I HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW IS MADE

A SOURCES:
1
United Nations General Assembly
a Passes "treaties"--NOT BINDING, on 'non-signatories'
2
International Court of Justice:
a Only handles disputes b/w nation states who have agreed to
jurisdiction.
If a nation state has not agreed to jurisdiction by the ICJ,
then they have no obligation to appear and cannot be
compelled to do so.

Compulsory Jurisdiction: ART. 36, Section 2 of the
ICJ's Statute----this says that if there is a dispute against
you, then you (the state) will show up.
b Not much value on precedence
1. each decision is only applicable to the individualized case
to which it applies.

Exception: International Criminal Tribunals DO
uphold precedent.
2. Is hesitant to issue an order that has a high probability of
being ignored because a) they have no means of enforcing
compliance and b) each time this occurs, they risk losing
credibility in the international community.

Reason for seemingly inconsistent rulings or
ICJ's hesitancy in taking a stand one way or the other.
c
No coherent reporting system:
no means of getting information out to the community in a
rapid or reliable manner.
d Making out a prima facia case:
only requires that one party puts in a claim which the other
party denies. A DISPUTE.
3
United Nations Security Council:
a A council that can use military power to enforce peace and
security around the world
b Resolutions are binding
c Authority derived from Chapter 7 of UN Charter
d Five Permanent members (all have veto power)
1. US, Russia, China, France, UK (seat is filled by 10
rotating members that rotate throughout the general assembly.
Position is not eligible for immediate re-election.
2. Only takes one veto to not pass a resolution

Currently no means for overruling a veto.

 4
a

International Criminal Court:

Created by the Rome Statute that bound signatories to its
jurisdiction.
b Clinton signed this and Bush took us off. (however there are
rumors that Bush, prior to leaving office told bush not to ratify it.)
B INTERNATIONAL CORPUS OF LAW
1
Where do you look to? In which Order?
a TREATIES
--UN Charter = father of all treaties

MAKING TREATIES:

1. Many Years of continued state practice--> UN
decides that this State is ready to "concretize" their
custom.

2. UN votes for a treaty to be written

--basically a present snapshot of the legal
practice/customs w/in that state at the time.
--treaty does not change the custom--just concretizes
it.

3. Should the people not obey the treaty, the
treaty is reformed and the cycle continues

CUSTOMARY LAW IS EVERY-CHANGING AND
TREATIES THUS ENCOMPASS WHATS ALREADY
OCCURRING.

TREATIES ONLY BIND SIGNATORIES--However, if

you wait long enough--non-signatories will come under
customary international law binding.
Basically, one country will start practicing a certain
legal custom and then we wait for the international
response. If nobody opposes this practice then it starts
to catch and eventually becomes a custom which
eventually becomes a treat. IF THERE IS OPPOSITION,
WE ADJUST FROM THERE.

Process for Implementing Treaties:

1) UN proposition is sent out to involved states

2) Committee is assigned to work on this issue
in Geneva (held during the summer)

3) A draft is made

4) it goes through SEVERAL re-writes, where
everyone gets a say

5) Countries sign on

6) Treaty is taken to the UN "window" to be

ratified. It is NOT Ratified until this last step.

Rectitude: states like to be seen as obeying the law.
b CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: general practice of
the states. This is where the majority of International law is
found.
c GENERALIZED PRINCIPALS OF LAW: "pacta sunt
servanda"= means "all laws must be obeyed"
--more like the actual laws of the state (usually looked to
when there is a conflict b/w 2 states and nothing in the above 2
categories resolves it.)
d SCHOLARS/JUDICIAL DECISIONS: last resort-there is
no precedence in ICJ decisions
C SCHOOLS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
1
New Haven School of International Jurisprudence:
a Suggests 5 goals of Intellectual decision makers:
--Goal Clarification
--Trend Analysis

--analyzing conclusions of similar measures taken to
resolve similar issues throughout time.
--Factor Analysis (factors influencing decisions)

--recognizing all applicable factors involved: economy,
words and deeds, group activities, decision-making
institutions, all perspectives involved
--Predictions
--Invention of alternatives
2
Positivism:
a Views International Law from the perspective of the
receiver of commands---the "political inferior"--> law = a
body of commands
Domestic US legal system is like this.
3
Natural Law Tradition: views the law from the person
charged with MAKING the decision. Looks at technical
problems that are confronted in terms of making decision that
are appropriate to the relevant community.
II
LAW OF BAYS AND THE SEA
A QUESTIONS FOR DEALING WITH CONFLICTS:
1
What's your authority for the action you wish to carry
out?
2
How do you hold them (the complaining party)
3
What rights are they entitled to based upon:
a their status

 b
c

where you found them

what they were doing at the time.
B PIRATE SHIPS
1
Jurisdiction
a Who owns the machinary/equipment--contractual issue
b Who gets to prosecute--jurisdictional
the aim is to "attach" these pirate ships to incidents in
other countries and then attach jurisdiction to the country
that has been wronged the most by that pirate ship.
2
Enemies of the State:
a pirates are universally subject to the extreme rights of war
(for inquiring, interfering, inspecting etc.)
C INTERNATIONAL WATERS: aka High Seas
1
LAWS
a Law of the Sea Treaties: defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations in their use of the worlds oceans,
establishing guidelines for business, the environment, and the
management of marine natural resources
b Relevant UN Resolutions: where you go if the resolution to
the conflict cannot be found in the Law of the Seas Treaties.
c UN CONVENTION ON LAW OF THE SEA-(1982)
Freedom of High Seas
1) navigation
2) overflight
3) lay submarine cables/pipes
4) fishing
5) scientific research
**These freedoms shall be exercised with DUE REGARD
for the interests of other States to exercise these same
freedoms. NO STATE MAY INTERFERE WITH ANOTHER
STATES FREEDOMS ABSENT A TIME OF WAR AND
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
Flags: Nationality of Ships
1) each state will affix their own requirements for the
registration of ships in its territory
2) every state will issue accompanying documents
verifying the right to fly flag to those ships who have been
granted that right.
3) each ship is subject to only ONE exclusive
jurisdiction based on the flag it flies (save in exceptional
cases--international treaties)

