Friday, 21 December 2007
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
More detailed information appears on the five-page data sheet prepared by Yesh Din: http://www.yesh-din.org/site/index.php?page=index&lang=en&id
Thanks for this to Lior Yavne of Yesh Din, who is a regular reader of the blog.
Friday, 14 December 2007
My opinion is that this is all wrong, because it entirely overlooks the right to peace. One of the four freedoms first proclaimed by President Roosevelt and affirmed in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 'freedom from fear'. Admittedly, the right to peace has been much neglected. But we can see manifestations of it in, for example, the obligation to prohibit propaganda for war set out in article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Aggressive war is a human rights issue.
My views on this are developed in a recent article, ‘Lex specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of jus ad bellum’, (2007) 40 Israel Law Review 592-613: http://www.mediafire.com/?fypn5om43vo
Shane says that in times of armed conflict, international humanitarian law may play a more significant role than human rights in the protection of the human person. There is considerable scope for its use at the local level, particularly given the increased focus on the prosecution of violations of such laws by the various international criminal tribunals. The contribution of each workshop participant should focus on a specific country or situation of armed conflict to which international humanitarian law applies; illustrative case studies include Colombia, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq (UK & US), Israel/Palestine, Chechnya, and Northern Ireland.
Submit abstracts to Shane at: email@example.com. Once an abstract is accepted, a full draft paper (max. 10.000 words footnotes incl.) should be submitted by Monday September 1 2008.
For further details about the conference please visit: http://www.ucsia.org/
Thanks to Megan Fairlie for sending this one.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Thanks to Maria Varaki for drawing this to my attention
The House of Lords also considered the UK argument whereby when the Security Council acts under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and authorises an action through the phrase 'all necessary means', that this automatically means that a state can override all pre-existing international obligations that conflict with that authorisation. The House of Lords overturned Lord Justice Brooke of the Court of Appeal on this point.
While accepting that in some circumstances a Chapter VII authorisation can override human rights obligations, the Law Lords emphasise the very limited nature of this authorisation. Lord Bingham held that the UK 'must ensure that the detainee’s rights under Article 5 [European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right not to be held without due process] are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention' (para 39). Baroness Hale went even further in emphasising that Mr Al-Jedda’s right not to be detained without due process had been 'qualified but not displaced' and that: 'The right is qualified only to the extent required or authorised by the resolution. What remains of it thereafter must be observed. This may have both substantive and procedural consequences' (para 126).
Whether or not Mr Al-Jedda can continue to be held without trial depends now on a further hearing to take place in the High Court early next year. Lawyers for Al-Jedda will challenge the intelligence that forms the basis of the decision of the UK Government that he continues to pose such a threat to peace and security in Iraq that it is absolutely necessary that he be detained there, rather than brought back to the UK and dealt with here.
In late August 2007, Al-Jedda’s lawyers in a different action obtained an order from the Court of Appeal that he could not be released or transferred from the jurisdiction of the UK Government without proper written notice to his lawyers. This would allow time for an urgent application to protect him from the risk of torture if he is handed over to the Iraqi authorities.
The ruling is available at: http://www.mediafire.com/?6ndcz4jgctl
Thanks to Andrea Breslin, a doctoral student at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, who is currently completing an internship with Phil Shiner and Public Interest Solicitors, who act for Al-Jedda.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has a very interesting discussion of 'terror' as a violation of the laws or customs of war in the Trial Chamber judgment in Dragomir Milosevic, issued earlier today: http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic-d/trialc/judgement/judg071212e.pdf.
It constitutes an interesting development on the only other discussion of this issue, in the Galic Trial Judgment 'terror' was defined merely as 'extreme fear'. Both cases concerned the siege of Sarajevo. It appears that the Trial Chamber did not pick up on the call by the Appeals Chamber, in the recent 'Media Trial' (see yesterday's blog) to apply strict construction in criminal law.
Thanks to Joseph Powderly for this.
Thanks for this to Aisling O'Sullivan.
Revue internationale de droit économique
Revue internationale de droit pénal
Revue sur le droit et la politique de la concurrence
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Left photo: John Waddell (l), Morwena Denis, Sally Coyle, Philip Fogarty.
Right photo: Katrina Mansson, Katrin Kinzelbach, Sean Goggin, Kjell Anderson and Niamh Hayes.
Left photo: Jane O'Leary with fiddler.
Right photo: Aisling O'Sullivan (l), Michelle Farrell and Maria Varaki.
Left photo: Tom Kenny(l) and John Waddell.
Right photo: Tom O'Malley (l), Morwena Denis and myself.
Left photo: Tom Kenny (l), myself and John Waddell
Right photo: Jane Conroy (l), John Hinde and Pat O'Leary
Kathie Hinde (l), Jane Conroy and John Hinde. And in the background, Katrina Mansson, Katrin Kinzelbach and Sean Goggin.
The Trial Chamber judgment, whose conclusions are seriously attacked in the latest ruling, had been heralded as a new development in the legal regulation of hate speech. The trial deals with personalities involved in the RTLM radio station and the journal Kangura.
Here are a few initial observations that emerged from our discussion:
1. Strict construction. Both ad hoc tribunals have been characterised by an interpretative approach that was large and liberal, tending to expand the definition of crimes so as to fulfil the purpose of the tribunals rather than interpretation that was strict and literal. But now, for the first time apparently, the Appeals Chamber professes its devotion to the principle of strict construction of criminal law.
2. The judgment strikes down many of the charges that had been upheld by the Trial Chamber. In effect, it knocks out the convictions respecting events prior to 6 April 1994, when the genocidal massacre began. With respect to pre-1994 acts, the argument is jurisdictional: the Tribunal cannot prosecute crimes committed prior to 1994, even 'continuous crimes'. Judge Shahabbuddeen dissents on this point. But as for events between 1 January 1994 and 6 April 1994, the Chamber simply considers these do not add up to incitement to genocide. This may effect a significant change in the narrative of the Rwandan genocide.
3. One of the big innovations of the Trial Chamber was to treat hate propaganda, even when it falls short of incitement to genocide, as the crime against humanity of persecution. The Appeals Chamber upholds this as a general proposition. Judge Meron writes a strong dissent, arguing that expanding the prosecution of hate speech threatens freedom of expression.
Yesterday, the International Harm Reduction Association published a report entitled 'The Death Penalty for Drug Offences - A Violation of International Human Rights Law': http://www.ihra.net/uploads/downloads/NewsItems/DeathPenaltyforDrugOffences.pdf .
The author, Rick Lines, is a graduate of our LLM programme and is currently enrolled in PhD studies at the Irish Centre for Human Rights.
The report examines the use of the death penalty for drug offences and considers whether drug crimes constitute 'most serious crimes' within the context of article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The report argues that drug crimes do not constitute 'most serious crimes' and concludes that the execution of drug offenders violates international human rights law.
Monday, 10 December 2007
The following day, on 9 December, this time in Galway, Carlo Tiribelli successfully defended his thesis on ‘Surrender, Not Extradition: Transferring Offenders in a New International Context’, before a jury composed of Prof. Alexander Knoops, Dr. Ray Murphy and myself. And today, Noelle Higgins defended her thesis on ‘Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation, the Need for a New Regime: A Study of the South Moluccas and Aceh', before Prof. Nigel White, Dr. Ray Murphy and myself.
Congratulations to the three of you. All three have busy careers in the area of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Noelle and Hitomi are university lecturers, and Carlo is a practising lawyer in Brussels.
The stream particularly welomes papers with an interdisciplinary approachto the understanding of victims within international law. In light of the acknowledged role of the victim in proceedings before theInternational Criminal Court, and considering the active participation of indigenous peoples in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this stream seeks to further explore the emerging centrality ofvictims in all facets of the international legal process.
The stream also encourages critical scholarship on the conceptualisationof the 'victim' in international law.
Themes addressing the following issues are particulary welcomed:
The Role of the Victim in International Criminal Justice
The Role of the Victim in developing International Law
Does the law speak to Victims?
Issues pertaining to the deceased in International Law
Gross Violations of International Law and Justice
The abstract should not exceed 400 words and the deadline for abstract submission is 5pm, 25 January 2008.
