Topic 1

            Under the headline quoted above, the New York Times on June 23 reported that the United States bowed to opposition within the U.N. Security Council and dropped its effort to obtain a Security Council resolution that would immunize its troops from prosecution in the International Criminal Court (ICC). [1]   It is important to understand just what this does and does not mean, particularly in the context of the continued presence of substantial numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq after the sovereign Interim Government of Iraq took office on June 28.

 

It is well known that overfishing has led to the collapse of several commercially valuable fish species and the decline of others. [1] In this context, WTO Members agreed during the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha (Qatar) in November 2000, to launch negotiations with the aim to "clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries." [2]

 

            According to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the recognized occupying power in Iraq, [1] will dissolve on June 30, and an interim Iraqi government will begin to exercise Iraqi sovereignty. [2]   The United States, however, has repeatedly stated that its troops will remain in Iraq after the handover, pursuant to an expected request by the Iraqi government.  Given the questions surrounding the legitimacy of any Iraqi government, what would be the legal status of such a request?