Scharf & Dowd: No Way Out? The Question of Unilateral Withdrawals of Referrals to the ICC and Other Human Rights Courts

Michael Scharf (Case Western Reserve Univ. - Law) & Patrick Dowd (Case Western Reserve Univ. - Law) have posted No Way Out? The Question of Unilateral Withdrawals of Referrals to the ICC and Other Human Rights Courts. Here's the abstract:

Growing out of the authors' work for the International Criminal Court, which was sponsored by a grant from the Open Society Institute, "No Way Out" examines one of the most vexing legal questions facing the International Criminal Court -- whether a State that has referred a case to the Court can subsequently withdraw its referral as part of a domestic peace agreement? The issue has arisen with respect to Uganda's interest in withdrawing its self-referral as part of a peace deal with the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army. This article examines the Rome Statute, the drafting history, and the expert commentaries, together with the statutory and case law of the other major human rights courts and bodies, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in an effort to provide a comprehensive analysis of whether a State Party can lawfully withdraw a referral from the ICC. The authors concludes that the only situation in which a unilateral withdrawal of a referral should be deemed legitimate is when it occurs during the narrow temporal window between when a referral is made to the Court and when the Court actually exercises its jurisdiction over that case by launching an investigation and providing notice to all interested parties. The research and analysis contained in the article is also relevant to the more general question of whether States can withdraw their referrals to human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Benvenisti: The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation

Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) has posted The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation (Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This brief note discusses the legal ramifications of the unilateral termination of occupation. The note seeks to characterize the moment of termination and examines the obligations of the occupant during (and possibly after) the termination process.

New Issue: Journal of International Arbitration

The latest issue of the Journal of International Arbitration (Vol. 25, no. 4, August 2008) is out. Contents include:

• Robert B. Kovacs, Challenges to International Arbitral Awards: The French Approach
• Alok Jain, Pathological Arbitration Clauses and Indian Courts
• Ilias Bantekas, The Private Dimension of the International Customary Nature of Commercial Arbitration
• Dragor Hiber & Vladimir Pavić, Arbitration and Crime
• Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler & Fan Kun, Integrating Mediation into Arbitration: Why It Works in China
• José Rosell, The CMS Case: A Lesson for the Future?
• Yulia Andreeva, The Tribunal in Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia Adopts a Restrictive Interpretation of the Term “Investment”
• Sarosh Zaiwalla, Commentary on the Indian Supreme Court Judgment in Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computers Services Ltd.
• Barbara Steindl, Watch Out and Act!: Recent Case Law on Due Process in Light of Austrian Law and the 1958 New York Convention

New Issue: World Arbitration and Mediation Review

The latest issue of the World Arbitration and Mediation Review (Vol. 2, nos. 1 & 2, 2008) is out. Contents include:

• Issues of State Responsibility and Jurisdiction
• Kaj Hobér, Arbitration Involving States
• John Savage, Investment Treaty Arbitration: An Asian Perspective
• Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Arbitration Investment Disputes: Issues of Jurisdiction
• Expropriation
• Christopher H. Schreuer, The Concept of Expropriation Under the ECT and Other Investment Protection Treaties
• Katia Yannaca-Small, Indirect Expropriation and the Right of the Governments to Regulate Criteria to Articulate the Difference
• Audley Sheppard, The Distinction Between Lawful And Unlawful Expropriation
• The Umbrella Clause
• Craig S. Miles, Where’s My Umbrella? An "Ordinary Meaning" Approach to Answering Three Key Questions That Have Emerged from the "Umbrella Clause" Debate
• Laura Halonen, Containing the Scope of the Umbrella Clause

Cooper, Hawkins, Jacoby, & Nielson: Yielding Sovereignty to International Institutions: Bringing System Structure Back In

Scott Cooper, Darren Hawkins, Wade Jacoby, & Daniel Nielson (all of Brigham Young Univ. - Political Science) have published Yielding Sovereignty to International Institutions: Bringing System Structure Back In (International Studies Review, Vol. 10, no. 3, p. 501, September 2008). Here's the abstract:

