Saturday, August 25, 2007

Law of the Sea Convention: NY Times Editorial

We've previously discussed (most recently, here) the latest push to get the Senate to provide its advice and consent to ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. These efforts (or, at least, their most recent iteration) began this spring, and it appears clear that the strategy from the beginning (apparently a coordinated one between the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Senators Biden and Lugar - and representatives of the administration) was to promote public knowledge and support of the Convention, building up to hearings and a vote this fall. That outreach has been successful, if the string of op-eds and newspaper endorsements is any indication. Today, the New York Times adds its support. The editorial focuses on the Arctic Ocean seabed (and the natural resources underneath) and asserts that the United States will lose out on the potential wealth to be found there if it doesn't join the Convention. The Times's argument is hardly novel; indeed, it has been quite common ever since Russia and Canada made their very public claims over large swaths of the Arctic this summer. Russia's claims in particular have been a great and unanticipated boon to supporters of the Convention, who had previously focused their arguments on the the treaty's national security benefits. Russian expansionism, particularly at U.S. expense, still riles up Americans more than talk of the right of innocent passage. Here's the editorial:

A solemn international treaty known as the Law of the Sea Convention will celebrate its 25th anniversary this December, and for 25 years the mere mention of its name has been enough to induce deep slumber. Yet for all kinds of reasons - not least growing fears about the availability of energy resources - people are finally paying attention. That includes the Senate, where right-wing scare tactics and official inertia have long blocked the treaty's ratification, leaving America as the only major power standing on the sidelines.

That could change this fall, when the treaty will again be presented for Senate approval. One reason for optimism is that President Bush has added his voice to a diverse pro-treaty coalition that includes the environmental community, fishing interests, the oil and gas industry, the shipping industry, the State Department and the Navy.

But the main reason is this: unless the United States joins up, it could very well lose out in what is shaping up as a mad scramble to lay claim to what are believed to be immense deposits of oil, gas and other resources under the Arctic ice - deposits that are becoming more and more accessible as the earth warms and the ice melts.

The Law of the Sea will provide the forum for determining who gets what. The law gives each nation control over its own coastal waters - an "exclusive economic zone" extending 200 miles offshore. The rest is regarded as international waters, subject to agreed-upon rules governing fishing, protection of the marine environment, navigation and mining on the ocean floor. A country can claim territory and mineral deposits beyond the 200-mile limit, but only if it can prove that the seabed is a physical extension of its continental shelf.

Claims and disputes will be resolved by arbitration panels established by the treaty. The Russians, the Canadians and the Danes are all busily staking claims to thousands of square miles of the Arctic seabed beyond their 200-mile zones; the Russians have already planted a flag 15,000 feet under the North Pole. And two weeks ago, a U.S. Coast Guard cutter, Healy, embarked on the third in a series of polar mapping expeditions to help strengthen the United States' territorial claims to the seabed off Alaska.

But the United States will have a hard time pressing those claims unless it ratifies the treaty and gets a seat at the negotiating table. One of the main right-wing arguments over the years is that the treaty would threaten American sovereignty by impeding unfettered exploitation of the ocean’s resources - a "giant giveaway of American wealth," in the words of one critic. The facts suggest just the reverse. By not signing, we could easily find ourselves out of the hunt altogether.

Noriega Extradition

France has requested the extradition of Manuel Noriega, the former Panamanian dictator, from the United States to face money laundering charges. (Indeed, Noriega was tried in absentia in France, found guilty, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. France has agreed to re-try him if he is extradited.) Noriega is completing a U.S. sentence next month for drug trafficking and racketeering and wishes to return to Panama to fight charges filed against him there. (Panama does not extradite its nationals, so Noriega would not be in jeopardy of being extradited from Panama to France if he was not convicted in Panama.) On July 23, Noriega filed a petition for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition, asserting that his status as a prisoner of war precludes his extradition. In a ruling yesterday, Judge Hoeveler of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the same judge who presided over Noriega's trial) ruled against Noriega, finding that his POW status does not prevent his extradition to another country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions. (The opinion is here. Kenneth Anderson has further commentary here.)

