The Trump Administration and the International Criminal Court: A Misguided New Policy

The article focuses on the approach of U.S. President Donald Trump\u27 administration regarding International Criminal Court (ICC). It presents views of National Security Advisor John Bolton on Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats

Katyn Forest Massacre: Of Genocide, State Lies, and Secrecy

The Soviet secret police murdered thousands of Poles near the Katyn Forest, just outside the Russian city of Smolensk, in the early spring of 1940. The Soviets targeted members of the Polish intelligentsia-military officers, doctors, engineers, police officers, and teachers-which Stalin, the Soviet leader, sought to eradicate preventively. At the start of World War II, the Soviet Union viewed Poland as attractive territory, to be conquered and potentially annexed after the war. The Katyn massacre was not discovered until 1943, by the Germans, who instantly blamed the Soviets. The latter, however, blamed the Germans, and the Western Allies begrudgingly accepted this untruthful claim. The Katyn Forest Massacre remained taboo for many years, and it has only attracted significant scholarly, historical and political interest in the last two decades, following the fall of the Iron Curtain. This Article seeks to decipher the Katyn myth by describing in Part II the events that led to the Katyn Forest Massacre as well as the killings themselves. In Part III, this Article focuses on subsequent investigations into Katyn, including the US. congressional inquiry in 1952, as well as post-Cold War revelations about Katyn, permitting to officially inflict responsibility on the Soviet Union. In Part IV, the Article examines the Katyn killings in light of international law, concludes that the killings constitute war crimes and, crimes against humanity, and that they may perhaps constitute genocide, under a more expansive reading of the Genocide Convention. Finally, Part V concludes that the admission of guilt by Russia about its role at Katyn is necessary and plays a crucial role in the thawing of Russian-Polish relations

Katyn Forest Massacre: Of Genocide, State Lies, and Secrecy

The Soviet secret police murdered thousands of Poles near the Katyn Forest, just outside the Russian city of Smolensk, in the early spring of 1940. The Soviets targeted members of the Polish intelligentsia-military officers, doctors, engineers, police officers, and teachers-which Stalin, the Soviet leader, sought to eradicate preventively. At the start of World War II, the Soviet Union viewed Poland as attractive territory, to be conquered and potentially annexed after the war. The Katyn massacre was not discovered until 1943, by the Germans, who instantly blamed the Soviets. The latter, however, blamed the Germans, and the Western Allies begrudgingly accepted this untruthful claim. The Katyn Forest Massacre remained taboo for many years, and it has only attracted significant scholarly, historical and political interest in the last two decades, following the fall of the Iron Curtain. This Article seeks to decipher the Katyn myth by describing in Part II the events that led to the Katyn Forest Massacre as well as the killings themselves. In Part III, this Article focuses on subsequent investigations into Katyn, including the US. congressional inquiry in 1952, as well as post-Cold War revelations about Katyn, permitting to officially inflict responsibility on the Soviet Union. In Part IV, the Article examines the Katyn killings in light of international law, concludes that the killings constitute war crimes and, crimes against humanity, and that they may perhaps constitute genocide, under a more expansive reading of the Genocide Convention. Finally, Part V concludes that the admission of guilt by Russia about its role at Katyn is necessary and plays a crucial role in the thawing of Russian-Polish relations

The Applicability of the Humanitarian Intervention \u27Exception\u27 to the Middle Eastern Refugee Crisis: Why the International Community Should Intervene Against ISIS

The refugee crises in Iraq and Syria, which has been evolving over the past decade as a result of both ongoing conflict in these countries and the recent surge of Islamic State-led violence, has morphed into a true humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands of refugees have been subjected to violence and have been dispersed and forced to live under dire conditions; such massive population flows have destabilized the entire region and have threatened the stability of neighboring countries. The United States and several other countries have been engaged in a military air strike campaign against the Islamic State, but the international community has otherwise not authorized a multilateral military action against the Islamic State in order to alleviate refugee and other humanitarian suffering. This Article argues that in light of such a tremendous humanitarian crisis, reflected in the current refugee crisis, international law authorizes states to intervene through the paradigm of humanitarian intervention. The Article argues that if international law embraces the concept of humanitarian intervention as an evolving norm of customary law, then this norm encompasses intervention in situations of a humanitarian refugee crisis, such as the one that has unfolded in Iraq and Syria

