International Law

The BBC has been following the talks called by President Bush on climate change, and has reported that Condoleezza Rice has said climate change is a real problem, and world leaders should forge a new global consensus on tackling it.

One might of course be skeptical of Bush’s motives (whether this is purely a political play) and one awaits the probably inevitable focus on voluntary and/or cosmetic cuts or market-based measures. But perhaps this at least shows that some in the US are starting to realize that at least being a part of the negotiation, or perhaps starting a separate set of negotiations in which one frames the debate, may be a more viable way of interacting with areas of burgeoning international law (and increasing domestic pressure), such as climate change. One thing for IL scholars who might not like some of the US or any other major power’s positions but constantly call for more international legal engagement by those same powers, is to be careful what you wish for. Simply having “more” engagement by governments does not mean they will take the positions one hopes for or even use the same forums (as Bush’s sidestepping clearly shows) and in some ways perhaps international regimes (such as the ICC, Kyoto, etc.) were actually “helped” by being largely dismissed by the US. Other regimes in which major countries opt out may also have been helped. While IL scholars or especially advocates for various causes (human rights, environment, indigenous rights, etc.) often call for immediate worldwide adoption of various principles, sometimes having smaller venues helps to develop more organized and internally consistent regimes, some supporting cases, some domestic legislation, etc. to the stage in which major powers are forced to get involved or “miss the boat”.  But of course without such public and worldwide calls, perhaps the regimes would remain permanently marginal. 

In any event, the interplay between “involvement” by major powers in IL and whether this is “good” or “bad” for one’s cause is not as simple as it first appears.

Here is an interesting interview at Democratiya with Anne-Marie Slaughter, not only for her views on the current international situation and the need for a value-based foreign policy, but also for her personal anecdotes/stories.  She even has a bit of a dig against HLS, noting, “I spent a long time at Harvard Law School and I am no stranger to critical left denunciations of progress narratives”.

With the demands of practice growing, it has been difficult to update this site on a regular basis.  Therefore, as summer is coming to an end, we welcome HLS (and other Harvard) students, professors and alumni to consider being guest authors here at International Law.  Please send any statements of interest along with basic details/possible topics to international.law.blog@gmail.com.  Those interested in IL theory are particularly encouraged. 

Please note that while this site seeks to be as open as possible, it will be selective about guest authors, will limit the number of such authors and will maintain ultimate editorial control. 

Harvard International Review forwarded an interesting and opinionated article on “The End of Exceptionalism in War Crimes: The International Criminal Court and America’s Credibility in the World” by David Scheffer, Richard Cooper and Juliette Voinov Kohler, strongly advocating that the US join the ICC.  It is a very internationalist/moral/human rights call, noting that “[t]he United States needs the ICC to help restore its global credibility, discipline its own decision-making, and strengthen judicial intervention against atrocity crimes.”  It also takes a broadly negative view of US international law/foreign policy of late which occassionally hurts the specific arguments as they are couched within such broad-brush strokes about the Bush administration’s various positions. 

There are more “realist” articles out there arguing that the ICC is continuing with or without the US and the US might be more effective “within” the system and noting that US systems are adequate to address war crimes violations by US leaders and soldiers so no US soldier would be before the ICC.  The article duly notes these arguments, especially that the US should be involved or lose the ability to influence changes, including during the Rome Statute review process in 2009.  But the article takes a direct stand on potential US liability, writing that “[n]o nation should ignore its duty to bring war criminals to justice or otherwise shield its own leaders or soldiers from charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes” (emphasis added) and implying that the ICC should take cases of US actions if the US fails to prosecute. 

The article rightly notes that this will remain a hot topic, especially if the stance really is that US soldiers and leaders might ultimately be tried in such settings.  The timetable it sets up may be unrealistic, but certainly the debate will continue as 2009 approaches. 

Thank you for the forward.

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.

Here is a very interesting discussion by Habermas (courtesy of Continental Philosophy and found by way of Book Forum) on the status of the Kantian project of cosmopolitan law in light of the new wave of IL scholars, which he refers to as the “idealists”.  And despite the recent political setbacks of “neo-conservatives” in light of the ongoing situation in Iraq, there is a very real movement on the front of idealism in IL, including more friendly-sounding or better-packaged (but no less forceful) proclamations often still advocating an essential core of positions (that either through direct force or through “softer” institutions or some combination, the US is justified in enforcing liberal values around the world) such as the Princeton Project of Anne-Marie Slaughter et al. 

The talk is a good summary of Kant’s cosmopolitan law project and what Habermas notes as its chief innovation, namely a shift from international law as a law of states to cosmopolitan law as a law of states and individuals.

It is always interesting to hear Habermans since he speaks somewhat outside of the self-contained and self-referential IL world, which often focuses on minor differences or technicalities or, if it has “new” projects (or the re-packaging/marketing of older projects) like the Princeton Project, the underlying assumptions/worldviews/premises are not properly debated, especially under the prevailing liberal idealist backdrop (in some ways, the “conservative” positions at least have the benefit of a highly critical audience fighting them) and outside ”the box”, which is smaller than many might like to admit.  Seeing Habermans reminds one that meta-debates in IL, including whether one is really after IL or cosmopolitan law, are lacking.

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.

This is fairly old news, but as the summer is rapidly flying by (and people may be starting/completing applications to various places), it is worth remembering that Fletcher will start offering an LLM in International Law in the fall of 2008, becoming the first non-law school to offer an LLM.  It looks like it will be based on Fletcher’s already strong offerings in IL and with Michael Glennon leading the program, it will certainly be well thought-out and very worthwhile (full disclosure – this author is more than a bit biased, being a Tufts/Fletcher/HLS grad).  Congrats, Fletcher! 

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.