Last week some a couple of interesting developments in the so-called "global war on terror". The first was the announcement on the Lawfare blog that the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counter-terrorism had suggested that certain drone strikes in Pakistan may have constituted war crimes, and that he was commencing an special investigation within the procedures of the Human Rights Council.
A second development of interest, the U.K. Supreme Court handed down a decision last week in the case Secretary of State for Foreign and Commenwealth Affairs v. Rahmatullah, finding that the U.S. had violated international law in transporting a detainee from Iraq to Bagram in Afghanistan for indefinite detention. The Court explicitly held that the interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by Jack Goldsmith, then the Director of the Office of Legal Council, in his OLC memo providing the rational for the transportation, was implausible and incorrect. The Opinio Juris post on the judgment provides and excerpt of the judgment on the interpretation issue - consider it in light of what you have learned about treaty interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment