International Law

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.

This has been well-announced in the IL blog world, but it is worth repeating that there is an excellent new blog, sponsored by OSI, on the Charles Taylor trial (linked here).  It is an excellent example of the use of blogs for original/firsthand and up-to-date content. 

Just a note: Anupam Chander has been posting tidbits and articles on the Wolfowitz scandal and the speculation on who might replace him.  It is a good place to look at for a quick summary and links to sources/etc., and he will probably keep updating it as the story continues to move along.

The 2007 Human Rights Council elections took place yesterday (the full votes are here).  Human Rights Watch discusses the UN General Assembly’s rejection of Belarus for a seat on the Human Rights Council and hopes that this could be a starting point for more competitive elections to the Council. 

It has always been interesting how the composition of the Council, so often filled with human rights violators of various kinds, is then used as a symbol that all human rights work by the UN is bad or hypocritical, especially when the Council repeatedly focuses on Israel and ignores others.  This is while most human rights groups acknowledge the Council as having membership issues and often focusing on political targets; but they seek to do something about it, rather than simply declaring invalid any human rights claims that the Council may make.  Perhaps more constructive views will eventually take hold, but the tension in the Council is always there between more “inclusive”/”representative” membership and having morally ”worthy” countries serving (and who decides this); as well as issues of when a flawed body may sometimes make valid statements and whether each statement should be taken on its own merit or rejected outright because of flawed membership and often-flawed priorities.  But human rights groups are right that there is little else to work with, and often chose to try and improve the body even as its legitimacy is so often (and perhaps increasingly) called into question.  If it is a lost cause is unclear.  In any event, it will be interesting to see how the new Council works and if it is capable of any much-needed change.  Perhaps the voting was a positive step, but any conclusions remain to be seen.

Thusfar this blog has largely avoided some of the “big” current issues in international law, especially the Iraq war, for a number of reasons — in part because it is such a divisive issue but also because the law surrounding the field is in flux.  But here I wanted to note that not only are US soldiers and untold Iraqis dying on a regular basis, but so are many civil servants, international humanitarian workers, lawyers, reporters, diplomats and others who were very dedicated to their respective causes.  And this is true all over the world, where people, international/foreign and domestic, die or are killed on a regular basis just trying to establish what they hope will be a better life/country/world/etc.

This thought was triggered by looking at the NDI website, in which there is a memorial for Andrea “Andi” Parhamovich and three security personel.  Just a little reminder that while academic debates abound, there are also people “on the ground” trying to do what they feel is right, and this is as true in international law (broadly defined) as in anywhere else.  And this is coupled with daily sacrifices by so many people, from standing up to authority and risking lives and careers, or moving to difficult posts, to working hard, often in anonymity, on imporant causes and issues from human rights to development to international law to “simple” peace long after celebrities or the press have moved on.  Even the ultimate sacrifice is often underreported and even untracked, especially for those working outside of major institutions.  We have daily updates on military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, which of course we should have.  And there is a huge debate on the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, another key figure, and the loss of life of anyone is no less tragic just because of the country of origin.  But it strikes me as truly odd that we rarely see any detailed reporting or tracking of US or international civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan.  This cite seems to make an effort to track deaths and injuries of many parties (and I cannot vouch for its accuracy in any way), but it acknowledges being far from complete, especially for non-military deaths.

One might not agree with everyone “on the ground”, and an important part of academia, the press, the public discourse, the blogosphere, and other sources is to evaluate, critique, and hopefully improve the work on the ground and the larger issues/goals/etc. that are being sought, and even challenge and question what those goals should be.  But the sacrifices people make should be appreciated and remembered.