In this paper, we identify authority as an important dimension of variance among international institutions. Essentially, the greater the authority of international institutions, the more sovereignty states have yielded to them. Highly authoritative institutions can make decisions that legally bind domestic governments on specified issues even without those governments’ consent. Over the past 20 years, scholars have viewed the evolution of international institutions largely through the lens of state motives. We argue that it is time to think more systematically about the role of the structure of the international system. Two factors that impact international structure—previously existing institutions and the presence of systemic shocks—can complement theories of actor motives to better account for the level of sovereignty yielded to authoritative international institutions. We illustrate the potential importance of including structural variables by applying the argument to sets of cases in currency cooperation and human rights. We find that structural factors increase the probability of states yielding sovereignty to international institutions, though structural factors are only a permissive cause of institution formation.

UNCITRAL Report on Its 40th Session

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has released its report on its 40th session (A/62/17), which was held in July and December 2007.

Trachtman: Constitutional Economics of the WTO

Joel P. Trachtman (Tufts Univ. - Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) has posted Constitutional Economics of the WTO. Here's the abstract:

This chapter examines the World Trade Organization (WTO) from the social scientific perspective of constitutional economics. This chapter thus seeks to identify the causes and consequences of constitutionalization. Assuming that states act with intentionality and accuracy in their establishment of organizational features, the cause of constitutionalization is the desire to effect the consequences of constitutionalization, so the focus here is on the potential consequences of constitutionalization in and in connection with the WTO.

New Issue: Journal of International Economic Law

The latest issue of the Journal of International Economic Law (Vol. 11, no. 3, September 2008) is out. Contents include:

• Monika C. E. Heymann, International Law and the Settlement of Investment Disputes Relating to China
• Chios Carmody, A Theory of WTO Law
• Joost Pauwelyn, New Trade Politics for the 21st Century
• Steven Bernstein & Erin Hannah, Non-State Global Standard Setting and the WTO: Legitimacy and the Need for Regulatory Space
• Bart De Meester, Testing European Prudential Conditions for Banking Mergers in the Light of Most Favoured Nation in the GATS
• Richard Diamond, Privatization and The Definition of Subsidy: A Critical Study of Appellate Body Texturalism
• Michael McKenzie, Climate Change and the Generalized System of Preferences

Broude: Principles of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authority

Tomer Broude (Hebrew Univ. - Law) has posted Principles of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authority: The WTO, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Rio Declaration (Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

There is a fundamental yet understudied link between the integration of substantive norms in international law and the consolidation of international authority. As well-reflected in WTO case-law (e.g., EC-Swordfish, EC-Biotech, Mexico-Soft Drinks and US-Shrimp) but also in international law more generally, norm integration and authority integration maintain a basic correlation that also has elements of causation. The integration of norms between branches of international law leads to pressures towards the integration of authority. As a result, the general reluctance to adopt and adhere to comprehensive norm-integrating principles in international law may stem from institutional fears relating to the potential impact of such principles upon the structure of the authority of international decision-making bodies. The quest for international legal consistency through normative integration, however commendable it may be in itself, is at least subliminally identified with the prospect of a centralization of international authority, which is a considerably less popular proposition. However, not all principles of normative integration were created equal in this respect. By comparing the integrative effects of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and Paragraph 4 Rio (mainly in the context of the WTO, but with universal implications), the article shows that softer, less binding models of normative integration may permit decision makers to integrate norms with less pronounced (and less threatening) influences on the allocation of authority. This understanding presents proponents of normative integration with a strategy worth considering, that of the path of least resistance. Normative integration that creates less pressures towards authority integration has better chances of being adopted by tribunals, and hence, has better prospects of attaining its normative goals.

