International Law

An interesting article in the NYTimes describes some of the longstanding connections between China and Africa, especially with Chinese living and doing business in countries all over the continent. From personal experience, there are quite a few successful Chinese entrepreneurs in many parts of Africa, which to a Westerner might at first seem “surprising”.

As the article notes, it complicates the issues of Chinese investment in Africa (addressed in a post here as well) as it is not solely natural resource-based. And certainly there are also significant other groups in sub-saharan Africa, from Lebanese to Indians and many others and there are also similar tensions, concerns, and discrimination that the article notes. It certainly helps show that the world is an interesting and often interconnected place. The “West” does not have a monopoly on benefits/issues/concerns etc. of immigration.  (On an offshoot, here, reflecting on India’s 60 years of independence, is an interesting article from the Guardian on Indian identity as forged in diversity).

In some ways this also complicates issues of IL and identity as it flows through IL (from self determination to countries having immigration/other restrictions to “culture-specific” human rights or restrictions, etc.), and perhaps even highlighting that while boundaries exist, there are always those who go through or between them and often they have little political voice in state/nation/”culture” based systems (see also an earlier post on stateless persons).  On a further tangent, this appears to be an interesting study by Philip G. Roeder, entitled Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism, of who actually does get a “nation-state” of their own, arguing, inter alia, that “segmental institutions” play a key role — not just identies and politics.

It looks like Libya has freed the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor in an interesting political deal that, at least according to the NYTimes, seems to fit in with Libya’s legal code. It seems clear that it was the extensive and ongoing political pressure, Libya’s attempts at “rejoin[ing] the international community”, and whatever chips were offered to Libya (including Cold War debt forgiveness), instead of true legal arguments, that led to the releases. But of course, that is perhaps not any different than anywhere else (in a realist mood today), but this will certainly be an interesting case study in IL, international pressure, “soft power” and the like. With respect to IL, it will be interesting to see if there was much reference to IL at all, either in the trial or during this release (I have not been following the case closely), or if this was kept in the “domestic” legal realm but subjected to outside pressures for this outcome. Seems to be very worthy of an article, or at least a note.

This looks like a very interesting program on PBS on China’s “Legal Revolution”… looking forward to it. Here’s a NYTimes review.

Here’s an interesting article from Business Day Johannesburg (via allAfrica.com) on the Paris meeting on Darfur (which ended Monday) from a rather skeptical perspective.  Considering the limited progress made at the conference, perhaps skepticism was in order.  But the article also brings to mind larger questions of the various takes on Darfur from and between the big “international powers” and others, especially African countries.  Darfur could certainly serve as a case study for the different ways in which the “West”, China, and African countries act (or don’t act) with respect to such tragedies and how they all play the various media games with lots of talk but often far too little action. 

There is a lot of news today with implications for IL, from the US Supreme Court deciding to review whether Guantanamo detainees can use the civilian courts to challenge their confinement (SCOTUSblog has an excellent initial discussion) to the bombs in London and (depending on who planted them, of course) what they might mean for security issues in Europe and the United States.

Almost to ease the mind, and to think about how the world might be interconnected still despite so many problems, it is interesting to note that yesterday UNESCO named additional World Heritage sites during the still-continuing 31st session of the World Heritage Committee.  This is not simply a marketing issue but also one involving a great deal of politics (see, for example, Poland’s successful application to change the name from “Auschwitz Concentration Camp” to “Auschwitz Birkenau” with the subtitle of “German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)”) and it has its own international law mini-regime since UNESCO’s 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage entered into force.   It has implications for domestic laws, environmental laws, property rights/usage, etc. and it reminds one of the power of labelling in the legal sphere, especially in the IL sphere where other, more traditional, forms of law are not always as strong. 

It is also interesting to note that for the first time a site was removed from the list — the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman — due to Oman’s decision to reduce the size of the protected area by 90%.

The complete list of sites (just updated) is here.

There is plenty of news about the recent decision by the constitutional court of Turkey annulling the election a few days ago, as the BBC reports (with an ever-helpful Q&A here).  Yet another example of increasingly visible entrances by courts around the world into large-scale political debates… whether or not these are the “right” decisions (or are “bullet[s] aimed at democracy”) and whether or not this is just another route to contest and gain power.  The overall political environment remains a cause for concern.  Evidently those more familiar with the political situation in Turkey would be able to have a feel for what the decision means.

It would be an interesting study to take a look at such recent decisions around the world and see just what the decisions are actually doing and how they fit into respective spheres of power.  Are these decisions ”appropriate” challenges, attacks, or possibly ways of just hiding or delaying a process and thereby allowing an election to look more legitimate (as was possibly the case in Nigeria)?  Of course each country’s situation is different, but it would be interesting to see a survey of the different ways high court decisions in elections are made and/or used.  It seems that comparitive election law is a hot topic, with such great new material.    

Studying these decisions might help play with assumptions that more “rule of law” is better…it might not just be a question of quantity of decisions, but also substantively whether or not they are in the interest of justice or political decisions are being made via the cover of the courts and the “law” (as some have argued happened here in Bush v. Gore).  Of course only the most naive feel that the courts are not political to some extent everywhere, but there are lines and borders of restraint, and the “rule of law” is always trying to define what these are.

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.   

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. 

This story has been under-reported in the press in the United States, but in Uganda there is an ongoing struggle for judicial independence in the wake of interference by the executive.  AllAfrica.com has regular updates from a variety of news sources.  It is a fascinating story and show what seems to be increasing conflict as judiciary bodies in different parts of Africa start to challenge over-arching executive or (often controlled) legislative power.  In the face of very real consequences, these are brave and principled judges and lawyers and as the protests show, others are also taking their side.  The backlashes may continue, but they are also a sign that some judiciaries are trying to make a stand in spite of stong pressures against them.  Perhaps these are Marbury v. Madison moments all over, with perhaps even more at stake for the judges?