Contact and Abstract submissions to:
Michelle Farrell - firstname.lastname@example.org
Eadaoin O' Brien - email@example.com
Full details on all aspects of the conference can be found at http://www.law.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/events/SLSA2008/index.html
Monday, 3 December 2007
The Observer also has a lengthy account of efforts to apprehend one of the outstanding fugitives of the tribunal, Radovan Karadzic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331427513-103645,00.html; http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331427512-103645,00.html ; http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331427515-103645,00.html; http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331427680-103645,00.html
Thanks to Niamh Hayes.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Earlier this month, the Trial Chamber in the Lubanga case announced that the trial will begin on 31 March 2008. It is the first case at the International Criminal Court to come to trial. Lubanga first appeared before the Court on 20 March 2006, after being transferred from the Democratic Republic of Congo where he had already been in detention for some time. Delay from initial appearance to the start of trial: 741 days.
How does this compare with the other international criminal tribunals? The first trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, of Dusko Tadic, began on 7 May 1996. Tadic was arrested in Germany in February 1994, but proceedings before the International Tribunal only began on 12 October 1994. His initial appearance in the Hague took place on 26 April 1995. Delay from initial appearance to the start of trial: 376 days.
The first trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began on 9 January 1997. Akayesu had been arrested in Zambia on 10 October 1995, he was indicted on 13 February 1996, and he first appeared in Arusha before the Tribunal on 26 May 1996. Delay from initial appearance to the start of trial: 225 days.
The first trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone began on 3 June 2004. The accused were arrested on or about 7 March 2003, and appeared in Court shortly afterward for the first time. Delay from initial appearance to the start of trial: 453 days.
To recapitulate: ICC: 741; ICTY: 376; ICTR: 225; SCSL: 453.
To be fair to the ICC, it is burdened with an additional procedural step, the ‘confirmation hearing’, which is provided for by article 61 of the Rome Statute. But that hearing ended on 28 November 2006 (the decision wasn’t delivered until late January). By 31 March 2008, when the Lubanga trial begins, it will be 487 days since the end of the ‘confirmation hearing’, which is still longer than any of the other tribunals has taken from initial appearance to start of trial.
The ‘confirmation hearing’ looks to be an unnecessary and superfluous business that adds little or nothing to the proceedings, except additional cost and delay. Perhaps the Review Conference, in 2010, will see fit to abolish it. But even when we factor in the delay for the ‘confirmation hearing’, the ICC stills takes the cake as the slowest international criminal tribunal in history.
As a general observation, modern international criminal trials take much too long. One might have hoped that the International Criminal Court would be trying to correct this weakness in the system. But right now it looks as if the problem is getting worse, not better.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Please circulate this far and wide.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Now, according to the Ottawa Citizen (21 November 2007), the secretary general of the Council of Europe, Terry Davies has likened the government of Prime Minister Steven Harper to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who "washed his hands" of the decision to crucify Jesus Christ because a mob demanded Christ's execution. Davies said Canada is effectively 'subcontracting' the death penalty, just as the US government has dispatched suspected terrorists to Third World countries, where they can be interrogated under torture.
He urged the federal government to press US authorities to return Albertan Ronald Smith, the murderer at the centre of the controversy, from his Montana prison cell to serve the rest of his life behind bars in Canada.
'I'm very disappointed to learn that the Canadian government is not taking some action to get this man returned to Canada, where he should serve a life sentence. We certainly don't want a man like that walking the streets', Mr. Davies said. 'But to execute him is degrading. It's reducing authorities to the same level as people who kill people. Killing people is wrong. And the European view is we won't get down in the gutter with the people who commit murders. I'm just amazed that the Canadian government would wash its hands, just like Pontius Pilate.'
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Friday, 16 November 2007
Thursday, 15 November 2007
The resolution states that the death penalty 'undermines human dignity' and calls on all states which still maintain the death penalty 'to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty'. It also urges them 'to restrict its use and reduce the number of offenses for which the death penalty may be imposed' and to respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of those facing execution.
For the past two days, a group of states (such as Malaysia, Singapore, Egypt, Barbados, Iran) who remain enthusiastic about capital punishment have tried to stop the resolution with some 15 so-called 'wrecking amendments'. Often using coded language or raising extraneous issues, they unsuccessfully attempted to split what is obviously a growing majority within the United Nations favouring abolition of the death penalty. For example, Egypt, supported by several Islamic countries and the United States, sought to insert a paragraph in the resolution upholding the right to protect the unborn child.
Today, some 133 countries of the 192 United Nations membership have abolished capital punishment in law and practice. Adoption of this important resolution is an historic stage towards total abolition. It is a great victory for the human rights movement.