 4) A ship may not change its flag during a voyage or

while in port--save in the case of a real transfer of
ownership
Duties of Flag State
1) investigate reports of justifiable grounds for a belief
of proper jurisdiction violation involving a ship with their
flag--and if need be, remedy the situations
2) cause an inquiry to be held by or before a suitable
person or board of persons w/r/t every marine casualty or
incident of navigation involving a ship flying their flag and
causing loss of life or serious injury to nationals of other
states.
Immunity
1) Warships on the high seas have complete immunity
from the jurisdiction of any other State, save their flag
state.
2) State owned/operated ships used only for noncommercial, governmental services shall have complete
immunity from any jurisdiction save the flag state.
Where "High Seas" Begins:
1) 200 miles from the baseline of a coastal state is
assigned to that state for exclusive economic zones.
Military Interdiction Operations: are naval conducted
operations that aim to delay, disrupt, or destroy enemy forces
or supplies en route to the battle area before they do any harm
against friendly forces.
D TERRITORIAL WATERS: governed by the host state but
subject to certain servitudes for the benefit of international users.
1
Limits: 12 miles from the baseline=breadth
2
Right of Innocent Passage: ships of all states enjoy the
right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
a Passage =navigation for the purpose of
1) traversing that sea w/o entering internal waters
2) proceeding to or from internal waters
b Meaning of "innocent passage": not prejudicial to
peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Passage
is NOT innocent if a foreign ship engages in the following
activities:
1) threat of or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity or political independence of the coastal state
2) exercise or practice with weapons of any kind

 3)any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of

the defence or security of coastal state
4) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or
security of the coastal state.
5) launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft
6) launching, landing or taking on board of any military
device
7) loading or unloading anything contrary to the customs,
regulations and laws of the coastal state
8) an act of willful polution
9) any fishing activities
10) carrying out of research
11) any act aimed at interfering with systems of
communication of the coastal state.
c Rights of Protection of Coastal State
1) take any steps necessary to prevent passage that is not
innocent within it's territorial sea.
2) in the case of internal waters--the right to take necessary
steps to prevent a breach of the conditions required for
admission of ships into those waters.
3) Suspending passage of specified areas of territorial seas,
if essential for the protection of security provided that such
suspension will only take affect after having been PUBLISHED.
E CONTIGUOUS ZONES: control of areas next to territorial
waters for specific purposes
1
Preventing Infringement of Laws, Regulations and
Customs
2
Punish infringement of the above Laws, etc.
3
Contiguous Zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured.
F INTERNAL WATERS-BAYS--Art. 8,9,10 of UN Convention of
Law of Sea
1
Internal Waters: waters on the landward side of the
territorial sea form part of the internal waters of that state.
2
Mouths of Rivers: for rivers that flow directly into the sea, a
baseline shall be drawn across the mouth of the river b/w 2 points
on the low-water line of its banks.
3
Bays: well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such
proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters
and constitute more than just a "mere curvature" of the coast.

islands within the bay---are considered included as if they

were part of the water area of the indentation.
b this Article does not apply to Historic Bays.
c US uses a 24 mile closing rule together with the semi-circle
test for classifying bays.
Semi-Circle Test: bay's area is less than that a a semi-circle
whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of the
indention.
III
ESTABLISHMENT/TRANFORMATION/TERMINATION OF
STATES
A TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF A STATE-Art.1 Montevideo
Convention
1
A state is a person of International Law that should
possess the following:
a permanent population (stability
b a defined territory
c a government
d a capacity to enter into relations with other states (become a
member of the world community)
B WHO CAN BE A "STATE"
1
Nation State
2
Non-Self governing entities
a Trusteeships
b Mandates
c Protectorates
these are like the adopted children of the "administering
states, who "own" them until they're ready to be sovereign, if
ever.

Administering States: "The parent state" who

takes on the responsibility of ushering the non selfgoverning states into self-determination, by following
these goals:
1. Ensure, with due respect for the culture of the
peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and
educational advancement. AND their just treatment, by
protection against abuses.
2. to aid in developing a government for the
protectorate
3. to further international peace and security
4. to promote constructive measures of development
5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for

information purposes (on progress etc.)

3
Autonomous sub-units of states
a Not actually allowed to be a "state" but they are allowed to
be autonomous within the country. Have their own language,
etc.
--South Ossetia and Abhkaia are both autonomous units
within Georgia
4
Regions within a state
a Bast Region in Spain
5
Administrative Unit
a Palestinian Authority
6
Indigenous Peoples within Reservations
a Natives in both the US and Canada
C RIGHT TO BECOME A STATE--AUTHORITY?
1
UN Charter-Article 1(2): To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace
2
Self-Determination: promoting full employment, higher
standards of living, higher conditions of economic and social
progress development.
a NOT A SYNONYM FOR INDEPENDENCE
b IS THERE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SELFDETERMINATION??--it appears there is one.
Areas of Law Referring to Self-Determination:
1. UN Charter Article 73: Non Self-Governing territories
(trusteeships)--territories whose peoples have not yet
attained a full measure of self-government recognize the
principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these
territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the
obligation to promote the utmost, within the system of
international peace and security established by the
present charter.
2. UN Charter Article 75: discusses international
trusteeship system for the administration and supervision
of such territories.
3. Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples (1961)--General Assembly
Resolution
This did away with the colonialism and all of its
manifestations. IMPORTANT PHRASE: "All armed action or

repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent

peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise
peacefully and freely their right to complete independence and
the integrity of their national territory shall be respected."

Does Past aggression by a colonial government
count, in the determination of whether or not a state
has a right to secede?? PROBABLY NOT (Scottland
Case)
c Other Ways to Gain Status: From the: Principles Which
Should Guide Members In Determining Whether or Not an
Obligation Exists to Transmit the Information Called for
Under 73(E) of the Charter--General Resolution (1960):
(Other ways to gain status)
FREE ASSOCIATION: gives a people the right to modify
the status of their territory through expression of their will by
democratic means and through constitutional processes. And
also by this, they gain the right to determine their constitution
w/o outside interference. DOES NOT PRECLUDE
CONSULTATIONS AS APPROPRIATE or necessary under the
terms of the free association agreed upon (sort of like "shared
sovereignty")---you more or less have sovereignty in your own
spheres
INTEGRATION: this occurs when one country is absorbed
or integrated into another. They become exactly part of the
unity state with all the same protections and rights and other
nationals. Basically 1. offers equal rights of citizenship
2. offers equal guarantees of fundamental freedoms and
rights w/o distinction or discrimination
3. Equal Opportunities for representation and effective
participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and
judicial organs of government.
BOTH FREE ASSOCIATION AND INTEGRATION
REQUIRE "FREE AND OPEN CHOICE"
--The strong word "shall" suggests that ultimately you
have a right to self-determination, SO LONG AS it does
NOT DISRUPT the national unity and territorial integrity of
the country within which this right is asserted.
D STRATEGIES FOR CHANGING INTERNATIONAL STATUS
1
Military conquest: not recognized by the UN as a
legitimate transformation
a East Timor Case: Dispute b/w Portugal and Australia.

Australia recognized "de facto (by fact)" that Indonesia (who

militarily invaded the territory) was the administering authority of
East Timor and made a treaty with them in order to prevent
adverse effect on Australian trade (due the proximity of East
Timor to the Timor Gap. Portugal claims that as the
administering state of East Timor, THEY were the only ones
authorized to make treaties re: the sovereignty of that territory.
Indonesia is not present for this dispute.

VERDICT: The court says that self-determination

is STILL and absolute right (ergo omnes---applying to
all) but even so, the Court cannot act because they
cannot try a case that could result in affecting the
rights of an absent party.
Politics? The president of the court at the time was up
for re-election and did not want to rule against a muslim
country (indonesia)
Aftermath: In 1999, Portugal signed an agreement w/
Indonesia which would offered East Timor the choice of
remaining apart of Indonesia --as an autonomous
entity--or not. They voted to not. This resulted in a
horrible military backlash, where Indonesian troops
invaded East Timor, killing thousands of civilians
and displacing many more.

UN RESPONSE: Security Council

Resolution 1264: authorizing Australia (the go-to
guys for disarmament) to go and stop the
violence...but by the time they arrived, the damage
was done.
Nation Building: UN came into East Timor
(or authorizes someone else to) in order to
rebuilt a nation that has been destroyed. East
Timor=first case of this.
2
Claims of Discovery: planting the flag--res nullius or terra
nullius the notion of a thing or land belongs to no one and was in
this condition when you "discovered" it.---not likely any longer
3
Secession: From the root 'secede' ---to leave or pull away
from another country. A group or part of a population deciding that
they want to leave the unitary country and for their own country.
a Franck's View: The Right to Unilaterally Secede exists
because though International Society does not recognize it they
do not explicitly prohibit it. So long as the secessionist regime
does not disrupt the peace of the international community, they

may leave. He lists 5 situations of when unilateral secession is

recognized:
1. When it's achieved by mutual agreement w/ the parent
state (i.e. USSER; Czech Republic/Slovakia;
Serbia/Montenegro.
2. When a secessionist regime has demonstrated
EFFECTIVE, CONTINUOUS control over its territory AND
the secessionist government has indicated its
ACCEPTANCE of RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS
3. When a secessionist government can demonstrate its
democratic legitimacy
4. When it has taken constitutional steps to ensure
political autonomy for such of its own minorities that
desire it.
5. When can be satisfied with its pre-existing territories
and be willing to live within them.
b External Secession: Right to Unilateral Secession: NO.
EXCEPT FOR 3 SITUATIONS.
Quebec Secession Case: Quebec wishes to secede from
Canada and validates their right by showing the results of a
vote in Quebec that are in favor of secession.

VERDICT: For this case, the ruling Authority is

the Canadian Constitution because currently Quebec is
still part of Canada. There is NO RIGHT to
UNILATERAL secession in Canada. The court states
that even a democratic vote shows a strong majority in
favor of secession, this would have NO EFFECT,
because they cannot on their own accord, push aside
the principles of federalism and the rule of law in
Canada, as a whole.
--for this vote to have effect--there would have to be a
debate in order to resolve issues of maritime resources,
national debt, boundaries, etc.
COURT RECOGNIZES 3 EXCEPTIONS TO THIS
RULE:
1) Oppressed or Colonial People
2) People who are subject to alien subjugation,
domination or exploitation outside of the colonial
context. (government commits acts of violence on
its own people)

 3) When a people is blocked from the meaningful

exercise of its right to self-determination, internally,
it is entitled, as a last resort to exercise it by
secession.

External secession is allowed when the

people's ability to exercise their rights to selfdetermination, INTERNALLY, is somehow being
TOTALLY frustrated.
--none apply to Quebec.
Effectivity Principle: Where you have a
secession "in the streets" and thus it is
recognized. However, the Court states, that
this does not make the practice acceptable by
International Law standards.
c Internal Secession: by process of its political, economic,
social and cultural development within the legal framework of an
existing state.
INTERNATIONAL LAW PROVIDES NO RIGHT TO
UNILATERAL SECESSION UNLESS:
1) You are internally blocked from exercising your selfdetermination within the confines of the parent state.
2) Effectivity Principle
3) Government is committing acts of violence on its own
people
***ULTIMATELY, There is a duty to recognize the rights
of states self-determination and right to secede BUT IT
MUST BE BALANCED with the fundamental INTEGRITY OF
SOVEREIGN STATES.

---seems to suggest that more consideration will be

given to state that are behaving within the lines of
International Law (good-guy states)
Difference between Chechnya and Kosovo:
Chechnya never negotiated and seceded de facto.
Chechnya failed to build any viable institutions of an
independent state; turned to criminal activity; did not
represent the popular will of the people. KOSOVO
obtained autonomy to a degree after the break up of the
SFRY. The FRY, which took over, inflicted huge
draconian acts of torture and death on Kosovars;
Kosovars continued to seek peaceful means of
accomodation; and developed the Kosovo Liberation
Army as a last resort.)---***Kosovo gained recognition by

the International Community and Chechnya did not.

Charney Article: Which Claims for selfdetermination are valid?

---A valid claim will show the following:

1) Bona fide exhaustion of peaceful methods of
resolving dispute b/w the government and the minority
group claiming an unjust denial of self-determination,
including efforts to use the good offices of other states
and intergovernmental organizations.

2) a demonstration that the persons comprised in
the group asserting the claim to self-determination
represent the will of the majority of that group.