The judge's order does not mean, in and of itself, that Noriega will be extradited to France. Noriega may appeal Judge Hoeveler's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. Further, the United States (representing France) will need to obtain a certification of extraditability and order of commitment (usually issued by a magistrate judge) before the extradition can take place. Judge Hoeveler's decision today specifically notes that Noriega can renew his arguments, as appropriate, in the extradition proceedings; Noriega can also raise other issues there. Further, the extradition certification, though not appealable, can be challenged in a habeas proceeding before a district court judge, whose ruling can then be appealed. Noriega's extradition (if a certification is in fact issued) will be stayed pending the resolution of any habeas proceedings. During this period, Noriega will, in all likelihood, remain incarcerated, even after he is paroled on his U.S. criminal sentence. All this means that, despite today's ruling, it is unlikely that Noriega will be heading anywhere any time soon.

Hollis: New Tools, New Rules: International Law and Information Operations

Duncan B. Hollis (Temple Univ. - Law) has posted New Tools, New Rules: International Law and Information Operations (in The Message of War: Information, Influence and Perception in Armed Conflict, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
For more than a decade, military thinkers have debated the impact of "information operations" (IO) on armed conflict. Responding to the possibilities (and vulnerabilities) inherent in the interconnectivity of the Internet and other information networks, IO constitutes a new form of warfare. IO uses methods such as computer network attacks or psychological operations to influence, disrupt, corrupt, usurp and defend information systems and the infrastructure they support. As militaries work through what IO can do, however, they must also wrestle with when and how they can employ it - i.e., the question of law's application to IO. Since computer networks and modern information systems constitute new tools (and new targets) for military activities, international law currently regulates them only by analogy, and even then, in a patchwork fashion. Most states and scholars appear content with this situation, denying any need to develop IO-specific rules. This short essay challenges that conventional wisdom. Even as it applies to IO, the existing legal framework suffers from several, near-fatal conditions: uncertainty (i.e., militaries lack a clear picture of how to translate existing rules into the IO environment); complexity (i.e., overlapping legal regimes threaten to overwhelm military commanders seeking to apply IO); and insufficiency (i.e., existing rules fail to address basic challenges of modern conflicts with non-state actors). This situation creates disincentives for militaries to use IO, notwithstanding IO's potential to achieve military and political objectives with less harm than conventional bombs or missiles. To redress these deficiencies, I propose states adopt an international law for information operations, or "ILIO." By adopting an ILIO, states could alleviate the uncertainty and complexity of the status quo, reduce transaction costs for states fighting global terror, and lessen the collateral costs of armed conflict itself.

Update: Medellin v. Texas (Respondent's Brief Filed)

As previously noted, the State of Texas's brief (as respondent) in Medellin v. Texas (No. 06-984) was due August 23. It has now been posted, together with six amicus briefs filed in support thereof. On August 13, the Solicitor General filed a motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument. That motion has yet to be acted upon. Argument has been set for Wednesday, October 10.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Decaux, Dieng, & Sow: Kama Festschrift

Emmanuel Decaux (Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas) - Law), Adama Dieng (Registrar, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) & Malick Sow (President, Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals in Dakar, Senegal & Alternative Judge, Special Court for Sierra Leone) have published From Human Rights to International Criminal Law / Des droits de l'homme au droit international pénal: Studies in Honour of an African Jurist, the Late Judge Laïty Kama / Etudes en l'honneur d’un juriste africain, feu le juge Laïty Kama (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007). Contents include:
  • Emmanuel Decaux & Malick SowAvant-propos
  • Louis Joinet, En mémoire de Laïty Kama
  • Cécile Aptel & Mandiaye Nane Niang, Hommage à Laïty Kama
  • Helen Klann & others, Judge Laïty Kama: Five Cases to Develop International Criminal Law
  • Charmaine de los Reyes, State Cooperation and its Challenges for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
  • Wolfgang Schomburg & Jan Christoph Nemitz, The Protection of Human Rights of the Accused Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
  • Helen Klann, Vagueness of Indictment: Rules to Safeguard the Rights of the Accused
  • Simon M. Meisenberg, The Right to Legal Assistance at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: A Review of its Jurisprudence
  • Alhagi Marong, Chernor Jalloh, & David Kinnecome, Concurrent Jurisdiction at the ICTR: Should the Tribunal Refer Cases to Rwanda?
  • Lennart Aspegren & Jamie A. Williamson, The Rwanda Tribunal and Genocide
  • Cyril Laucci, Les crimes de guerre dans la jurisprudence du Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda: les difficultés d’une "toute première tentative"
  • Andrésia Vaz, La spécificité du crime de viol
  • Coline Rapneau, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20, Judgement, Trial Chamber (15 May 2003). A Commentary
  • Chile Eboe-Osuji, Superior or Command Responsibility - A Doubtful Theory of Criminal Responsibility at the Ad Hoc Tribunals
  • Jean-Pelé Fomété, Countdown to 2010: A Critical Overview of the Completion Strategy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
  • Fatou Bensouda, Gender and Sexual Violence Under the Rome Statute
  • Claude Jorda & Marianne Saracco, The Raison d’être of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court
  • Hassan B. Jallow, Challenges of Investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes
  • Althea Alexis, The Convergence of the Common Law and Inquisitorial Systems in International Criminal Law
  • Segun Jegede, Prohibition Against Subsequent Prosecution: Periscoping the Non Bis In Idem Principle
  • Flavia Lattanzi, La frontière entre droit international humanitaire et droits de l’homme
  • William A. Schabas, Independence and Impartiality of the International Criminal Judiciary
  • Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Revisiting the Abu Graibh Prosecutions from the Perspective of the ICTY and the ICTR
  • Adama Dieng & Chile Eboe-Osuji, International Law, Mercenary Activities and Conflict Prevention in Africa
  • Mutoy Mubiala, Les négociations de paix en Afrique
  • Bahame Tom Nyanduga, Addressing Impunity: A Challenge to the International Criminal Justice System with a Specific Reference to Africa and the African Human Rights System
  • Angela Melo, Le protocole à la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples relative aux droits des femmes en Afrique: une contribution spécifique d’un traité régional au droit international des droits de l’homme
  • Sergei Alekseevich Egorov, Law and Time
  • Khalida Rachid Khan, Women and Human Rights in the Asia/Pacific Region: A Perspective from South Asia
  • Leila Zerrougui, L’apport des premiers membres du Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire dans l’établissement d’un contrôle international universel de la légalité de la détention
  • Régis de Gouttes, Le renforcement et l’harmonisation des procédures nationales et internationales en matière de protection des droits de l’homme

Thursday, August 23, 2007

ITLOS: Resignation of Judge Guangjian Xu

Today, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea announced the resignation of Judge Guangjian Xu of China. Judge Xu submitted his letter of resignation on August 15, and pursuant to the Tribunal's Statute (Article 5, paragraph 4), his seat became vacant upon the letter's receipt. Judge Xu was first elected in 2001 to fill the unexpired term of Judge Lihai Zhao of China, who had died in office. He was re-elected the following year for a full nine-year term. The date of the election to fill the vacancy created by Judge Xu's resignation has not yet been set.

No explanation was given for Judge Xu's resignation. One thought and two facts might provide some clarification, though. First, it seems doubtful that, were Judge Xu ill, the ITLOS press release would not have mentioned it, especially since this is the Court's first resignation. Second, Judge Xu is a Chinese national. Unlike most other countries, China can expect to have a permanent member of the Court, even though, as a formal matter, there is no such guarantee. Thus, there was no pressure on Judge Xu from the Chinese Government to stay in office, lest a non-Chinese national be elected in his place. Judges from most other countries are not in the same position. Third, Judge Xu tendered his resignation on August 15, his seventy-sixth birthday. Coincidence?

Posner & Sunstein: Climate Change Justice

Eric A. Posner (Univ. of Chicago - Law) & Cass R. Sunstein (Univ. of Chicago - Law) have posted Climate Change Justice. Here's the abstract:
Greenhouse gas reductions would cost some nations much more than others, and benefit some nations far less than others. Significant reductions would impose especially large costs on the United States, and recent projections suggest that the United States has relatively less to lose from climate change. In these circumstances, what does justice require the United States to do? Many people believe that the United States is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point that is justified by its own self-interest, simply because the United States is wealthy, and because the nations most at risk from climate change are poor. This argument from distributive justice is complemented by an argument from corrective justice: The existing "stock" of greenhouse gas emissions owes a great deal to the past actions of the United States, and many people think that the United States should do a great deal to reduce a problem for which it is largely responsible. But there are serious difficulties with both of these arguments. Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations might well be desirable, but if so, expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor. The argument from corrective justice runs into the standard problems that arise when collectivities, such as nations, are treated as moral agents: Many people who have not acted wrongfully end up being forced to provide a remedy to many people who have not been victimized. The conclusion is that while a suitably designed climate change agreement is in the interest of the world, a widely held view is wrong: Arguments from distributive and corrective justice fail to provide strong justifications for imposing special obligations for greenhouse gas reductions on the United States. These arguments have general implications for thinking about both distributive justice and corrective justice arguments in the context of international law and international agreements.

