The Middle East comes to the Great White North

An unusual lawsuit has been filed in Quebec, Canada alleging that two Canadian construction companies violated international law when constructing buildings for Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

The Palestinian village of Bil'in is seeking an injunction to stop further construction, and demolish apartment buildings already erected in Moddin Illit, a Jewish settlement northwest of Ramallah, and $2 million CAD in punitive damages.

The village of Bil'in was seized by Israeli forces from Jordan during the Six-Day War of 1967.

Israeli settlers have constructed 30 buildings with 250 apartments and condominiums in the village.

The villagers claim that these actions violate the Fourth Geneva Convention; Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms; and the Civil Code of Quebec.

Are the villagers right; do these actions violate international law? Even if they do, do the villagers have a right of action in Canada?

EIL will look at this issue starting with the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What is the controlling international law?

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the actions of the Canadian companies - Green Park International and Green Mount International - violated the Fourth Geneva Convention; Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms; and the Civil Code of Quebec.

Each of these conventions create or utilize international law in defending the rights of civilians in conflict zones.

The Fourth Geneva Convention - formally known as the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War - establishes assumed responsibilities and rules followed by States during armed conflicts.

Article 2 states that these rules apply to States partially or totally occupying territory of another member to the convention. These rules apply even if one of the participants in the armed conflict is not a member to the convention.

Jordan and Israel are both signors of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

The territory in question is still considered occupied territory.

The borders between Israel and Jordan were fixed in an armistice agreement signed between the two countries in 1949. This border is known as the "Green Line." When Israel militarily annexed Jordanian territory past the Green Line in 1967 - including the village of Bil'in - this area became an occupied territory under customary international law. A legal status that has not changed to this day.

Source: The International Court of Justice's advisory opinion: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2003).

So, since both Jordan and Israel are members to the Fourth Convention, they are bound by the responsibilities laid out in the convention. These responsibilities apply to the area surrounding Bil'in, even after all this time. The whole area is considered an occupied territory under international law.

(There is a time limit of one year after the close of general military operations that applies to certain articles of the Fourth Convention, any provision that is past this time limit is excluded in this analysis.)

What responsibilities does the Fourth Convention mandate in this situation?

Article 49 forbids the mass forcible transfers - such as removing people from their village. There is an exception for military necessity. The same article forbids resettling your own people in seized territory. Allowing Jewish settlers to take over the village of Bil'in appears to violate this article.

Article 53 forbids the seizure of real or personal property from individuals, unless militarily necessary.

Lastly, why sue in Canada?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically incorporates international law into its legal system in Section 12(g).

This means that the villagers of Bil'in can argue certain points under international law that might be excluded in other forums.

Practically, the Canadian court has personal jurisdiction over the construction companies. So if the villagers get a favorable ruling, a Canadian court could actually stop the construction through use of penalties.

What does this mean to you?

There are many issues to be resolved in this case. Can a Canadian court hear a Fourth Convention case that involves two other states? Should a private actor be held complicit under the Fourth Convention?

But I think these are detail oriented points and miss the big picture.

Private actors are using international law against other private actors to settle humanitarian disputes.

This is not two states arguing over mineral rights. These are two groups of private individuals settling a dispute and using international law for their arguments.

The impact of this type of usage may be felt everyday.

The only comparable type of case I have see are Alien Tort Claim Act (ACTA) cases in the U.S. and they rely on domestic law. Plus, ACTA cases have been limited to the Law of Nations as it existed in 1776. (This is an incredibly limiting standard that has made cases of torture impossible to prosecute.)

Businesses may now have to consider whether their actions violate international humanitarian law. If it does, they may be subject to lawsuits.

At least in Canada.

--
www.joshualenon.com

SIEL/CUP Prize for an Essay on International Economic Law

A prize has been established by the Society of International Economic Law and Cambridge University Press for the best essay submitted on any topic in any field of international economic law.

The competition is open to current students and those who have graduated within the last five years.

The prize consists of £200, as well as £300 of Cambridge University Press book vouchers and a three year subscription to the World Trade Review. The winning essay will be submitted to the World Trade Review for publication.

