DOCSLIB.ORG

Michaelmas 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michaelmas 2018 Issue 27 | Michaelmas Term 2018 LAUTERPACHT CENTRE NEWS Contents International Law in the 3 International Law in the Age of Bilateralism - Professor Eyal Benvenisti 6 Centre News Age of Bilateralism 11 Authors’ Workshops at the Centre 12 Fellows’ News LCIL Director Professor Eyal Benvenisti 14 The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture 2018 by Shaheed Fatima QC 16 5 minutes with.... Mr Tomohiro Mikanagi t has become clear that the world’s two major powers – wishing to reshape the international system,” China has a declining hegemon and an emerging one – are poised not rushed to set up multilateral bodies with global reach. 18 Lauterpacht Linked Ito shun multilateral international organisations and Instead, it designs its external relations based on the instead are pursuing webs of bilateral agreements. The “hub and spokes” model, an architecture that allows it to 20 The Eli Lauterpacht Fund Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference maintain supremacy over its numerous partners who are for bilateral deals while dismissing international organi- kept apart from each other. This model characterizes its 22 Conference on the Use of Force in Relation to Sovereignty Disputes over Land Territory sations as taking advantage of US generosity. Trump security arrangements in Asia, and shapes China’s most regards trade deals as inherently ‘adversarial and ze- ambitious economic (and political) initiative, the Belt 23 Inaugural International Law & Arbitration course ro-sum’, and has blatantly disregarded the multilateral and Road Initiative (BRI) that connects China with more trade rules the US had set during the victorious post-Cold than sixty selected partners that are spread across three 24 LCIL Workshop: International Law and Cyber Security War days. Even the free trade area agreement between continents. America and its immediate neighbours was transformed 26 BRCS/ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law Project into a bilateral “United States – Mexico Trade Agree- China’s dominance over its spokes is legally secured ment” in a renegotiation process that excluded Canada. through a China-centric web of bilateral treaties, and 27 Major Publications Canada was subsequently rushed to sign on the dotted a newly minted Chinese dispute settlement mecha- line the agreement that “they used to call … NAFTA” (to nism, announced last June, which is designed to resolve 28 The International Law Reports use Trump’s words). investment disputes arising out of the implementation of the BRI. Through this mechanism, arbitrators appointed 29 LCIL Book Launch: Landmark Cases in Public and International Law Those who believe that Trump is an outlier and that, by China can be expected to resolve investment disputes following imminent impeachment, the US would soon and indirectly regulate BRI-related projects within its 30 Other publications by Centre Fellows resume its responsible global leadership position, must partner countries and shape those countries’ regulatory account for the fact the Obama Administration has pur- frameworks. The hub and spoke architecture allows these 32 Legal Tools for Peace-Making sued the same divide and rule strategy when negoti- arbitral tribunals to tailor their norms to suit the unique ating the major TPP and the TTIP economic agreements, situation within each of the spoke countries, consistent 34 New faces at the Lauterpacht Centre when it divided the European Union and 11 carefully with Chinese interests. selected Pacific Rim countries and negotiated with each 37 Events this term group separately. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, The preference for bilateralism is not coincidental. Any promoted reliance on bilateral trade and investment land developer or successful politician knows the effects 40 Visiting the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law agreements, loose partnerships and fluid “coalitions of the old “divide and rule” strategy. In fact, this strategy of the willing,” instead of working within or creating is so obvious that it raises a puzzle: why would powerful 42 Life in pictures @ the Lauterpacht Centre new multilateral institutions. The post 1945 effort by the United States to create a wide array of international organisations was crucial for establishing its dominance and for the rise of the post-war liberal international order. But in the post-post-Cold War era, the superpower, whose hegemony is increasingly being tested, has found multi- lateralism burdensome. Joining our Mailing List It is also unsurprising that the rising Asian hegemon has been following a similar path of bilateralism. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. If you would like to receive details of events and news at the Lauterpacht Centre Despite the fact that, as some scholars have noted, please join our Mailing LIst (www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/contact-us). America’s disengagement from multilateralism could not offer “a more favourable scenario for a rising power You can also follow us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Image copyright: [Public domain] Wikimedia Commons - Shealah Craighead 2 Lauterpacht Centre News | Michaelmas 2018 Lauterpacht Centre News | Michaelmas 2018 3 states venture to cede authority to multilateral organi- about the outcome of their cooperation in a manner that experience it might be replaced by a myriad of period- ficiently independent regulators; private actors such as sations and subject themselves to collectively-fashioned leaves each of them better off than they would be by ically renegotiated bilateral, often informal and ad-hoc multi-national corporations seeking economic certainty international law that regards all states as formally equal? colluding with S. These can be very difficult conditions to agreements. No single state or group