Clash of the Titans: Collisions of Economic Regulations and the Need to Harmonize Prescriptive Jurisdiction Rules

Part I of this article describes regulatory clashes involving different states\u27 public laws, and then focuses on certain areas of law, including antitrust, securities, and Internet commerce and publishing, where such clashes are most likely to take place. Part II focuses on the different solutions to this regulatory puzzle invoked by scholars, advocating either territorial-based or substance-based approaches. Part III then critiques the two approaches, while emphasizing the need to address the issue from a global perspective, that is, by seeking to harmonize jurisdiction-allocating rules on an international level

Piracy Off the Coast of Somalia: The Argument for Pirate Prosecutions in the National Courts of Kenya, The Seychelles, and Mauritius

This article will argue that, in order to combat the rise of Somali piracy, major maritime nations should rely on national prosecutions of Somali pirates in the courts of stable regional partners, such as Kenya, the Seychelles and Mauritius. A systematic transfer program and prosecutions in the national courts of several regional partners would preclude the possibility of pirate catch-and-release, and could ultimately provide enough deterrence to seriously dissuade young Somali men from engaging in piracy. The Somali pirates, enemies of all mankind, may find potent foes in the form of Kenyan, Seychellois and Mauritian prosecutors, who will subject pirates to prosecutions on behalf of all mankind

Rethinking Amnesty

This Article will focus on the issue of accountability under the existing international law and will address the following question: Is there a duty to prosecute perpetrators of human rights abuses? Furthermore, if there is such a duty, what are its precise contours, its reach and its limits? Can amnesty laws and truth commissions ever be legal despite the evolving body of human rights law that seems to dictate the absolute assurance of those rights? Part I of this Article will examine the existing accountability mechanisms, while evaluating their respective strengths and weaknesses. Part II will focus on the existing state practice regarding amnesty laws in the context of two different political and geographic paradigms, Latin America and South Africa. Part III will study the international documents and customs imposing legal obligations on states to provide for effective accountability measures. Finally, Part IV will seek to define particular circumstances under which amnesty provisions and truth commissions do or do not fulfill the global mandates of justice as it relates to individual responsibility. Do amnesty laws provide for de facto impunity, or do they represent effective methods of achieving a legitimate form of accountability while preserving internal peace and stability

U.S. Recognition Practice: Realism, Legitimacy, or Pragmatism?

This Article analyzes recent United States\u27 recognition practice and attempts to decipher the United States\u27 apparent shift in its recognition practice toward a realist approach and/or toward focusing on recognizing new borders. As outlined below, this Article concludes that United States\u27 recognition practice, toward both new regimes as well as borders, seems to be driven by pragmatic concerns rooted in American foreign policy as well as American political and strategic interests in a given country or region. Thus, it may be inaccurate to discuss such recognition practices as realist or legitimacy-based in any normative sense; instead, it may be more prudent to approach recognition through the lens of foreign policy, pragmatism, and international politics. In Part II, this Article discusses the concept of recognition by focusing on what recognition entails and why it matters. In Part III, this Article discusses the United States\u27 history of recognition practices, including the so-called legitimacy-based approach and the realist or de facto approaches to recognition. In Part IV, this Article analyzes the United States\u27 recognition practice in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In this section, the Article distinguishes between recognition of governments and recognition of borders to assess whether the United States has moved toward a more uniform realist approach toward the latter. This Article concludes that the U.S. recognition policy—whether of governments or borders—is rooted in pragmatism and foreign policy. In fact, the United States has recognized governments and borders when this has been consistent with American foreign policy toward the particular country or region. Thus, the United States\u27 recognition policy seems to have oscillated between legitimacy and realism in cases of both government and border recognition practices. As this Article concludes, it would be incorrect to argue that the United States has adopted a realist approach toward recognition because of any normative values; instead, the various recognition approaches adopted by the United States, including the most recent one by the Trump Administration, have been driven by foreign policy interests and pragmatism