skip to Main Content

Koskenniemi the scholar vs. Koskenniemi the commissioner

Sahib Singh of the University of Vienna has posted a paper on SSRN titled The Ethics of Fragmentation: Formalism’s Fallacies and the Potential of International Law.  The paper is interesting not least because it takes a serious and critical work at the fragmentation report of 2006, prepared for the International Law Commission by Martti Koskenniemi.  Singh’s paper investigates the work of a first-rate scholar closely affiliated with NYU Law’s Hauser Global Law School program, and for that alone it would be worth reading for NYU international law students.  But Singh’s paper is fascinating because it investigates the tension between Koskenniemi’s personal work and the report.  Abstract after the jump.

Read More

Welcoming a new staff

The NYU Journal of International Law and Politics is pleased to introduce the members of its 2010-2012 staff.  As a student-run journal at the best international law program in the U.S., JILP provides a unique opportunity to become acquainted with the rich world of international law scholarship.  Welcome aboard!

Like many student-run journals in the U.S., the Journal of International Law and Politics selects its staff through an anonymous process that evaluates their knowledge of and experience with international law, their writing and editing skills, and their academic performance.  This year saw particularly fierce competition for the limited number of spaces on our staff, and we couldn’t be more pleased with the results.  Hit the jump for the names of our new staff editors, and vist the About page for the complete masthead.

Read More

Estreicher on Defender’s Duties in Armed Conflict

NYU Law Professor Samuel Estreicher has posted an interesting working paper on SSRN, titled Privileging Asymmetric Warfare?: Defender Duties Under International Law.  Here is the abstract:

Scholarship and advocacy needs to bring defender duties to the forefront of any discussion and investigation of armed conflicts. The necessarily joint contribution of attackers and defenders alike to civilian harm must be recognized. Any investigation of an armed conflict must focus on the duties of both parties and evaluate the feasibility of attacker compliance with some of the more open-ended obligations of international humanitarian law (IHL), such as the so-called duty of proportionality, as a function in part of the extent of defender compliance with its duties.

There are open areas in IHL. States that have acceded to Additional Protocol (AP) I are not necessarily bound by ICRC interpretations and they and states that have declined to ratify AP I can play an active role in formulating and urging others to adopt rules of practice that strike the right balance between attacker and defender duties. Even if, for example, there is widespread international recognition that, at some abstract level, the duty of proportionality is grounded in customary law, the content of that duty is not necessarily identical to the wording contained in AP Article 57. The effectiveness of such a duty, including the ability of military commanders to implement it in the air and on the ground, may well depend on serious consideration, elaboration and implementation of defender duties, for defenders are often in the superior position to minimize civilian exposure to the dangers of military operations.

Defender duties in armed conflicts is a neglected area of IHL. This needs to change if the overall mission of this body of law – minimization of harm to civilians – is to have any reasonable prospect of being realized.

Read More
Back To Top