3)a resort to the use of force as a last resort.
4. Under Foreign Occupation
5. Colonial Context---not really an issue any more.
4
Succession: refers to what happens to a name or a part of
a country after secession has taken place (has much to do w/ who
keeps the flag and who keeps the UN seat)--Who was/is the
successor state?
a Break up of Yugoslovia: resulted in 4 break-away republics,
NONE OF WHICH, hold a UN seat.
1. Slovenia
2. Bosnia Herzogovina
3. Croatia
4. Macedonia
5
Cession: comes from the root "cede" to sell or to give away.
Basically obtaining the country by an agreement between the
leaders of the accepting country and the giving country.
a Western Sahara Case: Dispute between Spain and
Morocco over the Western Saraha. Spain claims that at the
time it colonized this area it was Terra Nullis: ---Morocco
claims it was NOT terra nullius because there were
historical ties to this area and Morocco which made
Morocco the "administering state" at the time Spain
colonized the area.
2 REQUIREMENTS FOR A CLAIM UPON A TERRITORY
BASED ON CONTINUED DISPLAY OF AUTHORITY
a) Intention and will to act sovereign
b) Some actual display or exercise of such authority.

VERDICT: Spain's claim wins b/c it was able to
prove that it acquired this territory under cession

through the indigenous tribes AND it as able to offer

evidence to prove the 2 above elements.
E DESOLUTION OF OLD STATE
1
Usi Possedetis: all boundaries currently in place after
the dissolution of a nation state, stay as they are. This
occurred whenever there was changeover in "councils" --froze
borders to prevent conflict.--General Principle according to the
ICJ--and does not conflict w/ self-determination.
a Problems proposed by Steven Ratner: Usi Possidetis
should only apply at the beginning of a new state and until
appropriate authorities decide on their new borders.
1. Spill over effect: a) tempts ethnic separatists to divide the
world further along administrative lines b) leaves significant
populations both unsatisfied with their status in the new states
and uncertain of political participation there---may lead to
"ethnic cleansing"

Ratner's Guidelines for drawing Territorial
Boundaries post-secession:

1) Start with Uti Possidetis

2) Open Negotiations

3) Make changes peacefully

a. economic/geographic considerations of entities that
would emerge
b. Age lines and population that have adjusted to
long-standing borders
c. process by which the line was drawn should merit
consideration (i.e. a constitutionally authorized line
should have a greater presumption of permanence than
one determined solely at the command of a dictator.)

4) consult with the populace of a disputed
territory on its future.
b Yugoslavia: After WWII, several republics of Yugoslavia
were group together w/o consideration for the inner
conflicts amongst them, into "states"
--Tito forms the Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
consisted of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, BosniaHerzegovina and Macedonia (also 2 autonomous provinces=
Kosovo and Voyvodina)
--1980 Tito dies
--The Former Republic of Yugoslavia is formed to replace
SFRY--the intended to govern themselves by power-showing

via a "rotating presidency". 1st rotation=Slobodan Milosevic,

who refused to give up his seat at the end of the rotation.
(Slobodon from Serbia/Montenegro)
--In Resonse, other Republics declared independence
(Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia and Boznia-Herzegovina)
--Serbs in Croatia and Serbia then engaged in VICIOUS
ethnic cleansing of Kosovars
--The Security Council instated an "arms" emargo--Serbia
did not conform.

UN Deliberates Response:

1) Do we want to encourage secession out of the
colonial context?

2)When can international borders be changed into
smaller ones?

3) If we decided to intervene, what can we do?

While waiting for UN response after Security Council
declared that they would intervene, Clinton orders a
NATO air strike on Sarajevo

EU Reaction: Established a list of criteria

for recognition of a state:
1) sign on to respect the UN charter
2) sign on to respect the Helsenki Accords
and a number of other UN security
instruments.
3) Must promise that ethnic minorities must
be guaranteed human rights.
4) Must agree to the inviolability of the
frontiers: Usi Possedetis.

problem for Kosovo--who had no
borders.
5. Must sign on to the nuclear commitments
that were in place
6. All disputes over succession had to be
settled peacefully.
F DECLARATION OF STATEHOOD + RECOGNITION
1
Who Recognizes?
a United Nations--by offering State Membership
member state duties:
1) a duty to recognize states that meet the requirements
2) a duty to NOT recognize state that dont
3) a duty to not prematurely recognize state that haven't

quite met the requirements

---recognition can be withdrawn--i.e. South Africa

---Every State has a right to not recognize another
state IF the recognition is based on an inquiry into the
sovereignty of the government.
b World Trade Organization-governmental organization that
can offer claims of legitimacy through recognition.
c European Union--regional governmental organization,
which has done more to tame conflicts in this area. Has strict
requirements for membership.
d Nation States in the World: decide when and under what
terms that they will recognized a country.
G EXTERNAL ELITES ROLE
1
Recognition of Government's in Exile:
a Reismen: "this is a useful tool for continuing to recognize a
legitimate government and ignore the usurper.
i.e. US recognized the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Free French Government and Polish Government
which were both operated from their exile in London.
2
Claim of Regime Change by a 3rd State: basically making
the claim that the government in power is committing huge crimes
against humanity or something else in order to provoke the
International Community to step in and change the Regime.
a US called for a regime change in Liberia and Zimbabwe
b US called for a regime change in North Korea
c US called for a regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq
d Reagan saved Granada by regime change
e Clinton performed a regime change in Haiti
f
WWII was a HUGE regime change
Regime change has met with NO OPPOSITION if the
intervention was justified.
3
De Jure Recognition: recognizing by established law
a more formal
b creates increased prestige and stability at home
c provides access to private governmental loans b/c of ability
to pledge the state's credit
d diplomatic and consular status is grated for its agents in the
recognizing entity
e access to foreign courts and diplomatic immunity from
foreign process
f
normal trade relations

capacity to request assistance from the recognizing

government in the form of money, supplies or military aid.
4
De Facto Recognition: recognizing by facts of
circumstances.
a enter into trade relations (EXTERNAL ELITES)
How Long does a government have to be in place before
outsiders can do business there or recognize the new
state? Not Long.

TINOCO Case (Great Britain v. Costa Rica): The

president of Ecaudor, Rafael Correa, has threatened to not
repay that debt incurred by the dictator, Tinoco, who ousted
him illegally and conducted a petroluem business deal
entitling the Canadian company to explore and exploit oil
deposits in Canada.
--Great Britain is acting on behalf of it's citizens who
owned the Petroleum companies involved.
--Costa Rico denies liability for the acts or obligations
of the Tinoco regime on the basis that the Tinoco
government was not a recognized one and thus the Law
of Nullities should apply.
--Costa Rica claims that since Great Britain did not
recognize them as a state under Tinoco that they are not
entitled to call upon a debt from it.--Taft says that Great
Britain's non-recognition did not effect the succeeding
government in any position, in any way, upon the faith of
it.