The closing date for submissions is 30 September 2009.

For submission details and terms and conditions, please see www.sielnet.org/essayprize.

G20 Blogging - An Opportunity

In April, representatives from the top 20 economies in the world are meeting to discuss the state of the world economies.

EIL began discussing this summit back in September of 2008.

Like everything and everyone else in the world, this summit has their own website: LondonSummit.gov.uk.

Of personal interest, NGO Oxfam Great Britain, is providing 50 bloggers from around the world a chance to particpate in this summit - bringing their own fresh perspective to the negotiations and sessions.

If you think my approach to writing on international law and current events is worthwhile, I would like to ask a favor.

Please nominate me to be one of the bloggers invited to the summit.

You can do so at Oxfam's website: G20Voice.

The nomination form:

http://www.whitebandradar.org/en/g20voice/nominate

Thanks,

Joshua Lenon

--
www.joshualenon.com

Call for Papers: 2009 British Institute of International and Comparative Law Conference

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law is seeking papers for their 2009 Annual Conference from new scholars.

The theme of the conference will be: 'Business and International Law' and will be held on June 5 2009 in London.

The conference is specifically seeking papers from new academics, graduate students, and new legal professionals.

More details can be found here: www.biicl.org.
--
www.joshualenon.com

Fighting for Women's Reproductive Rights on a Global Scale

Slate has a good article titled, "Abortion Rights Go Global," written by Michelle Goldberg.

The article focuses on international legal instruments and bodies that are gradually recognizing a woman's right to control her reproductive health.

What interests me is the diversity of instruments mentioned.

The European Court of Human Rights is not surprising. Given that freedom of movement is one of the 'Four Freedoms' held central in the European Union, it was only a matter of time until women used to controlling their reproductive health in more secular countries ran into the procedural barriers erected in more non-secular nations - like Poland, Italy, & Ireland.

More interesting is the rise of cases being brought in other international settings. These include:

• the U.N. Human Rights Committee which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
  
• the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created by the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, and
  
• the 2003 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa.
  

In this growing area of human rights law, a consensus is emerging about women's reproductive health and abortion.

States cannot deny a woman's right to an abortion, specifically in cases involving risks to the mother, rape, or incest.

What does this mean to the readers?

This standard is far from gaining worldwide acceptance.

Nations and non-governmental organizations are fighting this emerging standard.

I think it will be decades before this type of international jurisprudence affects people worldwide.

Still, it is encouraging to see the spread in recognition of women's rights in international forums and the use of these forums to improve the lives of women around the world.

--
www.joshualenon.com

U.S. Diplomacy Losing Power

Bolivia has the largest proven deposits of lithium in the world.

Almost half of the known lithium volume in the world is found in Bolivia.

Lithium is crucial in manufacturing batteries that are effective in electric cars. In order to break our addiction from polluting, rapidly depleting oil, large amounts of lithium is needed.

Bolivia is where the lithium is located.

Bolivia is also on unfriendly diplomatic terms with the United States.

Japanese and European companies are busily trying to strike deals to gain access to the lithium deposits.

“We know that Bolivia can become the Saudi Arabia of lithium,” said Francisco Quisbert, 64, the leader of Frutcas, a group of salt gatherers and quinoa farmers on the edge of Salar de Uyuni, the world’s largest salt flat.

What does this mean to the readers?

Readers in the U.S. will see a further decline in the U.S. automotive industry - with all the attending economic fallout - as this industry cannot provide quality, electric cars.

Foreign automotive companies - Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc. - with access to Bolivia's lithium reserves will trounce U.S. car companies. They will have the cheap, electric cars that consumers will demand when oil becomes increasingly more expensive.

Let's hope that the U.S. State Department's Krishna Urs can fix this rift in diplomacy with Bolivia.
--
www.joshualenon.com

U.S. vs. P.R.C. in WTO = KO

Canadian legal blogger - Michael Geist - has a great article breaking down the recent ruling on the U.S.'s complaint against China regarding intellectual property rights enforcement.

