A Conundrum Posed by U.S. Anti-Terrorism Policy
Thirty years ago this month, a Cuban airliner blew up in mid-air, killing all 73 people aboard.
Thirty years ago this month, a Cuban airliner blew up in mid-air, killing all 73 people aboard.
INTRODUCTION
On July 02, 2006, the eleven judges[1] of the newly constituted African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights were sworn in before African leaders attending a summit meeting in Banjul, The Gambia.
The recent conflict in Lebanon and Northern Israel, occurring between a state and a non-state armed opposition group on the territory of a state that has not itself taken up arms, raises distinct challenges for interpretation of international law related to armed conflict.
Introduction
I. Introduction
Introduction
On May 29, 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone ruled that the Urgent De fence Motion Against Change of Venue filed by Karim A.A. Khan, the Provisionally Assigned Counsel representing former Liberian President Charles Ghankay Taylor, was inadmissible. The motion was therefore dismissed.[1]
Background to the Motion
International criticism of post-September 11 antiterrorism measures has come to a head with calls from the U.N. body monitoring the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment or Punishment1 for several changes in U.S. policy - among them, a call for closure of the four-and-a-half-year-old detention camp at Guantánamo.
As has been well documented,[1] the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) some time ago lost confidence that Iran's nuclear program is being carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes as required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation