Latest in NIAC: Conflict with IHRL
Diane Webber, a British lawyer who recently did a lengthy study of detention law in a variety of countries, writes in with the following account of the European Court of Human Rights decision earlier this month in Hassan v. United Kingdom (ECHR Application No.
The newest installment in the Transatlantic Dialogue series is now posted at ICRC's Intercross blog. It is from Professor Guglielmo Verdirame, and it addresses the larger implications of IHRL's expansion into the armed conflict setting, including implications for matters of theory.
Continuing our coverage of the Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict, Lawfare is pleased to publish the discussion paper for the conference that Geoff Corn (South Texas) produced on the topic of how criminal responsibility relates to battlefield regulation.
Squaring the Circle: The Intersection of Battlefield Regulation and Criminal Responsibility
During our conference,
The newest installment in the Transatlantic Dialogue series (see here) has gone live at EJIL:Talk!. It is from Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne (U.
The newest installment in the Transatlantic Dialogue series (see here) has gone live at EJIL:Talk!. It is from Sarah Cleveland, and it explains the Project on Harmonizing Standards for Armed Conflict. A taste:
The next installment in the series of posts derived from this summer's Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict is now live at the ICRC's Intercross blog. It is from Ken Watkin, and it concerns the overlap of IHL and IHRL. A taste:
Hot on the heels of the transatlantic dialogue event in Germany on surveillance law and policy, about which Russ has a fascinating post here, I'm happy to report that there is a similar event taking place at Oxford this week concerning the interplay of IHL and IHRL. The event (now in its second year) is co-sponsored by the ICRC's DC and London delegations, the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict, the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Fu
Criticizing the US stance on human rights treaties is practically an international sport, as evidenced by the bruising reception the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) gave to a US delegation last week. As Bobby reported here, the US disappointed the HRC by declining to agree with former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh’s recently disclosed memos urging extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (see my earlier
I’m usually a big fan of Ben’s cogent observations on Washington’s folkways. Unfortunately, I can’t be as enthusiastic about Ben’s reply to my earlier post on Harold Koh’s memos regarding extraterritoriality of human rights treaties. Ben overstates the duration of the United States’ position against extraterritoriality. He also includes some pokes at Koh’s service as “L” that cry out for additional context.
First, the US position lacks the pedigree that Ben claims. T
I want to take issue with Peter Margulies’s laudatory remarks this weekend about the Harold Koh memos on extraterritorial application of the ICCPR and the CAT---you know, those memos that mysteriously showed up in the New York Times just as the United States was preparing to present its views on the ICCPR to the UN panel that oversees the treaty.
My concern is not substantive.