But some commentators have raised questions about the full legal implications of such an agreement.  In particular, the BIT could turn many American and Chinese regulatory decisions into arbitrable investment disputes.

A BIT typically permits aggrieved foreign investors to seek compensation for unfair or inequitable regulatory treatment in arbitration instead of host country domestic courts.  Such an agreement with China would mark the first time that the United States has signed a BIT with a substantial foreign investor and opened the possibility of litigating American regulatory decisions before international arbitrators.  With large scale regulatory reform on the horizon, particularly in the financial sector which has substantial Chinese investment, this possibility raises complex sovereignty questions.

In addition, arbitration of American regulatory disputes raises the tricky question of compliance with an adverse decision.  The United States has typically treated BIT’s as self-executing treaties, but Congress would have to approve the payment of adverse judgments.  Domestic political considerations would make such authorization unpalatable, and any failure to pay could jeopardize the overall BIT framework.

As of now, the parties have reached no agreement, and the U.S. Senate would have to ratify any BIT before it took effect.  But, as several commentators have noted, the issues surrounding a U.S.-China BIT merit careful scrutiny.

For more information, please click here and here.

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.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, South African trade minister Rob Davies cited the presence of relatively junior American officials at an ongoing round of trade talks and American refusal to base its present bargaining positions on prior compromises reached as part of the Doha Development Round negotiations as evidence that the United States is unlikely to be part of any trade agreement reached this year.  Davies also noted domestic political opposition as a factor in American hesitancy to reach a trade deal.

Rachid Mohamed Rachid, trade minister of Egypt, also recently stated that he doubted that the United States would be part of a trade agreement this year.

Developing nations had been pressing the World Trade Organization for an agreement limiting industrialized nations’ ability to subsidize agricultural exports, among other provisions.  Such an agreement now appears unlikely.

For more information, please click here.

Despite the concerns of members like Indonesia over the impact that the agreement will have on domestic industry, ASEAN is confident that China will act cooperatively in order to ensure mutual gains. The State Councilor of the People’s Republic of China, H.E. Dai Bingguo, recently met with the ASEAN Secretariat to discuss China’s commitment to aid in the transition process, confirming China’s position in a speech before more than 300 dignitaries. This was the first time that a high-level Chinese Diplomat visited the ASEAN Secretariat.

Further, as the Secretary General of ASEAN notes, there are mechanisms such as anti-dumping safeguards in the FTA to protect the domestic markets of ASEAN member states.

For further information, please click here.

The USTIC is asking the public for input as it explores the potential effects of the TPP. A public hearing will take place on March 2, 2010 in Washington, D.C., and written submissions for the record will be accepted until March 23, 2010. The USITC’s report to the USTR should be completed by early June.

For further information, please click here.

The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged that the power-sharing mechanisms of the Bosnian Constitution were justifiably designed to achieve the aim of restoring peace to a war-torn country rife with ethnic conflict; however, it also noted that the country has made considerable progress in the fourteen years since the Dayton Peace Agreements. The court further noted the existence of other power-sharing mechanisms that do not require the exclusion of ethnic minorities not belonging to the three constituent peoples from high public office. As a result, the court found that the rule prohibiting non-constituent peoples from holding office in the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly violated Article 14 of the European Convention on human rights (prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the Convention) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (guaranteeing the right of free elections). The court also found that the constitutional rule prohibiting the applicants from running for President violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of any right set forth by law). In terms of remedy, the court held that the finding of a violation provided just satisfaction with regards to the plaintiffs’ non-pecuniary injuries, and ordered the State to pay 1,000 Euros to the first applicant and 20,000 Euros to the second to cover their costs and expenses.

For further information, please click here.

South Korea’s options in responding to this incident are limited. Seoul’s right to military retaliation is constrained by the ongoing border dispute. The end of the Korean War never produced a peace treaty, and the North and South have technically been observing a truce since 1953. The North has never accepted the current sea boundary, a UN-drawn border called the northern limit line, and its ships regularly stray into waters controlled by the South. In this context, the South cannot make an undisputed claim that its territory was invaded.

South Korea’s options for less direct action are similarly constrained. While the South could initiate economic sanctions and asset-freezing, it believes that such measures could add to the desperate poverty of the North’s citizens and slow the recent détente between the two countries. In a sign that the confrontation has not altered trade relationships, a North Korean freighter was allowed to enter South Korean waters yesterday on its way to Incheon. Meanwhile, any attempt to arbitrate the dispute before an international body would require the consent of one of the most isolationist regimes in the world.

The North has a history of initiating skirmishes in order to escalate pressure before major regional events; the last time the countries clashed was in 2002, while the South was hosting the World Cup. In this case, analysts believe, the North may be trying to send a message to President Obama, who is currently visiting the region and is scheduled to arrive in Seoul on Wednesday. North Korea wants a formal peace treaty to replace the 1953 truce, including reconsideration of disputed territory. It also wants bilateral negotiations with the U.S., which it believes could lead to its acceptance as a nuclear power. President Obama, who has made engagement with “rogue states” a cornerstone of his foreign policy, plans to send special envoy Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang for talks over ending the North’s nuclear program.

The legal bases of Honduras’s complaint are Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter, which reserves to member states matters which are “essentially within [their] domestic jurisdiction,” and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As a practical matter, Honduras’s complaint is only one element of a broader political and diplomatic offensive aimed at preventing Mr. Zelaya from returning to power before the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for November 29. It is unclear whether the ICJ will agree to hear the complaint, which was filed by an interim administration that many international observers consider illegitimate. Current efforts toward national reconciliation may also determine whether the case goes forward.

For more information, please click 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.