magnify
Home Archive for category "EJIL Analysis" (Page 170)

One step forward, two steps backward: The ICJ interprets Mexico’s Request for Interpretation of Avena and other Mexican Nationals

Published on February 3, 2009        Author: 

On 19 January 2009, the International Court of Justice formally declined to interpret its judgment in the Case of Avena and Certain Other Mexican Nationals (Avena), which dealt, as did its “predecessor”, the LaGrand case, with the US non-implementation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Both LaGrand and Avena ended with the clear finding of the Court that the individuals whose rights under the VCCR had not been respected were entitled to review and reconsideration of their judgments and sentences. Specifically in paragraph 153 (9) (of Avena), which formed part of the dispositif, the Court found

… that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the United States of America to provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the: convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals …by taking account both of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention and of paragraphs 138 to 141 of this Judgment.

Failure of the United States to provide such review and reconsideration, would be a breach of its international obligations. In the case of the LaGrands this had been irrevocably the case as they had both been executed in the United States by the time the judgment was delivered. Contrary to the situation in the LaGrand case, all of the individuals whose rights were at issue in the underlying Case of Avena and Certain Other Mexican Nationals were still alive by the time the Court had delivered its judgment on 31 March 2004. In fact, Mr. Medellin was the first for whom an execution date had been set since, which was to be carried out on August 5, 2008. It is in this context that one should put Mexico’s June 5, 2008 filing of a request for interpretation of the Avena judgment, and the request for an order of provisional measures accompanying it, which most importantly sought to halt Mr. Medellin’s execution. With only two months left before Mr. Medellin’s scheduled execution date, the ICJ managed to hold oral arguments and produce an order of provisional measures within the very short timeframe of 41 days.

Judging from Mexico’s initial request, many familiar with Article 60 of the Court’s Statute had early on counted Mexico out. After all, Mexico had the difficult task to convince the Court that it was not simply trying to have another round of proceedings on the United States’ failure to implement Avena. Rather it had to demonstrate that, in the words of Article 60, there was a “dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment” allowing the Court to “construe it upon the request of any party”.

Mexico’s initial request seemed ill-equipped to achieve that goal, asking the Court to declare that

..the obligation incumbent upon the United States under paragraph 153(9) of the
Avena Judgment constitutes an obligation of result as it is clearly stated in the
Judgment by the indication that the United States must provide “review and
reconsideration of the convictions and sentences” but leaving it the “means of
its own choosing;”
and that, pursuant to the foregoing obligation of result,
(1) the United States must take any and all steps necessary to provide the
reparation of review and reconsideration mandated by the Avena
Judgment; and
(2) the United States must take any and all steps necessary to ensure that
no Mexican national entitled to review and reconsideration under the
Avena Judgment is executed unless and until that review and
reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice
resulted from the violation.

Taking the request at face value, it seemed that, unless the United States would be gullible enough to maneuver itself into the position of arguing that the review and reconsideration mentioned in paragraph 153(9) of the Avena Judgment did not refer to an obligation of result (but one of conduct), there would be no way for Mexico to demonstrate the existence of a dispute. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Sayadi: The Human Rights Committee’s Kadi (or a pretty poor excuse for one…)

Published on January 29, 2009        Author: 

In October 2008, the Human Rights Committee decided the Sayadi case (CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006) regarding UN Security Council terrorist blacklists, and the decision has now been made public (h/t to Bill Schabas, who made available the text of the views). As I will now explain, the Committee regrettably failed to do justice to the many complex issues of international law that were raised in the case.

The facts of the case were these: the applicants, a married couple of Belgian nationality living in Belgium, ran the European branch of an American NGO that was put on a Security Council blacklist pursuant to the sanctions regime established in Resolution 1267 (1999) and its progeny. In 2003, after the initiation of a criminal investigation against the applicants in Belgium, the applicants’ names were put on a list drafted by the Sanctions Committee and appended to a UNSC resolution. Pursuant to EU and Belgian implementing legislation, the applicants’ financial assets were frozen, and they were banned from travelling internationally. The applicants were not given the reasons and the relevant information for their listing. In 2005, the applicants asked a Belgian court to order the Belgian government to initiate delisting procedures before the UNSC Sanctions Committee, and obtained such an order. Additionally, the criminal proceedings against them were dismissed. The Belgian government did initiate a delisting procedure, as ordered, but the UNSC Sanctions Committee refused to delist the applicants.

Before the Committee, the applicants raised the violations of several articles of the ICCPR, basically claiming that they were denied any due process in the UNSC sanctions procedure, and that Belgium implemented the outcome of this procedure, with a considerable impact on their life and without providing them with any remedy. As is apparent even from the mere recitation of the facts of the case, the applicants’ claims were certainly warranted on the substance of their complaint (I will not review here the growing literature on the impact of UNSC listing on human rights, and the many different proposals that were made to improve the process).