The article is titled, "Why the U.S. Lost Its WTO IP Complaint Against China. Badly."

The title says it all. The ruling provides some large loopholes in the enforcement of IP violations under the Berne Convention and TRIPS.

Bryan Mercurio of the International Economic Law and Policy Blog discusses these loopholes here.

His point about China's high threshold of violations required to pursue a criminal conviction is especially interesting. China requires there to be 500 instances of copyright violation before they will initiate criminal prosecutions.

Mercurio writes:

"It also would seem to allow an individual to rent premises and set up shop selling pirated copies of music/DVDs and counterfeit TMs but avoid criminal prosecution as long as only 499 copies of each item are copied and sold."

What does this mean to the average person?

China's seemingly high threshold for criminal prosecution of IP violations means China can remain a safe haven for the smart counterfeiter.

Utilizing proven business techniques like on-demand production and just-in-time inventory strategies, organized counterfeiters could easily stay below the 500 instances threshold.

"I see you have 499 copies of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. You'd sure be in trouble if you had one more copy. I'd have to run you in as a counterfeiter."

So if you are looking for cheap knockoffs of Western products, head on down to the PRC.

They are practically given it away! These prices are too low to miss!

And it is all legal - at least under international law.
--
www.joshualenon.com

ICC begins

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has begun it's first hearing today.

Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga,is being brought on trial for war crimes that include violently forcing children to serve in his army and the use of children as sexual slaves.

Should these charges be proven true, I hope the justice of the court falls on Mr. Lubanga swiftly and harshly.

Hopefully, the sheer inhumanity of Mr. Lubanga's alleged deeds will not distract the court from it's true focus.

The ICC must have a fair and full hearing of all of the facts related to the case. There can be no doubt as to the strength and legitimacy of the outcome.

The United States is a signor of the ICC treaty. Bill Clinton signed during his presidency in 1998. George W. Bush ordered the signature withdrawn, leaving the United States as the only major Western power not to join as a court member.

This is the only way the ICC can establish itself as a force for justice in international law.

Fighting Pirates on the High Seas..with Law!

The issue: Pirates!

For months now, headlines on television and newspapers scream pirates on the high seas!

In the failed nation of Somalia, pirates in tiny boats filled with men, automatic weapons, and rocket-powered grenades have been seizing ships that are filled with wealthy french couples, supertankers filled with oil, and $30 million worth of grenade launchers, piles of ammunition, even battle tanks.

The waters off of Somalia are considered the most dangerous in the world. Pirates have attacked ships as far out as 300 miles from shore.

Why off of Somalia?

First, Somalia has no functioning economy since 1991 when the country's government collapsed. Piracy is a means to bring in wealth to a desperately poor country.

Secondly, Somalia is geographically positioned at one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world - the Gulf of Aden. It's is the only maritime route that allows ships from the Indian Ocean to quickly enter the Mediterranean Sea - without traveling all the way around Africa. Cruise and cargo ships alike bunch up in this narrow area and become easy prey to former fishermen who are heavily armed.

Can international law do anything to protect people on the high seas?

Controlling International Law:

The United Nations' Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLOS) is the controlling international law. It replaces customary international law that outlawed piracy.

CLOS focuses on piracy on the high seas - areas considered outside the control and jurisdiction of any one nation.

Section VII, Article 100 imposes a duty on all member nations to cooperate in the suppression of piracy in the high seas.

Article 101 defines piracy as:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Article 105 allows one to seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.

However, Article 107 limits this authority to seize pirates ships and arrest pirates only to warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

A private actor cannot go pirate hunting; they must be authorized to do so by a State.

How does this affect you?

Nations around the world are mobilizing their navies into this narrow area to fight the Somali pirates.

European nations, the United States, and China have all moved naval forces into the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden to escort ships and respond to attacks.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved actions by States to attack pirates not just on the high seas, but also in their bases in Somalia.

How will this affect you? Unless you are a sailor in a navy or a merchant marine on a cargo ship, you are likely to see no impact on your daily life.

