Trial of Khmer Prison Official Nears End

If you haven’t been following this case—an interesting story of international justice and the challenges inherent to tribunals–you should.  Previous reportage of accusations against Duch and the Khmer regime are horrifying, fascinating, and will make your soul feel heavy with the “man’s inhumanity to man.“

After admitting his guilt and asking for forgiveness, Duch (pronounced DOIK) seemed on the final day of the trial on Friday to think that he had done enough, asking the court to set him free.

Duch’s plea seemed to contradict a carefully constructed strategy to seek leniency by admitting guilt, apologizing and cooperating with the court. He faces a possible term of life in prison for crimes against humanity and other crimes. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 40 years, taking into account his cooperation and the five years he already spent in a military jail. The judges are expected to announce a verdict early next year.

via News Analysis – Moving Beyond Khmer Rouge’s Ghosts – NYTimes.com.

Washington Memo – Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations – NYTimes.com

At issue, a specific legal question:  Can US diplomats talk to states that have been designated sponsors of terrorism while on the job?  The last US administration said no.  This one says yes.  The debate shows how much international law and diplomacy go hand-in-hand:

The law at issue is a fairly narrow one, and presidents of both parties have long objected to such statutes as infringements on their power over foreign relations.

But assertions by the Justice Department that certain laws cannot bind the president have drawn far more attention since the Bush administration, when the Office of Legal Counsel wrote secret opinions authorizing the bypassing of statutes and treaties governing surveillance and the treatment of detainees.

John P. Elwood, who served in the Office of Legal Counsel in President George W. Bush’s second term, said the Bush team would probably have reached the same conclusion as the Obama officials about the United Nations statute. Nevertheless, Mr. Elwood said, “Any time you tell the president or an executive officer that it’s O.K. to disregard an act of Congress that is pretty explicit, I think that’s pretty significant.”

via Washington Memo – Ignoring a Law on Foreign Relations – NYTimes.com.

Who Do You Call When Nobody Represents You?

The answer is not “Ghostbusters”…

In the International Organization world we note governments, “non-governments” and even some “inter-governmental” bodies, but what to do if you’re not in one of those categories?  (MNC’s would be included through a sideways dotted line.)  Join the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, of course.

It looks as though these groups miss out being discussed in broad political geography classes–although I’m sure many are included when you go regional or sub-regional.

Foreign Policy: High Seas Ditherers

Is the debate about a new UN Convention on Law of the Sea the classic “sovereignty” vs. “internationalism, or something more?  This Naval War College professor argues that the agreement is in the U.S. national interest, cold, hard and simple:

Without a legal framework in place, Washington will increasingly have to rely on the U.S. Navy to guarantee freedom of movement for U.S. ships. Does the United States want its only option to be gunboat diplomacy? Or would it rather operate with the agreement and support of the global community? The United States achieved a diplomatic victory in the Law of the Sea Convention by obtaining its most important interests in freedom of navigation. By ratifying the treaty, the United States will be able to play a key role in its future development.

via Foreign Policy: High Seas Ditherers.

Policy Debate | A League of Democracies? (update)

What do you think about the idea of a League for Democracies? Valuable UN-supplement, or a watering-down of a self-assured country bloc?  Vote below, but only after reviewing this discussion–

Phillipp Bobbitt, whose far-reaching books combining grand strategy, philosophy, history, and international relations are downright fascinating (Senator John McCain praised Terror and Consent as “the best book I’ve ever read on terrorism,” , Henry Kissinger called Bobbitt, “perhaps the most important political philosopher today,” while Tony Blair praised The Shield of Achilles and Senator Hillary Clinton discussed it in her Barbara Jordan Lecture) , argues for the League:

The provenance of any proposal is no reason for its adoption—or rejection—but I would note that Madeleine Albright was an advocate of an alliance of democracies in the 1990s, and since 9/11 its principal authors have been Ivo Daalder, a senior adviser to Barack Obama, James Lindsay, a former NSC official in the Clinton administration, the Republican nominee for the presidency, John McCain and one of his senior advisers, Robert Kagan. This bipartisan support may be simply a function of different conceptions of the same concept, but it is indicative at least of the broad interest in such an idea in the US.

David Hannay takes the con position:

All these, you may say, are a former diplomat’s quibbles. But my doubts about the alliance are a good deal more fundamental than that. Is this really the moment, relatively soon after the ending of the cold war, for us to be systematising a division of the world between democratic sheep and undemocratic goats? Would that not simply play into the hands of the hardliners in Moscow and Beijing (and perhaps also in Washington) who want nothing more than a return to the frozen certainties of the cold war; not to speak of the non-aligned who will once more play one camp off against the other? Will not such a new division make it even harder to build a consensus for the handling of the great global challenges which face us all—trade, climate change, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation? And what legitimacy, let alone legality, would a self-selected grouping such as this really hope to achieve if it were to move from simply being a talking shop to action?

And if you’re still looking for more, this additional con from the Carnegie Endowment, pro from Carnegie Council, and a debate among Americans.

UPDATE:

This progressive perspective in TNR by Nina Hachigian, Senior Vice President at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the co-author of The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive As Other Powers Rise :

To work effectively with rising democracies, though, Washington policymakers will need to put assumptions of common viewpoints aside, and invest time in understanding how counterparts in Delhi, Pretoria, and Brasilia actually view subjects like democracy promotion and human rights. Barack Obama makes a point of saying he will listen to the world, and that’s what it will take to move forward with these partners.

