The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides the most promising, and potentially only, venue for accountability for those most responsible for serious post-election violence in Kenya.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Democratization, and International Law
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Gone are the days of soldiers facing off across large battle fields, tanks shelling tanks, and fighter jets engaging in dog fights. Armed conflict now takes place everywhere -in cities, refugee camps, and other historically nonmilitary areas-and involves or impacts nearly everyone in the area. The law of armed conflict (LOAC)-codified in times of more traditional state-state conflicts-must now adapt to these new and in infinitely more complicated conflicts, which we call new warfare . More important, we need to recategorize the ever-expanding variety of individuals who now participate in and are affected by hostilities, posing great challenges to the implementation of LOAC on the ground.
Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University
Abstract:
During the last two decades, law as a factor in European integration has attracted great scientific interest. Numerous studies and theoretical analyses have been published which have undertaken the task of examining and explaining the role of law in the progress of integration. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in particular, as Europe's judiciary body, draws much attention in this context. However, the inflexible, mechanistic and universalistic notion of rationality that these works employ leads to serious misinterpretations and unjustified criticism regarding the role the ECJ takes in the course of integration. Within the frameworks of contemporary approaches the Court is perceived as just one more political player among other actors and institutions able to shape the EU in the pursuit of its own rational interests. By outlining the theoretical concept of context rationality, this article shows that the logics of law and judicial law making are based on a non-trivial and non-political rationality and cannot be understood appropriately without paying attention to the context of European law.
Topic:
International Law, Regional Cooperation, and Law Enforcement
During what the U.S. government formerly called the “war on terror”, both U.S. and European governments resorted to preventive detention. But holding individuals deemed to be a security risk indefinitely and without charge is a controversial strategy. Not only have there been miscarriages of justice, but detention may actually fuel the terrorist cause and attract more recruits. Yet, without recourse to preventive detention, military and security forces may be tempted to resort to more extreme, and perhaps prohibited, measures against an individual suspected of being a terrorist threat. If, therefore, U.S. and European governments are to employ preventive detention as a tool in fighting international terrorism, particularly in overseas operations, it must be done in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of their efforts and is in keeping with international law.
Topic:
International Law, Terrorism, and International Security
"Transitional Justice: Croatian and International Response to War Crimes" This program will feature an address by Ivo Josipović, President of the Republic of Croatia, followed by a question and answer session with the audience.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Genocide, Human Rights, and International Law
Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations
Institution:
Center for International Conflict Resolution at Yalova University
Abstract:
This article sought to encourage the adoption of novel ethical approaches at the interstice between political and international relations (IR) theory, and character-based approaches in particular. It was argued that though the Fourth Debate has encouraged debate about the ethics of IR theory, surprisingly, character-based approaches have not been discussed, with communitarian and cosmopolitan performative ethics maintaining a conceptual hegemony. The concept of Jus in Bello was nominated for deconstruction since it has traditionally been understood cosmopolitan or communitarian manner based on performative ethic. An Aristotelian vocabulary was adopted in order to deconstruct the concept of Jus in Bello, with Jonathan Haidt's moral psychology, Lawrence Kohlberg's moral development psychology, Immanuel Kant's ethics, and social contract theory all being used to supplement the nominated Aristotelian reading of Jus in Bello. It was concluded that an Aristotelian reading of Jus in Bello is a viable alternative to and hence an Aristotelian vocabulary could be adopted when attempting to understand certain concepts and phenomena at the interstice between political and IR theory.
On February 17, 2008 Kosovo, hitherto the internationally recognized territory of Serbia, unilaterally declared its independence. Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, UK and France) immediately recognized the independence of Kosovo, while the other two, Russia and China, sharply criticized Kosovo's step and have thus far refused to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. In October 2008 the UN General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ), upon the initiative of Serbia, to render an advisory opinion with regard to whether the unilateral declaration of independence adopted by the provisional institutions of Kosovo was in accordance with international law. In its non-binding advisory opinion, delivered on July 22, 2010 the Court stated that the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law. Nonetheless, this conclusion is not so clear and simple as it at first might seem, nor so “dangerous”, as it was described in the media and in some reactions, especially upon a closer reading of the entire text of the advisory opinion.
From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Confict, 1891–1949, by Victor Kattan with foreword by Richard Falk. New York and London: Pluto Press, 2009. ix + 261 pages. References to p. 367. Select bibliography to p. 387. List of individuals to p. 395. Glossary to p. 402. Index to p. 416. $54.95 paper; $149.50 cloth.
Legal transplants have traditionally been believed to be the product of reason and informed decision-making that follow arduous deliberations and bargaining between lawmakers. This paper argues that some major legal transformations can be better explained with the help of networks. It delves into the history of the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and asks who got to decide the major questions in regard to the institutional design of the court. I argue that contrary to dominant assumptions, consultants and think tanks play a decisive role in the shaping of legal transplants. They are the ones that decide which model to follow. They get to choose participants in relevant working groups and it is them who shape the final proposal that will be voted by the lawmaker. As the complexity of the topic increases, professional networks can use technical discourse that makes scrutiny unlikely. The research shows that in case of Andean regional integration, the personal background of consultant is also very relevant, because it determines what models will be considered for eventual benchmarking. However, the mere existence of networks is not enough for producing legal change; a window of opportunity is a necessary condition.
For almost a decade, 'public legitimacy' has remained largely unaddressed in empirical international relations (IR) analyses of international legalization. Yet, this concept has behavioral consequences. IR scholars for long assume that a belief in the legitimacy of a norm may be one reason for a 'compliance pull' on the international stage. The present study addresses this gap. It suggests a sociological conception of legalization observable in mass media debates and encompassing law's 'public legitimacy', understood as the congruence between legal regulations and discursive practices to that effect that these rules are also accepted by the larger public. This conception is illustrated in European and US newspaper reporting about military interventions in the post-Cold War era (1990-2005). Based on a large-n media analysis, the study not only concludes that an 'international rule of law' frame is heavily diffused across the communicative practices of European and US public spheres. It also shows that two legal norms in particular – human rights and United Nations (UN) multilateralism – generate a shared sense of 'public legitimacy' across the six countries analyzed.