Hearings: Law of the Sea Convention

It is being reported (here, here, and here) that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39) in September, possibly September 27. (The SFRC has not posted any information on its website regarding any hearings - regardless of the subject matter - that might take place after Congress returns from its August recess.) If true, this will be the fifth set of hearings for the Convention. The SFRC previously held hearings on August 11, 1994, and October 14 and 21, 2003; the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on March 23, 2004; and the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on April 8, 2004. On March 11, 2004, the SFRC reported the Convention favorably to the Senate floor, with accompanying declarations and understandings (Exec. Rept. 108-10). But that was two Congresses ago, and pursuant to the Senate's Rules (Rule XXX, paragraph 2), since the full Senate did not take any action on the SFRC's report during the 108th Congress, the Convention was referred back to the SFRC, as "all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon." As previously reported here, here, and here (see also here), there has been much public debate this summer - in the op-ed pages, as well as in editorials (see, for example, recent endorsements by the USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, and the Seattle Times) - concerning the Convention's merits. On May 15, the President made a point of publicly urging Senate advice and consent to ratification, and in June the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a letter to SFRC Chair Biden supporting U.S. ratification. All this activity has clearly been prelude to the anticipated main act: Senate action this fall, beginning with hearings next month.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Dupuy, et al.: Tomuschat Festschrift

Pierre-Marie Dupuy (European Univ. Institute - Law & Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas) - Law), Bardo Fassbender (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Law), Malcolm N. Shaw (Univ. of Leicester - Law), & Karl-Peter Sommermann (Deutschen Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer - Law) have published Völkerrecht als Wertordnung/Common Values in International Law: Festschrift für/Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (N.P. Engel Verlag 2006). Contents include:

  • Tono Eitel, Der "mobile Leuchtturm"
  • Thomas Läufer, Summa summarum: Gedanken zur Person
  • Gerd Westdickenberg, Meine Begegnungen mit Christian Tomuschat
  • Mariano J. Aznar-Gómez, Some Paradoxes on Human Rights Protection in Kosovo
  • Ulrich Battis & Jens Kersten, Biotechnologie und Völkerrecht
  • Michael Bothe, Humanitäres Völkerrecht und Schutz der Menschenrechte: auf der Suche nach Synergien und Schutzlücken
  • Theo van Boven, The Prohibition of Torture: Norm and Practice
  • Thomas Buergenthal, Truth Commissions: Functions and Due Process
  • Christophe Eick, Die Anwendbarkeit des Internationalen Paktes über bürgerliche und politische Rechte bei Auslandseinsätzen der Bundeswehr
  • Roger Errera, The Concept of Membership of a Particular Social Group in Refugee Law
  • Ulrich Fastenrath, Einheit der Menschenrechte: Universalität und Unteilbarkeit
  • Ricardo García Macho, Wirkung und Grenzen der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im spanischen Recht
  • Christoph Grabenwarter, Das mehrpolige Grundrechtsverhältnis im Spannungsfeld zwischen europäischem Menschenrechtsschutz und Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit
  • Juliane Kokott, Die Freizügigkeit der Unionsbürger als neue Grundfreiheit
  • Ahmed Mahiou, La justice internationale et les droits de l'homme: brèves remarques
  • Georg Nolte, Human Rights Protection against International Institutions in Kosovo: The Proposals of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and their Implementation
  • Thilo Rensmann, The Constitution as a Normative Order of Values: The Influence of International Human Rights Law on the Evolution of Modern Constitutionalism
  • Rudolf Dolzer, Schirmklauseln in Investitionsschutzverträgen
  • Pierre-Marie Dupuy, L'État et ses émanations dans le contentieux du droit international des investissements
  • Andrea Gattini, La renonciation au droit d'invoquer la responsabilité
  • Rainer Hofmann, Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law: Do they have an Individual Right to Reparation against States under International Law?
  • Eckart Klein, Völkerrechtliche Grenzen des staatlichen Verzichts auf diplomatischen Schutz
  • Philip Kunig, Das Völkerrecht und die Interessen der Bevölkerung
  • Frank Montag, Völkerrechtliche Immunität internationaler Organisationen und europäisches Kartellrecht
  • W. Michael Reisman & Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, The Question of Unilateral Governmental Statements as Applicable Law in Investment Disputes
  • Bruno Simma, Eine endlose Geschichte?: Artikel 36 der Wiener Konsularkonvention in Todesstrafenfällen vor dem IGH und amerikanischen Gerichten
  • Ingo Winkelmann, "Responsibility to protect": die Verantwortung der Internationalen Gemeinschaft zur Gewährung von Schutz
  • Pierre D'Argent, Compliance, Cessation, Reparation and Restitution in the Wall Advisory Opinion
  • Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, La procédure consultative de la Cour internationale de Justice et la promotion de la règle de droit: remarques sur les conditions d'accès et de participation
  • Lucius Caflisch, Provisional Measures in the International Protection of Human Rights: The Mamatkulov Case
  • Giorgio Gaja, The Review by the European Court of Human Rights of Member States' Acts Implementing European Union Law: "Solange" yet again?
  • Constance Grewe, Quelques réflexions sur la fonction de juger à partir de l'arrêt Mamatkulov c. Turquie rendu par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme le 4 février 2005
  • Kay Hailbronner, Der Europäische Haftbefehl und die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft
  • Karin Oellers-Frahm, Der Rücktritt der USA vom Fakultativprotokoll der Konsularrechtskonvention
  • Stefan Oeter, The International Legal Order and its Judicial Function: Is there an International Community - despite the Fragmentation of Judicial Dispute Settlement?
  • Christoph Schreuer, Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law
  • Vladen S. Vereshchetin, On the Expanding Reach of the Rulings of the International Court of Justice
  • Joe Verhoeven, Jura novit curia et le juge international
  • Gerhard Werle, Von der Ablehnung zur Mitgestaltung: Deutschland und das Völkerstrafrecht
  • Luzius Wildhaber, The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Recent Developments
  • Andreas Zimmermann, Two Steps Forward, One Step Backwards?: Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) and the Council's Power to refer Situations to the International Criminal Court
  • Armin von Bogdandy, The Telos of International Law: Christian Tomuschat's General Course and the Evolution of the Universalist Tradition
  • Jorge Cardona Llorens, Las excepciones al principio que prohibe el uso de la fuerza: reflexiones a la luz de la práctica reciente
  • Jost Delbrück, Challenges to International Law in the Wake of the "War" on Global Terrorism
  • Bardo Fassbender, Hans Kelsen und die Vereinten Nationen
  • Jochen Abr. Frowein, The UN Anti-Terrorism Administration and the Rule of Law
  • Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Case of Non-State Actors
  • Martina Palm, Internationaler Umweltschutz und Sicherheit
  • Gerd Seidel, Völkerrechtliches Interventionsverbot
  • Daniel Thürer & Felix Schwendimann, Kampf gegen den Terrorismus: Kampf für das Recht
  • Ulrich Haltern, Tomuschats Traum: zur Bedeutung von Souveränität im Völkerrecht
  • Matthias Herdegen, Das "konstruktive Völkerrecht" und seine Grenzen: die Dynamik des Völkerrechts als Methodenfrage
  • Meinhard Hilf & Saskia Hörmann, Effektivität - ein Rechtsprinzip?
  • Hartmut Hillgenberg, Zur völkerrechtlichen Anerkennung von Staaten
  • Marcelo G. Kohen, L'autodétermination et l'avis consultatif sur le "mur"
  • Ingolf Pernice, The Global Dimension of Multilevel Constitutionalism: A Legal Response to the Challenges of Globalisation
  • Beate Rudolf, Is "Good Governance" a Norm of International Law?
  • Malcolm N. Shaw, The Acquisition of Title in nineteenth Century Africa: Some Thoughts
  • Karl-Peter Sommermann, Demokratie als Herausforderung des Völkerrechts
  • Wolfgang Vitzthum, Aquitoriale Souveränität: zum Rechtsstatus von Küstenmeer und Archipelgewässern
  • Rüdiger Wolfrum, Solidarity amongst States: An Emerging Structural Principle of International Law
  • Karl Zemanek, How to identify Peremptory Norms of International Law