If you are a Somali pirate, your life is about to get much more dangerous.
--
www.joshualenon.com

Milking the Issue

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration announced a new policy to stop food products from China at the border.

Producers must prove that their products are not contaminated. Large scale contamination of milk, eggs, and animal feed with industrial chemicals prompted this action.

EIL looked at this issue earlier and found that such actions are allowed under the WTO.

World Leaders react to Obama's Election Victory

In a followup to my previous post about the world reacting to the election of Barack Obama as the next U.S. President, here are some of the reactions of political leaders around the world.

You can read the article at the Guardian's website here.

My favorite quote:

Spanish prime minister Jose Zapatero: Obama's victory "opens a new era for dialogue in international relations".
--
www.joshualenon.com

Worldwide Reactions to Obama's Elections

The biggest of current events is the election of Barack Obama to be the 44th President of the United States of America.

Why is this such an important election?

In part, the election of Obama represents a repudiation of the policies of the current President, George W. Bush.

Bush's foreign policies were often at odds with international law. His theories of unilateral action conflicted with the growing interdependence of foreign relations.

Hopefully, the election of Obama will bring in an executive willing to work with the international community to build up international law.

The New York Times has a interesting summary of how this election is being viewed around the world.

You can read it here.

My favorite quote:

"The biggest economy in the world has a leader that the world can talk to," said Alejandro Saks, an Argentine television scriptwriter.

Get to work, Obama, the world is watching.
--
www.joshualenon.com

China's Bailout Plan - WWWTOD

China is starting to worry about the effect of the global slowdown on their economy.

China's State Council announced a plan to increase export tax rebates in order to protect domestic industries. Rebates would go to labor-intensive products like garments and textile to high-value products like mechanical and electrical products.

These measures may be against China's obligations under international law.

Worth noting, the U.S. Bush administration has become so dependent on China's purchasing of Treasury bonds needed to finance a bailout of the American financial system that they have stopped criticizing China's trade and currency policies.

China may be violating international law and there is nothing the U.S. can do.

Or is there? Let's go to EIL's big three questions:

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

1.) Does China's export rebates violate international law?

2.) Can China's trading partners do anything to stop China's violation of their international legal obligations?

WHAT IS THE CONTROLLING INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Issue 1's Legal Analysis

When you see a trade issue in an international setting, you should immediately look to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Export rebates fall under the WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM).

The SCM defines a subsidy in Article 1 to be an act that either is a direct transfer of funds or failing to collect funds - by a government, public body, or a private group entrusted by the government - to confer a benefit (on domestic producers).

Article 3.1 states that subsidies would be prohibited if they fall into two types:

(a) subsidies contingent, in law or in fact, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon export performance, including those illustrated in Annex I;

(b) subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods.

The Annex I is the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies (ILLES).

In this list is the key to determining if China's export rebates are illegal under the WTO.

Part (g) of the list reads:

(g) The exemption or remission, in respect of the production and distribution of exported products, of indirect taxes in excess of those levied in respect of the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.

What does that mean? It means a government can give back to exporters the taxes they paid for materials needed to produce their goods - but only for products being exported.

Part (g) of the ILLES also limits the amount of money that can be given back to producers. The money rebated can be no more than the taxes levied on the same product being sold in that nation.

For example, a company in China manufactures televisions. Some get sold in China; some get sold abroad.

For the televisions that get sold in China, the Chinese government collects taxes. The components and raw materials used to make the television are taxed when this company buys them. Taxes are also paid when the televisions are sold. China uses a value-added tax system (VAT). Eventually, the manufacturing company gets a tax break due to the taxes on the final sale of the TV to a Chinese consumer.

For the television sold abroad, the Chinese government would not get taxes from the final sale. Those taxes would be collected by the government in whatever nation that television arrives. So the manufacturer loses money as they no longer get the tax break they would normally get for domestic sales.

Part (g) of the ILLES allows China to rebate to the television producer a similar amount as if the TV had been sold in China - but no more than that.

