Monthly Archives: December 2009

Congrats, Rwanda, on Being Landmine Free! Plus: HeroRATS.

Posted on by
Reply

Rwanda has become the first country to become landmine-free. Under the Ottawa Convention, this mean that not only as Rwanda detected and removed all landmines placed on its territory, but all its stockpiled mines. Impressively, under the treaty, Rwanda had a full year more to achieve landmine-free status, so, in a somewhat rare event under international law, they’re ahead of schedule on compliance.

Largely because of security issues related to South Korea and the DMZ, the U.S. still has not acceded to the convention.

In Rwanda, mine detection dogs were used to sweep the country side, and to identify and secure any mine found. Dogs aren’t the only option, however. One of my favorite international charities, APOPO, is pioneering the use of heartbreakingly adorable Gambian pouched rats as landmine detectors. The HeroRATS have a lot of advantages over dogs when it comes to mine detection, particularly in developing countries. They are cheaper than dogs, quicker to train and reach maturity, easy to motivate, and — perhaps most importantly — are light enough where they will not trigger the landmines themselves. Currently, the rats are used for demining efforts in Tanzania and Mozambique.

HeroRATS are a versatile tool for international development — they can also be trained to detect tuberculosis infections. Although as accurate as humans in detecting TB, they are about a hundred times faster:

HeroRATS offer a local solution to the TB epidemic. A rat can evaluate 40 samples in 10 minutes, equal to what a skilled lab technician, using microscopy, will do in two days. Without requiring sophisticated instruments, this method is non invasive and can handle a high volume of samples, all very important factors in a pro-active screening approach.

-Susan

Death Row Phenomenon Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

As I noted a while ago, there seems to be an increasing interest in U.S. jurisprudence in the notion of a “death row phenomenon.”   That interest was reflected yet again in a denial of certiorari in the case of Cecil Johnson, who spent 29 years waiting to die (11 on death row) before being executed early today.  In a statement [PDF] accompanying that denial, Justices Stevens and Breyer both expressed great concern about the length of Johnson’s stay on death row:

[There are] two underlying evils of intolerable delay. First, the delay itself subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.  Second, “delaying an execution does not further public purposes of retribution and deterrence but only diminishes whatever possible benefit society might receive from petitioner’s death.”  Thus, I find constitutionally significant both the conditions of confinement and the nature of the penalty itself.

[snip]

One does not need to accept the proposition “that the imposition of the death penalty represents ‘the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes,’” in order to agree that the imposition of the death penalty on these extreme facts is without constitutional justification.

(citations omitted)

Justice Thomas responded with a concurrence in the denial [PDF] that directly rejects any notion of death row phenomenon and mocks the philosophy’s implicit reliance on international law:

It has been 14 years since JUSTICE STEVENS proposed this “novel” Eighth Amendment argument.  I was unaware of any constitutional support for the argument then.  And I am unaware of any support for it now.  There is simply no authority “in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.”

[snip]

[Justice Stevens's view] deviates from the Constitution and . . . proponents of his view are forced to find their support in precedent from the “European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court of India, or the Privy Council.”

[snip]

At bottom, JUSTICE STEVENS’ arguments boil down to policy disagreements with the Constitution and the Tennessee legislature.  There are, of course, alternatives. As Blackstone observed, the principle that “punishment should follow the crime as early as possible” found expression in a statute decreeing that “in case of murder, the judge shall in his sentence direct execution to be performed on the next day but one after sentence passed.”  I have no doubt that such a system would avoid the diminishing justification problem JUSTICE STEVENS identifies, but I am equally confident that such a system would find little support from this Court.

(citations omitted)

This is a great articulation of both sides of the argument.  Frankly, I don’t know which way to come out on this one, but it should be interesting to see what role international law plays in a debate over the proper interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

-Michael

Should Colonel Sanders Be Tried For International Crimes?

Posted on by
1

Everyone loves a good piece of fried chicken, but is it possible that Colonel Sanders (of KFC fame) is an international criminal?  No, I’m not referring to the fact that KFC and its kin have probably caused more deaths than history’s most terrible genocides.  Rather, Colonel Sanders might be guilty of violating international law as a result of some recent shenanigans at the United Nations.

As noted over at Opinio Juris, Colonel Sanders recently breached security at the United Nations and gained access to a number of restricted areas.  Sanders (ok, technically an actor playing Sanders) was even able to pose for a picture with new UN General Assembly president Ali Treki.  There’s no suggestion that the Colonel was engaged in any malicious activity like espionage (although he is very good at keeping secrets).  Even so, one might argue that he violated international law when he started sneaking around the UN complex.

The United Nations complex and the area surrounding it is called the “headquarters district.”  Under Article III, Section 7(a) of the Headquarters Agreement governing the district, that area is “under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in the agreement.”   Admittedly, the same agreement also provides (in Article III, Section 7(c)):

Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state, and local courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over acts done and transactions taking place in the headquarters district as provided in applicable federal, state, and local laws.

This provision suggests that Sanders might only have to worry about anything more than a common trespass conviction.  But note that the provision does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in U.S. courts.  Thus, the United Nations may argue that, given the international character of the headquarters district, Colonel Sanders might also be subject to international liability for sneaking into the “inviolable” district.  See Art. III, Sec. 9. 

Still, there are other obstacles that would have to be overcome before we could see the Colonel in the dock at any international court.  First, what international crime did he commit?  Strangely, there would not seem to be any well-established notion of “international trespass” on internationally-held lands.  (I say strangely only because it would seem to be a crime of international concern if other extraterritorial outposts were trespassed upon, like CERN or NATO headquarters.)  It would also be extreme to resort to any prosecution of the basis of international “aggression.”  Lacking a crime, there can be no trial.  Second, where could the Colonel be tried?  The International Criminal Court certainly would not have jurisdiction.  An ad hoc tribunal would be out of the question.  Third, it is unclear whether the United Nations could independently impose any penalty for any violation of “international law” under Section 10 of the Headquarters Agreement:

Persons who violate such regulations [of the United Nations] shall be subject to other penalties or to detention under arrest only in accordance with the provision of such laws or regulations as may be adopted by the appropriate American authorities.

In sum, it looks like the Colonel will escape international prosecution.  Still, I think there’s some chance that KFC’s new “grilled chicken” is an international human rights violation in the making.

-Michael

Update: Scott Rothstein Arrested

Posted on by
1

In a follow-up to an earlier post, high-flying South Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein was arrested this morning on RICO charges. As the ABA Journal explains:

He is accused of operating a Ponzi scheme involving investments in legal settlements. Investors were asked to make an upfront payment, supposedly to a lawsuit plaintiff expected a series of payments over a period of months or years. Later, the investors were told, they would get back the full settlement amount. “But it was all a scam,” according to the Miami Herald. “Federal prosecutors said there were no plaintiffs, no defendants, no lawsuits.”

To get a sense of what a weirdo this guy is, check out this video tour of his office.

-Michael

P.S. What’s with all the Ponzi schemes lately?