Excellent news out of Manila: last week the Philippines became the 125th country to ban the use of capital punishment for all crimes, a move that commutes the death sentences of nearly 1,200 prisoners to life imprisonment. This is the second time that the Philippines has abolished capital punishment; although the country's constitution eliminated the death penalty in 1987,...
For the Hamdan-weary among you — and my thanks to Peter, Roger, Julian and the others who have saved me from having to read the opinion myself — there's a fascinating article in today's Daily Mail (UK) discussing the British government's belief in 1961 that the only way to defend Hong Kong against an attack by the Chinese would have...
Okay, maybe not that new, and maybe not exactly what you had in mind for the beach. But in case you missed it when it was published (I had), there’s a promising-looking law review that’s recently come on stream, the Journal of International Law and International Relations, out of the University of Toronto. Full-text pdf of the first...
Having now digested the Hamdan decision further, I wanted to offer a few initial thoughts about its significance. These are just initial impressions, so I am open to correction (and please tell me where you think I need correction). My focus is slightly different than others, and will address how the Bush Administration and Congress must respond to...
Along with Julian, I’m coming around to the position that this is a very big deal, and that it’s likely to have important consequences, short and long-term. But those consequences won’t necessarily happen as a matter of course. The Administration will resist, and in some contexts it may be able to do so successfully. 1) I see now how...
For those who haven't had enough of reading my thoughts on Hamdan, I have a short contribution to an online symposium hosted by National Review Online on the Hamdan decision. In it, I focus on the Hamdan court's refusal to defer to the President's interpretation of treaties and customary international law. ...
Marty Lederman, the tireless blogger-critic of the Administration's detention and interrogation policies, argues that because the Supreme Court has held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the war with al-Qaeda, "[p]er today's decision, the Administration appears to have been engaged in war crimes, which are subject to the death penalty." (He further notes that such...
I'm still working my way through the Hamdan decision, but let me weigh in here with a couple of initial thoughts:* (1) As Professors Peter Spiro and Paul Stephan both suggest below, the Court did not hold that the Geneva Conventions are judicially enforceable by a private lawsuit absent separate Congressional action (Marty Lederman thinks differently, see his discussion here). The...
Not to distract from the Hamdan case (and note Peter's and Geoff's useful comments below), on which I have plenty to say (but not just now), I am pleased to share with Opinio Juris readers the thoughts of Professor Paul Stephan of UVA Law School, who submitted an amicus brief in favor of Virginia and Oregon in Sanchez-Llamas/Bustillo, the ICJ...
A couple of quick thoughts on Hamdan, which is obviously an important decision (although perhaps not quite as important as on first glance). 1) Over at Scotusblog Marty Lederman asserts that the Court’s finding on common article 3 spills over to dispatch with interrogation practices in other detainee contexts. That may be true at some level, but on my read...
We have invited Professor Geoffrey Corn of South Texas Law School, who was a former guest blogger at Opinio Juris and is an expert on military justice, to summarize his initial impressions of today's decisions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Here is his summary: When the DC Circuit rejected Hamdan's challenge to the Military Commission, it accepted the government argument that...
The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and ruled that the military commissions were invalid. The decision is available here. Justice Stevens wrote the 5-3 opinion and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and in part Justice Kennedy. Justices Kennedy and Breyer wrote separate opinions. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented...