This is the crux of whether China's export rebates are legal.

Is China giving a rebate higher in excess of the indirect taxes levied on similar products consumed domestically?

So far, I've seen no hard details on what the final export rebate amounts will be. Some articles indicate that rebates may be raised up to 9 - 13 percent. Some rebates go as high as 17 percent.

These articles fail to compare that with the VAT for each product domestically.

If the rebates are too high, China will be in violation of their obligations under the WTO.

Issue 2's Legal Analysis

What can China's trading partners do if China's subsidy violates the WTO?

Article 4 of the SCM has a dispute resolution method.

First, the SCM encourages member nations to consult with each other when a dispute arises.

After 30 days, if no resolution can be found through consultation, members may file a dispute with the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

From there, a panel and experts begin reviewing the subsidy. If they determine that it is prohibited under the SCM, the offending nation is required to withdraw the subsidy without delay.

There are other processes, including possible delays and appeals.

There is a formal process in place for resolving such disputes through the WTO.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE READERS?

China exports a lot of goods - $1.22 trillion in 2007. Nearly 20% of those goods were shipped to the U.S.

It is in China's interest to keep their exports high. This brings in tremendous revenue to the country. These rebates allow Chinese producers to keep the costs of their products extremely competitive in the world market.

It is in the U.S.'s interest (to a degree) to keep the prices of goods low too. Consumer spending in the U.S. is dropping to record lows. Considering that consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), pursuing a dispute resolution that leads to more costly goods from China may not be a smart short-term move.

What will probably happen is that China's higher export rebates will be scrutinized by their trading partners.

At some point, a trading partner will file a complaint with the WTO DSB.

Resolving the dispute will be a lengthy process that allows China to keep the costs of their manufactured goods low long enough to help their manufacturers.

Consumers worldwide will benefit from the cheap goods to which we've become addicted. When the economy rebounds, the DSB can rule on the matter of the rebates.

China can then withdraw the rebates without harming their own economy.

The imperfect system may actually work.
--
www.joshualenon.com

InterNETional Law

The BBC is reporting that Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have signed a global code of conduct promising to offer better protection for online free speech and against official intrusion.

This agreement, called the Global Network Initiative (GNI), is a group of technology companies and non-governmental organizations that have worked together to build a framework for this code of conduct. The current list of members can be found here.

It's interesting to note that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - a premier organization fighting to secure online rights and privacy - is a participating member in this initiative. To me, this implies that the GNI may be more than just a public relations stunt by internet companies.

The GNI is still a work in progress, with mostly principles and guidelines having been agree upon. No reporting or enforcement has been established yet.

The GNI provides for these in the future. What's interesting is that the GNI specifically refers to international law for standards in their code of conduct.

Let's run through EIL's big three questions:

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

The internet is a worldwide phenomenon.

That is precisely the problem.

Internet users in radically different nations can communicate with each other directly and often without limitation.

Internet companies find value in offering their services to customers around the world.

For example, internet companies like Yahoo and Google have found it profitable to set up subsidiary companies around the world.

The problem occurs when these multinational companies hold users in different nations to disparate standards.

To be fair, it's not Google's fault that China has a different standard of online privacy than Sweden.

It does leave these multinational companies open to charges of abuse or even open to legal liability.

Is there anything these companies can do to protect themselves in the hodge-podge legal world in which they operate?

Yes, by establishing codes of conduct, companies can influence government efforts directed against internet users and these companies create a form of protection for themselves.

WHAT IS THE CONTROLLING INTERNATIONAL LAW?

The GNI specifically references three major declarations of human rights:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Specifically, the GNI pulls its definition for Freedom of Expression from Article 19 of the UDHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR.

Article 19 of the UDHR states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This is the very nearly the exact language used in the GNI.

Article 19 of the ICCPR states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. [emphasis added]

By specifically referencing Article 19 of the ICCPR, members of the GNI have given themselves an escape clause. If it's in a nation's interest, they can declare any type of expression as dangerous to national security, order, morals.

It's a pretty big escape clause.

However, further language in the GNI limits this clause somewhat.

The GNI continues, saying that government restrictions should comply with international human rights law. Also, government action should be necessary and proportionate to the relevant purpose.

In the end notes attached to the GNI Principles, the GNI note that Article 19(3) of the ICCPR is to be read within the context of further interpretations of international human rights bodies. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (Johannesburg Principles) are all specifically mentioned as authorities that should be referenced for determining the scale and appropriateness of government action.

An example of how these authorities limit governmental actions can be take from the Johannesburg Principles. National Security limitations do not include protecting a government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, or to conceal information about the functioning of its public institutions, or to entrench a particular ideology, or to suppress industrial unrest.

Source: Johannesburg Principles, Principle 2(b)

Lastly, the GNI takes its definition of Privacy from Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR.

Article 12 of the UDHR states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This language is echoed in Article 17 of the ICCPR.

The GNI utilizes this language almost word for word to define privacy.

Again, the GNI recognizes that a right to privacy may need to be restricted in narrow circumstances. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights standards.

The GNI fails to define what authorities can define and interpret the human rights law relating to privacy.

It is clear that the GNI relies heavily on international legal principles and standards to generate it's voluntary code of conduct.

Nations will still be able to limit and control what their populace reads and writes online, but the area which they control may be limited to specific purposes as defined by international human rights law.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO THE READERS?

Will the GNI prevent a political journalist from being arrested in China?

No.

Will the GNI help conceal the identities of feminists in the Middle East?

No.

The GNI will make it harder for governments around the world to oppress their populations, but the GNI will not prevent that oppression from ever occurring.

The GNI makes it less likely that GNI member companies will cooperate with nations on privacy invasions.

Here's how this might work.

For the individual, the GNI does not give a private right of action. In other words, you cannot sue Google just because they violate the GNI.

But if you are suing Google under an existing right of action, you can use the GNI as evidence of commitments Google took upon itself.

These corporate codes of conduct act as evidence of a commitment – a standard the corporations are trying to realize. Courts may find it reasonable for users to rely on such public statements of principles when weighing liability.

Because the members of the GNI have voluntarily assumed these standards, they have assumed potential liability when they violate these standards.

These companies could lose lots of money by not living up to their word.

And the one thing companies hate to do is lose money.

Employees fired for following the GNI may be able to sue for wrongful termination. Customers could use the GNI as evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy in lawsuits

So when censorship and invasion of privacy issues arise, GNI members will have to calculate the financial costs of breaking their own word.

And that calculation makes them a little more likely to protect the privacy of you and me.

--
www.joshualenon.com

Space Law - A Primer on the Final Frontier

It should come as no surprise that outer space is getting a little crowded.

Industrial and developing nations are rushing to take advantage of the benefits of satellite technology for observation and communication purposes.

Space exploration is also increasing.

Recently, India launched its first unmanned mission to the moon.

This comes only a year after China's moon project launch and a month after its third manned mission and first spacewalk.

Even the European Space Agency (ESA) is looking at building its own manned spacecraft.

And that does not even begin to consider the rise of private spaceflight companies.

A lot of people are rushing to claim their piece of the night sky.

But can they actually own a part of outer space? And can they do whatever they want up there?

Currently, outer space is getting a lot of attention in the international legal community. Issues like jurisdiction, safety & liability, and private vs. military uses all raise legal questions.

Everyday International Law (EIL) plans to look at the law surrounding military functions in outer space. This is often called the weaponization of space.

To do this, we first need to look at the existing law that governs outer space.

In a later entry, we'll look at how those laws relate to the weaponization of space. We'll also look at a possible emerging treaty; the applicability of customary international law, and the latest U.S. domestic policies that apply to outer space.

What is the existing international law for outer space?

The treaties specifically discussing obligations in outer space include:

• Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests In The Atmosphere, In Outer Space And Under Water, 1963 (“Limited Test Ban Treaty”)
• Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 ("Outer Space Treaty")
• Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1968 (“Rescue Agreement”)
• Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 (“Liability Convention”)
• Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1975 (“Registration Convention”)
• Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1979 ("Moon Treaty")
  

These treaties are not the totality of corpus juris spatialis (the law of outer space), but lay out most of the obligations that nations have affirmatively undertaken.