of states will have and a level playing field; and civil society activists. These In an article analysing the ways a hegemon or a group of meet when the preferences of the citizens diverge, and either the incentive or the power to unilaterally commit to actors could limit the discretion of the executive branch powerful states are able to shape international law and even more problematic if instead of individual citizens we multilateral rules or institutions that could bind them and by forging coalitions across political boundaries. Reaching rule international institutions despite their numerical have states that have different preferences (for example, be used against it. the Paris Accord in 2015, for example, can be attributed minority, the late George Downs and I highlight the abil- one state exports oil, the other bananas, the third tour- to a large extent to non-state action and commitments. ity of powerful states to maintain their domination over ism services). In fact, Weingast views these conditions as Herein lies the paradox: globalisation, facilitated by The mighty technology companies seeking to serve more weaker states by blocking the weaker states’ opportunity being so formidable that the most likely outcome of the international law and institutions, operated to diminish users across the globe and ensure confidence in their to cooperate. We used a simple three person devised by game is one in which the citizens fail to cooperate, and S differences among countries and to increase their ability services might find it possible to cooperate on rebuffing Barry Weingast that involves three players: a sovereign, and one of the two citizens exploit the other citizen. to collude against the more powerful states. Yet, as these governments’ demands for access to their data (as S, who is the most powerful figure in the three person powers opt for bilateralism, the prospects for a compre- companies such as Apple and Microsoft have done indi- “society,” and two citizens, A and B. In order to remain in For our purposes, the primary significance of Weingast’s hensive, systemic international law diminish. vidually) and jointly monitor offensive cyber operations. power, the sovereign needs the support of at least one game lies in its message that a hegemon (or small group Such companies may find it both necessary and feasible of the two citizens. If both citizens oppose him, he is of powerful states) that wishes to prevent weaker states This outcome is in line with Mancur Olson’s observa- to set mutually convenient standards to be enforced deposed and loses power. from cooperating within a certain institution or in the tions about the emergence of collective action. As he through institutions that they create. These motives can negotiation of a treaty can do so by using its first-mover suggests, a community composed of unequal members is explain the ‘We Are Still In’ coalition of business and The basic game involves a sequence of two moves. S advantage to 1) limit the perception of weaker parties more likely to overcome collective action problems than other non-governmental leaders committed to US com- moves first and may choose to honour both citizens’ that they are involved in a repeated game, and 2) limit the a homogeneous community, because the powerful mem- pliance with the Paris Agreement despite Trump’s plan rights or to transgress against the rights of one or both. If opportunities that weaker states have to resolve the dif- bers of the heterogeneous community will have both to withdraw, and efforts by coalitions of companies to S chooses to honour both citizens’ rights, the game ends, ferences in their preferences. In our article, we highlight- the ability and the interest to carry the collective burden engage in preventing government-sponsored spying and and S remains in power. If S violates the rights of either or ed a number of strategies that hegemons and powerful unilaterally. cybercrimes, as well as Microsoft’s suggestion of a pub- both, A and B have the opportunity to choose whether states can use to accomplish each goal, among them the lic-private equivalent of the International Atomic Energy to acquiesce or challenge the sovereign. If A and B both creation of a large number of international organisations Life under bilateralism may feel like living under des- Agency to handle attribution of cyberattacks to nations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Facts Necessary to Understanding the Hawaiian
    FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE HAWAIIAN SITUATION David Keanu Sai, Ph.D. June 11, 2019 Fundamental to deciphering the Hawaiian situation is to discern between a state of peace and a state of war. This bifurcation provides the proper context by which certain rules of international law would or would not apply. The laws of war—jus in bello, otherwise known today as international humanitarian law, are not applicable in a state of peace. Inherent in the rules of jus in bello is the co-existence of two legal orders, being that of the occupying State and that of the occupied State. As an occupied State, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been maintained for the past 126 years by the positive rules of international law, notwithstanding the absence of effectiveness, which is required during a state of peace.1 The failure of the United States to comply with international humanitarian law, for over a century, has created a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions where war crimes have since risen to a level of jus cogens. At the same time, the obligations have erga omnes characteristics— flowing to all States. The international community’s failure to intercede, as a matter of obligatio erga omnes, is explained by the United States deceptive portrayal of Hawai‘i as an incorporated territory. As an international wrongful act, States have an obligation to not “recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach … nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation,”2 and States “shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach [by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law].”3 The gravity of the Hawaiian situation has been heightened by North Korea’s announcement that “all of its strategic rocket and long range artillery units ‘are assigned to strike bases of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2016–17 the LAUTERPACHT CENTRE for INTERNATIONAL LAW
