A Milestone for Justice in Africa

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/a-milestone-for-justice-in-africa.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

On Monday [20 JUL 15], a landmark trial began that could herald a new era of justice and accountability in Africa. The former president of Chad, Hissène Habré, is being tried over atrocities committed during his rule in a new court set up in Senegal under the legal principle of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity.
A truth commission in Chad found that more than 40,000 people were killed and thousands more tortured during Mr. Habré’s eight-year regime, which ended with his ouster in 1990.
This is the first time a court in one country will try the former leader of another country for alleged crimes against humanity. Victims in Chad and their advocates fought for over two decades to bring Mr. Habré to justice. Along the way, they had to overcome a series of legal hurdles, including stalling by Chad’s courts and the reluctance by Senegal, where Mr. Habré had taken refuge, to extradite him to Belgium, where a judge issued a warrant for his arrest in 2005.
In 2012, after a new government was elected in Senegal, the International Court of Justice at The Hague ordered Senegal to put Mr. Habré on trial or send him to Belgium. In 2013, Mr. Habré was finally arrested by the police in Senegal, and Senegal and the African Union together created the new Extraordinary African Chambers where Mr. Habré’s case is being heard. Although the trial was suspended the day after it began to allow Mr. Habré’s court-appointed lawyers to prepare his defense, it is to resume in September and expected to last several months.
Mr. Habré did not come quietly to his first day of reckoning — he had to be hustled out of court on Monday after he and supporters in the courtroom began yelling in protest — and advocates for justice in Chad have been subject to relentless intimidation. The Chadian lawyer Jacqueline Moudeina, who played a crucial role in holding Mr. Habré accountable, barely survived a grenade attack in Chad in 2001.
Mr. Habré’s pursuers had important allies, though. International human rights groups, especially Human Rights Watch, helped gather critical evidence and raise international awareness. Chad, the European Union, the African Union, the United States, France and other European countries contributed financing for the new court.
This is a transformative moment for justice in Africa, and the public will be able to witness it firsthand. Excerpts from the proceedings are to be broadcast on television and radio in Chad. Not only will the trial cast much needed light on a brutal chapter in the country’s history, it will also send an important message to the continent’s strongmen: murderous regimes will not go unpunished.

[for related articles by the MLR’s EIC, see Govern, Kevin H., Warrant Based Targeting: Prosecution-Oriented Capture and Detention as Legal and Moral Alternatives to Targeted Killing. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2012) (published 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2279704 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2279704, and see Govern, Kevin H., Smart Power for Hard Problems: The Role of Special Operation Forces Strengthening the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Africa (July 10, 2013). 1 U. Balt. J. Int’l L. 154 et. seq. (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2292716, and see Kevin H., 21st Century Africa as an ‘Arc of (In)Stability': U.S. And African Economic, Security, and Development Policies Advanced Through U.S. Africa Command Initiatives (2011). Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 281, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2093440]

Upcoming Conference – Southeastern Association of Law Schools July 27-August 2

BocaThe next annual meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools will be held July 27-August 2 at The Boca Resort in Boca Raton, FL. Registration is still open.

http://sealslawschools.org

Monday, July 27
9:30 AM –
12:00 PM

Discussion Group: Policing Police & Soldiers
Police and soldiers operate with some level of separation from the communities they police and protect. The right level of separation, however, is difficult to identify and somewhat situational. In the last year, the sexual assault crisis and the outcry following the reported events in Ferguson, Missouri caused Americans to re-evaluate separate military justice and the lack of integration between police and the communities they serve. Finding the right level of separation for these government servants is a shared dilemma of every community in the world. We will compare the laws, policies and methods of states, communities, and international bodies regarding the relationship between law enforcement, the military, and the local populace.

Moderator: Professor Richard Meyer, Mississippi College School of Law

Discussants: Professor Eric Carpenter, Florida International University College of Law; Professor Steven Friedland, Elon University School of Law; Professor Kevin Govern, Ave Maria School of Law; Professor Elizabeth Ludwin King, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law; Professor David Ritchie, Mercer University Law School; Professor Ronald Rychlak, The University of Mississippi School of Law; Professor Morse Tan, Northern Illinois University College of Law; Professor Russell Weaver, University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

Thursday, July 30

10:15 AM –
12:00 PM

WORKSHOP ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Congressional Force Authorization: Constitutional Necessity or Nicety?
President Obama’s decision to fight the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) renewed longstanding debates about war powers in the U.S. constitutional scheme. The Administration welcomed congressional authorization for its military campaign against ISIL, yet also claimed pre-existing authority based on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9/11, and the 2002 AUMF with respect to Iraq.

A year after the first strikes, this panel will assess the Administration’s actions in the context of the War Powers Act, the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, any subsequent authorizations, and inherent Article II powers. The panel will address whether congressional authorization for military action against ISIL and/or additional terrorist threats is constitutionally necessary, advisable, or unwise.

Moderator: Professor Kate Shaw, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Speakers: Professor Jennifer Daskal, American University, Washington College of Law; Professor Kevin Govern, Ave Maria School of Law; Professor Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor William Marshall, University of North Carolina School of Law; Professor Andrew Wright, Savannah Law School

 

 

Syrian Rebel Train and Equip Program Update

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html

By Austin Wright and Philip Ewing
7/7/15 4:11 PM EDT
Updated 7/7/15 10:36 PM E

Ash CarterAP Photo
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html#ixzz3fVRbSqmF

Defense Secretary Ash Carter caused a stir Tuesday when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the $500 million program to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels to take on the Islamic State had so far yielded just 60 vetted candidates.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html#ixzz3fVROgWPf

The Warrior’s Bible – New Publication

imagehttps://www.agts.edu/news/news_archives/2015_01warriors_bible.html

http://warriorspiritpublications.com/products/the-warriors-bible

The Warrior’s Bible is specifically designed to help the military community (warriors, family, and friends) understand and apply the timeless truths of God’s Word to daily life. From cover to cover, this Bible speaks in language that connects with military people about things that really matter.

The Warrior’s Bible also speaks volumues to any individual, church, educational institution, or other organization seeking to understand the unique challenges faced by our brave citizens and family members who sacrifice to keep our nation safe.

May 2, 2015: 4th Anniversary of Bin Laden Targeted Killing – A Retrospective On Military Legitimacy

image

 

Govern, Kevin H., Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective? (Chapter 13) (April 1, 2012). Targeted Killings Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, Editors: Claire Finkelstein, Jens Ohlin, and Andrew Altman (Oxford University Press, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2083584

CERL presents Sarah Chayes, “Counterproductive Coalitions”

Sarah Chayes

Sarah Chayes

Sarah Chayes
©2014 Kaveh Sardari

Map

Contact Info:
cerl@law.upenn.edu

CERL presents Sarah Chayes, “Counterproductive Coalitions”

Time: 4:30pm – 6:00pm

Location: Golkin 100, Michael A. Fitts Auditorium

The Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law presents “Counterproductive Coalitions”. This event will be held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School at 4:30 pm; followed by a cocktail reception with a book signing. This event is open to the public. Books will be available for purchase.
Sarah Chayes, author of Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security, served as special assistant to the top U.S. military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. She participated in Cabinet-level decision-making on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Arab Spring, traveling with Mullen frequently to the region. He tapped Chayes for the job after her work as special advisor to two commanders of the international troops in Afghanistan (ISAF), Generals David McKiernan and Stanley McChrystal. She contributed her unique knowledge of the Afghan south to the ISAF command.

It was a sense of historic opportunity that prompted Chayes to renounce her journalism career in early 2002, after covering the fall of the Taliban for National Public Radio, and to remain in Afghanistan to help rebuild the country. She chose to settle in the former Taliban heartland, Kandahar.

In 2005, Chayes founded Arghand, a start-up manufacturing cooperative, where men and women working together produce fine skin-care products for export. (www.arghand.org) The goal was to revive the region’s historic role in exporting fruit and its derivatives, to promote sustainable development, and expand alternatives to the opium economy. Running Arghand in downtown Kandahar proved to an extraordinary vantage point for observing the unfolding war.

From 1996-2001, Chayes was NPR Paris correspondent. For her work during the Kosovo crisis, she shared the 1999 Foreign Press Club and Sigma Delta Chi awards.

She is now a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in the Democracy and Rule of Law and South Asia programs. Her work focuses on the security implications of acute corruption.

Along with Thieves of State, Chayes is is the author of The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban (Penguin, 2006) and contributes to The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Defense One among other publications.

This program has been approved for 1.5 ethics credits for Pennsylvania lawyers. CLE credits may be available in other jurisdictions as well. Attendees seeking CLE credit should bring separate payment in the amount of $30.00 cash or check made payable to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.

