Monthly Archives: March 2006

Roger Alford has a well-written and informative post describing the process by which the plenary of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) adopted the resolution I blogged about yesterday.

Prof. Alford disapproves, and he gives his reason,

My own view, which clearly is a minority one today but appears to be the traditional view if one looks at the historical sweep, is that the ASIL should avoid passing these resolutions. Such resolutions, while perhaps uncontroversial in content, are nonetheless controversial in their choice of forum and timing.

In this case, the clear implication of the resolution is that these norms are being ignored or violated by the United States. The drafting history of the resolution undeniably underscores this fact. It is in this sense a political resolution directed at the United States, admonishing it for its misconduct. It appears to be the first resolution in the Society’s history that relates to broad issues of international compliance with the laws of war and humanitarian law. In the past 100 years, a century in which “mankind experienced some of the most destructive wars of all times,” States have transgressed these international obligations on innumerable occasions. And yet the Society only now sees fit to pass such a resolution. One can only help but ask, “Why now?”

It seems to me that the multitude of replies to this question begin with “Do you read the newspapers?” and “If not now, when?”

If the US makes detention without trial or POW statuts official policy and torture its de facto national policy, something which has not frequently been the case in the past 100 years, then maybe that’s an occcasion for the American Society of anything to speak up. Especially if it’s something to do with law.

Exactly which of the following statements from yesterday’s proposed resolution of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) is political?

1. Resort to armed force is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and other international law (jus ad bellum)
2. Conduct of armed conflict and occupation is governed by the Geneva [Conventions] of August 12, 1949 and other international law (jus in bello)
3. Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of any person in the custody or control of a state are prohibited by international law from which no derogations are permitted.
4. Prolonged, secret, incommunicado detention of any person in the custody or control of a state is prohibited by international law.
5. Standards of international law regarding treatment of persons extend to all branches of national governments, to their agents, and to all combatant forces.
6. In some circumstances, commanders (both military and civilian) are personally responsible under international law for the acts or their subordinates.
7. All states should maintain security and liberty is a manner consistent with their international law obligations.

(Leave aside the possibly Freudian slip by the scribe, who wrote “Contentions” for “Conventions” in paragraph two.)

This is actually pretty tame stuff. Statements 1-6 are pretty standard boilerplate recitations of well-known principles of international law. (For example, I think you would be hard-put to find a teacher of international law in any civilized country who would give a student credit for writing the opposite on a final exam.) Number seven just says that countries should follow the law.

So what is “political”? And if this is “political,” what’s non-political? Cowed silence in the face of barbarity?