Aggression and the Use of Force

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.

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):

Human Rights Committee and U.S.

Above is another 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. This is the Concluding Observations in response, issued last year, to the most recent Periodic Report of the United States. The Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America, submitted by the U.S. in 2011, to which this document is a response, can be found here.

You may also review here the submissions of the American NGO Human Rights Watch to the Human Rights Committee, criticizing the compliance record of the United States.

Consider whether such reporting, and resulting response from the Human Rights Committee, is effective as a mechanism for mobilizing compliance with state obligations.

Michael Sandel's Justice

As discussed in class, Prof. Michael Sandel's course entitled "Justice" at Harvard is a fantastic introduction to theories of rights and perspectives on moral philosophy, illustrating each with great dilemmas drawn from our current public discourse. Each class is just 25 minutes, and they are both entertaining as well as informative and thought provoking.

You can watch the classes as well as find introductory notes, questions, and reference to the detailed readings, at course website. You can also access and download the video/audio podcasts for each class on iTunes. Below is the first class.

The FIFA Scandal from an International Law Perspective

You may recall that I raised the FIFA corruption scandal in the context of the exercise of jurisdiction extraterritorially. This week the issue was taken up on ASIL's Insights blog. You may find it interesting.

Compound vs. Simple 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 over a 20 year period, 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.

Pinochet - Recently Disclosed Information

On the eve of our discussing the Pinochet case in class, the New York Times ran an article disclosing new information on Pinochet's involvement in, and the CIA's views on, the notorious assassination of a former Chilean ambassador with a bomb in Washington D.C. An old article in The Nation discusses the relationship between Kissinger and Pinochet, and Kissinger's failure to deter Pinochet from acting against the ambassador. Finally, here is an account in The Atlantic on the CIA's role in the coup in Chile on September 11, 1973, which overthrew a democratically elected government and brought Pinochet to power.

Recent Developments Relating to Adjudication

As we get set to consider adjudication and jurisdiction issues, you will be interested in a few recent developments. Just today the European Court of Justice handed down a decision on data sharing between European states and the U.S. (in particular), that will have a massive impact on U.S. internet-based businesses (article on this here).

In other news, you will no doubt have been following the unfolding story of the U.S. airstrikes against a hospital run by Medicin Sans Frontiers  in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in which some 22 people were killed and many more injured. The American explanation for this killing of non-combatants, and potentially targeting a hospital, has been "evolving" over the last few days. The targeting of a hospital is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and thus a war crime, so the reasons are important. Of considerable interest, given our discussion of jurisdiction, is whether the International Criminal Court might be able to exercise jurisdiction over the incident, a question that is taken up in this article.

Self-Determination in Catalonia

Further to our discussion of self-determination last week, you will be interested to read on recent developments in Catalonia. As the New York Times reported:

Catalan separatist parties won a majority of the seats in regional parliamentary elections on Sunday that they had billed as a plebiscite on secession from Spain.

The article continues here. Another article a couple of days after the election provides further analysis for what this means for Spain. In your view, do the Catalonians have a right of self-determination that would justify a declaration of independence and secession?

Worst Treaties Ever?

While we are still on sources, I thought you might be interested in a short discussion on "the worst treaties ever" - a light hearted discussion on a blog that you should become familiar with, called Opinio Juris.

Arms Trade Treaty Exercise

The Arms Trade Treaty came into effect in 2013. The U.S. has signed, but not yet ratified the treaty (in part due to concerns of some that it might require policies that would conflict with the 2nd Amendment, though the U.S. government has argued that such concerns are groundless).

Assume that you have been asked to brief your local Senator on how the U.S. might be able to withdraw from the Treaty in the event that it ratifies but later decides it no longer wants to bound by the Treaty. Prepare speaking notes on how you would brief the Senator.

The Iran Deal as Treaty

As discussed in class today, the so-called "Iran Deal" - that is, the agreement among the P5+1 and Iran regarding limits on Iran's nuclear enrichment and development program - is one of the major international issues of the year. Just today it was reported that President Obama now has sufficient support in the Senate to ensure that Congress cannot reject the agreement. But how should we assess the agreement as a matter of international law? Looking through the lens of the law of treaties, take a look: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal

Update: If anyone is having difficulty getting to the full text of the agreement from the Whitehouse site, here is an alternative: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/