Foreign Policy and International Law

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court decision in Samantar v. Yousuf[1] definitively resolved one major question about the immunities of foreign government officials from civil suits in U.S. courts; at the same time, it left several others wide open. It thereby guaranteed that the source, scope, and certainty of such immunities will continue to be litigated energetically. This Insight explores some of the questions that will likely figure prominently in that litigation.

Introduction

The past several months have given rise to a number of high-level judicial resignations. While the media has been saturated with commentary regarding the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens from the United States Supreme Court, of equally profound interest to international legal observers is the retirement of two judges from the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands (“the ICJ” or “the Court”) – Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the United States and Judge Shi Jiuyong of China.

The Climate in Copenhagen

Introduction

Introduction

A little-noticed recent development in multilateral treaty law may have potentially explosive consequences for U.S.

Introduction

Introduction

On May 30, 2008, delegates at the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), a new treaty that seeks to ban the use, development, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer of cluster munitions.[1] The CCM will be opened for signature on December 3, 2008 (CCM, Article 15).

On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. government in cases brought by foreign nationals challenging their detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military facility.[1] A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)[2] violated the U.S.