The Genocide in Myanmar Goes to Court

As we discussed briefly in class, there have been two new and significant developments regarding the likely adjudication of the genocide committed against the Muslim minority, the Rohingya people, in Myanmar. One is the application by The Gambia against Myanmar in the ICJ, about which there are a number of blog posts (see here for EJILTalk!; and Opinio Juris; and Just Security); and the second is the decision by the prosecutor of the ICC to commence investigations into the genocide (see this overview of all the developments in Opinio Juris). On Wednesday it was announced that the famous and now somewhat discredited leader of Myanmar, Ang San Suu Kyi, will lead the country's delegation to the ICJ.

For a good backgrounder on the causes and particulars of the genocide, see this piece from the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Scope of the Doctrine of Self-Defense

As we are about to dig into the doctrine of self-defense, you may find interesting this excellent blog post that was published this last week, exploring whether states may use force in response to armed attacks launched by non-state actors, in the absence of being able to attribute the attacks to the state from which the non-state actor was operating. We addressed this issue in the exercise we did in class on whether the US invasion of Afghanistan, in response to 9/11, had been lawful.

UN Committee Deliberates Universal Jurisdiction

This last week the 6th Committee of the UN, which is the committee that addresses legal issues, released a document reviewing the Committee's views on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction: https://undocs.org/A/C.6/74/L.6.

Discrimination and the Right to Equality

Further to our discussion of equality and unjust discrimination this week, here is a PBS Frontline episode about the Brown Eyes-Blue Eyes experiment that I mentioned (thanks to Ric for unearthing it!). Also, below is an excerpt of a TED Talk that I show to my Con Law II and Human Rights classes on equality - it illustrates the extent to which the sense of fairness, and the sense of injustice at being treated unequally, is deeply hardwired into not only humans, but also many animals. The excerpt is only 3 minutes long, but is a quite extraordinary illustration of the principle.

Threat to the Life of the Nation

We have previously talked in class about what constitutes an existential threat, or a threat to the life of the nation - considering, for instance, the question of whether the 9/11 attacks rose to the level of constituting such a threat. This week we will be returning to this question in the Loveless case, 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, in one of its very first judgments, was quite deferential to the state's interests. But in considering the question, and what the test should be, 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):

Simple vs. Compound Interest in Calculating Reparations

Further to our discussion in class last week, on the calculation of reparations , here is the post on simple versus compound interest:

Understanding the difference between simple and compound interest is profoundly important - not only for purposes of calculating damages or reparations, but for one's own personal life. 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. Or to put it another way, the compound interest on a debt (and the interest on most debt is compounded), will be significantly more over time than simple interest. The problem is that many people think of interest, and do rough calculations of interest, in terms of simple interest rather than compound interest - and thus the power of compound interest can cause a lot of pain to the unsuspecting debtor.

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.

UN TV - Human Rights Committee

Below is a broadcast from UN TV of a session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is the institutional body that oversees the operation of the ICCPR, here deliberating on the text of a "General Comment." As we get started on Human Rights, and will examine the role of the Human Rights Committee, this should be of some interest.

Immunity of International Organizations

Just as we wrap up jurisdiction and immunity, there is this essay on the Opinio Juris blog regarding the immunity of international organizations. Opinio Juris is one of the premiere blogs on international law, and so you should get in the habit of checking it regularly.

Self-Determination in Catalonia

Further to our discussion last class, here is a story from today's paper about the turmoil in Spain following the conviction and sentencing of one of the key Catalonian leaders.

The Turkish Invasion of Syria - Some Background

As mentioned in class, here are some shortish articles that provide some background and explanation for making sense of what is going on in Northern Syria. The first, from today's New York Times; and a FAQ from the New York Times published last week, on why Turkey is fighting the Kurds. And an older backgrounder from the CFR that tries to unravel all the parties involved in the Syria conflict.

And, on a related note, and very much relevant to our discussion just last class about universal jurisdiction, here is a blog post from Just Security on the exercise of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Turkish forces for war crimes committed in Northern Syria. 

U.N. Reports Progress on Statelessness

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that there has been significant progress this month in combating the scourge of statelessness. Perhaps most significantly, as many as 55 states pledged to either accede to or ratify the UN conventions on statelessness. Do you think that there are circumstances, relating to terrorism for instance, that might justify the stripping of a person of nationality so as to render them stateless? If so, what would the justification argument look like?

Diplomatic Immunity for American Diplomat's Wife in U.K.?

As mentioned in class last week, there is a simmering dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over the diplomatic immunity of an American woman who is wanted in Britain in connection with a traffic accident causing death. You can read more on the story in this New York Times report. As we take up the topic of immunity this week, which side do you think has the better argument as a matter of international law?

European Court of Human Rights Decision in Al-Skeini v. Sec. of State for Defence

Hazim Al-Skeini

As we discussed in class last week, the European Court of Human Rights in July of 2011 handed down a judgment with respect to the same case that we examined, 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. These will help flesh out the very short excerpt in our text.

Please take a look at the decision, and 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.

Brexit and Hong Kong

Two ongoing crises that have significant international law aspects are the protests in Hong Kong, and the pending withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. We discussed the current crisis in Hong Kong briefly in class, in the context of quasi-states and states-like entities. Here is a "backgrounder" that will help explain the nature of the relationship between Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China.

Similarly, we discussed Brexit briefly after the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the Prime Minister's proroguing of parliament was unlawful. Brexit of course implicates both constitutional and international law issues. But it is in essence an international law matter, as the United Kingdom is trying to withdraw from the European Union - Brexit was initiated when the United Kingdom submitted its notice of termination of the Lisbon Treaty, a provision of which  governs termination and withdrawal. It is scheduled to withdraw on October 31, with or without a new agreement to govern relations with the EU, which most think would be a disaster for both the UK and the EU. A backgrounder on Brexit can be found here.

