Scotland, Catalan, and Self-Determination

As we take up self-determination this week, how should we understand the Scottish referendum last week? (Here is a funny but quite informative video explaining the Scottish referendum to non-Brits). Were there international law issues at play?

The answers may come into stark relief if we compare the Scottish example (thinking through, for instance, what would have happened if the YES side had won), with that of Catalan in Spain, which is preparing to hold a referendum later this year. What are the differences? What are their significance from an international law perspective? What does the Quebec Secession Reference have to say about either case?

UPDATED: Meanwhile, in China a moderate human rights scholar and activist was just sentenced to life in prison for "seperatism", for advocating the right of self-determination for the Uighur people, and secession of the Xinjiang region in Western China.

Air Strikes in Syria and International Law

Returning to the issue of U.S. air strikes against ISIS in Syria, there have been some developments, and some scholarly debate on the issue since the last post.

Beginning with the debate, there is first Ryan Goodman of NYU on Just Security, followed by response there from Michael Lewis of Ohio Northern, and finally a response to both from Kevin Heller of LSE at Opinio Juris. Who do you think has the better argument?

Today, at a conference in Paris, the President of Iraq requested that the international community take action against ISIS in Syria in order to defend Iraq. Is there any legal significance to that? If so, why and what is the significance?

Scottish Referendum and International Law

As you will no doubt have seen in the news, Scotland is this week going to the polls to vote in a referendum on the question of independence. After over 300 years in the United Kingdom, the Scottish people may vote to secede and form an independent state. But what does international law have to say about this? What if the UK objected - would Scotland be free to secede then? What are the operative principles in play?

We will examine such questions in some detail in just a few weeks. But as this drama is unfolding this week, you may want to get a head-start on the issues! There is an "insta-symposium" beginning this week at Opinio Juris in which you can dive into the detailed legal issues.

Are Air Strikes Against ISIS in Syria Lawful?

Last night President Obama announced that the U.S. would commence air strikes against the non-state actor ISIS within the territory of Syria. It has already done so against ISIS (also known as ISIL) in Iraq. This has led to an explosion of debate (see, e.g., Opinio Juris, Just Security, and Lawfare) over whether President Obama requires Congressional approval for such strikes, or whether the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), passed immediately after 9/11 and authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda and other forces responsible for 9/11, is sufficient.

Less heard in the U.S., however, is any debate over whether such air strikes are lawful under international law. We will not get to the use of force for several more weeks - but what do you think? If you think them lawful, what would be the legal authority or justification for such strikes? If not lawful, why not?

U.S. Investigating Russian Treaty Violation

The question has been asked a few times in class, what happens when a treaty is violated? What are the sanctions? The answer varies according to the nature of the treaty and the parties involved, but one example is in the news today. The U.S. is currently investigating a Russian violation of a bilateral arms-control treaty. What will happen if it is determined that Russia violated the treaty?

Obama's Climate Accord - Not a Treaty?

The New York Times reported yesterday that President Obama was "Pursuing a Climate Accord in Lieu of a Treaty". What does this mean? Is an international accord not a treaty? How does it differ? Or is it only relevant as a matter of domestic law? Take a read of the article, and in light of what we have discussed in class today, post your thoughts!

UPDATE: Here is a blog post on this issue, on the international law blog Opinio Juris (something you should get in the habit of scanning). Note that this is as much about U.S. constitutional law as it is about international law. But it is interesting.

Successful Treaty on Land Mines

As we begin to examine the law of treaties, and consider the extent to which treaties successfully moderate or shape state behavior, here is a story from earlier this summer on how the relatively recently concluded Convention on the Prohibition on the Use, Production, Stockpiling and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines (the Ottawa Treaty), has had a fairly significant impact on the use of land-mines around the world.