    Lauterpacht Centre for International Law Annual Report 2016–17 THE LAUTERPACHT CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW Established in 1983, the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law is the centre for the study of international law at the University of Cambridge. In this role, it seeks to provide both a framework and forum for critical and constructive thought about the function, content and working of law in the international community, as well as to develop an appreciation of international law as an applied body of rules and principles. A number of those associated with the Centre are actively involved in the practical development and application of international law. The Centre is not involved in the formal teaching or supervision of students of the University; this is the responsibility of the Faculty of Law, of which the Centre is part. The Director, Deputy Directors and some of the other Fellows of the Centre, in their role as members of the Faculty, are actively involved in teaching and research supervision. The Centre provides a regular forum for lectures and seminars and other forms of small-group teaching. The specific objectives of the Centre are: • to serve as a discussion forum for current issues by organising seminars, lectures and meetings aimed at developing an understanding of international law; • to promote research and publication in international law, including the publication of core research materials; • to provide, in Cambridge, an intellectual home for scholars of international law from all over the world who wish to pursue their research in an atmosphere that is stimulating and congenial to the generation and exchange of ideas; • to provide education and training programmes of the highest quality to external institutions under special arrangements made with those institutions; • to maintain a library of materials relating to international law.
    [Show full text]
  • Magdalene College Magazine 2019-20
    magdalene college magdalene magdalene college magazine magazine No 63 No 64 2018–19 2019 –20 M A G D A L E N E C O L L E G E The Fellowship, October 2020 THE GOVERNING BODY 2020 MASTER: Sir Christopher Greenwood, GBE, CMG, QC, MA, LLB (1978: Fellow) 1987 PRESIDENT: M E J Hughes, MA, PhD, Pepys Librarian, Director of Studies and University Affiliated Lecturer in English 1981 M A Carpenter, ScD, Professor of Mineralogy and Mineral Physics 1984 J R Patterson, MA, PhD, Praelector, Director of Studies in Classics and USL in Ancient History 1989 T Spencer, MA, PhD, Director of Studies in Geography and Professor of Coastal Dynamics 1990 B J Burchell, MA and PhD (Warwick), Joint Director of Studies in Human, Social and Political Sciences and Professor in the Social Sciences 1990 S Martin, MA, PhD, Senior Tutor, Admissions Tutor (Undergraduates), Joint Director of Studies and University Affiliated Lecturer in Mathematics 1992 K Patel, MA, MSc and PhD (Essex), Director of Studies in Land Economy and UL in Property Finance 1993 T N Harper, MA, PhD, College Lecturer in History and Professor of Southeast Asian History (1990: Research Fellow) 1994 N G Jones, MA, LLM, PhD, Director of Studies in Law (Tripos) and Reader in English Legal History 1995 H Babinsky, MA and PhD (Cranfield), Tutorial Adviser (Undergraduates), Joint Director of Studies in Engineering and Professor of Aerodynamics 1996 P Dupree, MA, PhD, Tutor for Postgraduate Students, Joint Director of Studies in Natural Sciences and Professor of Biochemistry 1998 S K F Stoddart, MA, PhD, Director
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Frédéric MEGRET [email protected] Faculty
    Frédéric MEGRET Faculty of Law, McGill University [email protected] 3644 Peel Street Montreal Canada, H3A 1W9 Tel.: (514) 398-5962 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 01/01/2016 William Dawson Scholar, McGill University (renewed 2020). 01/09/2012- Associate Dean Research, Faculty of Law, McGill University 31/08/2015 01/2006 Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, (Assistant-Professor from 01/2006 to 07/2011, Associate Professor from 08/2011 to 02/2019, Full-Professor since 03/2019). Teaching international criminal law, international human rights law, public international law, and Canadian criminal law and justice. 01/2006-12/2015 Canada Research Chair in the Law of Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. 09/2011-08/2012 Visiting scholar, Academic sabbatical. Université Paul Cézanne (Aix Marseille), Centre d’études et de recherches internationales et communautaires (CERIC). 08/2004-12/2005 Assistant-Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. 09/2003-07/2004 Boulton fellow, Faculty of Law, McGill University. 09/2001-06/2002 Research associate, European University Institute (Florence), Law Department. 03-12/1999 Consultant, International Committee of the Red Cross. Advising on the United Nations Millennium celebrations, humanitarian and human rights segment. Missions in Rome, New York and Addis Ababa, representing the ICRC. 08/1998- Attaché International Organizations Division, International Committee of the Red 03/1999 Cross. Helped conceive and write a book on the implementation of international humanitarian law, published in partnership with the Inter-parliamentary Union (since translated in English, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese). 07/1998 Rome Conference on the Creation of an International Criminal Court, French diplomatic delegation, attaché.
    [Show full text]
  • Kevin Jon Heller [email protected]
    KEVIN JON HELLER [email protected] ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 10.13– Professor of Criminal Law, SOAS, University of London 10.13– Principal Fellow, Melbourne Law School • Teach intensive international criminal law seminar in the LLM program. 11.12–10.13 Associate Professor & Reader, Melbourne Law School • Reader awarded for “exceptional international distinction in research.” 1.09–11.12 Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School 1.08–1.09 Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland Faculty of Law 6.06–1.08 Lecturer, University of Auckland Faculty of Law 6.04–6.06 Assistant Professor, University of Georgia School of Law EDUCATION 6.11 Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands Ph.D. in Law 5.96 Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, California J.D., with distinction Senior Note Editor, Stanford Law Review Article Editor, Stanford Law & Policy Review 5.93 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina M.A. in Literature, honors Specialization in legal and literary theory 5.91 New School for Social Research, New York City, New York M.A. in Sociology, highest honors Specialization in political sociology, historical sociology, social theory 5.90 New School for Social Research, New York City, New York B.A. in Social & Political Theory, highest honors SOLE-AUTHORED BOOKS A GENEALOGY OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (Oxford University Press, 2017). • Book is researched and outlined. 2. THE NUREMBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND THE ORIGINS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (Oxford University Press, 2011). 509 pages. Paperback edition published September 2013. • Favorably reviewed by David Fraser (Nottingham) in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Roger L. Phillips (ECCC) in the Journal of International Criminal Justice, Cecily Rose (Cambridge) in the British Yearbook of International Law, Devin Pendas (Boston College) in International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Lawrence Douglas (Amherst) in Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Nicola Palmer (King’s) in the European Human Rights Law Review, Sarah Kendall (Leiden) in the Melbourne Journal of International Law, and Rainer Huhle for the Nürnberger Menschenrechtszentrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Miller-Inst-Annual-Report-2017-2018
    ANNP THE HONORABLE G. WILLIAM AND ARIADNA MILLER INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND THE LAW Since 2007, the Honorable G. William and Ariadna Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law has been at the heart of Berkeley Law’s international enterprise. Founded and supported by the generosity of G. William and Ariadna Miller, the Institute is a research, teaching, and policy center on international and comparative law. Through interdisciplinary collaborations and institutional partnerships, the Miller Institute addresses urgent chal‐ lenges that demand creative global approaches, including promoting the rule of law, climate and energy justice, anti‐ corruption, and human rights. (L‐R) Miller Institute Faculty Co‐Director Katerina Linos, Miller Institute Senior Fellow Jamie O’Connell, Miller Institute Faculty Our work is guided by Berkeley Law’s distinguished inter‐ Co‐Director Laurel Fletcher, and Prof. Saira Mohamed national and comparative law faculty and informed by the expertise of scholars and practitioners worldwide. The approach is collaborative, interdisciplinary, and strategic. Our initiatives and advocacy work target critical situations where we are uniquely equipped to promote lasting change. DAVID D. CARON (1952-2018) The Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law is saddened by the loss of David D. Caron (’83), the C. William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law (Emeritus), who passed away on February 20 at the age of 65. He was one of the founding faculty directors of the Miller Institute and was instrumental in its success over the years. He left Berkeley Law in 2013 to become Dean of the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.