A Note on Georgia, NATO Accession, and the North Atlantic Treaty

Over at Balkinization, Sandy Levinson laments the comments of Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who is quoted as as saying that "[Georgian accession to NATO] is what is going to happen now. Georgia is going to accelerate its march toward NATO and, I hope, to an action plan in December." Levinson writes: "it is yet another sign of our defective Constitution that Mr. Bryza is suggesting that a lame-duck President . . . would view himself as having the legitimate authority to bind the United States to the defense of Georgia's territorial integrity (at least if one takes Article V of NATO seriously)." Levinson speculates that "any decision to expand NATO would in fact require consent by 2/3 of the Senate," but, he continues, "we never should have to reach that point in the first place."

But is Bryza suggesting that the President has the legitimate authority to bind the United States to Georgia's defense? On its face, Bryza is not suggesting that the President has unilateral authority to allow Georgia to accede to NATO, nor is he positing that the President can unilaterally bind the United States to any agreement on Georgian accession to NATO. The meaning of Bryza's statement becomes clear with an understanding of the contemporary mechanisms of NATO accession. Accession is a complicated and quite political process, which (not surprisingly) takes years to accomplish. It involves several steps, including the creation of a Membership Action Plan (MAP), "a NATO programme of advice, assistance and practical support tailored to the individual needs of countries wishing to join the Alliance." At its April 2008 summit in Bucharest (declaration here), NATO Heads of State and Government "agreed . . . that [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO. . . . [and that the creation of a] MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. . . . We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting." Bryza, it would appear, was quite explicitly referencing (and, of course, endorsing) the North Atlantic Council decision of earlier this year; he was not creating new policy. At most, Bryza was encouraging Georgia, despite recent events, to continue with its desire to join NATO in accordance with the process previously set out by the Alliance.

The limitedness of Bryza's statement is made even clearer with an understanding of the international and domestic processes for formal accession to NATO. Once a State has accepted the negotiated conditions of membership, the current NATO parties must formally invite that State to accede to the treaty. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires "unanimous agreement" of the parties before any new State may so accede. Though the method of providing that agreement is not specified, the practice, since Greece and Turkey joined the original NATO States in 1952, has been for the NATO parties to agree to a protocol that must then be approved by each in accordance with their national laws. (Ratified protocols can be found here.) For the United States, the practice has been that accession protocols are considered treaties and, thus, require the Senate's advice and consent. (The Senate currently has pending before it Protocols on the accession of Albania and Croatia.) Indeed, the Senate has quite explicitly expressed its view that this procedure is required. (See, for example, Exec. Rpt. 108-6, page 8.) These formal processes - international and domestic - make clear that Georgian accession to NATO is hardly the unilateral decision of the U.S. president.

Now, the current administration's push for NATO accession by Georgia (and Ukraine) may be bad policy, and the lame-duck presidency may be dysfunctional. Indeed, there may be many examples to support both claims, and I take no position here, but it is far from obvious that Bryza's statement, properly understood, goes to either, at least in the way Levinson suggests.

New Issue: European Journal of International Relations

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Relations (Vol. 14, no. 3, September 2008) is out. Contents include:

• Elke Krahmann, Security: Collective Good or Commodity?
• Chris Boyle, The Mystery of Modern Wealth: Mercantilism, Value, and the Social Foundations of Liberal International Order
• Tomas Baum, A Quest for Inspiration in the Liberal Peace Paradigm: Back to Bentham?
• Beate Sissenich, Cross-National Policy Networks and the State: EU Social Policy Transfer to Poland and Hungary
• Kai He, Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia
• Christopher S. Browning & Pertti Joenniemi, Geostrategies of the European Neighbourhood Policy
  

Conference: Difficulties in Implementing the Provisions of UNCLOS

The International Hydrographic Organization/International Association of Geodesy Advisory Board on the Law of the Sea will host its fifth conference, October 16-17, 2008, in Monaco. The topic is "Difficulties in Implementing the Provisions of UNCLOS." The program is here; paper abstracts are here.