What obligations do these treaties create?

• Space is to be used for peaceful purposes.
• Outer Space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, even by occupation.
• Military bases are not permitted on the moon or other celestial bodies. Use of military personnel in space exploration is permitted.
  
• Nuclear weapons & weapons of mass destruction are not to be deployed in outer space.
• Space-faring nations have a duty to rescue stranded astronauts and return other nations' retrieved space objects.
• If a nation's space activities causes damage on Earth in another country, that nation is obligated to pay for those damages.
• Nations launching objects into Earth orbit must register the object as soon as reasonably possible with a United Nations' registry, stating the orbiting path of the object and its purpose.
  

There are other duties, like giving reciprocity to representatives from other nations, but these are the main duties derived from this collection of treaties.

Interestingly, most of these treaties are signed by a large number of the international community. The Moon Treaty is not signed by many nations at all. Only 17 nations have signed it. Of the nations that are exploring the moon, only India has signed the Moon Treaty.

Next, EIL will take at look at recent developments in the weaponization of outer space and what international law may govern there.

Space Law Resources

As I continue to research laws relating to the weaponization of outer space, I would like to thank P. J. Blount, Research Counsel, National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law and Instructor of Law, for his advice on space law resources.

You should read his blog on space law: Res Communis

Also be sure to look at the University of Mississippi School of Law's Space Law Center - the first of its kind in the United States.

EIL Changes

Hello, I'm making some changes to the layout of Everyday International Law (EIL).

As you can see I'm switching to a 3-column layout.

I'm also adding tags to each entry. You can see them at the end of an article.

Hopefully, these changes make it easier to navigate EIL and they should be completed this week.

Joshua Lenon

Potential Financial Summit Already Lurching

President Bush recently met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Union President Jose Manuel Barroso.

They discussed a potential summit to address the financial crises spreading throughout the world.

As I predicted, the U.S. is already refusing to commit to any significant action on the international level.

First, no date has been set for this summit.

But this could just be because of the looming revamping of the U.S. government. No matter which presidential candidate wins the upcoming election, they will need time to prepare for such a meeting.

Secondly and more telling, Bush is arguing that no action should be taken that hampers the 'the commitment to free enterprise, free markets and free trade.”

I think it can be argued that the markets have been too free lately. Allowing large scale speculation in land, housing, commodities, and oil has led to disastrous consequences that are just now playing out.

The rest of the world is not amused with Bush's lack of leadership on this issue.

France's Sarkozy views U.S. participation in an international scheme as necessary.

"Since the crisis started in New York, maybe we can find the solution in New York," he said. "This is a worldwide crisis, and therefore we must find a worldwide solution."

What does this mean to the readers?

I think the media will focus lots of attention on this proposed summit.

Some type of joint statement of purpose will come out of the summit.

The statement will be generic, with not a lot of details on any real action. No participant will be required to do anything specific, but each will pledge to be more vigilant on policing unregulated behavior that could lead to another financial crises.

Readers should expect no real legislative action on any proposals that come from such a summit.

Instead, readers may see executive orders requiring regulatory agencies to consider the statements expressed from the summit.

That's my cynical take on how this summit is shaping up.

Of course, results from the upcoming U.S. presidential election may make it necessary to revisit this prediction.

Future Posts

I'm currently attending a legal conference, so posts may be sparse this week.

Here are two topics I'm currently researching:

• The proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and its controversial provisions
• A look at the Weaponization of Space.

Of course, if there are any topics you would like me to review, please contact me using the links in my profile.

Joshua Lenon

Germany Supports Financial Summit

Germany has announced support for a summit to create an international regulatory scheme to prevent future worldwide credit crises.

Such a summit was proposed by France back in September.

As predicted, it looks like the summit will happen.

Will a new regulatory scheme come out of the summit?

Well, you know my thoughts on the matter.