    [Show full text]
  • International Justice and the Prevention of Atrocity
    INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND THE PREVENTION OF ATROCITY Anthony Dworkin ABOUT ECFR The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is the first pan-European think-tank. Launched in October 2007, its objective is to conduct research and promote informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent, effective and values-based European foreign policy. ECFR has developed a strategy with three distinctive elements that define its activities: • A pan-European Council. ECFR has brought together a distinguished Council of over two hundred Members – politicians, decision makers, thinkers and business people from the EU’s member states and candidate countries – which meets once a year as a full body. Through geographical and thematic task forces, members provide ECFR staff with advice and feedback on policy ideas and help with ECFR’s activities within their own countries. The Council is chaired by Martti Ahtisaari and Mabel van Oranje. • A physical presence in the main EU member states. ECFR, uniquely among European think-tanks, has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia and Warsaw. Our offices are platforms for research, debate, advocacy and communications. • A distinctive research and policy development process. ECFR has brought together a team of distinguished researchers and practitioners from all over Europe to advance its objectives through innovative projects with a pan-European focus. ECFR’s activities include primary research, publication of policy reports, private meetings and public debates, ‘friends of ECFR’ gatherings in EU capitals and outreach to strategic media outlets. ECFR is a registered charity funded by the Open Society Foundations and other generous foundations, individuals and corporate entities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Global Community Judge Christopher Greenwood
    GREENWOOD - FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/19/2011 7:07 PM THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY Judge Christopher Greenwood* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 233 I. THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY ...................................................................... 235 II.THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................ 241 III.THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY .............................................................. 248 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 252 INTRODUCTION It is both an honour and a pleasure to be invited to give a lecture here at the California International Law Center. I would like to begin by thanking Professor Diane Amann, the Director of the Center, for her kindness in extending this invitation to me, Ms. Kate Doty, Fellow of the Center, for organizing the visit, and Baber Khan and his team at the Journal of International Law and Policy for editing and publishing the text.1 My theme today is the role of the International Court of Justice in the global community. For just over two years I have had the privilege of being one of the fifteen judges elected by the United Nations to serve on the Court.2 During that period, I have participated in four judgments in inter- * Sir Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC, has been a Judge of the International Court of Justice since February 2009. Prior to his election to the Court, he was Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and a Queen’s Counsel, who appeared in numerous cases before the English and international courts. This paper is the revised text of a lecture which he gave at the California International Law Center, University of California, Davis, on March 1, 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • SIR CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD, GBE, CMG, QC Personal
    SIR CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD, GBE, CMG, QC Personal: Born 12 May 1955 (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire). Nationality: United Kingdom. Educated: Raeburn Park School, Singapore Wellingborough School, Northamptonshire; Magdalene College, Cambridge (BA Law (First Class) 1976; LlB International Law (First Class) 1977; MA 1980. College, Squire, McNair and Whewell Scholarships, Cambridge. Middle Temple: joined 1974; Harmsworth Exhibition. Professional Career: Fellow, Magdalene College, Cambridge, 1978-1996 Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Cambridge, 1981-1996 Professor of International Law, LSE, 1996-2009 Called to the Bar (Middle Temple), 1978 Queen’s Counsel 1999 Judge, International Court of Justice, 2009-2018 Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 2018 to present Master, Magdalene College, Cambridge with effect from 1 October 2020. Honours: Companion, Order of St Michael and St George (CMG), 2002 Knight Bachelor for services to public international law, 2009 Knight Grand Cross, Order of the British Empire (GBE), 2018, for services to international justice Honorary Fellow, Magdalene College, Cambridge, 2009-2020. Middle Temple: Bencher, 2003; Reader Lent Term 2020 Miscellaneous: Member, UK National Group, Permanent Court of Arbitration Vice-President, British Institute of International and Comparative Law Member, Institut de droit international Publications: International Law Reports, vols 52-188, co-editor with the late Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, QC (vols 82-168) Command and the Laws of Armed Conflict (1993) Essays on War in International Law (2006) Approximately 60 articles and 50 shorter notes and reviews in legal journals Participation as a Judge at the International Court of Justice Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Order of 26 May 2009 (Provisional Measures), I.C.J. Reports 2009, p.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Security Council
