Topic 1

I.  The Fact of Occupation

 

The outbreak of a new infectious disease-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-in Asia and its spread to many countries in the Asian region and beyond raise many public health and policy questions and challenges for governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The SARS outbreak also implicates international law, and this Insight briefly discusses three areas of international law affected by SARS and the efforts to contain the spread of the disease.

 

Basic Information on the SARS Epidemic

 

Introduction

In late May 2003, the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) will consider adoption of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC). The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body agreed on the proposed FCTC in early March 2003 and transmitted the treaty to the World Health Assembly. [1] The FCTC represents the first time in WHO's history that it has exercised its powers to adopt a treaty under Article 19 of its Constitution. [2] The FCTC is an important international legal development in the area of global public health.

            Relying on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) and on the sovereign authority of the United States to use force in assuring its own national security, President Bush has said that the United States and its allies will use armed force to disarm Iraq if Saddam Hussein and his sons do not leave Iraq within a 48-hour deadline.

 

On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) ruled that the U.S. Continued Dumping and Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) (also referred to as the "Byrd Amendment") is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT (the "Anti-Dumping (AD) Agreement") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (the "SCM Agreement"). [1]

Introduction

 

            The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has become one of the most important issues on foreign policy and national security agendas. The WMD threat has, for example, profoundly influenced the Bush administration's national security and homeland security strategies. [1] For the United States and like-minded allies, Iraq's alleged possession of WMD has become a casus belli. The rise to prominence of the WMD threat raises questions about the role of international law concerning WMD in this new environment.

           On January 10, 2003, North Korea announced (a) that it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective immediately, and (b) that its withdrawal from the NPT left it free from the binding force of its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 

On December 15, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dismissed separate complaints originally filed on April 29, 1999 by Serbia and Montenegro against eight NATO member states (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom), asking the ICJ to hold each of the respondent states responsible for international law violations stemming from the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in March-April 1999.  According to the Court's unanimous Judgments, Serbia and Montenegro lacks standing to sue before the ICJ. [1]