Bass: Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention

Gary J. Bass (Princeton Univ. - Politics and International Affairs) has published Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (Knopf 2008). Here's the abstract:

Why do we sometimes let evil happen to others and sometimes rally to stop it? Whose lives matter to us? These are the key questions posed in this important and perceptive study of the largely forgotten nineteenth-century “atrocitarians”—some of the world’s first human rights activists. Wildly romantic, eccentrically educated, and full of bizarre enthusiasms, they were also morally serious people on the vanguard of a new political consciousness. And their legacy has much to teach us about the human rights crises of today.

Gary Bass shatters the myth that the history of humanitarian intervention began with Bill Clinton, or even Woodrow Wilson, and shows, instead, that there is a tangled international tradition, reaching back more than two hundred years, of confronting the suffering of innocent foreigners. Bass describes the political and cultural landscapes out of which these activists arose, as an emergent free press exposed Europeans and Americans to atrocities taking place beyond their shores and galvanized them to act. He brings alive a century of passionate advocacy in Britain, France, Russia, and the United States: the fight the British waged against the oppression of the Greeks in the 1820s, the huge uproar against a notorious massacre in Bulgaria in the 1870s, and the American campaign to stop the Armenian genocide in 1915. He tells the gripping stories of the activists themselves: Byron, Bentham, Madison, Gladstone, Dostoevsky, and Theodore Roosevelt among them.

Military missions in the name of human rights have always been dangerous undertakings. There has invariably been the risk of radical destabilization and the threatening blurring of imperial and humanitarian intentions. Yet Bass demonstrates that even in the imperialistic heyday of the nineteenth century, humanitarian ideals could play a significant role in shaping world politics. He argues that the failure of today’s leading democracies to shoulder such responsibilities has led to catastrophes such as those in Rwanda and Darfur—catastrophes that he maintains are neither inevitable nor traditional.

Timely and illuminating, Freedom’s Battle challenges our assumptions about the history of morally motivated foreign policy and sets out a path for reclaiming that inheritance with greater modesty and wisdom.

Haan: Joint Criminal Enterprise: Die Entwicklung einer mittäterschaftlichen Zurechnungsfigur im Völkerstrafrecht

Verena Haan has published Joint Criminal Enterprise: Die Entwicklung einer mittäterschaftlichen Zurechnungsfigur im Völkerstrafrecht (Duncker & Humblot 2008). Here's the abstract:

Verena Haan nimmt eine beschreibende und rechtsdogmatische Analyse der Beteiligungsform joint criminal enterprise (JCE) vor. Die Rechtsprechung des Jugoslawientribunals hat JCE eingeführt, um die kollektive Begehungsweise der verübten Verbrechen und die Verantwortlichkeit von Schreibtischtätern zu erfassen. Dabei hat das Tribunal aus wenig gefestigten Zurechnungsbegriffen eine völkerstrafrechtlich weitgehend anerkannte Rechtsfigur entwickelt. Ihre Auslegung ist jedoch bis heute umstritten, nicht zuletzt weil der Begriff auf unterschiedliche Haftungsbegriffe und Fallkonstellationen zurückgreift. Rechtsdogmatisch ist JCE in der am Jugoslawientribunal vorherrschenden Auslegung unter völkerstrafrechtlichen Gesichtpunkten problematisch. Daher wird eine modifizierte Auslegung des Begriffs vorgeschlagen, die sowohl die Einhaltung individualstrafrechtlicher Grundsätze garantieren als auch die Erfassung der Besonderheiten von Makrokriminalität ermöglichen soll.

Howard-Hassmann: Reparations to Africa

Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann (Wilfrid Laurier Univ. - Global Studies and Political Science) has published Reparations to Africa (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 2008). This is another volume in the series Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights. Here's the abstract:

What is the just measure of Western obligations to Africa? As Africans and their supporters mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the United States and Great Britain, the question becomes increasingly salient. Calls for reparations for the evils of slavery, as well as for past colonial and current economic and political abuses, can be heard across Africa and the African diaspora.

Human rights scholar Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann examines these calls for redress in Reparations to Africa. Her study analyzes the reparations movement from the perspectives of law, philosophy, political science, and sociology. While acknowledging the brutal background of the slave trade and colonialism, and the mistreatment of the peoples of Africa, Howard-Hassmann finds that the complexity of this history, along with facts of the contemporary situation, weakens the case for financial compensation, although she does recommend acknowledgment of, and apologies for, some actions. The book not only provides a bold reckoning of the root causes, both internal and external, of African underdevelopment and unrest but also suggests alternative means for restorative justice and examines the role that institutions such as the International Criminal Court can play.

By including the voices of 74 African academics, diplomats, and activists interviewed by Howard-Hassmann and Anthony P. Lombardo, Reparations to Africa makes a valuable contribution to the reparations debate. In an emotionally and politically charged postcolonial environment, this book serves as a judicious guide to the search for economic justice for Africans today and into the future.

Dugan, Wallace, Rubins, & Sabahi: Investor-State Arbitration

Christopher Dugan (Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP), Don Wallace, Jr. (Georgetown Univ. - Law), Noah Rubins (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer), & Borzu Sabahi (Georgetown Univ. - Law) have published Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford Univ. Press 2008). Here's the abstract:

The increasing importance of international investment has been accompanied by the rapid development of a new field of international law that defines the obligations of host states towards foreign investors and creates procedures for resolving disputes in connection with those obligations. Investor-State Arbitration examines the international treaties that give investors a right to arbitration of claims, the most-commonly employed arbitration rules, and the most important elements of investor-state arbitration procedure - including tribunal composition, jurisdiction, evidence, award, and challenge of annulment. Expert coverage includes procedural barriers to recovery, analysis of the substantive law of investment protection, and analysis of recent investor-state arbitral jurisprudence.Investor-State Arbitration traces the evolution and rapid development of this important field of international arbitration, resulting from the formation of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the more than 2,000 bilateral investment treaties, most of which have originated in the last twenty years. This development has led to far greater certainty for foreign investors in dealing with their host countries and has incentivized growth in international trade and commerce. Through arbitration, investors who have been negatively affected by the acts of a host country, such as, for example, the expropriation of property, now have a fair means of redress.

Investor-State Arbitration analyzes the rights of private parties under these treaties to arbitrate disputes with countries, the arbitration rules most commonly employed in investor-state disputes, the important elements of substantive law and procedure, the enforcement of awards (including annulment proceedings under ICSID), current developments, including conflict and convergence of interests in capital-importing and capital-exporting countries, restrictions on state sovereignty, analysis of recent investor-state arbitral jurisprudence, and, finally, the emergence of an international investment jurisprudence.

Ronen: Avoid or Compensate? Liability for Incidental Injury to Civilians Inflicted During Armed Conflict

Yaël Ronen (Ono Academic College - Law) has posted Avoid or Compensate? Liability for Incidental Injury to Civilians Inflicted During Armed Conflict. Here's the abstract:

Under international law, civilians suffering injuries that are incidental, that is unintentional and proportionate, to a lawful attack on a military objective, are left to bear the cost of their losses. In recent years there have been calls for a change in policy, which would entitle victims of military attacks to compensation, even if their losses sustained are incidental and non-fault based. Such a quasi-strict liability rule, while morally laudable, is likely to disrupt the existing balance of powers and interests under the laws of armed conflict and therefore requires close examination. This article begins with an exploration of the conceptual basis for such an obligation, which informs the scope of arguments in support of and opposition to the proposal. It then examines the effect of a strict liability rule on the conduct of parties to a conflict, taking into account that for individual victims, avoidance is always preferable to compensation. This examination is based on an economic analysis. A final question is how to ensure that the liability of the injuring party translates into an effective mechanism for securing compensation. The article concludes that if the moral commitment to victims justifies a strict liability rule, considerations of utility require and can be met with a fine-tuning of the obligation and its implementing mechanisms.