Verdict: The debt must paid off and cannot be
nullified. However, the concessions for oil could be
nullified not because of the new government's claim
of constitutional violations but on Tinoco's
constitutional violations---in that the constitution
Tinoco was acting under required legislative approval
for all concessions, which was not obtained.

Law of Nullities: invalidated 1) all contracts b/w
the executive power and private persons made with
or without approval of legislative power between Jan.
27, 1917 and September 2,1919 (Tinocos regime); 2)
Nullified the legislative decree of the Tinoco
government, which authorized the issue of 15 million
colones currency notes; and 3) invalidate the
legislative decree authorizing the circulation of notes
of the nomination of 1000 colones and annulled all

transactions done with this paper.

TEST: has the government in power engaged
in actual and peaceful negotiations with the
complaining party? If so--Law of Nullities does not
apply.

Underlying Principle: Continuity of States--what ever government has effective control of the
state is legitimate and can enter into contracts,
business relations etc. Therefore, the state is bound
by those engagements even though that government
has ceased to exist. THE RESTORED
GOVERNMENT IS GENERALLY LIABLE FOR THE
ACTS OF THE USURPER
Factors Taft Reviewed in Making This
Decision:

1) Tinoco seized government

2) Immediately instated a new
government

3) held elections to the assembly

4) Presidential election was held

5) New constitution was adopted

6) Regime existed for 2 years

7) No other governmental sect existed
(in exile or otherwise)

8) The people accepted it.

TODAY's RULE: The Continuity of
principle would be applied to similar
situations as the one that arose in
Ecuador. Government's come and
go....states do not.

What do you do if a country who owes
debt cannot repay it?---Bankruptcy--iceland
declared such recently.
b enter into treaties
5
UN seat (even if obtained in a manner not in light w/
International Law (i.e. unilateral secession not under one of the
exceptions)
a Process of Becoming a State:
1. application to General Assembly
2. application must be approved by the Security council
3. after approval, general assembly votes.

UN MEMBERSHIP STATE REQUIREMENTS

1
Established government
2
Established territory over which the government resides
3
Showing of some loyalty to that territory
4
Ability to engage in international relations
IV
STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCE: How to encourage countries to
follow a "rule"
A ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS: involving the granting or
withholding of indulgence or deprivations from a target
1
Unilateral Sanctions: a ship wanting to pass through a port,
carrying perishables being subject to painfully slow, "by the book"
inspections.
2
Multi-lateral sanctions: imposted by the UN Security
Council Article VII-10 sanctions.
a Damages: starvation, dilapidation, arms embargo
3
Measures for Assessing Legality?
a Currently none in place. REISMAN suggests this is
because we have a "blind spot" and see that only military
sanctions have physical effects and therefore they are the
only ones requiring assessment.
--suggests that there SHOULD be assessments in this arena
B IDEOLOGICAL INSTRUMENT: involving the modulation of
carefully selected signs and symbols to politically relevant parts
of the rand and files as a means of influencing the elite that
governs it.
1
Propaganda and Social influences
a Damages: ousting from important influential groups.
C DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENTS: involving communications
ranging from persuasion to coercion, directed against the elite of
a target
1
Threats: 2 stages
a Communication Stage: "Do this or else"
b Application Stage: the "or else"
This will not work if the target doesn't believe that the
sanctioner will follow through or has the capacity to follow
through, or if the target does not find that the threat is adequate
to persuade a change in attitude or behavior.

Common Target Strategy: "Wait and See"--the
rationality of this strategy depends upon the threat--i.e.
if it's economic as opposed to military.
D MILITARY INSTRUMENTS: INITIATING FORCEFUL

INTERVENTION
1
Authorities:
a UN Article 41: Must try other means to resolve conflict and
only resort to military intervention as a last resort.
2
Rules for Proper Military Sanctions
a Must be necessary
b Must be proportional
c it must be capable of discrimination b/w combatants and
non-combatants
3
Analyzing Legality of Action:
a All military actions taken are measured, after the fact,
according to these three rules. Factors considered:
1. degree of threat presented
2. availability of meaningful organized initial response
3. urgency of the unilateral action to prevent or deflect the
attack.
4. proportionality of the measure chosen to the necessity of
the defending against the threat.
4
Basis for Initiating Force:
a Self Defense
UN Charter Article 51 : "a member state, who is acting in
self-defense is not required to gain approval of the
Security council before they act. But they MUST report
this action to the Security council afterwards, along with
the trigger for it.
b Crimes Against Humanity (humanitarian intervention)
1. Genocide: any number of acts committed with the
intent to destroy in whole, or in part, any group (racial,
ethnical, religious, national)

Requires Proof of such act committed with the

INTENT to destroy in order to bring a case of genocide.
(intent can be inferred from statements by leaders,
newspaper articles, popular culture and songs.)
1. Recognized Genocide Groups
a) ethnical
b) religious
c) racial
d) national
2. War Crimes-Crimes against humanity committed during
war
3. Aggression

 4. Other crimes against humanity-crimes against humanity

performed in a wide-spread, systematic manner with the intent
to harm citizens. No war is needed.

can be committed by either civilians or by the
military

BOTH ENGAGING IN AND ALSO FAILING TO

ERADICATE OR ELIMINATE ONGOING CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY WARRANT LIABILITY
Nerumbug Trials: established that soldiers can be
held liable, individually for crimes against humanity
and you can no longer say "I was just following
orders"
--individual commanders can be held liable as
well--THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE
CRIMES OR EVEN KNOW OF THEM.

Theory?? If you are in command of a certain
group and THEY commit war crimes then you are
held liable for their actions, IF YOU FAIL TO
PUNISH them for their actions. It is also true that
you will be held liable for their actions EVEN if you
became commander after the crimes had already
been committed and you failed to punish them.

State actions w/r/t Genocide. States MAY:

1) prevent it

2) stop it

3) try criminals in war tribunals in order to

deter it.
CURRENT WAR TRIBUNALS

a) Ad Hoc (created by UN after the

crime)
1) ICTY--first tribunal to declare Rape a
war crime 2001
2) ICTR--first tribunal to declare Rape
an aspect of genocide

Gacaca courts (Tanzania,
Arusha)

b) Permanent court
1) ICC: not a UN court; have their own
statute--Rome Statute; funded by member
states of the Rome Statute.

c) Mixed Tribunals: (has 2 separated

processes: 1) the state has authority to hire its

own staff; 2) the UN has the authority to hire

it's own staff; 3) and they try the crimes
together.
1) Special Court of Sierra Leone
2) Criminal Court of Cambodia
c Restore Democracy
HAITI: US intervened to restore President Jean-Betrand
Aristide back to power after he had been thrown by a dictator.

UN having been unable to remove the illegitimate
regime by diplomacy AND an international embargo,
authorized the use of force because of the need to
Restore Humanity and Stop Human Rights Abuses (and
restore democracy).
d Foreign Occupation
Angola intervention: Katangan rebel troops invaded the
Shaba province of ZAIRE and occupied two of the principle
towns. Zaire's president requested military aid from a number
of European and African countries.

France and Belgium responded and began to

evacuate the area of Europeans and to hold it against
further rebel incursions.
JUSTIFICATION: Zaire requested assistance and
gave uncoerced consent for the military
intervention.
e Protect Nationals
Entebbe-Uganda case 1976: Israeli effort in Uganda where
they engaged in military action for the persecution of its
nationals aboard a plane and hijacked by terrorists. Israel 1)
acted unilaterally; and 2) never applied for Security Council
approval.

Verdict: Court said this would normally not be

allowed but under the circumstances it was allowed.
The right to protect ones nationals flow from the right
of self-defense.
TEST: if the government residing over the state
where the violation is occurring either CANNOT or
WILL NOT prevent the violation, organs of the
international community may enter to terminate the
outrage.
Angola intervention: Katangan rebel troops invaded the
Shaba province of ZAIRE and occupied two of the principle
towns. Zaire's president requested military aid from a number

of European and African countries.

France invaded and justified this action by
Humanitarian concerns for its own citizens.
f
"Some" Violations of International Law--Jus Cogens
Some violations of the international community are SO
against the law intervention is justified. Basically these
laws are "jus cogens" or understood by EVERYBODY and
are NON-DEROGABLE (cannot be broken w/o quick
international response.

a) Piracy

b) Highjacking

c) genocide
UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: flows from Jus
Cogens crimes. If a perpetrator of these crimes is
found in ANY country, even if it's not the country
where the crimes where committed, they country in
which he is found may charge him and try him.

Example: Pinochet: committed huge genocide
crimes in Chile and traveled to London for a back
surgery. In London he was arrested, while
recuperating.
Collateral Damage: destruction of people/objects in the
periphery of the target.
--accompanied by core military rules such as "you
cannot target innocent people."
--applies pretty much to the military instrument but can
be found in other instrument applications
--doesn't effect the elites b/c they knew of the threat and
have already "stocked up" or guarded themselves.
5
US Excuses for Not Intervening in the Face of Genocide:
a Futility: nothing we can do
b perversity: we would only make it worse
c Jeopardy: we have own problems to take deal with
6
Important Questions to ask analyzing failure to
intervene-Genocide
a Where there early warning signs of Mass violence??
b did anybody take it seriously when it first began?
c Was there any reason to believe that it was qualitatively
different than "routine" killings of a war?
d Once the violence had begun, what classified or even
open intelligence was available?

Once we knew what was happening, what kept us from

doing anything about it.
f
Who inside/outside of the government wanted what?
g re: jeopardy--what were the perceived costs/benefits of
an intervention.
7
GENOCIDE CASES/VICTIMS
a KURDS:
--a non-Arabic, Sunni people that lived in the mountains and
were wide-spread through, parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria and
southern Turkey.
--Saddam thought the Kurds were a threat to him b/c they
supported Iran.
--he had a goal to "stamp out Kurdish life"
--1st the Kurds where moved to "collection centers" and if
they refused to go, they were marked for execution and killed
(similar to German/Jewish Ghettos.)
--sprouting of news re: mass killings and mass graves
--systematic rape

US interpreted this as Iraq defending itself against
terrorists.
--Iraq was emboldened by US inaction
RESULT: eventually US did help by putting in "NO FLY"
zones and they were very effective--for the 12 years they were
in place Saddam basically had control over a little nub. Kurds
established a country at that time.
V
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
A HISTORY
1
Marshall Islands Case: the islanders were complaining
about US hydrogen bomb tests in their area because it violated the
Law of the Seas
a This case took place in the mid-50's, which was a point
when nuclear testing was seen as more vital. --it was on the
heels of WWII, and was not limited because it was seen as a
protection of the WHOLE WORLD against the Soviet
Union---Testing was considered acceptable so long as it was
reasonable in length, place and purpose. AT THIS TIME THERE
WAS ZERO AUTHORITY ON NUCLEAR TESTING LEGALITY
--w/r/t to customary law--US was it. Nobody else was
testing yet. And the Soviet was the only opponent (for
obvious reasons) However, shortly after, they begin
nuclear testing themselves.

Manhattan Project: "secret testing" occurred in Manhattan

that resulted in the hydrogen bomb that exploded in Hiroshima.
Subsequently (after Japan surrendered), Trueman (who had no idea
that the Manhattan Project existed) offered the hydrogen bomb
technology to the rest of world.
3
Australia v. France case: Australia wants France to stop
nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, wants to the court to declare
that all atmospheric testing is illegal under international law and
asks that the court take interim measures while the case is being
decided.
a Interim measures were put in place but France did not
abide by them.
b Australia but a second case because of this
However, by this time, the Foreign French Minister
made a statement during a TV interview stated, "we have
no reached a stage in our nuclear technology that makes it
possible for us to continue our program by underground
testing, and have taken steps to do so as early as next
year.
The court held that if a statement of this nature is made
in the public domain and is known to the other affected
party then it shows an INTENT TO BE BOUND.
---RESULT??? There was no second case because there
was no dispute.

Political Reasons: The court backed out of this case
because 1) nobody supported the court in limiting the
testing; 2) the court felt that they had put their entire
credibility on the line; 3) they felt that it was necessary to
back out in order to maintain credibility in the international
community.
B LIMITATIONS
1
Treaties
a Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963)--Banned all nuclear testing
in the atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space.
The purpose was to disarm state that had nuclear
weapons and to eliminate the incentive to produce and
test all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons.
> Banned using the bombs or explosions
>Obligated signatories to be responsible for radio-active
debris that went outside of the states' territorial limits and
under whose jurisdiction/control such explosion was
conducted

 >offered signatories the chance to withdraw from the

treaties. NOTICE: 90 days. REASON TO WITHDRAW: self
defense.
Only the Permanent 5 had nuclear weapons and wanted
to keep it that way.