Bassiouni: International Extradition: United States Law & Practice

M. Cherif Bassiouni (DePaul Univ. - Law) has published the fifth edition of his International Extradition: United States Law & Practice (Oxford Univ. Press 2007). Here's the abstract:
This comprehensive guide covers all aspects of extradition to and from the United States, while making critical, theoretical and practical evaluations of these aspects and proposing alternatives. The rights of individuals, balancing of states interests, and preservation of world order within the Rule of Law form the conceptual framework of this book. The focus within U.S. practice explores the essentials involved in the executive branch's treaty-making power, as implemented through its foreign relations practice and as scrutinized by the judiciary.

Benvenisti: Reclaiming Democracy: Why National Courts (Sometimes) Take Foreign and International Law Seriously

Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) has posted Reclaiming Democracy: Why National Courts (Sometimes) Take Foreign and International Law Seriously. Here's the abstract:
Is it appropriate for courts to cite foreign law and international law in domestic constitutional cases? The starting point of the passionate debate around this question is the thus-unexplored assumption that reference to foreign law is inevitably in tension with the value of national sovereignty. This Essay questions this assumption of tension. It argues that for courts in most democratic countries - even if not for U.S. courts at present - referring to foreign and international law has become an effective instrument for empowering the domestic political processes by shielding them from external economic and political pressures. This Essay demonstrates that in recent years, courts in several democracies have begun to engage quite seriously in the interpretation and application of international law and to heed to the constitutional jurisprudence of other national courts. This Essay argues that this emerging jurisprudence is part of a reaction to the forces of globalization that are placing increasing pressure on governments and legislatures to conform to global standards. The courts seek to expand the space for domestic deliberation and to strengthen the ability of national governments to withstand the pressure brought to bear by interest groups and powerful foreign governments. For this strategy to succeed, courts need to forge a united judicial front. This entails coordinating their policies with equally positioned courts in other countries, through the common language of international law and comparative constitutional law. The analysis also explains why the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far was not required to protect domestic political process from external pressures, is still not a part of this collective effort. Finally, and based on this insight into the driving force behind reliance on foreign law, the Essay asserts that recourse to these sources is perfectly legitimate from a democratic theory perspective, as it aims to reclaim democracy from the debilitating grip of globalization.

New Issue: Revue de l'Arbitrage

The latest issue of the Revue de l'Arbitrage (2007, no. 2) is out. Contents include:
  • Louis-Christophe Delanoy, Le contrôle de l'ordre publie au fond par le juge de l'annulation: trois constats, trois propositions
  • Sylvain Bollée, Quelques remarques sur les injonctions anti-suit visant à protéger la compétence arbitrale (à l'occasion de l'arrêt The Front Comor de la Chambre des Lords)
  • Julien Fouret, "CMS c/ LG&E" ou l'état de nécessité en question

New Issue: Revue de Droit International et de Droit Comparé

The latest issue of the Revue de Droit International et de Droit Comparé (Vol. 84, no. 2, 2007) is out. Contents include:
  • S.S. Kuaté Tameghé, Les pouvoirs du débiteur sur les biens saisis: une lecture à partir du système OHADA des voies d'exécution
  • N. Warnier, Les discriminations directes et indirectes dans le domaine de l'égalité homme-femme et de l'égalité nationaux-non-nationaux

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Corn: Enemy Combatants and Access to Habeas Corpus

Geoffrey S. Corn (South Texas College of Law) has posted Enemy Combatants and Access to Habeas Corpus: Questioning the Validity of the Prisoner of War Analogy (Santa Clara Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

One of the most commonly asserted justifications for denying habeas review to individuals detained by the armed forces during the Global War on Terror has been that such review is both illogical and inconsistent with the tradition of warfare because prisoners of war (POWs) have never been provided analogous access to judicial review. This view reflects a flawed assumption that the necessity for habeas access is equal for both POWs and other individuals detained as a result of their participation in armed conflict - individuals excluded from the benefits of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Accordingly, it is not only unjustified, but distorts the underlying questions at issue in the habeas debate.

This article challenges the validity of this analogy by explaining this internal compliance mechanism of the Prisoner of War Convention, and exposing how designation as an "enemy combatant" deprives captured personnel of any legal remedy for arbitrary decisions by the detaining power, mainly the United States.

