Publications Articles Archive :
Search By Category : | |
Search By Author : | |
http://jcpa.org/article/govt-rejects-extended-settlement-freeze/ 17/09/2010 Herb Keinon | Settlements Despite considerable pressure from both the US and Egypt to continue the settlement construction moratorium for another three months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s senior ministers, a forum known as the septet, decided this week not to extend the freeze. |
http://jcpa.org/article/analysis-the-blockade-on-gaza/ 24/06/2010 Irit Kohn | International Law Israel, as a democratic State, looks for legal tools to curb such smuggling and respond to Hamas’ terrorist attacks against its citizens. One of the tools available under international law is the maritime blockade. Israel, finding itself in a state of armed conflict with Hamas, has opted to employ this legal measure. |
http://jcpa.org/article/israels-blockade-stands-the-test-of-international-law/ 10/06/2010 Irit Kohn | Gaza What does international law have to say about blockades against rogue enterprises? |
http://jcpa.org/article/israels-right-to-secure-boundaries-four-decades-since-un-security-resolution-242-2/ 22/10/2009 Amb. Dore Gold, Amb. Meir Rosenne, Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, Amb. Yehuda Blum, Amb. Richard Holbrooke | Resolution 242 UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 is the most important UN resolution for peacemaking in the Arab-Israel conflict. The resolution never established the extent of Israel’s required withdrawal from territories captured during the Six-Day War in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors. The borders of any Israeli withdrawal were meant to reflect its right to live within “secure and recognized” boundaries. |
http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/ 08/02/2009 Eugene Kontorovich | Piracy For centuries, aggressive international enforcement, facilitated by a legal regime that was the model of international cooperation, has been key to suppressing piracy on the high seas. Today, as a long-simmering piracy problem boils over off the Horn of Africa, nations have begged off from enforcing the law against this group of international criminals that threatens to bring much of international shipping to a standstill. The global shirking of prosecutorial responsibility is particularly hard to square with the eagerness with which the same countries have sought to prosecute much more complex and politically sensitive offenses. Coming at a time when increasingly bold claims have been made about international law’s ability to resolve massive problems like genocide and decades-long ethnic conflict, its incapacity to deal with the international equivalent of ordinary street crime. |
http://jcpa.org/article/international-responses-to-territorial-conquest/ 18/01/2009 Eugene Kontorovich | UN Charter While territorial conquest has been relatively infrequent in the post-World War II period, most conquests have not been condemned by the international community. Indeed, open acceptance is as common as condemnation. The small likelihood of international opposition to conquest suggests that the relatively low incidence of conquest should be attributed to causes other than the non-recognition norm. This does not mean that the anti-conquest norm has no force or “compliance pull,” but it does suggest that condemnation and nonrecognition are not likely play a significant role in decisions about whether to conquer. |
http://jcpa.org/article/constitutional-convergence-in-human-rights-the-reciprocal-relationship-between-human-rights-treaties-and-national-constitutions/ 12/01/2009 05:00:00 Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, Beth Simmons | Universal Declaration of Human Rights Conference Nearly two decades ago, Professor Louis Henkin begin his magisterial The Age |
http://jcpa.org/article/placing-things-in-proportion/ 12/01/2009 Amichai Cohen | Proportionality “Proportionality” has become a common term, widely used by human rights |
http://jcpa.org/article/courting-genocide-the-unintended-effects-of-humanitarian-intervention/ 12/01/2009 Jide Nzelibe | Universal Declaration of Human Rights Conference Invoking memories and imagery from the Holocaust and other German atrocities |
http://jcpa.org/article/the-define-and-punish-clause-and-universal-jurisdiction-recovering-the-lost-limits/ 01/01/2009 Eugene Kontorovich | Law The article explores the constitutionality (under the U.S. Constitution) of U.S. exercises of universal jurisdiction. The article finds that Article I of the constitution limits American exercises of universal jurisdiction, and calls into question many attempts at universal jurisdiction, including many uses of the Alien Tort Statute. |
http://jcpa.org/article/double-jeopardy-and-multiple-sovereigns-a-jurisdictional-theory/ 12/11/2008 Anthony J. Colangelo | Incitement to Genocide This Article offers a coherent way of thinking about double jeopardy rules among sovereigns. Its theory has strong explanatory power for current double jeopardy law and practice in both U.S. federal and international legal systems, recommends adjustments to double jeopardy doctrine in both systems, and shar pens normative assessment of that doctrine. The Article develops a jurisdictional theory of double jeopardy under which sovereignty signifies independent jurisdiction to make and apply law. Using this theory, the Article recasts the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “dual sovereignty” doctrine entirely in terms of jurisdiction, penetrating the opacity of the term sovereign as it is often deployed by the Court and supplying a useful analytical predictor for future extension of the doctrine. The Article then applies the theory to the international legal system to explain the confused and seemingly dissonant body of modern international law and practice on double jeopardy, including the international law of human rights and extradition, international criminal tribunal statutes, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction. The Article next explores the theory’s implications for U.S and international law in light of two main double jeopardy concerns: the individual right to be free from multiple prosecutions and the sovereign ability to enforce law. It argues that since the U.S. dual sovereignty doctrine originally derived and continues to derive justification from the sovereign’s jurisdiction over the defendant, the Court’s present analysis is incomplete and betrays the doctrine’s own foundations by ignoring a basic, and necessary, constitutional inquiry: whether a successively prosecuting sovereign’s exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process. This inquiry would enrich present doctrine by incorporating individual rights concerns—concerns that right now are completely absent from dual sovereignty analysis—and holds the potential to alter outcomes, especially in cases of successive prosecutions between U.S. states and by the federal government when it exercises jurisdiction extraterritorially. The theory similarly enriches international doctrine through a reasonableness evaluation of a successively prosecuting nation-state’s jurisdiction that resembles U.S. due process tests. Finally, the Article suggests that where multiple sovereigns legitimately may exercise jurisdiction it does not mean that they will; institutionalized comity mechanisms between enforcement authorities of different sovereigns can accommodate both the sovereign interest to enforce law and the individual interest to be free from multiple prosecutions by encouraging the representation of multiple sovereigns’ interests in a single prosecution in a single forum. This paper was presented at the conference Ending Impunity or Decreasing Accountability? Averting Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction on November 26, 2008 in London. |