- Nikolaos Lavranos, UN Sanctions and Judicial Review
- Bjørn Kunoy, The Jurisdiction of the ECJ to Review the Legality of the Transposition of an International Act in the EC Legal Order
- Markus Burgstaller, Amenities and Pitfalls of a Reputational Theory of Compliance with International Law
- Wouter Vandenhole, Third State Obligations under the ICESCR: A Case Study of EU Sugar Policy
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Sending diplomatic missions abroad and receiving foreign missions at home is in the political and economic interest of countries. But such missions depend on domestic and foreign political will and they also cost scarce resources. This article demonstrates that the global pattern of diplomatic representation is significantly determined by geographical distance between countries, by the power of both sending and recipient countries and by the degree of their ideological affinity. The pattern of diplomatic representation is both a reflection of and a contributor to the spatially shaped and ideologically divided world of unequal power we live in.
This book encapsulates the law of international migration, including emerging issues such as the protection of human rights where tension between anti-terrorism legislation and immigration measures increases. The human rights of vulnerable groups of migrants, such as migrant workers, women, victims of trafficking, and stateless persons are also addressed. Forced migration warrants a consideration of the International Migration Law relating to groups such as internally displaced persons, as well as the international community's response to secondary movements of asylum-seekers. Questions of state responsibility concerning, for example, stranded migrants and provision of consular protection and assistance to migrants are also discussed. Moreover, the expansion of regional legal frameworks concerned with migration, such as EU immigration and asylum law and policy and the growing case law on European citizenship, as well as developments in free movement regimes, are added to the analysis of the growing body of international migration law.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
- Nick Mercer, From Combat to Peace Support Operations and Beyond
- Frederik Naert, Detention in Peace Operations: The Legal Framework and Main Categories of Detainees
- Matteo Tondini, The Role of Italy in Rebuilding the Judicial System in Afghanistan
- Alexander Poretschkin, Using Armed Forces for Law Enforcement Operations in Post-Conﬂict Situations
- Philippe Rousseau, Criminologie et criminologie militaire: Quelques axes communs de réﬂexion
- Pierre Thys, Le recours aux forces armées en tant que forces de police au cours d’opérations de maintien de la paix
- Vincenzo Simonetti, The Rules of Law in Peace Support Operation
- James A. Burger, Contractor Personnel in Peace Operations
- Alfons Vanheusden, Contractor Personnel in Peace Operations
- Catherine Baele, Compensation for Damage in Peace Operations
- Christina Rueger, The Law of Military Occupation
- Hans-Peter Gasser, Notes on the Law on Belligerent Occupation
- Marten Zwanenburg, Pieces of the Puzzle: Peace Operations, Occupation and the Use of Force
- Katharina Parameswaran, The Use of Military Force and the Applicable Standards of Force Governing Police Operations in Occupied Territories
- Rudolf Bernhardt, Luzius Wildhaber: Member of the European Court of Human Rights since 1991
- Corneliu Bîrsan, La protection du droit de propriété: développements récents de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
- David Thór Björgvinsson, The EEA Agreement and Fundamental Rights
- Vladimir Butkevych, The European Convention on Human Rights in the Context of the History of International Law
- Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Les effets de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sur l'ordre juridique et judiciaire portugais
- Lucius Caflisch & Martina Keller, Le Protocole additionnel nº 15 à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme
- Johan Callewaert, Les voies de recours communautaires sous l'angle de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme: la portée procédurale de l'arrêt Bosphorus
- Jean-Paul Costa, Les arrêts de la Grande Chambre rendus après renvoi (article 43 de la CEDH)
- Erik Fribergh, The Authority over the Court's Registry within the Council of Europe
- Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Business and Human Rights - who cares?
- Lech Garlicki, Broniowski and after: on the Dual Nature of "Pilot Judgments"
- John Hedigan, The Princess, the Press and Privacy: Observations on Caroline von Hannover v. Germany
- Sverre Erik Jebens, The Scope of the Presumption of Innocence in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention: especially on its Reputation-Related Aspect
- Danuté Jočiené, The European Convention on Human Rights in the Lithuanian Legal System: Lessons learned and Prospects for the Future
- Roderick Liddell, Reflections on certain Aspects of the Kyprianou Judgment
- Egbert Myjer, It is never too late for the State: Friendly Settlements and Unilateral Declarations
- Michael O'Boyle, Ne bis in idem for the Benefit of States?
- Matti Pellonpää, The European Court of Human Rights and the European Union
- Dragoljub Popović, Le droit comparé dans l'accomplissement des tâches de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
- Christos L. Rozakis, The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to the Development of the Law on State Immunity
- Dean Spielmann, Une internationalisation avant la lettre des droits de l'homme?: à propos de l'avis consultatif de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale du 4 décembre 1935
- Françoise Tulkens, Droits de l'homme, droits des femmes: les requérantes devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
- Riza Türmen, Human Rights and Poverty
- Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Causation: Reflection in the Mirror of the European Convention on Human Rigths (a Sketch)
- Nina Vajić, Before . . . and after: ratione temporis Jurisdiction of the (New) European Court of Human Rights and the Blecić Case
- Mark E. Villiger, The Separate Opinions of Judge Wildhaber in the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
- Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Questions autour de Broniowski
- Ineta Ziemele, International Courts and ultra vires Acts
- Bostjan M. Zupancic, Morality of Virtue vs. Morality of Mere Duty, or, Why do Penalties require Legal Process whereas Rewards do not?