--Signatories: US, UK, RUSSA

--non-signatories: France & China

didn't want to sign because they were not finished
testing.

Basically under this treaty, nuclear states are
agreeing to come in and protect non-nuclear
(signatories) states. Also, nuclear states are
promising to not share nuclear technology with nonnuclear states and in exchange are obligated to
come to the aid of these states, should it be needed.
b Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1970):
sought to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms and nuclear
testing and prevent a wider dissemination of nuclear weapons, in
light of the irreparable damage caused by the debris and
chemicals. Only the Permanent 5 were allowed to have nuclear
weapons and those State agreed to not trade, assist, encourage
or induce non-nuclear weapon to state to manufacture or
otherwise acquire control over such devices. Non-nuclear
signatories agree to not receive or acquire such devices.
IN 1995, THE NPT was extended indefinitely.

Non-Signatories Who Have Acquired Nuclear
Technology

1) INDIA/PAKISTAN: though pakistan and India

are NOT ALLOWED to trade or possess nuclear
weapons, they do. INDIA has weapons/technology
because Congress (2 months ago) agreed to sell India
nuclear technology in exchange for US inspectors
being allowed to inspect certain testing facilities (but
not certain military facilities) **India has also agreed to
bail the US about of this wall street debacle. PAKISTAN
requested the same deal as India got but has received
no answer. But has obtained nuclear weapons anyway
from AQ KHAN "the father of the muslim bomb.
Under Musharraf, Khan was viewed as the great
equalizer in power against the Western States. Under
Zadai??? Who knows.
Problem??--huge swaths of Pakistan are

controlled by the Taliban.

2) NORTH KOREA: this confrontation began in
2002 and stemmed from the dissolution of a negotiated
settlement between Korea and the US (which was
induced by the last nuclear outbreak on the Korean
Peninsula in 1994). N. Korea had promised to

--N.Korea had promised to abandon its nuclear
program and submit to UN/IAEA inspections in exchange
for shipments of fuel oil and the building of nuclear plants

--2002, disclosures were mad to the US, that N.
Korea had breached their promise and had been secretly
perusing the development of uranium based nuclear
weapons.---RESPONSE: BUSH CUT THE FUEL
SHIPMENTS

--subsequently, negotiations have been on and off-most recently, Korea says it will stop building uranium
based nuclear plants AND allow inspection IF the US takes
them of its "Terrorists State List"

--US has removed N. Korea from the list.--We shall
see...

3) LIBYA: had a nuclear program, which they
received from AQ Qhan, as well.

--In 2004, they handed over all their previously

unacknowledged nuclear weapons technology in
exchange for the removal of UN and unilateral
sanctions that US and UK had imposed upon them.
SCARY??--US did not know that Libya even HAD
weapons until they disclosed it.

4) IRAN: IS a NPT signatory but has cheated a
bunch. Russia is helping them with a peaceful
technology research project.

--have been sanctioned by the Security Council in

the past and Russia, India and the US have all agreed
on sanctions being implemented again for further
breaches.
NUCLEAR WEAPON LEGALITY TODAY?? IF
YOURE NOT PART OF THE PERM. 5--DONT TRY IT.
Suggestions Offered since it isn't clear that the NPT is
working:
Albaradi, Head of the IAEA suggests: 1) redo the NPT; 2)
take all technology that all of the current states have and

put it into a reserve fuel bank under ONE controlling hand;

3) ensure everyone a never ending supply for peaceful
purposes. (IAEA- international atomic energy agency)
VI
LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT
A MARTENS CLAUSE:
1
Introduced into the Preample of the 1899 Hague
Convention II--Law and Customs of Armed Conflict
2
Content: basically that until a more complete code for the
laws of armed conflict has been instated, the High Contracting
Parties declare that in cases not included in regulations adopted by
them (outside of domestic law), the offenders remain under the
protection of the law of nations
a Martens Clause establishes an objective means of
determining natural law: the dictates of the public conscience.
PROBLEMS? --There is no "correct" interpretation of the
clause. Therefore, powerful military states will interpret in
more narrowly than not so powerful military states.

Restrictive View: customary international law
continues to apply after the adoption of a treaty norm.

Wider view: the clause provides that something
which is no explicitly prohibited by a treaty is not ipso
facto permitted.

Widest View: conduct in armed conflict is judged
according to both treaties and custom/principles of
international law
B FORCE AUTHORIZED BY SECURITY COUNCIL
1
Article 41: Security council decides what measures
should be taken, including severance of diplomatic relations or
interruption os economic relations or communications.
2
Article 39: Security council determines what, if any
threat exists to the peace and shall make recommendations
accordingly.
3
Typically Initiated by Acts of Aggression: UN Article 2
and 3.
a invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state of the
territory of another state.
b bombardment by the armed forces
c blockade of the ports or coasts of a state
d an attack by the armed forces of a state on the land, sea or
air against another state or it's fleets.
e use of armed forces in one state, the presence of which is

permissible per an agreement of the other state, but said use

violates the conditions of that agreement.
f
the action of a state in allowing its territory to be used by
another state for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third
state.
g the sending by or on behalf of a state of armed bands,
groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed
force against another state of such gravity as to amount to the
acts listed above.
4
No Justification for Acts of Aggression: UN Article 5.1
a no consideration whether political, economic, military or
otherwise serve as a a justification.
5
Acts of Aggression give rise to International
Responsibility: UN 5.2
6
No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting
from aggression will be recognized as lawful.--UN 5.3
C SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A STATE ACTOR
1
Reactive: response to an armed attack requires no authority
by the UN (Article 51)
2
Anticipatory: imminency of an attack must be looming--and
if it is, self-defense is justified.
a "state of war"--if you are already in this position than you
have reached the article 51 threshold for anticipatory selfdefense (which allows for a state to act in self-defense UNTIL
the UN forces get there.)
Israel 6 day war.
3
Pre-Emptive: no attack is imminent. A means for "nipping"
armed conflict in the bud.
a proponents claim it's a deterrent factor against larger
destruction.
1981 Israeli attack on nuclear reactor site in Baghdad.
4
Collective: a state engaging in armed conflict for the "selfdefense" of another state.
a must show an armed attack
b must how a request for aid by state needing to defend itself.
Iran Contra--US claimed it was supporting the rebel
contras from el salvador as collective self-defense against
Nicaragua. Problem?? El Salvador didn't request aid until
months after the US had already invaded.

