After dedicating much of his career to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, M. Cherif Bassiouni -- often called the "father" of international criminal law -- startled an audience at an international law conference in Washington, D.C. on Thursday when he called some international criminal tribunals shams and declared others to be mired in bureaucratic failures. He asserted that there really is no political will by States to have an independent international criminal justice system. Experience has shown that States can create obstacles to justice and international accountability by intentionally underfunding some efforts, making access to data difficult, supporting tribunals premised on little more than window-dressing, and creating overly bureaucratic international criminal systems. He never blatantly said the ICC will dissolve, but he implied its current overly bureaucratic framework is leading to the Court's irrelevancy. Whereas his quixotic dream has been to build an international criminal system to stop national politicians from determining who gets prosecuted, the hero of international criminal justice now implies that his vision is unachievable, at least within any foreseeable future. As such, Bassiouni predicts that there will be a transformation of international law and its institutions. "International criminal justice will take another turn," he said. "And maybe it's a turn for the best." Specifically, we likely will see a shift from supranational criminal courts to national courts, which he said will be more successful in prosecuting the guilty. The challenge he put forth to the lawyers and soon-to-be international lawyers in the room is how to use international law both to connect the national courts and to provide for effective domestic prosecutions of international crimes. More

Last night, U.S. State Department legal adviser Harold Koh outlined, for the first time, the Obama administration's legal justifications under international law for the targeted killings of non-state actors using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to as "drones." He inserted the topic of drones into his keynote at the American Society of International Law 104th Annual Meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C. The United States has used drones since at least 2001 to kill high-level terrorist operatives abroad, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The Obama administration has significantly increased the number of targeted drone killings, according to various non-governmental organizations and media outlets. In this posting, I look at the specific legal reasoning and standards put forth by Koh, the reactions by international law experts, and a few unanswered questions under international law. More

The American Society of International Law 104th Annual Meeting will be held March 24-27, 2010 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, D.C. This year's theme is "International Law in a Time of Change." The two keynote lectures will be delivered by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada and Harold Hongju Koh, the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State. Additional featured speakers include: Georgetown University Law School Professor Edith Brown Weiss; International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes Secretary-General Meg Kinnear, and George Washington University Law School Professor Dinah Shelton. Onsite registration will be available. Select sessions will be available by live webcast. More

The 14th Annual International Environmental Moot Court Competition concluded yesterday with the Law Society of Ireland, Cork as Applicant facing the University of Maryland School of Law as Respondent. This year's simulated case before the International Court of Justice focused on "Beaked Whales and Marine Seismic Surveys." Student attorneys made arguments under the Espoo Convention, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the duty to prevent transboundary harm under customary international law. More than 80 teams competed worldwide with 19 teams advancing to the international finals in Florida. And the 2010 winner is . . . More

In judging different moot court competitions during the past two months, I have noticed several competitors did not understand the difference between signatories and parties to a treaty. This posting provides a brief overview of when a treaty is legally binding upon a State and a few examples. More