'Malala inspires us because she had the courage to defy the totalitarian mind-set others would have imposed on her. Her life represents a brighter future for Pakistan and the region. We must speak up before these acts occur, work to ensure that they do not happen again, and keep our courage to continue to resist the ongoing cruelty and barbarism of the Taliban. Malala Yousafzai refused to look the other way. We owe it to her courage and sacrifice to do the same.'
'We never wanted to participate in this nuclear race'
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced in a televised statement that Pakistan had conducted 5 underground nuclear tests in Baluchistan, a region of Pakistan near its border with Afghanistan. (image credit) Sharif contended that the tests were "inevitable" following news 2 weeks earlier that India had conducted 5 similar nuclear tests. To this day, India and Pakistan remain nuclear states outside the regulation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, also, tense neighbors.
As interns in the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, we have worked to support the Liberation War Museum, a leading Bangladeshi civil society group.
On this day in ...
to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), were signed in Geneva, Switzerland. Among the innovations were detailed provisions on treatment of persons in the power of a party to international conflict, in Protocol I, and the explicit extension of international humanitarian law protections to non-international conflicts, in Protocol II. (image credit) Today the treaties have 170 and 165 states parties, respectively. Countries that have signed but not ratified: as to Protocol I, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the United States; as to Protocol II, all of those just listed with the exception of the Philippines.
(Occasional sobering thoughts.) It has been 11 weeks since, as we then posted, the United States and other countries intervened militarily against the government of Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. Intervention continues, albeit now under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Having earlier this week extended its mission for another 3 months, NATO appears to have stepped up its attacks on Tripoli. And a permanent member that had abstained from voting on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 -- Russia -- now has joined a chorus calling for Qaddafi to go.
► As for Afghanistan, conflict now is nearing its 10th anniversary. May was the deadliest month for servicemembers in Afghanistan this year. Meanwhile, civilian deaths continue to provoke complaint. Last Tuesday -- days after "a weekend airstrike in Helmand province that Afghan officials said killed 14 civilians, 11 of them children" -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai insisted'that NATO refrain from airstrikes on residential compounds, marking a sharp escalation in his long-running feud with Western commanders over the issue of civilian casualties.'
there could be political talks with the Afghan Taliban by the end of this year if NATO made more military advances and put pressure on the insurgents.
the U.S. Defense Department, 4,454 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, representing 14 servicemember deaths in the last 11 weeks. (As posted, U.S. troops are the only foreign forces remaining in Iraq.)
Toward the end of the second week of September 2001, my family and I walked past one of those floor-to-ceiling posters French news magazines use to advertise the week's cover. From beneath a white turban, heavy-browed eyes stared out of a gaunt face with long nose and beard.'That is the bad man who killed all the people in New York.'
The victim, Mukhataran Mai, hit world headlines after speaking out about her ordeal in 2002. She has since become an icon for women's rights in Pakistan.
She said she now feared for her life.
(Occasional sobering thoughts.) The United States, France, and other countries intervened militarily against Libya's government yesterday -- the 8th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Protection of civilians
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council; ....
the U.S. Defense Department, 4,440 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, representing 11 servicemember deaths in the last 16 weeks. (As posted, U.S. troops are the only foreign forces remaining in Iraq.)
(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
As Gandhi noted, we must be the change that we wish to see in the world. 
(Many thanks to IntLawGrrls for giving me the opportunity to contribute this guest post!)Is Kosovo a precedent for (remedial) secession?My article recently published in the Goettingen Journal of International Law, "Secession in Theory and Practice: The Case of Kosovo and Beyond," attempts to put forward a lucid account of the legal implications of Kosovo’s independence. To do so, the article explores the international regulations on secession, as well as the circumstances that led to the case at hand.
or decided to withhold recognition. All officially identify the potential of setting a legal precedent as reasoning.Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia’s non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation.The Kosovo secession has been articulated, but as a non-precedential situation. In the end, as scholars Georg Nolte and Helmut Philipp Aust wrote in an article published last year,
states are both subjected to international law and create and authoritatively interpret it.And in this case, even the recognizing states have consciously and clearly opted not to create a general rule governing remedial secession. Ultimately, states have guarded the status quo, and continued to act allergic to a right to remedial secession with set boundaries and clear coordinates. Ironically, the consistent state practice is evidence of the absence of a customary right of remedial secession.
way of its discriminatory and repressive actions against part of its population, puts its own raison d’être into question. It is a perverse implication, one that states will have to deal with when another unique Kosovo enters the international arena.
The United States is putting on the pressure to expand the scope of U.S. drone operations, but getting nowhere, according to reports published in the last couple days.
Ellen O'Connell (prior posts).
where that law applies. Beyond the obvious areas of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the border areas of Pakistan, there is, at present, little agreement on where the battlefield is – i.e., where this conflict is taking place – and an equal measure of uncertainty regarding when it started and when and how it might end. (credit for photo of memorial following 2008 attack in Mumbai, India)
he critical task of identifying where and when a state can conduct operations within an armed conflict framework. Such identification is a necessary companion to the ongoing debate about whether and how a state can conduct operations within such a framework.
The ninth anniversary of September 11, 2001, finds the international community still grappling with the consequences of that terrible day.
on all Muslims everywhere – this often means advocating practices like stoning women for adultery. (credit for logo at right of the Global Campaign to Stop Stoning) Hence, such movements pose particular threats to international law in the areas of human rights, humanitarian law and conflict prevention, inter alia.
friends. In the current moment, I think about Amenia Rasool (left), a Guyanan-American Muslim woman who worked on the 95th floor of the World Trade Center. (photo credit) I first read about her in The New York Times remembrance section.
States and beyond. (credit for 2009 photo of protest against Sudanese prosecution of Lubna Hussein for wearing pants)
The floods in Pakistan have rendered a reported 20 million homeless, destroyed an estimated 1.7 million acres of crops leading to the threat of famine, and given rise to an epidemic of diseases such as cholera, dengue, and malaria. Yet like the water itself, the crisis seems to have snuck up on the international community.
ty is leaving Pakistan in the lurch, this is actually a fairly high number. The FTS also reports that other disasters this year, such as the civil unrest in Kyrgyzstan or tropical storm that hit Guatemala, have only been covered to the tune of 36% and 33% respectively. But there's no denying that the international community seems less concerned with Pakistan than it was with say, Haiti. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that while twenty-two U.S. aid groups have raised a total of $9.9-million for Pakistan, within two-and-a-half weeks of the earthquake, 40 aid groups had brought in a total of $560-million for Haiti. (photo credit, above).The world, especially the United States, must not blow this one.
The editorial reminds us that Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons, after all, and its destabilization could spell disaster. Moreover, the United States has put an awful lot of effort into suppressing Al Qaeda in the region, particularly along the border with Afghanistan. That work is easily undermined when radical Islamic charities are able to provide shelter and food ahead of the authorities or foreign aid organizations. The Pakistani Taliban has inserted itself, urging the Pakistani government not to accept aid at all, citing a need to maintain sovereignty and independence. The strategic implications (read: politics) of it all are hard to avoid. (photo credit, above left; photo credit below right)
(Occasional sobering thoughts.) It's been fully 14 weeks since we last took account of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al-Qaida and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.Whether that's in fact the last word on policy remains to be seen.
Making progress this year, putting everything we have into getting it right this year is vitally important.Criticism of the tactics of the AfPak war also persist, as was evident in the attention paid the public defense of targeted-killing-by-drones, delivered in March by State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh. Four persons were killed in a drone raid yesterday, another 13 last week; "Pakistani officials have told the BBC that the US have carried out at least 70 such raids since January."
Figures from the Pentagon show 90 civilians were killed by American or NATO forces in the first four months of this year, compared with 51 in the same period last year ...As for Iraq?
According to the U.S. Defense Department, 4,408 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, representing 23 servicemember deaths in the last 14 weeks. (As posted, U.S. troops are the only foreign forces remaining in Iraq.)
There was much worth pondering in the keynote speech that Harold Hongju Koh (center left), since last June the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State, delivered yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.[I]t is the considered view of this administration … that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmannedHe then detailed how "this administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles"; specifically:aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war…
As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….
► First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; andKoh endeavored to assure his audience that in
► Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.Addressing critics of the policy, he continued:
[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law....
[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….
[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….
[S]ome have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’
The New York Times reported last week that the U.S. would be increasing its drone strikes into Pakistan. The article attributes the following comment to Philip Alston:it is impossible to judge whether the program violates international law without knowing whether Pakistan permits the incursions, how targets are selected and what is done to minimize civilian casualties.
the drone strikes 'do no good, because they boost anti-American resentment throughout the country.'
(For a more detailed analysis of the law on drones, see my article entitled Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones.")
.jpg){kind=link}
