Events in Washington may overshadow what's happening around the world, but nobody can miss the confusion that attends the British government right now. Two ministers have resigned over Brexit, and the furture of Britain’s negotiations with the European Union is radically uncertain. All of which led me to an odd musing—what if Britain changed its mind? Not that it is terribly likely to happen, but what would be the result if the U.K. decided it wanted to stay in the EU?
Latest in International Governance
How, exactly, should internationalists prepare to repair the damage of the Trump era? Many of us are rightly preoccupied with trying to limit or prevent damage in the moment, and longer-term challenges may not get the analytic attention they deserve. As Dan Byman wrote recently in Lawfare, repair is hard while destruction is easy. New leaders will need to come in with clear priorities and approaches in mind.
The U.N. panel charged with developing rules to govern cyberspace (formally called the Governmental Group of Experts, or GGE) failed to make a consensus report last June for its 2016-17 meeting. After five previous efforts successfully agreed on guidance for the U.N.
Over the last few years, “hybrid warfare” has become firmly established in the Western security lexicon. The concept features prominently in NATO and EU policy instruments and has informed the United States’ National Security Strategy adopted in December 2017. (I analyzed this idea in more depth here.)
Human rights issues are vitally important, but that does not mean that the United Nations Security Council should address them.
On February 13, Kim Jong-nam—the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un—was killed at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malaysian investigators have determined that two women, who have since been charged with murder, used VX nerve agent—a chemical weapon—in the assassination. Attribution has not yet been confirmed, but Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has directly blamed North Korea (DPRK) for the assassination. In addition, U.S.
One sometimes thinks that consistency is the stock-in-trade of attorneys. We insist (sometimes even foolishly, pace Emerson) that words have consistent meaning and that the implications of how we use them are well worked out.
There’s an interesting IHL angle to Iran’s seizure and subsequent release of ten American sailors in the Persian Gulf: As several observers have already noted, publishing photographs and videos of the sailors may implicate Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, which provides that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected … against insults and public curiosity.”
Earlier this week, former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger highlighted the increasingly vocal U.S. concerns about the International Criminal Court (ICC) acquiring jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.
On November 20, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2249, condemning ISIS’s recent attacks and exhorting all states to prevent and suppress the group’s terrorist activities. The Resolution is in some ways a predictable response to recent developments, but it contains one interesting provision that is worth parsing from an international law perspective.
Operative Paragraph 5 (OP5) reads as follows: