The Definition of Aggression

As we take up the question of the definition of aggression today, for those interested in reading more about the issue, there is a good article on the subject at EJIL: Talk! on the definition the purposes of the Rome Statute of the ICC, which was decided upon at the international conference at Kampala two years ago. As discussed in the blog post, the new definition and associated "understandings" raise many interesting issues involving treaty interpretation.

The Kampala definition itself is as follows:For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

You may also want to look at the full text of UN General Assembly Resolutions 2626 (Declaration on Friendly Relations), and 3314 (Definition of Aggression), that we will discuss in class and are only excerpted in the text.

Russia Rejects Jurisdiction of Int'l Tribunal for Law of the Sea

The Netherlands has commenced proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for an order that Russia release the Dutch activists that Russia has detained for interfering with Russian energy exploration activity in the Arctic. Russia, however, has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the tribunal, notwithstanding that it is a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. What legitimate grounds, if any, would it have for doing so?

Derogation and Threats to the Life of the Nation

In the Loveless case which we examine this week, which was an early case considering the latitude for states to derogate from rights obligations during times of national emergency, when the life of the nation is threatened, the Court was quite deferential to the state's interests. In thinking about this, you might be interested in looking at how the House of Lords more recently considered the issue of derogation from rights due to threats to the life of the nation, in A(F.C.) v. the Home Secretary [2004].

The case (you can find the full judgment here) involved the "certification" of the applicants under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, which permitted the government to detain persons so certified for an indefinite period. The government of the U.K. argued that the law constituted a permitted derogation from its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As part of the decision, Lord Hoffman considered what "the life of the nation" meant in Art. 15 of the Convention, and wrote as follows (continued below the fold):

Latest Turn in Hijab Debate in Turkey

Following on our recent discussion of the Sahin v. Turkey case, you all might be interested by this news story from yesterday, regarding the reaction to three members of parliament wearing hijab in the parliamentary chamber.

NSA Spying and International Law

You will all have heard about the growing furor over NSA spying in foreign countries, including on the leaders of a number of countries that are friends and allies of the U.S. Now a number of outraged allies, lead by Germany and Brazil, are moving to propose a U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the issue of restraining such conduct.

What does international law say about this kind of spying? Can we separate that which is permissible, even if perhaps not wise or diplomatic, from that which is actually in violation of international law? How would you go about exploring these questions?

ILSA Quarterly - Rachel's Article on Chile

The ILSA Quarterly was published a week or so ago. Rachel is an editor for the journal, and she has a short article published in this issue, on the topic of a Chilean court's refusal to prosecute a former General for murder committed in his official capacity during the Pinochet regime. You will find Rachel's article on p.8. Congrats on the publication!

Human Rights Committee Observations

Above is an example of a Human Rights Committee observations in response to a state's periodic report, which each state submits pursuant to its obligations under the ICCPR. The Third Periodic Report of the United States of America, to which this document is a response, can be found here.Consider whether such reporting, and resulting response from the Human Rights Committee, is effective as a mechanism for mobilizing compliance with state obligations.

The Power of Compound Interest

Further to our discussion of damages and costs in litigation, and the difference between compound and simple interest, here is a link to a spreadsheet that illustrates the power of compound interest. It includes the formulas you can use to calculate straight-forward compound interest.

Important to note is that an investment of $15,000 in an account earning compound interest, calculated and paid monthly, at a rate of 6% per annum, will earn $31,653.07 more in interest, than an account earning simple interest at the same rate over the same period.

Compound interest is even more powerful when the principal is increasing with each period. So, if you took $2 each week (the amount you might be tempted to spend on lottery tickets), and invested it in an account earning 6% per annum compounded monthly (admittedly impossible to find in the current environment), at the end of 40 years your account (in which you would have only invested $4,160 over the 40 years) would be worth $15,953, or close to four times your investment. Make that $20 instead of $2, and the amounts become more interesting.

You can find a straight compound interest calculator here, and one which includes the addition of monthly contributions to principal  here.

Recent Nationality Case

Returning to our consideration of the principles of international law relating to nationality, and the presumption against laws that would lead to statelessness, Amnesty International is calling on the government of the Dominican Republic to reject a constitutional court ruling that would potentially strip citizens of foreign descent of their nationality and leave them stateless.

Human Rights Groups Hammer Targeted Killing Program

Human Rights Watch published a report on Monday criticizing the U.S. drone-based targeted killing program in Yemen for causing excessive civilian deaths in violation of international humanitarian law. On the same day Amnesty International published a similar report critical of the targeted killing program in Pakistan.

UN Being Sued by Human Rights Groups

In the context with our discussion about the independent legal personality of international organizations, and the extent to which they are subjects of international law, it was announced this week that a number of human rights groups have commenced legal proceedings in the courts of New York against the United Nations, for the role of U.N. Peacekeepers in causing the spread of Cholera in Haiti. How can such a law suite be brought against the U.N. in domestic courts? If the court takes jurisdiction, what would be the choice of law?