CLE Reading link: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4212-cleveland-et-al-trends-in-the-international-fight

The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability

The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability
Wednesday 1 April 2015 at 7:44 PM ET edited by Yuxin Jiang
JURIST Guest Columnist Kevin Govern, Associate Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, FL, considers the ramifications of the recent Arab League agreement to form a joint force in the context of historic efforts on joint defense and economic cooperation …

arab league
©  WikiMedia (Jeff Dahl)

JURIST recently noted the 22-member League of Arab States (a/k/a Arab League) formation of a voluntary but unified military force to oppose growing threats to its members, especially the intensifying instability in  Yemen. This effort is consistent not only with the Arab League’s September 2014 resolution to combat extremist groups like the Islamic State (IS), but reflective of 65 years of varied cooperation under the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation.

During the waning days of World War II, six nations formed the nascent Arab League in Cairo on March 22, 1945; Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (Jordan after 1946), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. In May 1945, Yemen joined the group, joined as a member on May 5, 1945. Amongst its first security actions, Arab League members Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon invaded Israel during the 1948 War of Independence / Palestine War, and, less formally, Arab volunteers forming the Arab Liberation army joined Arab League forces. While armistice agreements were concluded with Israel, conditions for sustainable peace never resulted especially in light of 400,000 Palestinian Arabs fled from Israel to refugee camps in Arab League nations Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

By 1950, the six original Arab League nations concluded the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation, ostensibly to “consolidate relations” between member states, “maintain their independence and their mutual heritage,” and “to cooperate for the realization of mutual defense and the maintenance of security and peace” as well as “consolidate stability and security.” Article 6 of that treaty, then as now, provides for a Joint Defense Counsel, assisted by the Permanent Military Commission under Article 5, to draw up plans of joint defense and their implementation, and by two-thirds majority vote, to bind Contracting States regarding joint defense decisions.

This alliance would be tested some six years later when Israeli forces launched air and ground assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula after Egypt’s first President of the Republic, Gamal Abdal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Not only did this become an Arab League security matter, but also a proxy conflict with an Anglo-French reinforcement of Israeli gains and Soviet support of Arab demands.

The predecessor to the currently proposed Arab League Military Forces was the Joint Arab Command (a/k/a United or Unified Arab Command), under the guise of the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation, established by the then-thirteen member states of the Arab League during their January 1964 summit in Cairo.

That 1964 summit would also set conditions for future conflict, rather than conflict resolution. That summit gave rise to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) , which would sustain an insurgency in Lebanon, reaching an intense level of conflict in the 1982 War in South Lebanon, and acts of terror and violence in Israel and beyond, until Israel and the PLO agreed to mutual recognition in 1993 in an historic bid for peace.

Two conflicts shortly thereafter would show the Joint Arab Command as ineffective in joint defense. Notwithstanding King Hussein of Jordan’s years of secret meetings with Israeli leaders, and assurances that Israel had no intentions of attacking Jordan, in November 1966, Israel undertook Operation Shredder incursion into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.

By mutual defense pact, Jordan and Egypt placed the Joint Arab Command under command of the Egyptian military’s chief of staff in May 1967 as both Arab League nations built up forces along their borders with Israel. The June 1967 Six-Day War was marked by simultaneous Israeli attacks against Egypt and Syria, and resultant Israeli gains in the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab League member Egypt attacked across the Suez Canal, and Syria maneuvered from the north, in efforts to reclaim territory lost to Israel during the 1967 war. The final 1974 cease-fire resulted in Israel withdrawing back across the Suez Canal and a portion of the East Bank, and relinquishing some territory to Syria.

In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, eight leaders of the Arab League set the conditions for continued strife with Israel with the September 1967 Khartoum Resolution’s Three No’s: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” The 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel resulted in an abiding peace between the two nations but also Egypt’s suspension from the Arab League until its readmission in 1989 and the Arab League headquarters moving to Cairo.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has lauded the Arab League’s common security consensus over the Saudi-sponsored Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, yet lamented the League’s failure to coordinate its policy over both the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.

In more recent years, the Arab League did not intervene in most of the Arab revolts throughout the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, but called for the UN Security Council to impose a no fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack. Notable recent Arab League changes bode well for stronger, more cohesive efforts with the appointment of the renowned Egyptian diplomat and foreign rights lawyer Nabil Elaraby, and member nations Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates joining as part of the coalition to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

The CFR has also noted that since those actions, the Arab League’s efforts towards security included suspending Syrian membership, attempting to broker an agreement with the Assad regime and, for the first time in its history, assembled a team of observers to monitor the implementation of its plan and officially calling for Assad to step down in January 2012 and requested a resolution from the UN Security Council to support this proposal.