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Die Charta der Vereinten Nationen auferlegt den Staaten die Pflicht, allfällige Differenzen mit friedlichen Mitteln beizulegen. Humanitäres Völkerrecht greift dann ein, wenn dieses Friedensgebot den Ausbruch eines bewaffneten Konflikts nicht verhindern kann. Die Genfer Abkommen von 1949 und viele andere internationale Bestimmungen auferlegen allen Konfliktparteien die Pflicht, bei der Kriegführung Schranken zu beachten und Verletzte, Gefangene und namentlich die Zivilbevölkerung zu schonen und zu schützen. Diese Einführung ins humanitäre Völkerrecht richtet sich an alle, die sich für ein nicht einfaches Kapitel des allgemeinen Völkerrechts interessieren. Der Leser findet nicht nur eine systematische Darstellung des Rechtsgebiets, sondern auch eine Auseinandersetzung mit zahlreichen aktuellen Fragen, wie z. B. Krieg gegen den Terror, Rechtsfragen im Zusammenhang mit besetzten Gebieten oder Probleme bei der Durchsetzung des Rechts.
For more than fifty years following the 1949 revision of the Geneva Conventions, legal scholars, government experts, and military practitioners understood the articles that defined when the protections of these treaties came into force - Common Articles 2 and 3 - as the exclusive criteria which triggered the laws of war. From these two articles emerged an “either/or” law-applicability paradigm: inter-state, or international, armed conflicts triggered the full corpus of the laws of war, whereas intra-state, or internal, armed conflicts triggered the limited humanitarian protection reflected in the terms of Common Article 3. Because many military operations during the past two decades did not fit neatly into either of these categories, however, the armed forces of several states, beginning with those of the United States, adopted policies requiring application of the foundational principles of the laws of war to all military operations, regardless of how those operations were characterized as a matter of law. These policies reflected a pragmatic recognition that the regulatory framework provided by these principles was essential for the effective and disciplined execution of military operations.
This policy-based application of the principles of the laws of war proved generally effective in addressing operational and tactical issues during this period. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent initiation of largescale extraterritorial military operations against non-state armed entities exposed the gap in legal regulation of armed conflict and challenged the efficacy of this policy-based application of legal principles. With regard to the treatment of captured and detained personnel, the issue of legal regulation came to a head in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, with the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejecting the Bush administration's reliance on this “either/or” law-triggering paradigm as a basis to deny theapplicability of the humane treatment mandate to captured al Qaeda personnel. It was the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon that exploded soon after that opinion, however, that truly exposed the unacceptable consequences of this gap in legal regulation. In response to that conflict, numerous voices from the international community invoked the principles of the laws of war related to the application of combat power as a basis to condemn both parties, with virtually no consideration of the reality that, like the global war on terror, the conflict defied traditional categorization under the Common Article 2/3 paradigm.
This Article asserts that the changing nature of warfare necessitates recognition of a hybrid category of armed conflict for purposes of triggering the foundational principles of the law of war. Called “transnational armed conflict,” this category is based on the de facto existence of armed conflict, regardless of the geographic scope of the conflict. The Article explains how such a de facto trigger for application of the foundational principles of the laws of war - necessity, distinction, discrimination, humane treatment, and the prohibition against inflicting unnecessary suffering - is derived from the history of regulating warfare, the purposes of the Geneva Conventions, and the pragmatic logic that animated application of law of war principles as a matter of national military policy. The Article also explains how this pragmatic logic was reflected in Hamdan but that the impact of that decision is underinclusive because it failed to address principles related to the application of combat power. This Article cites other authorities in support of this hybrid law-triggering category. The Article concludes with a recommendation that the U.S. Department of Defense take the lead in recognizing this category of armed conflict, which could be the first step in a broader recognition.
Today it is usually not long before a problem gets expressed as a human rights issue. An appeal to human rights in the face of injustice can be a heartfelt and morally justified demand for some, while for others it remains merely an empty slogan.
Taking an international perspective and focusing on highly topical issues such as torture, arbitrary detention, privacy, health and discrimination, this Very Short Introduction will help readers to understand for themselves the controversies and complexities behind this vitally relevant issue. Looking at the philosophical justification for rights, the historical origins of human rights and how they are formed in law, Andrew Clapham explains what our human rights actually are, what they might be, and where the human rights movement is heading.
As we gather around picnic tables and backyard barbecues today, we should pause to consider a forgotten dimension of the occasion - one that is as important now as it was on July 4, 1776.
We all know that the Declaration of Independence announced the United States' freedom from the British Empire. We all remember that it declared certain truths to be self-evident. But what you probably haven't heard is that the declaration also advanced an idea about war. The idea was that war ought to be governed by law.
In late June 1776, as the first detachments of what was to become a sizable British force were landing 90 miles away in New York, Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress in Philadelphia drew up charges denouncing King George III to the world. The accusations were to serve as the core of the declaration. The climactic final charges, for which the rest were prologue, indicted the king for war crimes.
Britain's navy, wrote Jefferson and the Congress, had "plundered our Seas," while its armies had "ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People." Jefferson accused the British of employing legions of foreign mercenaries to commit acts of death and desolation "scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages," acts unworthy of civilized nations. He charged British forces with taking Americans hostage and compelling them to bear arms against their own country. He and the Congress concluded their litany of war crimes by condemning the king's two most fiendish offenses against the laws of war: inciting slave insurrections and encouraging attacks by "merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions."
Jefferson's original draft added a further war crime allegation that did not make it into Congress's final version: the "piratical warfare" of the English slave trade, which was a "cruel war against human nature itself." Delegates from Georgia and South Carolina insisted that the passage be removed. But as Jefferson conceived it, the slave trade was akin to piracy, the most treacherous violation of the 18th-century laws of war.
The declaration was the beginning of a remarkable but now little-remembered American tradition in the laws of war. In the 1780s, a treaty with Prussia committed the United States to follow European rules of warfare. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln published a code for the Union Army that serves to this day as the foundation for the law of war around the globe.
In the 20th century, Americans took a lead role in establishing the modern law of war. Franklin Roosevelt directed the creation of the Nuremberg tribunal for high-ranking German war criminals, and his aides wrote the U.N. charter's rules for the use of force. In this century we can see traces of Jefferson's charges in the law of naval warfare, in the distinction between combatants and civilians, in international law restricting the use of mercenaries and in the Third Geneva Convention's rules on prisoners of war.
Today, of course, much of the world thinks that the United States has traded places with George III's British Empire. We are the global hegemon, and since Sept. 11, 2001, we have become infamous the world over for eschewing the law of war in the name of patriotic self-defense. At Guantanamo, in shadowy secret CIA prisons, at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, leaders in the White House, the Justice Department, and the intelligence agencies have disowned the laws of war as unacceptable constraints on the pursuit of national security.
The tragedy of the post-Sept. 11 American assault on the laws of war is that it seems to have been not only shameful but self-defeating. Disrespect for what the declaration called "the Opinions of Mankind" has fueled anti-American sentiment and spurred terrorist recruitment in North Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Illegal interrogation tactics seem to have produced disappointingly little intelligence. And extraordinary renditions to secret prisons have disrupted the cooperation of many of our most important allies in the war on terrorism, producing arrest warrants against U.S. intelligence agents in Germany and Italy. Patriotism at the expense of the laws of war seems to have gone badly awry.
For the delegates to the Continental Congress in 1776 - as for Lincoln and Roosevelt in subsequent centuries - patriotism and the laws of war went hand in hand. Since the revolution, Americans have helped shape a law of war that advanced the nation's interests. In moments of great crisis, our finest leaders have forged a powerful union between the security of the nation and the laws of war. It's a lesson from the first July 4 that we could sorely use again this year.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter (Princeton - Woodrow Wilson School) has published Earning It (ForeignPolicy.com, July 2007). Here it is:
True, the next American president must begin by taking a number of concrete steps. Words alone won’t do it. I recommend five specific initiatives: first, close Guantánamo and work with other nations on a shared understanding of the rules for the interrogation of terrorism suspects; second, commit to specific carbon emissions targets and a cap and trade system; third, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate with other nuclear states to begin major cuts of nuclear arsenals in the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; fourth, make room at the Security Council table for emerging powers such as India and Brazil, as well as Germany, Japan, two African nations, and at least one major Muslim country at any given point; and finally, bring peace between Israel and Palestine, or at least, in the words of the Clinton administration, “get caught trying.”
My friend Theo Sommer, former editor in chief of Germany’s Die Zeit, always says, “Underneath every America-hater is a disappointed America-lover.” The latest Pew polls would appear to bear him out; many of the most negative attitudes toward the United States are in Europe, a continent of liberal democracies committed to the same values of liberty, democracy, equality, justice, and tolerance that the United States professes. And deep down, the virulent antipathy to America in many Muslim countries may have similar roots. In The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright describes how many young Arabs looked to America in the first half of the 20th century as a beacon of anticolonialism and then felt betrayed by U.S. support for Israel. These feelings of disappointment and betrayal are actually encouraging, for they suggest that scrubbing the tarnish from America’s image is still possible. But winning back the disappointed America-lovers will require more than just polish, or even a change in specific policies. It will demand a much deeper shift in the way America sees itself.
Yet even if the new president were to take all these steps, a substantial part of the current anger at the United States would remain. Not because of who we are, as President Bush likes to claim, but because of who we are not but pretend to be. It is time, once and for all, to renounce the myth of American exceptionalism. Americans should recover their own past and return to their founders’ vision - the vision of the very men who wrote the Declaration of Independence that Americans celebrate today.
But weren’t the founders the ones who originated the idea of American exceptionalism? Not in the way most people use the phrase. Writing to a friend in 1795, during both the French and the Dutch revolutions, Thomas Jefferson proudly predicted that “this ball of liberty . . . is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light & liberty go together. It is our glory that we first put it into motion.”
For Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers, America was blessed with a great destiny. But that destiny was to be the first country to enjoy the benefits of representative and rights-regarding government, not the only. America was exceptional then because of the state of the rest of the world. But as other countries followed suit, they would create a community of which America would be proud to be a member. And together all those countries would uphold and spread universal values - the values of liberty, equality, democracy, justice, and tolerance that grew out of Enlightenment notions of a common humanity.
