Category Archives: Law: International Law

Fruits of the Bush Doctrine

Putin reaffirms Russia's right to preemptive strikes

President Vladimir Putin has reaffirmed his position that Russia can resort to preemptive military strikes because the policy is also practiced by the United States.

“If the principle of preventive use of force continues to develop in international practice, then Russia reserves the right to act in an analogous manner to defend its national interests,” Putin said in an interview whose transcript was released Tuesday.

Mind you, this is more bluster than anything else — for now:

But later, speaking in the United States, he assured NATO countries that Moscow was not seeking to adopt a preemptive nuclear strategy.

“Russia still regards nuclear weapons as a means of political deterrence. We do not envisage a scenario or a situation where we would use such weapons first,” said Ivanov on October 9.

Nevertheless, if the Bush Doctrine is to be taken seriously, there's no way to limit its use to invasions by nations we like — or against nations we don't like.

It's probably not too late for the next administration to undo the damage to international legality; given the wide range of candidates, it's quite unclear whether the next administration will consider this a priority, or even want to.

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on Fruits of the Bush Doctrine

US Jurisdiction in Guantanamo — Some Complexities

Earlier, I had what seemed like a great idea:

Personally, I would be prepared to read the words “the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control” language of the treaty as invoking the powers of all three branches of government, not just the executive. In this view, under Art. VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the treaty would supply the jurisdiction for the federal courts that they seem to believe they lack under Article III.

On reflection, this isn't quite as great an idea as it seemed. Or, maybe it is, but it isn't as simple to get there as I would like.

Continue reading

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: International Law | 6 Comments

Even If US Courts Don’t Have Jurisdiction Over Guantanamo, There Is No Recourse to Cuban Courts

In response to my most recent item on Guantánamo Edward Hasbrouck asks this reasonable question: “if courts in the USA say Guantanamo isn't under their jurisdiction, doesn't that mean they would have to recognize Cuban jurisdiction?”

The answer to this question is unusually clear: No.

Continue reading

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: International Law | 5 Comments

This Begins to Explain the Voting on Resolution 1151

The UK's Daily Telegraph reports Bush gives in to UN over cash for reconstruction. There's slightly less to this story than the headline suggests as it appears from the text that the UN will get supervision over new, non-US Iraq aid, not over US aid. Still, if there were another secret concession out there somewhere it might begin to explain how the US got all those votes in favor of Security Council Resolution 1151.

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on This Begins to Explain the Voting on Resolution 1151

IP Justice Says that FTAA Got Infected With Lousy IP Rules

I generally avoid trade law and trade treaties, on the grounds that life is too short. The way trade law is going, however, I may have to make some exceptions. I've already had to read up on the dispute settlement rules in major trade treaties to teach International Law, which I'm doing for the first time this year.

Now, IP Justice, a civil liberties group, has just published FTAA: A Threat to Freedom and Free Trade. In it they analyze the Intellectual Property parts of the draft Free Trade Area of the Americas Treaty which is intended to go into effect in 2005. Their summary is scary enough that I think I'll have to go read the full agreement and see if it is as bad as they say. [Note: Headline corrected.]

Continue reading

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA, Law: International Law, Law: Internet Law | 1 Comment

Resolution 1151: A Famous Victory or an Infamous One?

The Washington Post is suggesting that the passage of Security Council Resolution 1511 is not a major victory for the Bush administration as “a range of analysts said the final vote, while far better than a withdrawal or a resolution approved with numerous abstentions, is too weak to be considered much of a victory.”

Not so fast. At first glance, Resolution 1511 is a very big win for US contractors seeking to profiteer from the Iraqi reconstruction — and those firms will no doubt make their gratitude felt to the Administration in a tangible way.

Continue reading

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on Resolution 1151: A Famous Victory or an Infamous One?