Rhetoric of Iran and Israel

As the UN convened earlier this week, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ignored UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's request to keep words civil.  The jabs ranged from asserting that Israel has "no roots" in the Middle East to threatening Israel's elimination.  Israel's PM Netanyahu has mentioned capability of a strike against Iran's nuclear sites.  However, despite all the incendiary rhetoric, there may still be hope for diplomacy.  Ahmadinejad spoke earlier today in the UN General Assembly on Iran's "global vision and welcomes any effort intended to provide and promote peace, stability and tranquility" in the world.

Is this consistent language?

It will be interesting to see whether things cool off or heat up in the near future. Considering our class discussions, what do you think the future holds for these nations? What role does the US play? What role should the US play?

                         - India. 

UPDATE - (Prof. Martin) - Aside from the rhetoric, and what the statements suggest the likely course of action may be (which is interesting and of some significance), consider the legal issues implicated by this situation. Israel has been applying increasing pressure on the U.S. to commit to a use of military force in the event that certain 'red-lines' are crossed by Iran in the development of its uranium enrichment program. Would such a use of force be lawful? Is the threat of such a use of force lawful? if not, why not? What is Iran's recourse in the event that such a use of force would not be lawful? Consider these issues when we come to examine the law on the use of force. 

United Nations Secretary General's Speech

As discussed in class, the United Nations General Assembly got under way this week, and the Secretary General gave a speech outlining the challenges facing the international community - you may want to have a read of this summary when you have a moment.

Background to the Reparations Case

As we take up the Reparations case, you may find interesting this rather riveting account of the assassination of Count Bernadotte, published in The Telegraph upon the death of the lead assassin, Yehoshua Zettler, in 2009:

Unilateral Withdrawal from the West Bank?

Following on our discussions of whether Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, and whether the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, the BBC announced today that the Israeli Minister of Defence has floated the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from much of the West Bank.

Treaty Week - What Treaties Should the U.S. Sign or Ratify?

As the International Law Prof Blog explains, there is a 'treaty event' this week at the United Nations, which is kicking into high gear with the foreign ministers and heads of state trekking to New York to address the General Assembly. The Secretary General is calling upon states to this week consider acceding to or ratifying treaties to which they are not yet party.

In that context, what treaties do you think that the U.S. should either accede to, or ratify if it is already a signatory, but not yet a party? Please post comments below on which treaties, explaining whether the U.S. is a signatory or not, and why (briefly) you think the U.S. should accede or ratify.

Military Commissions and Tribunals Established by Law

Given our examination this week of the Tadic decision's consideration of the question of whether general principles of international law require that a tribunal be "established by law", it is apt that we give some thought to whether the military commissions trying detainees in Guantanamo Bay are sufficiently "established by law" to satisfy the requirements of the principle (links to further critiques of the commissions on Opinio Juris can be found here, here and here). We will discuss these military commissions in more detail later in the course, but we should remember then, the general principle discussed in Tadic.

The Response to Events in Libya

You will all have no doubt been following to some extent the unfolding news regarding the attack on the embassy in Libya, and the killing of four American officials there including the Ambassador. President Obama has promised a robust response and vowed that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. The question is, what can the U.S. do that is within the bounds of international law? As one comment on this blog post queries, would a military response within Libya be justified as self-defense?

War Crimes Trials for Bush and Blair?

Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, made headlines (and here) last week by writing that former President George W. Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution for the crime of aggression, for their role in initiating the war against Iraq in 2003. This has renewed the many debates about the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

In the context of our current study of the law of treaties, however, the important questions we would want to address here are: 1) was the invasion of Iraq an unjustifiable violation of the U.N. Charter prohibition on the use of force, for which we would have to analyze the relevant U.N. Charter provisions; 2) If so, does that give rise to individual criminal liability under some treaty; and 3) Does the treaty which established the International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute, create jurisdiction over such an offence such that the ICC could prosecute Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair?

We will look at some of these questions later in the course when we look at the use of force, and international criminal law.