America stands for that possibility. It has shaped the aspirations of countless brave men and women around the world seeking liberty, equality, and self-government. But when America does and says things that make a mockery of those aspirations - such as openly condoning torture, flouting international treaties, and trampling civil liberties in the name of security - it betrays those men and women and strengthens the hand of those who oppose them. Worse still, it betrays the very idea of adherence to a set of values that can offer meaning and purpose beyond pure calculations of self-interest. And when America simultaneously insists that it is a moral beacon and seeks to reshape the world into its own image, the resulting dissonance can ignite a smoldering disappointment into flames of anger and hatred.
The good news, on the American side, is that understanding the American experience as only one dimension of a global experience lightens a largely self-imposed burden. America need not take it upon itself to promote “American values” worldwide; it need only stand with its fellow liberal democracies to demonstrate their success and to find ways to enable as many new countries as possible to join the club. For the world, an America that no longer sees itself as exceptional may once again become a country that can inspire as well as infuriate, a country capable not only of paying a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, but of earning it.
- Gerhard Thallinger, The UN Peacebuilding Commission and Transitional Justice
- Onder Bakircioglu, The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases
- John B. Bellinger, III, Speech - Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism
- Silja N.U. Vöneky, Response - The Fight against Terrorism and the Rules of International Law - Comment on Papers and Speeches of John B. Bellinger, Chief Legal Advisor to the United States State Department
Arbitration of overseas investment disputes is one of the fastest growing areas of international dispute resolution. The exponential growth of international investment in recent years has led to the signature of over two thousand Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between foreign states, in addition to a wealth of multilateral treaties and other forms of concession agreements. Disputes that have arisen are often resolved through the forum of international arbitration, and typically involve claims by an investor company for compensation when an investment has been illegally expropriated or adversely affected by the state's activities.
The legal principles that have developed in this area are subject to intense debate, and are still in a state of flux. While tribunals routinely state that they are applying principles of public international law to determine disputes, many of the principles applied have only been developed recently in the context of investment treaty arbitrations, and tribunals are often guided more by the approaches taken by other tribunals, than by pre-existing doctrines of public international law. However, the volume of law created, applied and analysed by tribunals is such that it is now possible to begin the necessary process of codification.
International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles is an important step in this process. The book provides a detailed analytical survey of the developing substantive principles which are being applied to disputes by international investment tribunals. It considers the key questions that arise, and provides a clear description of the present state of the law as reflected in tribunal practice. Key areas of coverage include: the instruments under which investment disputes arise; the legal basis of treaty arbitration; dispute resolution and parallel proceedings; who is a foreign investor, including nationality issues and foreign control; what is an investment; investors' substantive rights; expropriation; compensation and remedies.
Text, Cases and Materials on Transnational Commercial Law, brings together all the major transnational commercial law instruments relating to commercial contracts in a logical and accessible way. The authors provide students with an extensive discussion on the theoretical issues raised by the law. The text examines the emergence of transnational commercial law, its nature and sources and the method by which harmonization is achieved and some of the key problems involved.
- Panos Merkouris, Debating the Ouroboros of International Law: The Drafting History of Article 31(3)(c)
- Elspeth Guild, Inside Out or Outside In? Examining Human Rights in Situations of Armed Conflict
- Frederic Gilles Sourgens, ICSID Arbitration and the Importance of Public Accountability of a Private Judicature - A Roman Law Perspective
- Anna Caroline Müller, United Nations as Peacekeeper and Nation-Builder: Continuity and Change - What Lies Ahead?
- Anneliese Quast, The Security Council and the Use of Force, Theory and Reality - A Need for Change?
- Peter C. Hansen, The World Bank Administrative Tribunal's External Sources of Law: A Retrospective of the Tribunal's First Quarter-Century (1981-2005)
- Allen S. Weiner, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: What Lies Ahead
- Christina Knahr & August Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration - The Biwater Gauff Compromise
- Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, Interpretation of Jurisdictional Instruments in International Dispute Settlement
- Colin T. Mclaughlin, Victim and Witness Measures of the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Analysis
- Daneil Müller, Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
- Awni Behnam, Whither IOI?
