Wednesday, October 22, 2014
There seem to be a total of 461 judgments around the world against Argentina following its default on government bonds that Argentina issued in 2002. Among other things, there have been lawsuits in New York, Washington DC, France, Ghana, and Italy. Of particular note for U.S. lawyers in the litigation against Argentina is the U.S. case of NML Capital Ltd v. Republic of Argentina.
Argentina settled with most of the bondholders but a group of holdouts (known as the "vulture funds") refused to settle for anything less than the full value of the bonds (even though the vulture funds purchased the funds at less than full value). In addition to judicial actions, a public relations war has been waged to win over public opinion.
On August 7, 2014, the Republic of Argentina submitted a request to the International Court of Justice seeking leave to sue the United States, on the basis that U.S. court judgments against Argentina's sovereignty violated international law. To sue the United States in this case, however, Argentina needed to obtain the consent of the United States to be sued. On August 9, the United States refused to recognize jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice.
After its default, the Republic of Argentina enacted legistaion to pay exchange bondholders and deposited $161 million in a local Argentina bank to pay the exchange bondholders. But the holdouts moved for sanctions for Argentina's attempt to pay other bondholders. In September 2014, the federal district court judge in New York held Argentina in contempt. It should be noted that Argentina had waived its sovereign immunity. The court's ruling holding Argentina in contempt appears to be the first time that a sovereign country was found to be in contempt of a U.S. court.
On September 9, 2014, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a legal framework to regulate restructuring of foreign debt. 124 countries voted in favor, but the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Canada opposed it.
On September 26, 2014, the U.N. Human Rights Council approved an Argentine-sponsored resolution that essentially condemned vulture funds as a violation of human rights. The arguments before the Human Rights Council were that when governments were forced to pay on its bonds it would then have no money for other things such as education or hospitals or roads. The text of the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution can be viewed at A/HRC/27/L.26 (Sept. 23, 2014).
On October 8, 2014, the International Monetary Fund recommended that modifications should be able to be made to the "pari pasu" clause to exclude the duty to make ratable payments. And Argentina has also gotten support from the World Bank as well as banks in Brazil and China. But the litigation continues.
This brief timeline presents only some of the background to the Argentine financial crisis, a topic being explored in several panels at the Fall Meeting of the American Bar Association Section of International Law.
Pictured here is one of those panels, one entitled "Cross-Border Enforcement of Court Judgments and Arbitral Awards: Opportunities, Pitfalls, Flaws, and Remedies." Seated is Hagit M. Elul (Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York). Standing (from left to right) are Patrick Goudreau (DS Welch Bussieres, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Malcolm McNeil (Arent Fox LLP, Los Angeles, California), and former ABA President Stephen N. Zack (Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP). The panel at the ABA Section of International Law was presented in conjunction with the Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats.
Hat tip to James Bond Fan Malcolm McNeil for the title of this Blog Post
Mark E. Wojcik (mew)
Attendees of the ABA Section of International Law Fall Meeting in Argentina were treated to a special evening of hospitality hosted by the local Buenos Aires legal community. Many law firms hosted visiting attendees in their homes.
I was part of the group hosted by the Buenos Aires law firm of Maciel Norman & Asociados, a firm known for its specialized work in areas such as energy, natural resources, aviation finance, and transport law. The firm also serves other industries including banking, finance, electricity, international trade and customs, utilities, real estate, retail business, mergers and acquisitions, trusts, project finance, agribusiness, tax planning, labor law, industrial relations, social security, renewable energy, intellectual property, litigation, and arbitration.
In addition to hosting an amazing dinner, the Maciel Norman law firm also organized live tango music to complete a highly enjoyable evening. Other attendees were hosted at homes around Buenos Aires and all of the attendees participating in the hospitality evening were overwhelmed by the generous and genuinely warm welcome to Argentina.
The ABA Section of International Law meeting continues through October 25, 2014 at the Hilton Buenos Aires.
Mark E. Wojcik (mew)
The American Bar Association Section of International Law ("ABA-SIL") is holding its Fall Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Hundreds of lawyers are attending this first ABA-SIL seasonal meeting being held in South America.
Section Chair Marcelo Bombau, a lawyer from Argentina, is the first non-U.S. lawyer to chair the ABA Section of International Law. He and his team have done a fantastic job organizing this conference. Members of the 2014 Fall Meeting Steering Committee are Manuela Cavalo, Fabian A. Pal, Marcos Rios, Sara Sandford, and Carlos Velazques de Leon. ABA-SIL staff members have also worked many long hours to make this conference an outstanding success.
The photo here is of the lobby of the Buenos Aires Hilton, site of the Fall Meeting in Buenos Aires. This meeting is also unique in that it is the first Fall Meeting being held in the Spring (because it's Spring here in Argentina, and the weather is lovely!).
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) is holding meetings this week from 20-25 October 2014 in Bonn, Germany. Below is a guest blog post from Ian Leslie, a third-year law student at Southern Illinois University School of Law regarding the prospects for progress on global climate change. (cgb)
Mankind has a remarkable way of changing its environment to better suit its needs. However, since the 1950s we have altered the environment in a way that is detrimental to our wellbeing. I am of course talking about global warming. Global emissions have declined over the last two decades; nonetheless, there is a growing sentiment among leading environmental scientists that it may be "too late" to save the Earth from Global Warming catastrophe. If we are to continue on our current course a Chicago summer, within the next 100 years, could feel like Mobile, Alabama, with an average Heat Index of more than 105 degrees. Chicago currently sees around 2 days per year of over 100 degrees, but if the trend continues Chicago would likely see around 31 days per year of over 100 degrees. Just from an observation through news and talking with individuals there seems to be a growing trend within America for isolationism; however, this is an issue even greater than all the powers the United States can muster and requires a global effort in fixing a problem that the world has created.
In 1995, the United Nations entered into an agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce carbon emissions, a contributing factor to Global Warming. The Kyoto Protocol has exhausted its powers as it ran its course at the end of 2012. However, the Durban Conference on Climate Change in 2011 picked up the proverbial torch and looks to champion the cause of saving humanity from earthly catastrophes into the 2020s. The Durban Protocol implements a “road map” in re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol by increasing and strengthening its legal abilities; launching a new platform of negotiations; concluding the 2012 broad-based stream of negotiations (finished); and increasing global review based on new science and data.
On October 20, 2014 the United Nations is set to begin a one week discussion in Bonn, Germany, to iron out details not yet agreed to by the 195 nations on aspects like how to fund the global initiative to fight Global Warming and implementing a plan to limit the global temperature to only a 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2020. Some issues surrounding these talks are: What are the possible legal options for governance arrangements for the 2015 agreement, i.e., how should future arrangements take place and what will the authority body consist of? What should the “final clause” consist of, i.e., how to ratify, entry into force, economic integration organizations, amendment procedures, settlement of disputes?
However, the most important or rather controversial issue is what amount of funds rich/developed countries are required to contribute to combating Global Warming. Current trends provide evidence that rich/developed countries' percentage of carbon emissions has declined by 26% from 62% in 1990 to 36% in 2013. While developing countries' carbon emissions have increased from 34% in 1990 to 58% in 2013, an increase of 24%. Smaller states want developed/rich states to contribute more money to climate aid since they have caused more environmental damage through their carbon emissions than smaller states and developing states. Developed states will likely be reproachful towards these accusations on the basis that they are no longer the number one cause of carbon emissions. Additionally, any effort to pledge a good faith effort in combating carbon emissions will likely be fought by lobbyists and other political movements aimed at discrediting Global Warming statistics.
From an international law point of view, these current talks could bring potential binding authority through the ratification by all U.N. member nations. Any binding agreement towards legal authority would likely be found in the declaration of the protocol itself. However, if a state were likely to argue that there is no express legal effect in the protocol, the ratification of the declaration would also establish a customary international law. This customary international law is found in the general acceptance of all member states of a right to make a legal claim against any other state that fails to meet its global emissions pledge. One major flaw in this entire protocol is whether a State will really have legal authority to impose on other states that do not comply with their pledge. First, because each State is only making a pledge and a pledge does not have binding authority. Second, who is to say that the State that failed to meet its pledge on emissions was the sole State to pollute the aggrieved State’s border?
The Bonn talks are crucial to the stabilization of Earth, it is imperative that each State act as a global citizen in achieving the means of saving the planet. Putting our own national interests aside and pledging funds to climate aid will be seen as an act of good faith in reducing and controlling carbon emissions. There are certainly steps that need to be hashed out, but they must be done sooner rather than latter as this is a constant battle between humanity and Mother Nature.
Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are not televised, but audio recordings are made available on the Supreme Court's websites. Some news stations in the United States will play excerpts of those recordings with courtroom sketches done by an artist sitting in the courtroom.
One comedy television show suggests that a better way to create interest in Supreme Court arguments would be to have the arguments re-enacted by dogs and other animals. This video shows the very funny results of that suggestion.
Hat tips to Amy Vorenberg and Sarah Ricks.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Earlier this week, a group of farmers from Columbia filed suit in the United Kingdom against Equion Energia (a UK company formerly known as BP Exploration Columbia) alleging that BP's negligence in building the Ocensa oil pipeline in the 1990s severely reduced the productivity of their land due to environmental damage. The alleged damage includes severe soil erosion, reduced vegetation coverage and areas for pasture, as well as blocked or damaged water resources. Before construction began, BP entered into contracts with the farmers to allow BP to lay the oil pipeline on their land. However, the farmers claim they did not fully understand the contracts and have not been adequately compensated for the damage. The farmers are seeking US $29 million in compensation. According to The Guardian, the trial will be the first time BP has had to defend its actions overseas in a UK court and the first time compensation for environmental damage to privately owned land, caused by a UK oil company, has been litigated in the UK.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda delivered its judgement in three cases at the end of September. The cases are:
The judgements delivered by the Appeals Chamber today bring to 44 the total number of appeal judgements rendered by the Tribunal, disposing of appeals concerning 55 persons. The remaining caseload of the ICTR Appeals Chamber consists of one case which concerns six persons.
Édouard Karemera and Matthieu Ngirumpatse
A panel composed of Judge Theodor Meron, presiding, Judge Fausto Pocar, Judge Arlette Ramaroson, Judge Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, and Judge Koffi Kumelio A. Afanđe delivered judgement in the appeals lodged by Édouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse, and the Prosecution. On 21 December 2011, Trial Chamber III convicted Karemera and Ngirumpatse of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, genocide, extermination and rape as crimes against humanity, and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. The Trial Chamber sentenced Karemera and Ngirumpatse to life imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed Karemera’s and Ngirumpatse’s convictions based on their role in the killings in Kigali by 12 April 1994, the killings following the Murambi Technical School meeting on 18 April 1994, the killings following President Theodore Sindikubwabo’s speech in Butare Prefecture on 19 April 1994, the killings resulting from the creation and implementation of the civil defence system, the killings in Bisesero, acts of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and rape and sexual violence in various parts of Rwanda. The Appeals Chamber reversed certain findings of the Trial Chamber, which, however, did not result in the overturning of any of Karemera’s or Ngirumpatse’s convictions. The Appeals Chamber affirmed Karemera’s and Ngirumpatse’s sentences of life imprisonment.
Karemera served as National Secretary, First Vice President, and Executive Bureau member of the MRND party. On 25 May 1994, Karemera became Minister of the Interior and Communal Development for the Interim Government. Ngirumpatse was National Party Chairman and chairman of the MRND Executive Bureau in 1993 and 1994.
A panel composed of Judge Theodor Meron, presiding, Judge William H. Sekule, Judge Mehmet Güney, Judge Liu Daqun, and Judge Arlette Ramaroson delivered judgement in the appeals lodged by Ildéphonse Nizeyimana and the Prosecution.
On 19 June 2012, Trial Chamber III found Nizeyimana guilty of committing, through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise, the killing of the Ruhutinyanya family, the attack on the Cyahinda Parish, the killing of the former Queen of Rwanda, Rosalie Gicanda, and others taken from her home, the killing of Pierre Claver Karenzi, and the killing of those taken from the Matabaro and Nyirinkwaya households. It also found him responsible for ordering the killings of Remy Rwekaza and Beata Uwambaye, and the serious bodily and mental harm caused to Witness ZAV. The Trial Chamber entered convictions for genocide, extermination and murder as crimes against humanity, and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. Nizeyimana was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed Nizeyimana’s convictions for genocide, murder as a crime against humanity, and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II in relation to the killings of the Ruhutinyanya family, Gicanda and the others taken from her home, and Rwekaza and Uwambaye, as well as for genocide in relation to the serious bodily and mental harm caused to Witness ZAV. The Appeals Chamber also affirmed Nizeyimana’s convictions for murder as a crime against humanity and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II in relation to the killings of those taken from the Matabaro and Nyirinkwaya households. The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Prosecution’s appeal seeking additional convictions for crimes committed at Butare University Hospital and Butare University.
The Appeals Chamber, Judge Güney and Judge Ramaroson dissenting, found that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding, as the only reasonable inference, that Nizeyimana planned the attack on Cyahinda Parish and authorized the participation of ESO soldiers therein. As a result, Nizeyimana’s convictions for genocide, extermination and murder as crimes against humanity, and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II in relation to the attack on Cyahinda Parish were reversed. The Appeals Chamber also found that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding, as the only reasonable inference, that Nizeyimana contributed to the killing of Karenzi, and reversed his convictions based on this event. In view of the reversal of these convictions, one of which involved the killing of thousands of displaced persons, the Appeals Chamber reduced Nizeyimana’s sentence to a term of 35 years of imprisonment.
Nizeyimana held the rank of captain at the military training school, the École des Sous-Officiers in Butare, and served as S2 officer, charged with military intelligence, and S3 officer, responsible for training and operations at the training school.
A panel composed of Judge Mehmet Güney, presiding, Judge William H. Sekule, Judge Arlette Ramaroson, Judge Khalida Rachid Khan, and Judge Koffi Kumelio A. Afanđe delivered judgement in the appeals lodged by Callixte Nzabonimana and the Prosecution.
On 31 May 2012, Trial Chamber III of the Tribunal found that Nzabonimana instigated genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity at the Cyayi centre on 14 April 1994 resulting in the killings of Tutsis at Nyabikenke commune office on 15 April 1994. Nzabonimana was also convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide based on two agreements to commit genocide in Gitarama préfecture. Further, the Trial Chamber found him guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on his speeches at the Butare trading centre on 12 April 1994, the Cyayi centre on 14 April 1994, and at the Murambi training centre on 18 April 1994. Nzabonimana was sentenced to a single term of life imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber affirmed Nzabonimana’s convictions for instigating genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity in relation to the events at the Cyayi centre on 14 April 1994 and at the Nyabikenke commune office on 15 April 1994. The Appeals Chamber also affirmed his convictions for direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to events at the Butare trading centre and the Cyayi centre, as well as his conviction for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the meeting in Murambi on 18 April 1994. However, the Appeals Chamber reversed Nzabonimana’s convictions for direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the Murambi meeting on 18 April 1994, and for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the establishment of a Crisis Committee and weapons distribution at Tambwe commune. The Appeals Chamber affirmed Nzabonimana’s sentence of life imprisonment. Nzabonimana was born in Kavumu secteur, Nyabikenke commune, Gitarama préfecture, Rwanda. He served as the Rwandan Minister of Youth and Associative Movements from 8 April 1994 to mid-July 1994 and as the Chairman of the Mouvement républicain national pour la démocratie et le développement in Gitarama préfecture during the events.
Adapted from an ICTR Summary
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Call for Papers: 2015 ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, Taipei, Taiwan
The Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law will hold the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum on May 25-26, 2015 in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. The theme of the Research Forum is “Integrating the Asia-Pacific: Why International Law Matters?”
Paper proposals should be submitted by January 20, 2015 to firstname.lastname@example.org. The call for papers is available at http://www.csil.org.tw/2015-research-forum/ Other inquiries can be directed to Pasha Hsieh, co-chair of the Research Forum (email@example.com).
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Once again this year, there were some great presentations relating to various international law topics at the Central States Law Schools Association (CSLSA) annual scholarship conference. Pictured here from left to right are Professors Scott Sullivan (Louisiana State), Milena Sterio (Cleveland-Marshall), Cindy Buys (Southern Illinois) and DeLeith Gossett (Texas Tech). Professor Sullivan spoke about "Statutory Decay and Authorizations of Force"; Professor Sterio addressed the issue of "Juvenile Pirates: 'Lost Boys' or Violent Criminals?"; Professor Buys presented, "New Thinking regarding the Use of Conditions in U.S. Treaty Practice"; and Professor Gossett advocated, "Taking of the [Color] Blinders: How Ignoring the Hague Convention's Subsidiarity Principle Furthers Structural Racism Against Black American Children."
The CSLSA Conference is being held at lovely Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA and is hosted by CSLSA President Missy Lonegrass.
As the U.S. Supreme Court is paving the way for same-sex marriages to take place in more and more states in the United States, Estonia has become the first former Soviet state to approve legislation recognizing all civil unions regardless of the gender of the parties. The new law will take effect in January 2016.
Friday, October 10, 2014
A group of independent United Nations rights experts has urged the Government of Malaysia to withdraw its Sedition Act of 1948 amid allegations that critics of the country’s authorities have faced increasing criminalization and persecution.
The Act, which carries sentences of up to five years in jail, outlaws a number of vague offenses, such as expressing “any seditious words” or acting with “seditious tendency” to incite hatred or disaffection of the government or the judiciary, promoting hostility between different races or classes, or questioning any right, privilege, sovereignty prerogative stated in the country’s Constitution, the experts said in a press release.
“The Sedition Act is reportedly used in a way that prevents Malaysians from expressing and debating, freely and openly, a diverse range of political opinions and ideas,” they continued.
“It is time for Malaysia to adjust its legislation, including the 1948 Sedition Act, to be in line with international human rights standards, and take firm steps towards the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression.”
The group of experts included David Kaye, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Maina Kiai, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Gabriela Knaul, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and Michel Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
According to the UN Human Rights Council, there have been at least 23 recent reported cases of persons charged with sedition – including elected members of Parliament, politicians, human rights defenders, academics, lawyers, students and journalists – for publishing or disseminating information and ideas through the Internet or traditional media.
On that note, the Act itself has been addressed by UN human rights experts on several previous occasions, with the first Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Abid Hussain, noting that it could suppress expression and curb peaceful assembly.
Independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.
(Adapted from a UN press release)
On October 9, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced a request for comments on the reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Comments are due by Novmeber 10, 2014. FR61130
Hat tip to the ABA Governmental Affairs Office
We've just received a link to "International Law Visualized." And we're impressed.
There are charts for these subjects:
- Three Types of International Law (Public, Private, and Supranational)
- Sources of [International] Law (Customary Law, Silence as Consent, Codifications, and Enforcement by the United Nations)
- The International Court of Justice
- The International Criminal Court
- Who is Affected by International Law (and for that matter, who isn't!!!)
Hat tip to Frida Jackson
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has selected Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan and Kailash Satyarthi of India as the winners of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. They were identified for promoting a right to universal education and for protecting children from abuse and exploitation.
Last year and the year before, the Nobel Peace Prize had been given to organizations. In 2013 the prize wen to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In 2012, the prize went to the European Union.
LCIL Friday Lecture 'The Changing Structure of International Law and Its Normative Consequences: International IP Law as an Example' by Dr Holger Hestermeyer
Dr Holger Hestermeyer, Advocate General Cruz Villalón, Court of Justice of the European Union, will give a lecture at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law on Friday, October 17, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.
Much like international law as a whole, international intellectual property law has undergone significant structural changes since its inception. The presentation will conceptualize these changes as a fundamental paradigm shift: an initially sparsely regulated field with minimal obligations focusing on non-discrimination has turned into a densely regulated area of international law. The development of international IP law thus to some extent mirrors the development of international law as a whole, albeit with an accelarated time frame. The presentation will illustrate this development and draw normative conclusions from the development, which are relevant for international law as a whole if the field wants to cope with its development over the last fifty years.
Holger Hestermeyer (Dr. (Hamburg), LL.M. (Berkeley), LL.B. equivalent (Münster)) is a Référendaire in the cabinet of Advocate General Cruz Villalón at the Court of Justice of the European Union and will, after his work at the court, join King’s College. Before working at the court, Holger was head of a research group at Heidelberg’s Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law. He has lectured at the universities of Heidelberg, Münster, UC Berkeley and the Heidelberg Center in Chile. He is a Co-director of the Red Latinoamericana de Derecho Económico Internacional and a member of the Executive Council of the Society of International Economic Law. He is a former Fulbright Fellow, German National Merit Foundation Fellow, recipient of an Otto Hahn Medal and an Otto Hahn Award. He publishes in the fields of international, European and constitutional law. Of particular interest for the presentation are Human Rights and the WTO (OUP 2007/2008), Reality or Aspiration: Solidarity in International Environmental and World Trade Law (in Hestermeyer et al. eds., Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity, Brill 2012), ESC Rights in the World Trade Organization (in Riedel et al., Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in International Law, OUP 2014), The Notion of „Trade-Related“ Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (IIC 2014).
Time: 1pm with sandwiches from 12.30pm
Venue: Finley Library, Lauterpacht Centre, 5 Cranmer Rd, Cambridge
Hat tip to Karen Fachechi
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Closing arguments in the case of Radovan Karadžić concluded yesterday, October 7, 2014, after 497 trial days. The Office of the Prosecutor presented evidence from 336 witnesses of which 195 testified during the trial. The Defense presented evidence from 243 witnesses of which 238 testified during the trial. 6669 exhibits were tendered by the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Defense tendered 4806 exhibits. The Trial Chamber presented 3 exhibits.
Prosecutors demanded a life sentence for the former Bosnian leader Radovan Karadžić, accusing him of being the primary force behind efforts from 1992 to 1995 to eliminate non-Serb inhabitants of the ethnically-mixed Bosnia. The conflict left more than 100,000 people dead and countless others maimed and traumatized by rape and other crimes. Karadžić is accused of responsibility for the seige of Sarajevo, the murder of more than 7,000 men and boys in Srebrenica, and the nothing-clean-about-it "ethnic cleansing" of towns and villages. (See, e.g., Marlise Simons, The Hague: Bosnian's Trial Nears End, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2014, at A6.)
Radovan Karadžić, for his part, told the International Crminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that he expects to be acquitted of all charges of war crimes and orchestrating acts of genocide. He reportedly told the court that he had a "clear conscience." As reported by the BBC, he told the three-judge panel: "I have a clear conscience, the war did not happen as I wanted it, it was a horrible war, let's hope to God that it is the last in this area. I expect and I trust that the chamber will study carefully every document and every exhibit both from the defence and from the prosecution, and if that happens I have no doubt that a judgment of acquittal will follow."
The latest estimate for delivery of the Trial Chamber Judgement is October 2015.
"International Business With Russian Nexus: Why Not New York Law?"
On November 12, 2014 - from 6-8 PM -the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ("ICDR"), in cooperation with the Russian Arbitration Association ("RAA") and with support of the American Bar Association Section of International Law ("ABA SIL"), the US-Russia Business Council ("USRBC"), and the New York State Bar Association, International Section ("NYSBA IS") will host a discussion on the topic of "International Business With Russian Nexus: Why Not New York Law?" The event will take place on November 12, 2014 at the ICDR office located at 150 East 42nd Street, 17th Floor from 6 to 8 PM. Reception to follow.
The focus is to explore whether New York law may be an attractive option to international businesses with Russian nexus. Registration is on a first come, first served basis as space is limited. Please be sure to RSVP early. Thanks to the generosity of the sponsor, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, this event is free of charge. To get a registration form, email Mandy Sawier at SawierM@adr.org
International Law Weekend 2014
October 23-25, 2014 -- New York City
Thee annual International Law Weekend (ILW) conference will take place October 23-25, 2014, in New York City. The theme of ILW 2014 is "International Law in a Time of Chaos.” The role of international law in conflict mitigation remains key – whether by building commercial links between states, fighting corruption, improving democratic governance, or providing methods for resolving international and ethnic disputes. ILW 2014 will seek to address the role of public and private international lawyers in each of these tasks.
ILW begins Thursday evening, October 23, 2014, with a distinguished opening panel at the House of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 42 W. 44th Street, New York, New York. A reception will follow and is open to all conference attendees. The conference continues Friday, October 24 and Saturday, October 25 at Fordham University School of Law, 150 West 62nd Street, New York, New York. Friday’s activities feature a keynote address at Fordham University School of Law.
For ILW 2014, a number of ILW panels have been designated for mandatory continuing legal education credit (MCLE). The American Society of International Law has obtained accreditation for a maximum of 10.5 MCLE credits from Pennsylvania and California and is seeking accreditation from New York and Virginia. An attorney may also count Pennsylvania approved credits towards her or her New York CLE requirement credit through the Approved Jurisdiction policy without notifying the New York CLE Board.
Attendance at ILW is free for members of ABILA, ILSA, United Nations employees, students, and co-sponsoring organizations. For all others, there is a fee of $175.
Hat Tip to the International Law Students Association
Join the Association of American Law Schools Section on Graduate Programs for Non-U.S. Lawyers at its business meeting on Friday, January 2, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. That's the first night of the conference when the Registration Area opens.
Professor George Edwards of Indiana University is the current chair. Professor Mark E. Wojcik of The John Marshall Law School in Chicago is the Chair-Elect and will become Section Chair at the end of that AALS Annual meeting.
When you book your flight or train to DC, please plan to arrive in time to attend the 6:30 p.m. business meeting and to share your ideas on graduate legal education for international lawyers.