Monday, 12 November 2007
With thanks to Don Ferencz, who organised this.
Also, the Praljak defence team in Prosecutor v. Prlic et al is seeking a legal assistant. Please forward applications, including a cover letter and a CV, as soon as possible to Bozidar Kovacic- firstname.lastname@example.org and Krystyna Grinberg- email@example.com . Any enquiries can be emailed to Krystyna Grinberg.
Finally, Deirdre notes that the Association of Defence Counsel runs an internship programme for those interested in working for defence teams. Anyone interested in an internship can visit www.adcicty.org or email firstname.lastname@example.org for further information.
Sunday, 11 November 2007
The report is online, accessible at the portal on Transnational and Non-State Armed Groups, at www.tagsproject.org
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Fortunately, even if some of the neo-cons in Ottawa are nostalgic for the noose, it will be pretty hard for them to set the clock back. In November 2005, Irwin Cotler, who was then Minister of Justice, pushed through Canadian accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada is bound, as a matter of international law, not to impose the death penalty, and not to reinstate it, and not to cooperate in its imposition in any way. As far as domestic law is concerned, the Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear in the Burns and Rafay case, in 2001, that the Canadian constitution forbids capital punishment (http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc7/2001scc7.html). Irwin Cotler and I were counsel for Amnesty International in that case. We submitted an amicus curiae brief. And guess who was one of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada when it issued the important ruling: Louise Arbour. She resigned from the Court in 2003 to take up her current job as High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Bravo Louise. Bravo Irwin. Shame on Canada.
Friday, 9 November 2007
We awarded the first PhD at the Irish Centre for Human Rights three years ago. By my count, nine of our PhDs are now employed as lecturers at universities, in Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, the US, and now Japan. The PhD is the degree par excellence for an academic career, and we are thrilled by the success of our students in finding teaching appointments. Other PhD graduates have found work as researchers at universities and think tanks, with NGOs, with international tribunals and with law firms.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
A recent development of some interest is the evolving practice of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in this area. Over the last few years, she has intervened in four cases, and more such initiatives can be expected in the future. The first intervention, I think, was before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in a matter of direct concern to her, namely, the compellability of a former official of the Office of the High Commissioner. Subsequently, she has intervened as amicus before the International Criminal Court, providing expertise on whether or not investigations could be conducted in Darfur. Her views were somewhat at odds with those of the Prosecutor, and he reacted to them somewhat negatively. She has intervened before the United States Supreme Court in a case concerning extraterritorial application of human rights norms, and before the Iraqi Tribunal in opposition to use of the death penalty.
The practice of intervention before the European Court of Human Rights is well established. A couple of zears ago, the Irish Centre for Human Rights submitted an amicus brief to the Interamerican Court of Human Rights. The judgment referred to our brief.
The various international criminal tribunals regularly receive amicus briefs. Most of them cross the line into advocacy, in my opinion.
I am currently in Geneva and checked with the human rights treaty bodies. They, apparently, have never authorised amicus briefs with respect to human rights petitions, although some have been submitted in the past by human rights NGOs.
This is a great subject for an article, and perhaps even a thesis.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Sunday, 4 November 2007
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Saturday, 20 October 2007
This is great news for the Court, which now has two suspects in custody. Although it is operating more slowly than many of us would have liked, the wheels of justice are turning and progress is being made. It wasn't very long ago that some people working for the court were telling me they doubted whether anybody would ever be taken into custody. For more details, see: http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/291.html
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Monday, 15 October 2007
Hardly days had gone by before the neocons indulged in their own brand of denial. When a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide passed a congressional committee, President Bush reacted. Avoiding the word ‘genocide’ Bush said: ‘This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.’ On this, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. The whole business provides a good example of the politicization of the term ‘genocide’, not to mention the hypocrisy of Bush and the neocons.
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
For example, one of the defendants, Fofana, was found guilty for failing to prevent his subordinates from perpetrating such crimes as ‘the gruesome murder of two women in Koribondo who had sticks inserted and forced into their genitals until they cam out of their mouths. The women were then disemboweled, and while their guts were used as checkpoints, parts of their entrails were eaten.’ (para.46) Other crimes for which Fofana was found guilty included his direct participation in murders and other brutality on a large scale, committed against innocent children. Six years!