New Issue: World Arbitration and Mediation Review

The latest issue of the World Arbitration and Mediation Review (Vol. 1, no. 3, 2007) is out. Contents include:
  • Developments in US Mediation
    • James R. Coben & Peter N. Thompson, Mediation Litigation Trends: 1999-2007
    • James R. Coben & Peter N. Thompson, Mediation Case Law Review Part II: July-January 2006
  • Recent Developments In International Arbitration
    • Stefan Kröll & Peter Kraft, Ten Years of UNCITRAL Model Law in Germany
    • Marie Öhrström, New Arbitration Rules for the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce

New Issue: International Legal Materials

The latest issue of International Legal Materials (Vol. 46, no. 3, May 2007) is out. Contents include:
  • United Nations Convention and Optional Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with introductory note by Marit Rasmussen & Oliver Lewis
  • United States/European Union "Open Skies" Agreement, with introductory note by Charles Hunnicutt
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 (Non-proliferation), introductory note by Susan A. Notar
  • Joint Letter from John Bellinger III, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, and William J. Haynes, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, to Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, President, International Committee of the Red Cross, Regarding Customary International Law Study, with introductory note by Dennis Mandsager
  • International Criminal Court: Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application and Arrest Warrants for Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb, with introductory note by David Scheffer
  • High Court of Malawi: Kafantayeni v. Attorney General, with introductory note by Saul Lehrfreund
  • International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Tanzania: Procedural Order No. 5, with introductory note by Charles H. Brower, II
  • United States: Sarei v. Rio Tinto, with introductory note by William Slomanson
  • United States: El Masri v. United States, with introductory note by Saira Mohamed

Call for Papers: The European Union in International Affairs

The Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the Institut d’Études Européennes at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, the UN University programme for Comparative Regional Integration Studies, and the Royal Institute for International Relations - EGMONT invite papers for the GARNET conference The European Union in International Affairs, to be held in Brussels, April 24-26, 2008. The deadline for abstracts is September 25. Papers should cover one of the four conference themes:

1. The EU, the UN and Global Governance: Theories, Institutions, Processes, Actors. As a global actor, the EU is embedded in an international framework, including multilateral institutions and organisations. Contributions may address such topics as the role of the EU in treaty-based regimes, in international organisations or in more informal institutions such as the G8, and the ways in which these institutions form and influence the EU as an international actor. They may also explore in more detail the processes and actors that shape the EU’s role in global governance, including the implementation of the EU’s international obligations. In general, explorations of the institutions, processes, (legal) competences, decisions and actors present in EU-global governance relations are appreciated.

2. The EU in a Globalizing World: The Security and Economic Dimensions. Exploring the distinct, yet related policy fields of security and economics promises to help improve our understanding of the conditions of the EU’s role in a globalised world in different policy areas. Security: Security considerations include the formulation of EU strategies to deal with different threats as well as developments in the field of European Security and Defence Policy. Relevant security issues include global terrorist activity, conflict-resolution, non-proliferation, security assistance and support for reform, and peace- building efforts in various parts of the world, including on the EU’s new borders. They in particular cover the nexus between security and development and between security and energy supply. Economy: The EU has a very significant role to play in global economic activity and policy. While the European Commission has the leading role in the area of international trade, EU member states remain the prime actors in important other international economic contexts (e.g. World Bank, IMF), which results in a complex political and legal mix of shared EU and Member States’ competences.

3. The Interplay between EU Member States, the EU and International Affairs. The vertical dimension in developing an EU outlook on international law and politics raises various questions. For example, what is the impact of the EU’s internal multi-level order on the EU as a foreign policy actor and the formulation of “EU” foreign policy? How can the EU’s external activities be monitored and controlled? What role do various foreign policy strategies of EU member states play (e.g. isolationist, Atlanticist, protectionist, multilateral/ internationalist)? What are the driving forces of different strategies and approaches (threat perception, preferences, etc.)? How and to what extent do the activities of individual member states shape or contravene a common EU approach in international affairs? To what extent is the EU bound by international law in its international relations?

