The clothing mandated by Aczimendi tarikatÿ religious order includes a turban, baggy pants, a tunic, and a stick. Applicants had been arrested in 1996 while walking to the Kocatepe Mosque in Ankara, and filed their petition with the ECtHR in 1997.

For more information, see here and here.

The debate over the legality of remote-controlled air strikes turns largely on the question of whether the American pursuit of terrorists represents an active armed conflict analogous to a conventional war between nations. As such, the debate over the drones is one example of the broader disagreement which has resulted from the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to the “war on terror.” IHL, which regulates armed conflict between states, requires the existence of an active conflict, and only applies within the geographic limits of that conflict. Within these limits, IHL authorizes the killing of enemy combatants, including remotely, subject to limitations meant to assure that the use of force is necessary, minimally injurious to civilians, and proportional to expected military gains. Outside a zone of active conflict, however, IHL does not apply, and the U.S. ability to kill individuals without according them due process of law is restrained by a 1976 executive order against assassinations and, arguably, by international human rights law.

While some observers would call Afghanistan a zone of active conflict, far fewer would apply that description to Pakistan, and drones operated by the C.I.A. have been active in targeting militants there, including Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in August. American drones have also targeted militants in Yemen. In extending IHL to cover these strikes, supporters of the program have argued for the application of IHL wherever terrorists are found, not merely within geographically bounded zones of conflict. This is a novel argument, and as such, the use of Predators to target individuals outside the “war zones” of Afghanistan and Iraq arguably represents a violation of international law. It also represents a sharp departure from pre-9/11 U.S. policy, when C.I.A. drones were limited to conducting surveillance and the U.S. Government criticized Israel for conducting targeted killings of Palestinian militants.

Supporters of the C.I.A. program have argued that, whether or not IHL applies to the air strikes, they are lawful under both the UN Charter and the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a form of “anticipatory self-defense.” But opponents point to the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention in the affairs of other states, arguing that individuals outside active war zones should be brought to justice through domestic processes of law. The question of whether the air strikes are proportional under IHL is also debated; the New Yorker reports that the effort to kill Baitullah Mehsud involved a series of 15 air strikes killing more than 200 other people. Finally, the loosening of geographic restrictions on state-sanctioned lethal force raises the uncomfortable prospect of an amorphous, global definition of conflict, which other states or non-state actors could potentially use to target Americans.

The practical value of the C.I.A. program is also debated. While the use of Predators has been credited with eliminating numerous Al Qaeda leaders and sowing confusion within the organization, it has also led to many civilian casualties, which has rallied anti-American sentiment in the very places where the U.S. is trying hardest to win “hearts and minds.” Another criticism of the program is that electing to kill terrorists rather than capture and interrogate them reduces the intelligence the U.S. can gather on its enemies; proponents of this argument point to the potential information value of Saad bin Laden, one of Osama’s sons, who was killed by a Predator strike in Pakistan. Finally, the recent inclusion of prominent Afghan drug traffickers on the list of acceptable targets has led critics to wonder whether there is any coherent policy limiting the use of the drones to individuals who pose a direct threat to the United States.

Whatever the legal and practical arguments for or against the use of unmanned air strikes against non-state actors, they are unlikely to end in the near future. In the rugged, inaccessible areas where many militants operate, the U.S. Government often believes that it has no good alternatives to the drones. Facing resistance to its plans to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, the Obama administration may make remote-controlled warfare an ever more central part of its counterterrorism strategy.

For further information, please click here and here.

The case arose out of a preliminary reference to the ECJ from the German tax court (Finanzgericht) for Hamburg. Brita GmBH, a German company, contested the customs duties imposed by Germany on imported goods from settlements in the occupied territories.(9) The German court specifically asked whether the goods could be granted the benefit of the the EC-Israel or the EC-PLO agreement when certified as of Israeli origin by Israel.(10) The referring court believes that the goods, whether originating in Israel or Palestine, should be subject to the exoneration of customs duties.(11) The advocate general disagrees first, on the terms of the treaty,(12) and second because to do so would not respect the sovereignty of the relevant Palestinian authorities. The Advocate General analogizes this case to early E.C. caselaw(13) (Cyprus(14)) where a result similar to the one he advocates was found.

The Opinion, which seems persuasive, will likely influence the ECJ’s impending final decision. It is not without implications for regional stability. Free trade makes war less likely by encouraging prosperity and interdependence, by breaking down isolation. To that end, the E.U. established a partnership with the countries of the Mediterranean basin to create free trade and encourage democracy and human rights’ protection(15) via bilateral agreements following a uniform model providing for free trade.(16) For the ECJ to grant the exemption of customs duties based on Israeli rather than Palestinian authority would be an act of de facto recognition of the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation as well as ignoring the plain meaning of the treaty. Hopefully the Israeli and Palestinian authorities will coordinate and resolve their differences, somehow.

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced advances in Iran’s nuclear power productions capabilities including two new types of centrifuges and a nuclear fuel production plant. Ahmadinejad stated that Iranian nuclear authorities “have announced that the various cycles of nuclear fuel management are in our grasp in a comprehensive and domestically produced way.” The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organizationlaimed c that Iran now has approximately “7,000” centrifuges in its Natanz facility.  In February, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had only 5,600 centrifuges.

Iran’s new high-speed centrifuges promise to increase Iran’s low-enriched uranium supply.  Additionally, a uranium pellet factory will be able to produce a yearly total of 10 tons of fuel rods for various reactors in Iran. The United Nations Security Council has pleaded with Iran to cease its production of nuclear materials that could be used for weapons. However, the Iranian government maintains that it is merely increasing Iran’s supply of energy.  In order to create a nuclear weapons program, Iran would have to take the drastic steps of expelling weapons inspectors, withdrawing from international treaties, and creating further enrichment facilities.

In response to the announcement, the White House declared that US government officials would regularly take part in nuclear talks between Iran and Europe, Russia, and China. Under George W. Bush, the United States was not part of these negotiations until last year.  State Department spokesman Robert Wood explained, “Iran is entitled to have a civilian nuclear program, but with that program comes responsibilities.”

For more information please click here. 

Spain claims universal jurisdiction over genocide, terrorism, and crimes against humanity, no matter where the crime occurs. However, this jurisdiction only applies if the crime is not the subject of a legal proceeding in the country in which it occurred. Spanish public prosecutors justified the decision to drop the case based on information that Israel had initiated its own proceedings. However, the case could be reopened if contradicting evidence about Israeli action emerges.

Israeli’s leaders criticized Spain’s decision to prosecute as politically motivated from the beginning. The decision to charge came after the most recent Israeli offensive in Gaza early this year that killed 1,300 Palestinians.  Spain has recognized the political fallout of the legal action and Spanish officials have announced an intention to alter the “universal justice” rule to avoid similar political controversy in the future.

For more information, please click here

On February 11, 2008, the Ukrainian arms freighter ‘Faina’ returned to the Kenyan Port of Mombasa with twenty sailors. The ship had been captured by Somali Pirates in the Gulf of Aden region more than four months ago, and was released after a ransom of $3.2 Million was para-dropped onto the ship by its owner. The capture of the ship was of particular concern to the international community because it was carrying arms including T-72 tanks, grenade launchers, antiaircraft guns, and substantial ammunition.  For more information on this story click here.

Pirates have attacked more than 130 merchant ships in the Gulf of Aden region in 2008. In an unrelated event five suspected Somali pirates have been extradited to Netherlands for the failed attempt to hijack the Dutch Cargo Freighter ‘Samanyulo’ on 2^nd January 2009. They will be prosecuted before the Dutch criminal courts and could face up to nine years of imprisonment if found to be guilty with the group leaders punishment extending up to 12 years. For more information on this story click here.     

In another piracy-related event in the Gulf of Aden, the US Navy arrested seven suspected pirates on February 11, 2009, who were attempting to hijack the tanker ‘Polaris’. The seven suspects were taken aboard the USS Vella Gulf, which has been patrolling the area since January 2009 in responnse to the heightened piracy threat in the region. The US Navy intends to hand over the suspects to Kenya, which is setting up a new court system to try foreign pirates. For more information please click here.

This week Palestinian officials traveled to the Hague to press the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israeli forces during the recent violence in Gaza. ICC  prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, had originally rejected Palestinian requests for the investigation, on the grounds that the ICC lacked jurisdiction. However, Palestinian officials recognized the court’s authority on January 22 and as a result the prosecutor has agreed to explore whether he has jurisdiction in this case.

The ICC has jurisdiction over any citizen of its 108 member states.  Cases can be brought to the court by individuals, countries, or the UN Security Council. However, neither Israel nor Palestine fall under the traditional jurisdiction of the court because Israel is not a member state and Palestine is not recognized as a sovereign state.  Nevertheless, this past month, the Palestinian Authority presented a declaration to the ICC subjecting itself to the court’s jurisdiction for acts committed on Palestinian territory since the ICC’s authority began in July 1, 2002. A similar declaration gave the court jurisdiction for war crimes committed in Sierra Leone, which is also not a member state.  The jurisdictional review in this case is complicated by allegations that Palestinian officials are attempting to use the court to tacitly recognize Palestinian statehood. A legal expert involved in the case confirmed that the ICC will not deal with issues of Palestinian statehood even if it does investigate the case. 

The ICC has received over 200 complaints from Palestinian citizens alleging that the Israeli military targeted civilians and non-military buildings and illegally used weapons such as white phosphorous. Conversely, Hamas has also been accused of war crimes including indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and the use of civilians as human shields. If the ICC decides it has jurisdiction over this case, both Israeli and Palestinian actions during the war will be subject to investigation and prosecution.

For further reading please click here and here. 

Elections occurred in 14 of the country’s 18 provinces, with over 14,000 candidates running for 440 seats. Unlike the elections in 2005, voters could select candidates individually and were not limited to selecting pre-made “lists” of candidates. President Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party is hoping to gain power in southern predominantly-Shiite provinces, four of which are currently controlled by followers of Moqtada al-Sadr.

Voting was postponed in three predominantly Kurdish provinces in the North until January, and indefinitely postponed in the province surrounding Kirkuk. Control of these regions is hotly contested between Arab, Kurdish and Yazidi groups that have been unable to reach a power-sharing agreement.

Security for the elections was extremely high, with driving prohibitions and more than 6,000 checkpoints throughout the country. No election-related deaths were reported during the day.

For further information, please click here

For more information, please click here.

Ali Al-Marri is a Qatari student and legal U.S. resident who was arrested in Illinois in December 2001 for fraud. Upon receipt of information identifying him as a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, those charges were dropped and he was transferred to military detention. The government is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Intelligence officials argue that Al-Marri is particularly dangerous, which makes deportation problematic, and charges may not be filed due to the potential involvement of torture in evidence gathering.

While Al-Marri’s continued detention is arguably legal as a result of post-September 11 congressional legislation, given the President-elect’s public statements against such detentions, the Obama Administration may find it a politically difficult position to maintain.

More information is available here and here.