Further, while there is no question the world needs to build new institutions, and to renew our existing ones, to solve our 21st century problems, many of those problems–climate change, terrorism, poverty, non-proliferation–cannot be tackled by democracies alone. To address them, we are going to have to sit across the table from some nations that do not share our form of government, like China, Russia and Iran. That’s not exciting. But that’s what’s needed.

Why the wall between domestic & international law is fading

Globalization: We all know the freshman essay (at least I hope you’ve suffered through it) which states the world is getting smaller thanks to technology, but problems are now more interconnected (finance!), blah, blah, blah.  Well, getting past the generalities we start to see what it means to Wall Street as well as more esoteric areas as international law.

Noah Feldman’s preview article in this coming weekend’s NYT Magazine addresses the shrinking boundaries between domestic and international law, and why the Supreme Court shapes international relations:

In the seven years since 9/11, the question of how we relate to the world beyond our borders — and how we should — has become inescapable. The Supreme Court, as ever, is beginning to offer its own answers. As the United States tries to balance the benefits of multilateral alliances with the demands of unilateral self-protection, the court has started to address the legal counterparts of such existential matters. It is becoming increasingly clear that the defining constitutional problem for the present generation will be the nature of the relationship of the United States to what is somewhat optimistically called the international order.

Globalizing international law means U.S. court = loser

But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices.

“One of our great exports used to be constitutional law,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “We are losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.” (NYT)

General Assembly opens Fall Session

The buzz begins once again as diplomats get back to work in formal sessions of the GA.  First item of business? Blasting the warring actions of Security Council members (P5):

“It is a sad but undeniable fact that serious breaches of the peace and threats to international peace and security are being perpetrated by some members of the Security Council that seem unable to break what appears like an addiction to war,” Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann [GA President, Nicaragua] said, without specifying any countries. AP via UN Wire

He also reviewed what is a longstanding issue for the body–the lack of an enforcement mechanism which leads to countless discussions about the UN’s ‘relevance’:

Turning to Cuba, d’Escoto wondered aloud why the United Nations has been powerless to overturn the U.S. trade embargo imposed on Fidel Castro’s government in February 1962.

“If the opinion of more than 95 percent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly?” he said.

The General Assembly’s resolutions aren’t binding, unlike the Security Council, which can set international law. But the assembly controls the U.N. budget and serves as a world forum for debate.

D’Escoto is not without his detractors–Ollie North, for one. (Nor does he pull any punches in his view of IO’s: “The UN Headquarters building in Manhattan has become the venue of choice for “diplomats” and foreign leaders to condemn America, our values and virtues.”  Also, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, was  busy exercising his ‘right of reply’, noting:

“For him to succeed he has to play his role, and that role is to be a unifier… representing the interests of all members, rather than picking on some members, siding with others,” the US envoy said. “That would undermine his effectiveness, his interests or the interests of the organization.”

If you wonder to yourself how this leader of the world’s largest membership body for peace was elected, look no further than Warren Hogge’s reporting from last April, where “Latin American ambassadors anxious about the choice credit Nicaragua with clever diplomacy in advancing its cause quietly, but they also fault the United States for not organizing competing forces effectively.”

Other issues include an appeal to implement Resolution 181 from 1947 which creates an independent Jewish/Arab states in Palestine, moving first-hand reports on terrorism from its victims, and a surprise announcement of a visit next week by Republican Veep candidate Sarah Palin.

(But to get to the heart of concerns, this is what New Yorker’s dislike most about the austere body…traffic)

Postscript:  Roger Cohen’s advice to world leaders at the GA, on the U.S. financial meltdow,

I asked [Barney] Frank why Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not get more foreign support. “I think it’s a perverse pride thing,” he said. “We don’t ask for help. We’re the big, strong father figure. But let’s be realistic: we’re no longer the dominant world power.”

It’s time for a responsibility shift. Call it the Hirst reality check. If he can sell a formaldehyde-pickled sheep with gold horns for millions while Lehman goes under, perhaps it’s time for everyone to help a little when Americans get fleeced.

IL efforts to limit war as an instrument of policy

With our attention on the Caucasus, we might recall efforts 80 years ago today to take war as an instrument of foreign policy off the table. Great idea, but how feasible?

Diplomacy is premised on an efforts to avoid more serious conflict.  But, also–sadly–it can quickly morph into empty, albeit hopeful, words.  As George Kennan wrote in 1985/86:

Finally, let us note that there are no internationally accepted standards of morality to which the U.S. government could appeal if it wished to act in the name of moral principles. It is true that there are certain words and phrases sufficiently high-sounding the world over so that most governments, when asked to declare themselves for or against, will cheerfully subscribe to them, considering that such is their vagueness that the mere act of subscribing to them carries with it no danger of having one’s freedom of action significantly impaired. To this category of pronouncements belong such documents as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Atlantic Charter, the Yalta Declaration on Liberated Europe, and the prologues of innumerable other international agreements.

(Its still considered an important contribution to international law (IL) but that’s another matter.)  See the full text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, related correspondence, and other documents at the Avalon Project, Yale Law School.