4. The EU, Interregionalism and the Challenge to Multilateralism. The EU interacts with other world regions and major players. As such, it promotes cooperation within and between different regions as well as with other countries, including under the new EU Neighbourhood Policy. What is the prospect of inter-regional cooperation fostered by the EU both with relevant formal organisations (e.g. APEC/ASEAN, NAFTA, the AU, UNECE, OSCE, MERCOSUR) and more informal groupings? What are the EU's strategies for dealing with other regions and actors, how efficient and effective are they, and which (legal) instruments are used? To what extent do these strategies challenge broader, global cooperation? What can we learn from these interactions regarding the analyses of EU foreign policy and European integration?

Dumberry: State Succession to International Responsibility

Patrick Dumberry (Ogilvy Renault) has published State Succession to International Responsibility (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007). Here's the abstract:
The break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and the unification of Germany in the 1990s marked the dramatic return to center stage in international law of the issue of State succession. This book deals with one particularly controversial aspect of State succession that until now has not received much attention: the question of State succession to international responsibility. In State Succession to International Responsibility the international lawyer and scholar Patrick Dumberry addresses the question, critical for our times, whether or not a new State may be held responsible for wrongful acts committed before its independence by the predecessor State. He also considers the reverse situation: whether or not a new State may claim reparations for wrongful acts committed before its independence by third parties and which affected the predecessor State or one of its nationals. State Succession to International Responsibility contains the most comprehensive analysis ever published of doctrine and State practice related to these questions. It is the first attempt to examine systematically State conduct, both historical and modern, with a view to identifying the factors and circumstances under which rights and obligations of a predecessor State may be transferred to a new State.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Conference: International Law Weekend 2007

The American Branch of the International Law Association will host International Law Weekend 2007, October 25-27 in New York City. The theme is "Toward a New Vision of International Law." (The program has not yet been posted.) Why attend?

The post-9/11 era has been one of great contestation for international law. Scholars and practitioners debate basic questions about the content and nature of public international law and how the political and judicial branches of the U.S. government should interact with it. At the same time, quite removed from these controversies, international law continues to develop and expand. Trade agreements and arbitral conventions, for example, play a critical role in facilitating the ever-growing business transactions across borders, and regional human rights institutions have expanded the protection of individual rights.

This simultaneity of conflict and routine occur against a complex legal, socio-political, economic, and cultural backdrop. Literature across different disciplines has attempted to grapple with the effects of globalization and the legacy of colonialism. Traditional accounts of international governance through sovereign equality have been supplemented by divergent accounts of the role of nonstate and substate actors.

Amid these uncertainties, International Law Weekend 2007 asks what it means to move towards a new vision of international law. How should scholars and practitioners engage the multiple conceptual and normative perspectives on international law? Are these contestations within international law new? How should academics, practitioners, and policymakers interact? How are generational shifts influencing this discourse? What is the role of interdisciplinary interchange? And, perhaps most important, what would progress in international law look like?

New Issue: Human Rights Quarterly

The latest issue of the Human Rights Quarterly (Vol. 29, no. 3, August 2007) is out. Contents include:
  • Makau Mutua, Standard Setting in Human Rights: Critique and Prognosis
  • Jens Meierhenrich, Perpetual War: A Pragmatic Sketch
  • O.N.T. Thoms & James Ron, Do Human Rights Violations Cause Internal Conflict?
  • Ben Chigara, Latecomers to the ILO and the Authorship and Ownership of the International Labour Code
  • Ming Wan, Human Rights Lawmaking in China: Domestic Politics, International Law, and International Politics
  • Serena Parekh, Resisting "Dull and Torpid" Assent: Returning to the Debate over the Foundations of Human Rights
  • Jeffery Roberg & Alyson Kuttruff, Cuba: Ideological Success or Ideological Failure?
  • Marius Pieterse, Eating Socioeconomic Rights: The Usefulness of Rights Talk in Alleviating Social Hardship Revisited

Sunday, August 19, 2007

New Issue: Harvard International Law Journal

The latest issue of the Harvard International Law Journal (Vol. 48, no. 2, Summer 2007) is out. Contents include:
  • Curtis A. Bradley, Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution
  • Thomas Sebastian, World Trade Organization Remedies and the Assessment of Proportionality: Equivalence and Appropriateness
  • Anu Bradford, International Antitrust Negotiations and the False Hope of the WTO
  • Galit A. Sarfaty, International Norm Diffusion in the Pimicikamak Cree Nation: A Model of Legal Mediation
  • Sonia E. Rolland, Developing Country Coalitions at the WTO: In Search of Legal Support