Withdrawing from the Universal Postal Union

Those interested in reading more about the issue of US withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union can find a news story on it here, and a more academic analysis of it here.

Greta Thunberg's Human Rights Complaint

We will come to human rights and climate change later in the course, and will discuss the relationship between them. But today, in the midst of the U.N. Climate Change Summit, Great Thunberg and a group of other teenagers filed a complaint against five countries under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, alleging that their failure to adequately address the climate change crisis violated the complainants' rights under the convention. Take a look at both the Convention and the Optional Protocol to assess the likely nature of the complaint. 

Here is Thunberg's passionate and angry speech at the United Nations Climate Summit today:

Current Human Rights Issues in the News

The New York Times reported last week that the United Nations Human Rights Council, the primary U.N. human rights body, will undertake investigations of suspected extra-judicial killings in the Philippines. There have long been allegations that President Duterte's "war on drugs" has involved the killing of thousands of people by law enforcement. The article recounts the fierce opposition The Philippines waged against the resolution passed to initiate the investigation.

In another story that relates to both another Asian country, and the operation of the Human Rights Council, The New York Times reported that the Independent Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar just submitted a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, concluding that systematic persecution of the 660,000 Rohingyas is ongoing and that Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi could be subject to prosecution for crimes against humanity.

Finally, Foreign Policy last week provided some details on the "religious freedoms" meeting at the U.N. General Assembly, and efforts of the Trump Administration to facilitate cooperation among conservative governments to limit women's sexual and reproductive rights at a U.N. Universal Health Care Summit that will occur at the same time this week. As the piece explains, this is a continuation of efforts that began at a conference convened by the World Health Organization last summer. The effort pits the United States against its traditional allies, who argue that these efforts will have severe negative consequences for women around the world.

The United Nations General Assembly Kicks Off

As you will have heard, the United Nations General Assembly begins its 2019 session this week, with speeches from the leaders or foreign ministers of most state parties. Here is a quick review in The New York Times of what is expected this coming week. One of the high profile functions of the week is to be a Climate Change Summit beginning Monday, but The Guardian reports that President Trump will not attend, and will instead address a meeting on "religious freedoms." Here is a more detailed report on the specific national security issues that will be discussed at the UN this coming week.

International Law This Week!

As mentioned in class, there are many issues and incidents in the news this week that raise international law issues. We already discussed the air strikes on Saudi oil fields, though that issue continues to dominate the news. You can read legal analysis of the issues on the international law blogs listed in the right margin here.

Next up is discussion of announcements last week of a further tightening of American asylum rules. Asylum is the term used in municipal (domestic) law for the granting of refugee status - an issue that is governed by international human rights law, and in particular the 1951 International Refugee Convention. An article in The New York Times last week examined the new American policy, as compared to the policies of other countries, and under one heading specifically asked the question: "Does the Trump Plan Violate International Law?" You may be interested in keeping this question in mind when we get to human rights later in the course.

Another item, which I referred to in our last class, involves a hearing in Spain in response to a request by the United States to extradite the former head of Venezuelan intelligence services, to the United States to face charges of drug trafficking among other things. Extradition is typically governed by bilateral treaties - the reason bad guys in movies frequently talk about escaping to Brazil, and the reason Edward Snowden is in Russia, is that those countries do not have extradition treaties with the United States. Extradition treaties typically require that the crime for which the accused is sought in the other country, would also be a crime in the state being asked to extradite him - and there are typically exceptions for political crimes or conduct that is politically motivated. Here, The New York Times reported this week that the Spanish court denied the American extradition request because the court believed the request itself was politically motivated. We will also soon look at questions about the effort of some countries to apply their law extra-terrestrially. What would be the justification for the United States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over a Venezuelan for crimes committed outside of the United States?

Finally, next week is not only the week in which national leaders descend on New York City to attend the UN General Assembly, but Monday, September 23 is also the beginning of a UN Climate Summit. Here is a short essay in The Guardian assessing the summit given that the US will be largely absent. We will spend the last week of the course examining climate change law - it will be the defining crisis of our times, and the collective action problems that characterize our response is the greatest challenge for the international community.

Human Rights Committee Affirms a Duty to Protect Against Environmental Harm

We are not yet at human rights, but there is an interesting blog post this week that discusses a recent case before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). You will recall that the HRC is the institutional body that implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The case came from Paraguay, alleging that the government failed to protect the applicants from pesticides and other environmental harms from neighboring industrial farms.

The case, analyzed in the blog post, involves interesting interpretation of not only the ICCPR, but the application of jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, in establishing a clear and direct relationship between human rights and the environment, and affirming a positive obligation on states to protect their residents from environmental harm.

After reading the blog post (unfortunately, the HRC decision itself is not yet available in English), take a look at the specific provisions of the ICCPR, and consider whether you think that the HRC's apparent interpretation is supportable. Remember to apply the principles we have been discussing - particularly Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT - in considering this question.

We will discuss this relationship between human rights and the environment in our examination of both human rights and climate change. You may all be aware of a fascinating case here in the United States, Juliana v. The United States, in which a Federal District Court in Oregon held that there is a fundamental right in the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to "an environment that can sustain human life," and allowed an action to proceed against the federal government for a violation of this right through its action and inaction contributing to climate change. The decision is on appeal at the 9th Circuit.

Welcome to Public International Law - 2019!

Welcome to the blog for the Public International Law Course of 2019! I will be posting links to topics in the news that relate to the issues that we are examining in the course, along with commentary and questions for you to consider. And I will encourage you to add your own comments, views, questions, and the like in the "comments" section below each post.