Kondewa was found guilty, amongst other things, of abducting children of 11 and 13 into the militias, where they were trained to commit crimes of great brutality. Kondewa was also found guilty of personally shooting a town commander. Eight years!
The decisive point seems to be the Chamber’s conclusion that the accused were motivated by a desire to promote democracy in the country, and to restore the elected government which had been overthrown by the rebels.
One of the judges (the one appointed by Sierra Leone, not surprisingly) voted to acquit them altogether. He said that defence of the State was the supreme law, and they were following it. I shudder to think how he might have voted at Nuremberg.
I am not a fan of harsh sentences, but this sounds to me to be rather on the light scale. By comparison, General Strugar, a Serb military leader who failed to stop soldiers from shelling the town of Dubrovnik, resulting in a few civilian deaths, got seven years.
The Trial Chamber wrote: ‘It is out view that a manifestly repressive sentence, rather than providing the deterrent objective which it is meant to achieve, will be counterproductive to the Sierra Leonean society in that it will neither be consonant with nor will it be in the overall interests and ultimate aims and objectives of justice, peace, and reconciliation that this Court is mandated by UN Security Council Resoluton 1315, to achieve.’ (para. 95). But if that is the case, why don’t the rebels also benefit from this same philosophy? Three of the rebels have already been sentenced, to exceedingly long terms of 45 and 50 years in prison. Admittedly, that was by a different Trial Chamber.
The recent sentencing decision is available at: http://www.sc-sl.org/Documents/SCSL-04-14-T-796.pdf
The EU is presenting a resolution on capital punishment in the General Assembly this year. Previous attempts, in 1994 and 1999, have not been successful. But the evolving pictures suggests that this year things will be different. The resolution will be debated in the Third Committee on 24 October, with a vote in the Third Committee on 12-14 November, followed by a vote in the General Assembly sometime in December.
Here are some of the press releases:
Thanks to Michelle Farrell for submitting this.
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
"Rwanda was definitely a genocide; what Hitler did to the Jews was; but I don't think it's the case in Darfur," Carter said. "I think Darfur is a crime against humanity, but done on a micro scale. A dozen janjaweed attacking here and there," he said, noting many refugees have survived the violence.
"I don't think the commitment was to exterminate a whole group of people, but to chase them from their water holes and lands, killing them in the process at random," he said. "I think you can call it ethnic cleansing."
He also pledged to hold world powers to their pledge of ending the "crime against humanity."
Carter has been catching a lot of nasty criticism on the internet for this. I think some of his neocon critics may be trying to settle scores with him for his recent book on the Middle East.
Jimmy Carter has got it right here, in my view. Moreover, his recent visit to Sudan, where he pushed past Sudanese officials because they were not allowing him to see things he thought were important shows a man of courage who deserves our respect.
Monday, 8 October 2007
Other material of interest includes:
Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, "Restrictions in Freedom of Religion in Malaysia: A Conceptual Analysis with Special Reference to the Law of Apostasy" (http://www.bepress.com/mwjhr/vol4/iss2/art1).
Amani Hamdan "The Issue of Hijab in France: Reflections and Analysis" (http://www.bepress.com/mwjhr/vol4/iss2/art4)
It reminds me of the early days at the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, when we had a lot of rather mysterious happenings around the hiring of senior personnel. The UN had to move in and appoint a trustee at on epoint.
Saturday, 29 September 2007
Thursday, 27 September 2007
the following articles:
Veronika Bílková: Victims of War and Their Right to Reparation for Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Enver Hasani: The Evolution of the Succession Process in Former Yugoslavia
Victor Muraviov: The Acquis Communautaire as a Basis for the Community Legal Order
Csaba Pakozdy: The power of state versus freedom of assembly
Please note that Peter Kovacs, who is editor in chief of the Journal, has also published in that number his own personal tribute to Alex Kiss, who passed away a few months ago. Professor Kiss, who was of Hungarian origin, lived and worked in Strasbourg where he was closely associated with the International Institute for Human Rights over the years. He and I worked together recently as co-editors of the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, whose overall editor was Dinah Shelton. We will miss him dearly.
Monday, 24 September 2007
“Yesterday, I picked up a pamphlet that proclaimed ‘Starbucks commitment to social responsibility,’ ” writes Prof. Henry Richardson of Georgetown University. “That’s all very nice, but what about their commitment to the apostrophe?”