Stigen: The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions

Jo Stigen (Univ. of Oslo - Law) has published The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions: The Principle of Complementarity (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2008). Here's the abstract:

The principle of complementarity provides a framework as to when the Prosecutor of the ICC may and should interfere vis-à-vis national judicial systems. The principle acknowledges the primary right of states to prosecute while also recognising the need for international interference when states fail in this task. As formulated in the Rome Statute, however, it leaves complex questions unresolved. To mention a few: When is a national criminal proceeding really an attempt to shield the perpetrator? When can a national judicial system be characterised as unavailable? And when will an ICC prosecution serve the interests of justice? This book seeks to answer these and other related questions by interpreting the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute and discussing them in a broad context. The book also critically assesses policy considerations underlying the establishment of the ICC, including the implications of international criminal justice for achieving peace. It asks, inter alia, whether the ICC should set aside an amnesty which a national truth commission has granted in an attempt to achieve a peaceful transition from tyranny to democracy.

Osofsky: Is Climate Change 'International'? Litigation's Diagonal Regulatory Role

Hari M. Osofsky (Washington and Lee Univ. - Law) has posted Is Climate Change 'International'? Litigation's Diagonal Regulatory Role. Here's the abstract:

This Article argues that the scale of climate regulation must fit the scale of the problem. More specifically, the Article claims that because greenhouse gas emissions and impacts are multiscalar - individual, local, state, national, regional, and international - focusing predominantly on any one level of governance limits solutions. Although existing analyses and regulatory efforts often recognize the multiscalar nature of this problem, translating that recognition into meaningful policy solutions is extremely difficult, as exemplified in treaty negotiations, piecemeal policy initiatives, and pending litigation.

This challenge is made harder by efforts that treat climate change as a predominantly "international" legal problem in order to block smaller scale regulation. Variations on these "too big" arguments are proffered repeatedly in climate change litigation currently taking place in U.S. state and federal courts. Regulatory opponents argue that the spatial and temporal scope of climate change and its resulting scientific uncertainties make particular local, state, or national regulatory steps inappropriate. The Article explores two examples of these scalar contests - California's suit against San Bernardino County for its failure to regulate and the U.S. EPA's denial of California's Clean Air Act waiver request--and their implications for regulatory scale.

The Article then considers the lessons from these disputes for what more effective multiscalar governance of climate change might look like. It examines the dangers of "scaling up" climate regulation and the "diagonal" regulatory role that these lawsuits play. Bringing together the scholarly literature on transnational legal process and geographic network theory, it situates the two case examples within multiscalar networks that form the basis for informal and formal efforts to enhance or undermine regulatory efforts. The Article argues more broadly that the nature of the problem and of the public and private entities engaging it provides the basis for diagonal regulatory strategies that simultaneously incorporate vertical and horizontal networks. This litigation serves as one such mechanism, and more analysis of other appropriate contexts for diagonal approaches is needed.

New Issue: Internationales Handelsrecht

The latest issue of Internationales Handelsrecht (2008, no. 4) is out. Contents include:

• Peter Mankowski, Die Rom I-Verordnung – Änderungen im europäischen IPR für Schuldverträge
• Ben Steinbrück, Die Vollstreckbarkeit ausländischer Schiedssprüchenach ihrer Aufhebung im Ursprungsstaat - Anmerkung zum Beschluss des OLG Dresden v. 31.1.2007 - 11 Sch 18/05
• Johannes Trappe, Überseekaufvertrag und "maritime terms" - rechtsvergleichende Bemerkungen

Kolb: Droit international pénal

Robert Kolb (Université de Neuchâtel - Law) had published Droit international pénal (Helbing 2008). Here's the abstract:

Une introduction au droit international pénal, matière en pleine évolution, à la fois accessible et raisonnablement exhaustive, complétée par une série d’articles proposant un approfondissement de certaines questions particulièrement intéressantes.

