|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 06/05
2005 (Volume 16 Issue 2)
Articles
Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence? by David Kretzmer
Whether a state that has been subject to attacks by a transnational terrorist group may target active members of that group who are not in its jurisdiction has caused controversy. Some refer to targeted killings of suspected terrorists as extra-judicial executions; others claim they are legitimate acts of war. The author examines the legality of such killings under norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Under the former system, such killings can only be lawful when carried out to prevent an imminent attack that cannot be stopped by other means. Under the latter system, such killings may be lawful if the suspected terrorists are to be regarded as combatants. He argues that while in international armed conflicts suspected terrorists are generally not combatants, in noninternational armed conflicts they may well be combatants. In such conflicts norms of international humanitarian law cannot stand on their own; the applicable system must be a mixed model, which incorporates features of international human rights law. In the final section the author discusses the Israeli policy of targeted killings and the US attack on suspected members of al-Qaeda in Yemen, and applies the mixed model to these cases.
Countering Uncertainty and Ending Up/Down Arguments: Prolegomena to a Response to NAIL by Jason A. Beckett
Despites Franck’s claim that public international law (PIL) has moved into its ‘postontological state’, where controversy no longer surrounds its status as law, controversies over the ontology of PIL, and especially of customary international law (CIL) remain endemic. These controversies fuel the attack by Critical Legal Studies (CLS), and New Approaches to International Law (NAIL), scholars against a liberal-legal order all too easily portrayed as fundamentally indeterminate, a cover for its subjects’ political interests. These critiques cannot be simply ignored, but neither can they be met easily, nor without cost. While CLS, and other critical discourses, seek to ‘uncover’ and ‘explode’ the ideologies and biases of law to demonstrate its inability to fulfil its promises, the present paper is intended to initiate the task of demanding that law, and especially CIL, live up to these very promises. But first, the nature of these promises, and the structure and purpose of law must be examined, analysed, and where necessary contested and decided; or rather, defined. In this regard, the hidden assumptions of legal theory must be uncovered and problematized; the debates over law must be disaggregated, before law itself can be properly determined. Only after these tasks have been completed can the nihilist challenges of NAIL be met.
A Separate Law for Peacekeepers: The Clash between the Security Council and the International Criminal Cour by Neha Jain
Security Council Resolutions 1422 (2002), 1487 (2003) and 1497(2003), excluding the jurisdiction of the ICC, give rise to the fundamental issue of whether the legitimacy of an international institution such as the International Criminal Court may be eroded by an act of the Security Council, the political organ of the United Nations. This article analyses the legal validity of such resolutions within the framework of limitations that have been imposed upon the Council in international law. It discusses the relationship between the resolutions and the provisions of the Rome Statute, and concludes that their cumulative effect operates to modify the Rome Statute. It then deals with the effect of the illegality of these resolutions on the obligations of Member States of the UN, as well as on the ICC.
Review Essay Symposium
Review Essay Symposium: Philip Allott’s Eunomia and The Health of Nations Thinking Another World: ‘This Cannot Be How the World Was Meant to Be’: An event to mark the retirement of Professor Philip Allott, Professor of International Public Law, University of Cambridge, 28–29 May 2004
This symposium comprises an abridged transcript of an event held to mark the retirement of Professor Philip Allott from his chair at the University of Cambridge on 30 September 2004. On 28–29 May 2004, a small gathering of his colleagues from several universities and various disciplines attended the one and a half day event in Cambridge. The focus of the workshop was on Professor Allott’s work and the central theme, ‘this cannot be how the world was meant to be’. The event commenced with an outline by Professor Allott of his recent work and thoughts on the state of the world, summarized in his Seven Theses. Papers were then delivered by four leading jurists in international law, Professor Iain Scobbie (University of London), Professor Karen Knop (University of Toronto), Professor Martti Koskenniemi (University of Helsinki) and Professor Tom Franck (NYU). Dame Roslyn Higgins concluded the event with final remarks. Each of the speakers analysed and critiqued Philip’s work, particularly Eunomia (1990, 2nd ed., 2001) and The Health of Nations (2002). Much time was devoted during the workshop to discussion which followed each presentation. Extracts of this discussion, along with the papers delivered, are published in this symposium.
Slouching towards the Holy City: Some Weeds for Philip Allott by Iain Scobbie
Eunomia is a Woman: Philip Allott and Feminism by Karen Knop
International Law as Therapy: Reading The Health of Nations by Martti Koskenniemi
The Fervent Imagination and the School of Hard Knocks by Thomas M. Franck
Final Remarks by Rosalyn Higgins