The October 9, 2006 announcement by North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) that it had successfully conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon raises questions about the status of such testing under international law.[1] This Insight examines the international legal norms that could apply to su
Thirty years ago this month, a Cuban airliner blew up in mid-air, killing all 73 people aboard.
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
On July 4 and 5, 2006, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) test-fired seven unarmed missiles over the Sea of Japan. One of them was a long-range missile, the Taepodong 2, which exploded and fell into the sea before it could complete its test flight. If it had not gone down prematurely it is possible that it would have entered the airspace of Japan.
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
[Insight Editor's note: This Insight differs from the usual ASIL Insight in that it concerns an action taken by the ASIL itself.