carrying out airstrikes in the country's west. Israel has plans to launch "Palestinian-only" buses to transport people from the West Bank to Israel, in a move officials claim is designed to reduce traffic congestion but many concerned with civil rights see this as a move toward further segregation. Al-Qaeda has issued an English-language magazine (downloadable) offering advice...

|
03 Mar

Events Fordham Law School presents the Eighth Annual Conference on International Arbitration and Mediation on April 11-12, 2013. The conference will bring together leading international arbitrators, mediators, practitioners, and scholars to discuss contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation. Calls for Papers PolSci, the Romanian journal of political science, is accepting submissions for publication in its summer 2013 issue on the topic Democracy and the Rule of Law. The...

|
03 Mar

[Sigall Horovitz is a PhD candidate, teaching fellow and Transitional Justice Project Manager at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a member of ALMA – the Association for the Promotion of IHL. A longer version of this op-ed appears on the website of the Israeli Democracy Institute (in Hebrew).] The Palestinians have threatened to complain to the International Criminal Court (ICC) about Israel’s settlement activities...

|