Le précis présente le droit international pénal au travers des thèmes suivants: historique, sources, infractions (agression, génocide, crime contre l’humanité, crimes de guerre), multitude d’infractions, formes de responsabilité pénale (p.ex. la complicité, la responsabilité du supérieur, etc.), circonstances excluant la responsabilité, obstacles à la poursuite, principes de procédure; compétence pénale nationale (exemple de la Suisse); tribunaux ad hoc; la CPI et son fonctionnement. Sont étudiés dans des chapitres séparés des sujets tels que la fixation de la peine ou le statut des victimes.

ICC: Situation in Georgia Under Analysis

Today, the International Criminal Court's Prosecutor confirmed that the situation in Georgia is "under analysis." Here's the ICC press release, in pertinent part:

In the wake of recent events in Georgia and in light of information related to the alleged commission of crimes under ICC jurisdiction, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo today confirmed that the situation in Georgia is under analysis by his Office.

"Georgia is a State Party to the Rome Statute" he said. "My Office considers carefully all information relating to alleged crimes within its jurisdiction – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide - committed on the territory of States Parties or by nationals of States Parties, regardless of the individuals or groups alleged to have committed the crimes. The Office is inter alia analyzing information alleging attacks on the civilians."

The Office of the Prosecutor has been closely monitoring all information on the situation in Georgia since the outbreak of violence in South Ossetia in early August, including information from public sources.

An official from the Georgian government met with the Division of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Co-operation of the Office to offer information and co-operation. The Russian Federation has formally delivered information to the Office of the Prosecutor and is continuing to do so.

The Office will proceed to seek further information from all actors concerned.

United Nations Juridical Yearbook

The UN Office of Legal Affairs's Codification Division has unveiled a fantastic new website that provides full-text searching of the United Nations Juridical Yearbook. Already available electronically are other OLA publications, including the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, the Yearbooks of the International Law Commission, the Reports of International Arbitral Awards, and the Summaries of ICJ Judgments & Advisory Opinions.

Harvard Summer Faculty Workshop Papers

At Harvard Law School's Summer Faculty Workshop, the following international law papers were presented. Links are provided when the papers are publicly available; paper givers are all Harvard faculty members, unless otherwise noted.

• Gabriella Blum, The Laws of War and the "Lesser Evil"
• Janet Halley, Rape at Rome: Feminist Interventions in the Criminalization of Sex-Related Violence in Positive International Criminal Law
• Gerald Neuman, The Extraterritorial Constitution after Boumediene v. Bush
• Jeremy Waldron (New York Univ. - Law), Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves

Lee & Quigley: Consular Law and Practice (Third Edition)

Luke T. Lee & John Quigley (Ohio State Univ. - Law) have published the third edition of Consular Law and Practice (Oxford Univ. Press 2008). Here's the abstract:

When persons are out of their home country, consuls are their link with home and a source of assistance. The roles of consuls are many and varied. Consuls promote commerce between the home country and the host country and assist businesspeople in making contacts and in completing commercial transactions. Consuls also handle problems that arise for seafarers and merchant shipping vessels of the home country when they are in port in the host country. When a home country citizen dies while in the host country, consuls may facilitate burial or shipment of the remains home, or deal with the person's estate. Consuls assist individuals arrested on a criminal charge in the host state by visiting them in jail, advising them about the legal system of the host state, and helping to find them a lawyer. If the person is convicted, consuls visit them in prison and may help to secure a transfer to a prison in the home country.

This fully updated third edition explains consular privileges and immunities and how consular functions are handled in time of peace and war, when the receiving state experiences civil war, or when the sending and receiving states break off diplomatic or consular relations. It provides valuable background by describing how consular law developed historically and how it became solidified in 1963 in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It explores the many bilateral consular treaties which supplement the Vienna Convention, examines the traditional and changing role of consuls, explains diplomatic privileges and immunities, and discusses the function of consuls as ambassadors in cultural and scientific exchange.