Using domestic law standards, the judge in the case decided that various factors weigh in favor of referring the case to an Israeli court .

The trial judge went on to analyzed more closely the factors which the parties treated as more contentious :

• the applicable law;
• the advantages conferred upon the plaintiffs by their choice of forum;
• the interest of justice;
• the interest of the parties.

The court concluded that Israeli courts had heard similar claims, would not apply or not agree to be bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that the overwhelming majority of parties, evidence, & experts are only available in a different jurisdiction.

A decidedly local approach to an international issue – but not a surprising outcome.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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:

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