- Salvino Busuttil, Regional Governance in the Mediterranean: An Almost Metaphysical Note
- Alain Piquemal & Abdelkader Lahlou, The Intervention of the International Ocean Institute in the Prevention and Settlement of Maritime Disputes
- Sicco Rah & Tilo Wallrabenstein, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Its Future
- Than Aung & Awnesh Singh, Climate Change, Preliminary Results of the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project and Its Capacity Building Program
- Monica Jaén, Protecting the Oceans from Climate Change: An Analysis of the Role of Selected International Instruments on Resources and Environmental Protection in the Context of UNCLOS
- Edward Laws, Climate Change, Oceans, and Human Health
- Transform Aqorau, Living Resources, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO): Some Legal and Policy Issues Surrounding Control of Nationals and Charter Vessels under the New Legal Regime in the WCPO
- Hashali Hamukuaya, South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization: A Modern Instrument to Address Typical Fisheries Management Issues
- Tavis Potts, Using Indicator Systems as Tools to Progress Fisheries Sustainability: An Analysis of Recent Policy Approaches
- Andrew Serdy, Trading of Fishery Commission Quota under International Law
- Joeli Veitayaki, Alifereti Tawake, Alifereti Bogiva, Semisi Meo, Nacanieli Ravula, Ron Vave, Pio Radikedike, & Patrick Sakiusa Fong, Addressing Human Factors in Fisheries Development and Regulatory Processes in Fiji: The Mositi Vanuaso Experience
- Tina M. Willson & Richard F. Kazmierczak Jr., The Public Health and Economic Impacts of Contaminated U.S. Fisheries
- Jorge A. Angulo-Valdés, Environment and Coastal Management, Ecotourism and Marine Protected Areas: A Possible Synergy to Achieve the Sustainable Tourism Paradigm in the Insular Caribbean
- Louis Celliers, Rod Bulman, Tandi Breetzke, & Omar Parak, Institutional Mapping of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
- Maximo Q. Mejia Jr., Proshanto K. Mukherjee, & Roland Akselsson, Maritime Transport and Security, The ISM Code in the Context of Swedish Port State Control Statistics
- Constantinos Triantafillou, Aspasia Pastra, & Marina Papaioannou, Contingency Planning in the European Union: The Importance of Cooperation between States
- Hilary Clark, Staying Afloat in International Law: The Proliferation Security Initiative’s Implications for Freedom of Navigation
- Okechukwu Iheduru, Globalization, State Failure and Maritime Insecurity in West Africa
- Nazery Kahlid, A Rush of Blood to the Head? Some Reflections on Post-9/11 Maritime Security Measures
- Charles H. Ross, The Influence of International and Regional Development Programmes in Africa on Maritime Security in Sub-Saharan Africa
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Al-Qaeda terror attacks of September 11, 2001 aroused a number of extraordinary counter measures in response, including an executive order authorizing the creation of military tribunals or "commissions" for the trial of accused terrorists. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the topic with some controversial and deeply divided decisions, most recently Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
At this critical moment in time, Extraordinary Justice seeks to fill an important gap in our understanding of what military tribunals are, how they function, and how successful they are in administering justice by placing them in comparative and historical context. Peter Judson Richards examines tribunals in four modern conflicts: the American Civil War, the British experience in the Boer War, the French tribunals of the "Great War," and allied practices during the Second World War.
Richards also examines the larger context of specific political, legal and military concerns, addressing scholarly and policy debates that continually arise in connection with the implementation of these extraordinary measures. He concludes that while the record of the national tribunals has been mixed, enduring elements in the character of warfare, of justice, and the nature of political reality together justify their continued use in certain situations.
- Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt: Decision on Jurisdiction, April 11, 2007 (Italy-Egypt Bilateral Investment Treaty) (ICSID)
- Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia: Award on Jurisdiction, May 17, 2007 (U.K.-Malaysia Bilateral Investment Treaty) (ICSID)
- Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic: Award (on the Merits), May 22, 2007 (U.S.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty) (ICSID)
- United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada: Award on the Merits, May 24, 2007 (NAFTA Chapter 11) (UNCITRAL)
- Bayview Irrigation District v. Mexico: Award (on Jurisdiction), June 19, 2007 (NAFTA Chapter 11) (ICSID)
The Bush administration is urging the Senate to consent this summer to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the complex and sprawling treaty that governs shipping, navigation, mining, fishing and other ocean activities. This is a major departure from the administration's usual stance toward international organizations that have the capacity to restrain U.S. sovereignty. And it comes in a surprising context, since the convention has disturbing implications for our fight against terrorists.
Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England maintain that the convention will enhance U.S. security. They argued in the Washington Times last month that to meet the "complex array of global and transnational security challenges," the United States must have "unimpeded maritime mobility - the ability of our forces to respond any time, anywhere, if so required."
This is true, but ratifying the convention won't bring this benefit. Instead it would put America's naval counterterrorism efforts under the control of foreign judges. Suppose the United States seizes a vessel it suspects of shipping dual-use items that might be utilized to build weapons of mass destruction or other tools of terrorism. It's not a wild supposition. Under the Proliferation Security Initiative, the United States has since 2003 secured proliferation-related high-seas interdiction agreements with countries such as Belize and Panama, which provide registration for much international shipping. If the United States ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the legality of such seizures will, depending on the circumstances, be left to the decision of one of two international tribunals.
The first is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, based in Hamburg. Some members of the Hamburg tribunal come from countries naturally suspicious of American power, such as China and Russia. Others are not allied with the United States. Even judges from Europe and South America do not always see things the way U.S. military authorities do.
The second institution is a five-person international arbitration panel. The United States and the flag state of the seized ship would have input into the selection of some of these arbitrators. But the U.N. secretary general or the president of the Hamburg tribunal would select the crucial fifth arbitrator when, as would typically be the case, the state parties cannot agree. They must choose from a list of "experts" to which every state party to the convention - not just China and Russia but other unfriendly nations such as Cuba and Burma - can contribute.
At minimum, these tribunals would pose awkward questions to the United States about the evidence behind a seizure, how we gathered it and who vouches for the information. At worst they would follow the recent example of the International Court of Justice and use a legal dispute to score points against American "unilateralism" and "arrogance" for a global audience keen to humble the United States. In every case, a majority of non-American judges would decide whether the U.S. Navy can seize a ship that it believes is carrying terrorist operatives or supplies for terrorists.
It's true that the convention exempts "military activities" from the tribunals' jurisdiction, but it does not define the term. The executive branch, worried about this ambiguity, has proposed a condition to ratification that would allow the United States to define the exemption for itself. But this condition amounts to a "reservation" disallowed by the treaty. International tribunals would still have the last word on the validity of the U.S. condition and the resulting scope of permissible U.S. naval actions.
