Latest in IHRL
There is currently no international legal regime that compensates civilians whose property, bodies, or lives are destroyed in armed conflicts. Russia’s war in Ukraine might provide the needed political impetus to create a permanent “war torts” institution.
United Nations norms related to nation-state cyberspace operations clearly apply during peacetime, but recent events in Ukraine and Russia raise challenges regarding those norms’ applicability in armed conflict.
In the midst of all the U.S. domestic and Trump coverage, it’s worth noting a front-page Wall Street Journal story from ten days ago on the French government targeting French citizens fighting for ISIS in Iraq.
Over the years I have heard knowledgeable people comment (sometimes with admiration, sometimes otherwise) that the French approach to counterterrorism outside of France is not so different from the American approach, but that the French manage to avoid anything resembling the scrutiny and criticism that the United States receives.
I’m in no position to judge that. But let’s assume for a moment the comparison is true. Why relatively little scrutiny for the French if so?
PDF version
A review of Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2016).
***
On Monday, April 3, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new Alien Tort Statute case, Jesner v. Arab Bank, No. 16-499.
PDF version
A review of Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights, edited by Jens David Ohlin (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
***