In the advertising claim “Starbucks commitment,” the commitment is the promise that belongs to Starbucks, and its possessive action calls for a punctuation mark that indicates that: an apostrophe. But this clear grammatical requirement runs into the “sounds funny” problem. To make it correct, you would write “Starbucks’s,” requiring the pronunciation “Starbucks-zzz.” Of course, if the name of the chain were Starbuck’s, (with an apostrophe, meaning “the place owned by a guy named Starbuck, like the character in ‘Moby-Dick,’ ” then it would get a little tricky: Starbuck’s’s. That sounds as if you’re fast asleep.
The British faced the problem of pronouncing the possessive mark after a name ending in s with the Court of St. James’s. They did not equivocate; to this day every newly appointed American ambassador is instructed to say James-zzz. It’s not all that hard to say, and correct usage gives you that added frisson of self-congratulation for standing firm on the side of good grammar and not succumbing to laziness.
I take this stand, splashing about in my venti cuppa coffee, because I’m The Times’s language columnist.
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
The proceedings of the conference we held in Galway in 2004 are finally being published. They are edited by one of our PhD students, Edel Hughes, who is now a lecturer at the University of Limerick, and by Ramesh Thakur, who is now at University of Waterloo, and myself. For more information: www.unu.edu/unpress/2006/atrocities.html
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Monday, 17 September 2007
Sunday, 16 September 2007
He writes: 'As some of you know, the discussion focussed on national laws or regulation implementing three areas of international law in particular. These were international criminal law, sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and ‘international financial crimes’ (corruption, organized crime, money-laundering).
I recommend that you start with the first of the three listed documents - my own “Overview and recommendations” (click on the title, highlighted in blue). This is the shortest, most general, and most accessible piece. The following two documents are research papers that were distributed at the meeting, and are more detailed and legal-technical in nature. They deal with all three of the international legal regimes in question, and with UN sanctions enforcement respectively.'
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Monday, 10 September 2007
Friday, 7 September 2007
El-Masri spent five months in secret jails in Skopje and Kabul before being released blind-folded in an Albanian forest after it was realised he had been kidnapped in error. He is seeking damages for his illegal abduction and detention but lower courts have ruled that his claims cannot be heard without compromising US national security. The Supreme Court is soon to decide on his appeal.
The full brief is available at: http://www.mediafire.com/?1xzxdqztgyz
David P. Forsythe, ‘The ICRC: a unique humanitarian protagonist’, (2007) 865 International Review of the Red Cross 63 (available at http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/review-865-p63)
The latest issue of Human Rights Quarterly has an interesting article on human rights in China: Ming Wan, ‘Human Rights Lawmaking in China: Domestic Politics, International Law, and International Politics’, (2007) 29 Human Rights Quarterly 727 (available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v029/29.3wan.pdf
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
But I also have to tell you about the fabulous film that I saw last Friday at the Venice Film Festival. Brian de Palma (Scarfare, the Untouchables, etc.) presented his latest film, Redacted, which is about war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq. I think it may be the most powerful anti-war film ever produced. This is all the more important because the film is produced during the war, and may contribute to its end. Most anti-war films tend to arrive once the fighting has stopped (All Quiet on the Western Front, La Grande illusion, Platoon, etc.) I hope you will all get the chance to see this film. We gave de Palma a 10-minute standing ovation.
Friday, 24 August 2007
Of particular interest is the link she makes between the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, which is recognised in the 2005 Outcome Document of the Summit of Heads of State and Government, and the discussion of the duty to prevent genocide in the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice in Bosnia v. Serbia.
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Amnesty International has prepared a background paper on the subject, which I have posted at: http://www.mediafire.com/?9vhszxztz4m
In addition, Amnesty is asking everyone to sign a petition: http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10 .
The petition will be presented to the President of the General Assembly on World Day against the Death Penalty, 10 October 2007. Please circulate this widely. The petition will also be posted shortly at: http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/APROweb.nsf/pages/adpan.
Monday, 20 August 2007
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Before internet, I found the printed volumes to be extremely useful. I have not been able to find all of the volumes on the website, but perhaps one of our readers can help on this. You can download the volumes. This provides a very convenient electronic collection of the case law that can be searched using key words.
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Monday, 13 August 2007
Antonio Cassese 'On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide'
Andrew B. Loewenstein and Stephen A. Kostas, 'Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case'