Supporters note that many of the treaty's "freedom of the seas" provisions favor U.S. interests. But the United States already receives the benefits of these provisions because, as Negroponte and England acknowledged, they are "already widely accepted in practice." They maintain that ratifying the convention would nonetheless provide "welcome legal certainty." In recent years, however, the United States has not received much legal certainty from international tribunals dominated by non-American judges, and what it has received has not been very welcome. There is little reason to expect different results from these tribunals.
President Bush invokes a different rationale for ratifying the convention, arguing that it would "give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." What this really means is that American views of the law of the sea, even on issues related to national security, could be outvoted by a majority in an international forum. How can this make us safer?
- Saddam Hussein on Trial: What Went Awry?
- M.P. SCHARF, The Iraqi High Tribunal: A Viable Experiment in International Justice?
- C.F.J. DOEBBLER, An Intentionally Unfair Trial
- M. SISSONS & A.S. BASSIN, Was the Dujail Trial Fair?
- G. METTRAUX, The 2005 Revision of the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal
- S. DE BERTODANO, Were There More Acceptable Alternatives to the Iraqi High Tribunal?
- Are ‘Targeted Killings’ Unlawful? The Israeli Supreme Court’s Response
- R.S. SCHONDORF, The Targeted Killings Judgment: A Preliminary Assessment
- A. COHEN & Y. SHANY, A Development of Modest Proportions: The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in the Targeted Killings Case
- O. BEN-NAFTALI, A Judgment in the Shadow of International Criminal Law
- W.J. FENRICK, The Targeted Killings Judgment and the Scope of Direct Participation in Hostilities
- A. CASSESE, On Some Merits of the Israeli Judgment on Targeted Killings
- How to Ameliorate International Criminal Proceedings: Some Constructive Suggestions
- S. ZAPPALA, Foreword
- I. BONOMY, The Reality of Conducting a War Crimes Trial
- O-G. KWON, The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench
- M.B. HARMON, The Pre-trial Process at the ICTY as a Means of Ensuring Expeditious Trials: A Potential Unrealized
- G. HIGGINS, Fair and Expeditious Pre-trial Proceedings: The Future of International Criminal Trials
- J. DE HEMPTINNE, The Creation of Investigating Chambers at the International Criminal Court: An Option Worth Pursuing?
- National Implementation of the ICC Statute (Part II)
- L. VIERUCCI, Foreword
- J. BACIO TERRACINO, National Implementation of ICC Crimes: Impact on National Jurisdictions and the ICC
- R. CRYER and O. BEKOU, International Crimes and ICC Cooperation in England and Wales
- M. DU PLESSIS, South Africa’s Implementation of the ICC Statute: An African Example
- A.E. ALVAREZ, The Implementation of the ICC Statute in Argentina
- M. ROSCINI, Great Expectations: The Implementation of the Rome Statute in Italy
- F.K. TIBA, The Mengistu Genocide Trial in Ethiopia
- G. SLUITER, Compromising the Authority of International Criminal Justice: How Vojislav Šešelj Runs His Trial
- C. KREß, The Procedural Texts of the International Criminal Court
- Jack Donnelly, The Relative Universality of Human Rights
- Paul Gordon Lauren, "To Preserve and Build on its Achievements and to Redress its Shortcomings": The Journey from the Commission on Human Rights to the Human Rights Council
- Sumner B. Twiss, Torture, Justification, and Human Rights: Toward an Absolute Proscription
- David Kinley & Trevor Wilson, Engaging a Pariah: Human Rights Training in Burma/Myanmar
- Philippe Cullet, Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection in the TRIPS Era
- Monica Feria Tinta, Justicability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the Inter-American System of Protection of Human Rights: Beyond Traditional Paradigms and Notions
- Alessandra Lundström Sarelin, Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation, HIV/AIDS, and Food Security
- Rosemary Foot, The United Nations, Counter Terrorism, and Human Rights: Institutional Adaptation and Embedded Ideas
- SYMPOSIUM ON LATIN AMERICAN ARBITRATION
- Mary Helen Mourra, Introduction: Latin American Arbitration
- Mauricio Ipiña Nagel, Bolivian Gas Nationalization: Negotiation v. Arbitration
- Leonardo Bonadies Mora, Arbitration in Panama
- Nadia de Araujo & Frederico de Valle Magalhães Marques, Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Brazil: The Experience of the Supreme Court and the Shift to the Superior Federal Court
- Joaquirn de Paiva Muniz, The Development of Brazilian Decisional Law Favoring the Arbitrability of Disputes Involving State Entities
- Joaquim de Paiva Muniz, Recent Precedents in Brazil Regarding Service of Process in International Arbitrations
- Nicolás Ossa G., An Approach to International Arbitration: China & Chile
Sunday, July 1, 2007
- Mathias-Charles Krafft, L’ambassadeur Lucius Caﬂisch, jurisconsulte du Département fédéral des affaires étrangères (DFAE) (1991-1998)
- Nisuke Ando, The Development of the Human Rights Committee’s Procedure to Consider States Parties’ Reports under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Robert Badinter, La marche vers une justice pénale internationale
- Ireneu Cabral Barreto, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et le droit communautaire (Quelques réﬂexions à propos de l’arrêt Bosphorus)
- Vincent Berger, Le « préjudice important » selon le Protocole n° 14 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Questions et réﬂexions
