International Law

To follow up an earlier post on thinking outside the box of possible effects of climate change/environmental issues, it is worth noting this NYTimes op-ed on the possible security risk of global climate change, brought up by the British government at the UN Security Council.  The concern has been raised in the US as well, as the article notes (the full report issued by retired generals and admirals is here (PDF)).  According to London’s Observer and bandied about the internet, the Pentagon commissioned its own report (this site cannot vouch for its authenticity in any way) a number of years ago on the possibly dire security risks of climate change.

As the previous post here noted, it is worth considering what might happen if there are substantial environmental changes, how these could be addressed in IL, and from a risk/etc. perspective, what the impact might be on IL and on clients from such possible consequences as increased migration/immigration out of hard-hit places, increased attempts at legal and extra-legal cross-border actions and reactions for environmental issues, changes/conflicts over the law of the sea, more resource-based conflict, etc., etc.  The scope of any environmental changes aside, as the issue gets more and more high-profile coverage, surely the “law”, either formally or informally, will follow.

 P.S. It looks like, in honor of Earth Day, the ASIL has compiled a small list of resources on international environmental law.  Obviously it seems to be just a start — I am sure the resources available (and the resources needed) will increase over time.

Today Rwanda applied to the ICJ (BBC news on it here) in a dispute with France over the issuance by French judicial authorities of international arrest warrants against three Rwandan officials (described by the BBC here) and a request to the United Nations Secretary-General that Kagame stand trial at the ICTR.  Rwanda contends that the underlying dispute is a report on the 1994 downing of the plane carrying both the Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundian President Ntaryamira and which was the immediate trigger to the genocide. 

This case is part of an ongoing dispute between Kagame’s government in Rwanda and France on the responsibility for complex events surrounding the genocide (and at least in part for the genocide itself).  A taste of this debate, which included Rwanda’s cutting of diplomatic ties with France, can be found in this Telegraph article and an IWPR post. 

It should be interesting to see how France reponds.

Today the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that the electoral commission unlawfully excluded Atiku Abubakar, a leading opposition candidate (and Vice President), as the NYTimes and VOA describe (this blog tried to link to the actual decision, but it did not come up… if it comes up, we will try to post it).  As noted in an earlier post on Uganda, despite the real problems continuing to face many countries in Africa, there are real (and brave) legal challenges taking place all over.  Of course there may be other concerns over the overall fairness of the election, as the NYTimes notes, but increasingly it seems that the judicial bodies and lawyer groups are challenging other branches/other power, and these internal checks and challenges (as opposed to just the “usual” external critiques of election-monitoring groups) are a positive sign.   

As a follow-up to the previous post, it is worth mentioning that the impact of a state-centered approach on migrants was noted by Jose Alvarez in his International Law: 50 Ways it Harms Our Lives (PDF) address to the American Society of International Law.  The address has a been a hot topic in the IL debate lately, and rightfully so, as it raises in clear language many of the pesky problems in IL and, as a whole, presents a challenge to the view that more IL is always a “good thing”.  This topic will be explored more later, but it is worth thinking about the goals of “cosmopolitanism” and the goals of IL, both in definition and how it works in the real world.  As a reference point, Kwame Anthony Appiah’s NYTimes article (and the excellent, badly-needed book it is in conjunction with) provides a good sense, and at least one definition, of the cosmopolitan “ethos”… though Appiah’s somewhat easy assumptions that there are not valid concerns on the “other side” about cultural destruction and the like (and lumping them into an almost obviously undesireable group of counter-cosmopolitans), and perhaps the somewhat elitist/priviledged view he takes of globalization and cosmopolitanism generally without fully addressing who wins and who loses, are at least topics of concern.

Though many IL scholars and practitioners (in my guess, esp. outside of the US and especially the current US gvt) may see themselves as “cosmopolitans”, does IL really advance the project?  Is it more realist than people like to think?  That might be a good or bad thing, but it is certainly something that those involved in IL have to consider.

The NYTimes has a short piece on stateless persons, who, as the article notes, tend to be poor and forgotten.  Does international law, with its almost exclusive focus on state-based principles, simply ignore these people?  Are these just an unlucky “few” who fall by the wayside, or does this hint at larger concerns about the IL system carving people up into groups based on often (though by no means exclusively) artificial “sovereigns”/states?  Is this a concern especially outside of the “established” ”Western” powers, that may not have used a state system until very recently, and for which it might still seem to not quite fit? 

Of course there has been some IL attempting to deal with stateless persons, including through the UN Convention relating to the status of stateless persons, and the UN Convention on the reduction of statelessness (PDF), though neither has been universally ratified (and here) (both PDF) by any means, which perhaps in part shows the reluctance or inability of states to fully address this issue.  The UNHCR discusses the issue as well.  And as states come and go, and if nationality or ethnically-based states continue to proliferate (sometimes referred to as ”Balkanization” but now often thought of as a possible future scenario in Iraq), the problems for those excluded by the defined states will likely continue.   Unfortunately there seems to be little will in the IL community to address these problems and, almost by definition, these stateless persons lack the means of creating a meaningful political voice.

The ongoing attempts of Ethiopia, the original source of coffee, to trademark coffees under various regional names presents an interesting attempt to use IP rights, so often enforced in developing countries to limit copying developed country technologies (esp. medicines), to actually protect African property.  Here is an interesting article on the most recent developments in Ethiopia, the challenges by Starbucks, and the goal to extend the strategy to other goods and other countries.  The coffee issue has been address at Law.com, Fortune, and elsewhere as well, and Oxfam has waged a campaign in support of the Ethiopian position.  But it will be interesting to see if the strategy works and if it is extended and in the meantime it also raises interesting international IP issues.