ECHR Decision on Al-Skeini

Hazim Al-Skeini

As we discussed in class on Wednesday, the European Court of Human Rights in July of 2011 handed down a judgment with respect to the same case that we examined today, the House of Lords decision in Al-Skeini v. Secretary of State for Defence, holding that the Iraqi nationals could make claims under the Convention, and finding that the UK had, among other things, violated the claimants' Art. 2 right to life. There is a summary and commentary on the judgment on the Lawfare blog here, and the decision itself is here.

If you have time to scan the decision, consider whether you still think that the House of Lords got it right (or wrong), and which decision you think better accords with international law principles on jurisdiction, and the rationale underlying those principles.

Legal Issues Raised by Raids in Libya and Somalia

As discussed in last class, there are a number of issues raised by the U.S. Special Forces raids in Libya and Somalia last week. The discussion can be followed at Opinio Juris here, here, and here, and on Just Security here. What do you think? When we get to use of force, we may want to circle back to consider these issues afresh.

GreenPeace Pirates Case Heats Up

As mentioned in class, Russia is moving forward with the prosecution of Greenpeace activists for piracy. But it was announced today that the Netherlands is bringing a claim against Russia in the international tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, for violating international law in seizing the Greenpeace ship, which was sailing under a Dutch flag.

U.N. Panel on Climate Change Reports

We will spend a couple of classes looking at the international law on the environment towards the end of the course. But it is useful to note now that last week the Working Group 1 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its most recent report on climate change. An account of it can be found in The New York Times, and an executive summary of the report for policy makers can be found here. The Report, which is considered by the scientific community to be be quite conservative in approach, concluded that there is a 95% confidence that the earth is warming and it is due to human activity. Moreover, it identified an upper limit for carbon dioxide emissions, beyond which the planet will face irreversible climate change. At current emissions we are likely to exceed the limit by 2040. This will likely provide some impetus for treaty negotiations, which have been bogged down over the last decade.

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Hits Milestone

Over 100 countries have now signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, with the signature last week of the United States. The U.N. Security Council also passed a resolution on the issue of small arms and the arms trade last week. A post at Opinio Juris analyzes the "objects and purposes" of the treaty.

The NRA and others in the U.S. opposed the ATT and U.S. becoming a party to the treaty on grounds that it would interfere with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Review the language of the treaty and assess whether, in your view, it creates any obligations on states that could interfere with the 2nd Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.

UN Security Council Agrees on Syria

As you will know from the news, the U.N. Security Council has reached agreement on a resolution governing the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. A New York Times article on the process is a good overview, while there are some more detailed examinations of the resolution language in posts at Opinio Juris here and here.

An International Law Dilemma at the U.N.

President Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan is scheduled to visit New York next month during the U.N. General Assembly. He is wanted under an indictment issued by the International Criminal Court, for genocide and crimes against humanity. Can the U.S. arrest him and hand him over to the Court? Or does he enjoy immunity under treaty with the U.N.? It is a vexing problem, about which you can read in The New York Times, and in several posts at Opinio Juris.

Current Dispute Over the Continental Shelf

While we have been looking at continental shelf cases for the purposes of understanding the law of treaties, customary international law, and the relationship between them, you may be interested to read about a current dispute between Nicaragua and Columbia over boundary issues and the continental shelf. Here is a longish post in the International Law Profs Blog on the issues. There is even a video to help explain the issues.

Putin on Syria and International Law

You will likely have heard about President Putin's op-ed in The New York Times. The reaction within the U.S. was fairly universal in its condemnation, largely due to the perceived hypocrisy in Putin's remarks. But take a read, and give some thought to what he has to say about international law, and keep it in mind when we get to "use of force". Is he wrong? If so, how exactly?

Syria and the Customary Int'l Law Prohibition on Chemical Weapons

Hopefully you are all following developments relating to Syria, and some of the international law arguments surrounding the issues. But here is a blog post that raises interesting questions about the U.S. government's view of customary international law. Recall that we talked in class about whether the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons was custom, and if so why - and next class we will look at the North Sea Continental Shelf case, which discusses the relationship between treaty and custom. Here Kevin Heller discusses the implications of President Obama's discussion of the customary int'l law prohibition.

More on Syria

As you will have likely seen, the question of whether U.S. strikes on Syria would be lawful under international law has been the issue of the day for the last week. It will be some time before we get to the issue of use of force, but you should monitor the Syria situation, and read some of the arguments, as it will certainly make the issues real when we get to the subject in the course. In addition to monitoring The New York Times for news coverage, you might keep an eye on Opinio Juris (usually a more pro-international law site) and Lawfare (which often has a more conservative, skeptical, and American-centric perspective).

I published my own views on the legality of the proposed strikes in the Huffington Post recently, which provides an overview of one side of the argument.

Use of Force in Syria

We will not be examining the international law relating to the use of force until the second half of the course. Nonetheless, you should be monitoring the events in Syria, and beginning to think about the issues. NATO members are readying for some kind of military intervention in Syria. The U.K. is seeking U.N. Security Council authority, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Would a use of force in the absence of such authority be legal? The Arab League has not endorsed a use of force, which complicates the U.S. diplomatic position, but how important would such endorsement be from a legal perspective? And what is the significance of the use of chemical weapons? In other words, is it legally different from the other indiscriminate killing of civilians that has been carried out for over two years in Syria (and other countries for that matter), such that it provides some additional justification for intervention?