- Romualdo Bermejo García & Pilar Pozo Serrano, La communauté internationale face à la crise du Darfour: de l’échec dans la prévention à la responsabilité de réagir
- Andrea Bianchi, The Act of State: the State of the Act Judicial Interpretation and Human Rights Enforcement
- Andrew Clapham, The jus cogens Prohibition of Torture and the Importance of Sovereign State Immunity
- Benedetto Conforti, Quelques réﬂexions sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme en matière de propriété
- Jean-Paul Costa, L’Etat, le territoire et la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
- Blaise Godet et Jean-Daniel Vigny, La Suisse et la Commission des droits de l’homme de l’ONU
- Gerhard Hafner, The Issue of Reservations and Declarations to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- John Hedigan, The Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights
- Charles-Edouard Held, L’application aux conﬂits armés non internationaux du Deuxième Protocole relatif à la Convention de La Haye de 1954 pour la protection des biens culturels en cas de conﬂit armé
- Martina Keller, Réuniﬁcation allemande et droits de l’homme
- Chava Eve Landau, Reﬂections on the Right to Education - the European Perspective
- Ruth Lapidoth & Christian Franz, The Many Faces of the Term Open City
- Jürg Lindenmann, Transitional Justice and the International Criminal Court: Some Reﬂections on the Role of the ICC in Conﬂict Transformation
- Paul Mahoney, The European Convention on Royal Rights: Royalty, Aristocracy and the European Convention on Human Rights
- Djamchid Momtaz, De l’incompatibilité des amnisties inconditionnelles avec le droit international
- Mutoy Mubiala, L’accès de l’individu à la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples
- Egbert Myjer, The European Convention on Human Rights, the Fight Against Terrorism and the Ticking Bomb Situation
- José Antonio Pastor Ridruejo, Droit international des droits de l’homme et droit international humanitaire: leurs rapports à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice
- Matti Pellonpää, Continuity and Change in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights
- Dan Sarooshi, International Criminal Justice: An Institutional Future?
- Dietrich Schindler, J.C. Bluntschli’s Contribution to the Law of War
- Paul Seger, Quelques réﬂexions sur l’application du principe de l’universalité en droit pénal et sur le rôle de la Suisse en tant qu’Etat hôte d’organisations et de conférences internationales
- Daphna Shraga, Military Occupation and UN Transitional Administrations - the Analogy and its Limitation
- Krzysztof Skubiszewski, Human Rights in the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church
- Brigitte Stern, Vers une limitation de l’« irresponsabilité souveraine » des Etats et chefs d’Etat en cas de crime de droit international?
- Daniel Thürer & Malcolm Maclaren, In and Around the Ballot Box: Recent Developments in Democratic Governance and International Law put into Context
- Christian Tomuschat, Reparation in Favour of Individual Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
- Rıza Türmen, Freedom of Conscience and Religion
- Nina Vajic, Interim Measures and the Mamatkulov Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
- Mark E. Villiger, The Principle of Subsidiarity in the European Convention on Human Rights
- Luzius Wildhaber, De l’évolution des idées sur les missions de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme
- Georges Abi-Saab, Le principe de l’uti possidetis. Son rôle et ses limites dans le contentieux territorial international
- Julio A. Barberis, Quelques considérations sur le condominium en droit international public
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Sur les rives du droit international de l’eau: entre universalité et particularismes
- Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Le droit à l’eau: droit de l’homme ou droit des Etats?
- Philippe Gautier, L’Etat du pavillon et la protection des intérêts liés au navire
- Vladimir Ibler, Jus Cogens and the Law of the Sea
- Marcelo G. Kohen, The Decision on the Delimitation of the Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary of 13 April 2002: A Singular Approach to International Law Applicable to Territorial Disputes
- Stephen C. McCaffrey, Some Developments in the Law of International Watercourses
- Budislav Vukas, A Quarter of a Century after UNCLOS III: A Personal Recollection
- Rüdiger Wolfrum, Antarctica: A Case for Common Implementation of Environmental Standards
- Hugo Caminos, The Creation of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as a Specialized Court under the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea
- Christian Dominicé, L’opportunité judiciaire selon l’avis consultatif relatif aux Conséquences juridiques de l’édiﬁcation d’un mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé
- Maurice K. Kamga, Les procédures d’urgence devant le Tribunal international du droit de la mer
- Robert Kolb, La dénonciation avec effet immédiat de déclarations facultatives établissant la compétence de la Cour internationale de Justice
- Heinrich B. Reimann, Le règlement paciﬁque des différends à l’OSCE
- W. Michael Reisman & Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, No Exit? A Preliminary Examination of the Legal Consequences of United States’ Withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
- Tullio Treves, Dispute-Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Disorder or System?