Most recently, in March 2015, 14 of the Arab League’s 22 nations assessed the success of ongoing Saudi-led allied air strikes against Shi’a Houthi rebels in Yemen. Those operations are part of a 10-nation military coalition against the coup by Arab League members Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE, joined with nonmember Pakistan. The Houthis are seeking to reinstate the ousted past Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was replaced in a February 2012 referendum that formally ushered in Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, previously Yemen’s vice president, into the role of transitional president.

Reports quote US President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for the military action taken in Yemen, and Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi saying he “backs calls for a unified Arab force” to confront security threats in the Middle East and North Africa. Yemen’s President-in-exile Abd-Radu Mansour Hadi has said that the Houthis are “Iran’s Puppet” that has “destroyed Yemen with political immaturity.”

In the words of William Shakespeare from his play The Tempest, “What’s past is prologue.” Considering the historic cohesion, or lack thereof, of past Arab League mutual defense efforts, this future Joint Military Force will do well to study past efforts when it faces this new proxy war between a military force led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, against the Houthi militia, whose allies number Iran, Russia and China, as well as future challenges to mutual defense and the maintenance of security and peace. It should also develop capabilities not only for space, sea, land and air, but the fifth dimension of warfare, cyber warfare, since present and future adversaries are likely to pose threats in each of those domains.

Professor Govern began his legal career as an Army Judge Advocate, serving 20 years at every echelon during peacetime and war in worldwide assignments involving every legal discipline. In addition to currently teaching at Ave Maria School of Law he has also served as an Assistant Professor of Law at the United States Military Academy and teaches at California University of Pennsylvania and John Jay College. Unless otherwise attributed, the conclusions and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or Ave Maria School of Law.

Suggested citation: Kevin Govern , The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability , JURIST – Academic Commentary, Apr. 1, 2015, http://jurist.org/forum/2015/04/kevin-govern-arab-league.php

PERCEPTIONS OF RISK: How We Manage Emergencies

University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate Symposium
Co-sponsored by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL)

Eye of hurricane

PERCEPTIONS OF RISK:
How We Manage Emergencies
April 1, 2015
3:00 – 5:00 p.m., reception to follow
Fitts Auditorium | University of Pennsylvania Law School

The study of risk management across a variety of domains is an essential part of policymaking today. From public health to national security, market analysis, and natural disaster emergency response, the question of how to assess and to respond to risks is of the utmost importance.
Important questions pertaining to the public perception include:

Does the public perceive risks accurately or are public perceptions distorted by cognitive biases?
Should public perceptions of risk be taken into account in risk management plans even if they seem “irrational”?
Should preparedness for disasters follow the same template as management of more ordinary risks?
Should the management of risk in the public sector differ from that in the private?
Should the risk of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, be handled in the same way as the risk of human threats, such as terrorism or criminal activity?
Does a serious threat that persists over a protracted period of time, such as a daily threat of terrorism, still count as a security emergency?
When are restrictions of civil liberties, such as quarantines or preventive restraint, justified to pre-empt risk of harm to the general public?
The purpose of this Symposium is to foster multi-disciplinary and inter-professional conversation about risk perception and strategies of emergency management. The panelists will engage in a conversation about emergency preparedness and how our perceptions of risk factor into those efforts.

Panelists:

Professor P.J. Brennan, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President for the University of Pennsylvania Health System
Lieutenant General (Ret.) Russel Honoré
Led the Department of Defense Task Force in response to Hurricane Katrina
Professor Dan Kahan
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School, specializing in risk perception
Vice President Maureen Rush, M.S., CPP
Vice President for Public Safety, University of Pennsylvania
Moderator:

Professor Claire Finkelstein
Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Founder and Director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law
For more information please contact cerl@law.upenn.edu

Penn Law School ·
3501 Sansom Street
·
Philadelphia, Pa 19104
· USA

Cyber War Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts

Cover for 9780198717492

Cyber War

Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts

$185.00

Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern, and Claire Finkelstein

9780198717492
Hardcover
19 May 2015

Cover for 9780198717508

Cyber War

Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts

$49.95

Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern, and Claire Finkelstein

9780198717508
Paperback
19 May 2015

 https://global.oup.com/academic/category/law/international-law/public-international-law/international-humanitarian-law/?cc=us&lang=en&

  • Explores the controversial legal and ethical problems raised by cyber war, critically assessing the received wisdom about its legal implications
  • Examines the complex questions of which legal regimes apply to cyber attacks, whether principles of humanitarian law work in cyber warfare situations, and how these principles can be translated into the operational reality
  • Provides an unique analysis of the foundational questions of the legality and morality of cyber warfare