    United Nations A/72/183–S/2017/621 General Assembly Distr.: General 21 July 2017 Security Council Original: Arabic/English/French/ Spanish General Assembly Security Council Seventy-second session Seventy-second year Item 114 (c) of the provisional agenda* Elections to fill vacancies in principal organs: election of five members of the International Court of Justice Curricula vitae of candidates nominated by national groups Note by the Secretary-General Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 2 II. Curricula vitae ................................................................. 2 Ronny Abraham (France) ........................................................ 2 Chaloka Beyani (Zambia) ........................................................ 4 Dalveer Bhandari (India) ........................................................ 28 Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil) ........................................ 38 Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom) ......................................... 42 Nawaf Salam (Lebanon) ......................................................... 50 Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia) ................................................ 53 * A/72/150. 17-12355 (E) 230817 *1712355* A/72/183 S/2017/621 I. Introduction The Secretary-General has the honour to submit to the General Assembly and to the Security Council the curricula vitae of the candidates nominated by national groups for the elections to fill five vacancies on the International Court of Justice. The
    [Show full text]
  • The Gates Scholar Volume 4 Issue 2 Summer 2007
    The Gates Scholar Volume 4 Issue 2 Summer 2007 www.gatesscholar.org The Gates Scholar IN THE SUMMER ISSUE Contributors UNDER WAY Ingrid Nelson ‘05, MPhil in Geographical Research 4 Sou Vivo em Mocambique Iris Montero ‘06, PhD candidate in History and Philosophy of Science 5 Can Fiction Writers Do it Th emselves? Bart Szewczyk ‘01, MPhil in International Relations 6 Wandering in Babel Julie Pham ‘01, PhD in History 7 Matt Varilek ‘01, MPhil in Environment and Paper Chase Development 8 Building Prosperity in Rural America Joan Ko ‘06, MPhil candidate in Engineering for Sustainable Development Daniel Greenfi eld ‘06, PhD candidate in Computer Science FIVE O’CLOCK OFF Zorica Jovanic ‘06, PhD candidate in Clinical Biochemistry 9 To Boldly Go Sarah Nouwen ‘05, PhD candidate in International Law 10 Wickedly Good Tristan Brown ‘06, MPhil candidate in A Night Among Friends Environmental Policy Shane Woods ‘04, PhD candidate in Genetics 11 Fighting For Peace Jonathan Hollander ‘06, PhD candidate in Why I’m Glad I Serve on the Gates Council Materials Science and Metallurgy Molly Crockett ‘06, MSc candidate in Experimental Psychology Hilary Levey ‘02, MPhil in Modern Society and 13 FEATURE FOCUS Global Transformations 12 On Frozen Lakes Editors 13 Editor-in-Chief Blues with a Twist Rose Spear ‘06, PhD candidate in Materials Varsity Blues...and Whites...and Reds Science and Metallurgy Current Scholars’ Section ALUMNI NOTES Molly Crockett ‘06, MSc candidate in Experimental Psychology 14 Alumni Valentines Reunion Towfi que Raj ‘05, PhD candidate in Genetics Rebecca Johnston ‘05, PhD candidate in 15 Class Notes Astrophysics Dustin Fraizer, ’05, MPhil in Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic Mary Fan ‘06, MPhil candidate in Social Th e Gates Scholar is the publication of the Gates Cambridge Scholars’ Society.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law and the United States' Air Operation Against Libya
    Volume 89 Issue 4 Article 9 June 1987 International Law and the United States' Air Operation against Libya Christopher J. Greenwood Magdalene College, Cambridge University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the International Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Christopher J. Greenwood, International Law and the United States' Air Operation against Libya, 89 W. Va. L. Rev. (1987). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol89/iss4/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Greenwood: International Law and the United States' Air Operation against Li INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE UNITED STATES' AIR OPERATION AGAINST LIBYA * CHRISTOPHER GREENwooD I. INTRODUCTION** The United States' air strike against targets in Libya in April 1986 is one of the most controversial instances of the use of force by a state in recent years. Enor- mously popular in the United States, the operation attracted widespread criticism in other countries, including many normally sympathetic to the United States.' To the United States administration, the air attack was a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence in response to a campaign of terrorism which it claimed had been initiated against the United States by Libya. 2 Arab states, on the other hand, condemned it as an act of aggression, while other critics of the raid saw it as an over-reaction which exceeded the limits imposed by international law on the use of force, even if they accepted that Libya was involved in terrorism.
    [Show full text]