- Claudia Westerdiek, Le Tribunal administratif du Conseil de l’Europe: présentation et aperçu de la Jurisprudence
- Eric Wyler, Le médiateur, Tiers impartial au cœur du Droit
- Ernesto J. Rey Caro, The Administration of Aa Permanent Jurisdictional Entity for the MERCOSUR
- Christos L. Rozakis, Unilateral Declarations as a Means of Settling Human Rights Disputes: A New Tool for the Resolution of Disputes in the ECHR’s Procedure
- Georges S. Baur, Will New Developments in Global Economic and Financial Policy Erode International Law and the Sovereignty of States? - The Example of Liechtenstein
- Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Primacy of International Law Over Force
- Jérôme Candrian, Quelques réﬂexions sur les relations diplomatiques de la Suisse avec le Saint-Siège: Diplomatie et Religion au service du règlement paciﬁque des différends bilatéraux
- Bernard Dutoit, La Russie et l’Union européenne: des barbelés idéologiques aux espaces du partenariat
- Vera Gowlland-Debbas, The Responsibility of the Political Organs of the UN for Palestine in Light of the ICJ’s Wall Opinion
- Jean-Michel Jacquet, Voici venu le temps des traités! (Quelques réﬂexions sur l’évolution du droit des contrats d’Etat)
- Alain Pellet, Le projet d’articles de la C.D.I. sur la protection diplomatique : une codiﬁcation pour (presque) rien
- Jean-Pierre Puissochet & Stéphane Gervasoni, Les coopérations renforcées entre États membres de l’Union européenne: et si c’était possible?
- Jean Salmon, Les métamorphoses de la gravité
- François Voeffray, Le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU: gouvernement mondial, législateur ou juge? Quelques réﬂexions sur les dangers de dérives
- Aslak Syse, Henning Jakhelln, Ole Kristian Fauchald, & Rolf Einar Fife, Carl August Fleischer - 70 år
- Ivar Alvik, Statsimmunitet etter norsk rett og folkeretten
- Johan Greger Aulstad, Rettsspørsmål knyttet til planvedtak og dispensasjonsvedtak i medhold av plan- og bygningsloven der kommunen selv eier grunn eller har andre private interesser i området
- Inge Lorange Backer, Kan foreldrene gi barna en «lett klaps»?
- Hans Chr. Bugge, Miljørett som rettsdisiplin
- Christoffer C. Eriksen, Hvordan bør rettslig dømmekraft utøves?
- Ole Kristian Fauchald & Kjersti Schiøtz Thorud, Protection of investors against expropriation - Norway’s obligations under investment treaties
- Rolf Einar Fife, The Legislative Response of the United Nations to Terrorism: Perspectives on Creative Forces and Sources of International Law
- Arne Fliﬂet, Er den «harde kjerne» i Grunnloven § 105 en henvisning til reelle hensyn? Noen reﬂeksjoner omkring en strid i forrige århundre
- Ole Gjems-Onstad, Høyesterett som høyrisikosport - nye dommer om merverdiavgift
- Hans Petter Graver, Juss, politikk og dommeraktivisme i en ﬂytende europeisk rettsorden
- Viggo Hagstrøm, Det offentliges ansvar for feilaktig informasjon
- Anne Hellum, Menneskerettigheter, pluralisme, kompleksitet og integrasjon
- Ragnhild Helene Hennum, Dommeravhør og menneskerettigheter - konvensjonspraksis om særlig sårbare vitner
- Stein Husby, Oversikt over kompensasjons- og oppreisningsordninger for pionerdykkerne i Nordsjøen
- Alf Petter Høgberg, Om kritikkene av fenomenet reelle hensyn, begrepet ‘reelle hensyn’ og termen «reelle hensyn»
- Benedikte Moltumyr Høgberg, Tilbakevirkningsforbudet - mer enn én rettsregel?
- Andrew J. Jacovides, Some Aspects of the Law of the Sea: Islands, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement Revisited
- Asbjørn Kjønstad, Reelle hensyn som rettskilde
- Dag Michalsen, Finnes det en kritisk tradisjon i norsk rettsvitenskap?
- Tor-Geir Myhrer, «… men ellers er det håpløst!» Kan langvarige individuelle påbud eller forbud hjemles i politiloven § 7?
- Gro Nystuen, The Security Council as a “Legislator” for the International Community
- Georg Fr. Rieber-Mohn, Villaksen i den politiske prosess
- Anne Robberstad, «Ånden som går». Om strafferettens sannhetsmonopol
- Inger-Johanne Sand, The fragmentation of law on the global level. Conﬂicts of law or processes of learning?
- Eivind Smith, Må datteren gjøre som moren sier? Om forholdet mellom lovgivningsmaktens grunnlag og grenser
- Aslak Syse og Marianne Jenum Hotvedt, Likeverd og tilgjengelighet - nedsatt funksjonsevne i et menneskerettsperspektiv
- Runar Torgersen, Bør adgangen til bevisavskjæring i straffesaker utvides?
- Ken Uggerud, Den andre bølge? Om menneskerettighetenes tilfeldige tilværelse i norsk rett
- Geir Ulfstein, Forsvarspolitikk og folkerett
- Michael Wood, The United Kingdom’s Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court
- Frederik Zimmer, Har det noen verdi å bo i egen bolig?
- Bård Sverre Tuseth, Carl August Fleischers bibliograﬁ
- Anna Schulz, Creating a Legal Framework for Good Transboundary Water Governance in The Zambezi and Incomati River Basins
- J. Mijin Cha, Environmental Justice in Rural South Asia: Applying Lessons Learned from the United States in Fighting for Indigenous Communities' Rights and Access to Common Resources
- Shawkat Alam, An Examination of the International Environmental Law Governing the Proposed Indian River-Linking Project and an Appraisal of Its Ecological and Socio-Economic Implications for Lower Riparian Countries