Court held that US action was not a legal selfdefense action and thus violated the Laws of Armed
Conflict since it was not authorized.

 D NON-STATE ACTORS
1
The proliferation of ABC weapons (Atomic, Biological
and Chemical) makes these actors MORE consequential and
the right to defend against them more vital.

E
VII INTERACTION B/W INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC ACTORS
A WHO ENFORCES BINDING OPINIONS w/r/t INTERNATIONAL
LAW
1
Domestic Courts:(US courts and conflicts)
a Breard Case: Paraguayan citizen was tried and convicted
for the murder and attempted rape of a woman. The jury
sentenced him to death. Paraguay filed a claim in the ICJ
against the US for violating the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations (1963)--which holds that "if the accused
requests, the competent authorities receiving the request,
shall inform the consular post of the sending state if, within
its consular district, a national of that state is arrested or
committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is
detained in any matter.
US RESPONSE: apologized to Paraguay and argued that
that was the appropriate remedy for a violation of this nature.

--US District Court held that b/c the issue was not
raised at trial that Breard was prohibited from raising it at
appeal.

--Supreme Court denied the Writ of Habeas Corpus

and held that Breard was not disadvantaged because he
DID speak English, he WAS provided with competent
counsel and had lived in the US long enough to know the
culture of the country.
**Held that a foreign state has NO right to overturn a
conviction in the US that was obtained from a fair trial
**Also held that the Treaty was upheld and would
continue to be uphold until or unless a Congressional
statute was passted that was contrary to the terms of the
treaty. In those circumstances, the congressional
act trumps.

LEX SUPERIOR DOCTOR: International Law
w/ regard to this concept.

--signatories of the treaty cannot later pass
a domestic law that completely annuls the merit
and strength of the treaty.

US CONSTITUTION vs. TREATIES:

 --Constitution says that Treaties are the supreme law

of the land but the Supreme Court differentiates
between Self-Executing Treaties and Treaties Requiring
Domestic Ratification.
Self-Executing: require no ratification. Immediately
binding upon signatories.
Ratification Required Treaties: bind the US to
bring the treaty up in Congress but does not bind them
to the terms of the treaty, unless it is RATIFIED by
congress.
1) First the President signs the Treaty
2) Then Congress has to approve it. (president
has no power to MAKE treaties absent the approval
of congress)

GLARING PROBLEM: If the community views
the US as not holding to their treaties, then a) they
will be apprehensive about entering into one with the
US and b) NOT hesitant to breach them--i.e. US
citizens who are constantly traveling abroad or are
located abroad could be in SERIOUS DANGER.
VIII CURRENT EVENTS
A Russia/Georgia
1
US Goals?
a Protect Civilians (all of them)
b Keep Oil in Georgia
c Protect territorial integrity of new countries
2
Effect of Russia Recognizing S. Ossettia and
Abhakazia's independence?
a legitimized the secession: (also recognized by Nicaruagua
and the Hamas)
3
Menvedev (Russian President) Response to Conflict
a Said he would adhere to 5 principles
1. Observing International Law
2. Rejecting US dominance of world affairs in a "unipolar"
world
3. Seek friendly relations w/ other nations
4. Defend Russian citizens & business interests
5. Claim of sphere of influence in the world.
4
ICJ Case: Georgia is suing Russia for claims of Ethnic
Cleansing. Russia is counter-suing Georgia for the same.
a Russia is claiming self-defense, premised on the death of a

UN peacekeeper (who was russian) during a ground skirmish.

b Georgia's claims derive mostly from the 1965 Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: (CERD)
1. No access to education in the Georgian mother tongue
2. Crimes against humanity (ethnic cleansing)
3. Appropriation of property through plunder
4. Displaced citizens denied the right to return-IDP's=internally displaced citizens.
5. Widespread, systematic murder, torture, attacks and
rapes of Georgian citizens.
--Russia's accession to the CERD, mandates jurisdiction.
c Relief sought by Georgia:
1. a declaration that all claims against Russia are true
2. An order that Russia do the following:

a) immediately cease all military activity and remove
all military personnel

b) ensure the return of IDP's safely

c) refrain from unlawful appropriation of homes and
property belonging to the IDP's

d) ensure that remaining ethnic Georgians are not
subject to discriminatory treatment.

e)paying full compensation for the consequences of
the ethnic cleansing and displacement of Georgian citizens.
B US/PAKISTAN
1
Ground Zero Skirmish:
a 9/8/2008, there was a skirmish at ground zero (area on the
border of Pakistan and Afghanistan--Northwest Province)
between the US and the Taliban.
b US Responded to the skirmish by calling an AIRSTRIKE
which ending up killing several Pakastani border patrol guards.
c Pakistan responded by shooting at American Helicopters.
Issue: Were the American's allowed to cross the border
from Afghanistan into Pakistan?

Technically NO. But apparently someone up there
felt that they had just reason for doing so.
Pakistan Instability: Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime
Minister was assassinated upon her return from exile (in the
US--who protected her because they believed that she would
be "tougher" on the Taliban than Musharraff.

--Bhutto's HUSBAND, Zadari has just been
inaugurated as the new President and promises to fight

"vigorously" against the Taliban.

Bushie BooBoo: actually authorized and ordered US
troops to carry out ground assaults on Pakistan w/o PRIOR
approval of the Pakistan government for crossing into its
territory.

--Bush's Justification??--Self-Defense (911)

--problem?? Attack took place during the holy moth of
Ramadan.
2
Haqqanit Family (known Taliban Supporters) Home
Attack:
a US air strike, occurring in south Waziristan killed civilian
members of the Haqqani family. The targets where Mr. Haqqani,
himself, and his two eldest sons. Both were not present during
the attack.
b Why Pakistan hasn't Moved Against the Haqqanis?
--The ISI (Inter-Services-Intelligence)--like the CIA of
pakistan--has great influential power. They are reliably
rumored to be working with and supporting the Jihad.
THEY claim that Mr. Haqqani is such a wonderful asset
(for attracting Taliban members) and THAT is why that
have not yet moved against him.