However justified the applicants’ claim on the merits, the examination of the claim on the merits faced a great impediment, a consequence of the nature of state obligations under the UNSC listing process. Under Article 25 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UNSC can pass resolutions that have binding force on UN member states. Article 103 of the Charter further provides that ‘In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ These obligations under the Charter include binding UNSC decisions made under the Charter, as confirmed by the ICJ in the Lockerbie case.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The OLC Memoranda on Iraq: Revisiting the Case for War

Published on January 10, 2009        Author: 

Yesterday, the Office of the Legal Counsel of the US Department of Justice released some of its secret memoranda to President Bush, several of which are of interest for international lawyers. Two of them deal with questions of IHL, that is the applicability of the Third Geneva Convention to the Taliban, and of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupation of Iraq. Three memos, on the other hand, provide the OLC’s advice to the President on the legality of the use of force against Iraq, both under US constitutional law and under international law.I’d like to say a few words about these three memos (authored by the same indomitable Bybee/Yoo team of torture memo fame), both on the quality of their substantive analysis and on the boundaries of the proper role of government legal advisers.

I’d also like to compare these memos of US legal advisers with those of their British counterparts, particularly the opinion of the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

The most important of the three opinions was signed by Jay Bybee on 23 October 2002 (Iraq Opinion). In its third part (at 17 ff), it gives two possible justifications for the US use of force against Iraq: (implied or implicit) UN Security Council authorization and (anticipatory or pre-emptive) self-defense. The second opinion, signed by John Yoo on 8 November 2002, deals with the impact of UNSC Resolution 1441 on the implied authorization argument made in the previous Iraq Opinion (1441 Opinion). The third opinion was also signed by Yoo, on 7 December 2002, and it addresses the issue whether false declarations on WMD by Iraq would constitute a further material breach of Resolution 1441 (Material Breach Opinion).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Iraq, Use of Force
 

A Follow-Up on Israel and Gaza

Published on January 3, 2009        Author: 

I just wanted to add a few thoughts after Dapo’s excellent post on the Gaza conflict, of which there seems to be no end in sight.

First, a word of warning. As Dapo pointed out, talking about these matters without knowing all the facts is truly dangerous. Indeed, it only tends to expose the speaker’s political and ideological biases. Without knowing exactly how many of those killed in Gaza were actively participating in hostilities and/or were members of Hamas, it is far, far too early to speak of Israeli massacres or war crimes in Gaza. Take as an example the statement by Richard Falk, the recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, who condemned the Israeli air strikes as massive violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and crimes against humanity on the very day that they began. How exactly does he know enough of the facts to actually be able to pass a reasoned judgment, when even today these facts are far from clear? Such statements only serve to reinforce the criticisms regarding Prof. Falk‘s bias against Israel that were made when he was appointed.

Far be it for me to minimize the humanitarian plight of the people of Gaza. But for a legal analysis of the issue to have any use at all, it must involve a measure of distance and objectivity.

In that regard the first legal issue I’d like to raise is that of proportionality, a word thrown around so much these days when talking about the Gaza conflict. It is truly astonishing to me how people who so casually label Israel’s action as disproportionate fail to distinguish between the various types of proportionality found in international law.

The first type of proportionality is the law on the use of force or jus ad bellum proportionality, as one of the conditions for the lawfulness of self-defense, together with the existence of an armed attack and the necessity to repel it. It is easy to instinctively qualify Israel’s action as an exercise of self-defense, lawful or unlawful — see, for example, this post by Ole Pedersen — which should then be assessed in the terms of the jus ad bellum.

But for the life of me, I just can’t see a jus ad bellum issue in regard of Israel’s actions in Gaza. This is simply not self-defense within the meaning of Article 51 of the UN Charter, as that concept of self-defense is an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, that operates between states only and exclusively and is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the Charter. That prohibition was not triggered by Israel’s action, as Gaza is not a state, nor a part of any state, but is a part of the sui generis mandate territory of Palestine. In other words, no state claims sovereignty or title over Gaza, and the sovereignty of no state was infringed by Israel’s use of force. Article 2(4) does not apply, and consequently Article 51 and the self-defense notion of proportionality do not apply either, unless one is willing to argue that Palestine (Gaza included) already is a state in international law – a position that is in my view untenable.

(By way of authority, let me cite the ICJ’s Wall advisory opinion, at the much criticized para. 139. The Court has received much flak over the years for what appears to be its off-hand approach to armed attacks by non-state actors, to which Article 51 in the Court’s view supposedly does not apply. But the better reading of this decision is the one I have given above — Israel could not justify its building of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territories by resorting to Article 51, because Article 2(4) did not apply in the first place. A converse situation would be Israel’s response against Hezbollah, which required it to invade Lebanon, thereby triggering Article 2(4)).

That brings me to the second, IHL or jus in bello concept of proportionality, as enshrined in Art. 51(5)(b) of AP I. This concept of proportionality differs from the jus ad bellum one precisely in that is unconcerned with the overall goals, legitimacy or legality of the use of force. It is irrelevant, from the standpoint of IHL, that on balance ten or a hundred Palestinians are killed for every Israeli killed. It is likewise irrelevant whether the use of force is likely to achive its stated objective of putting an end to the rocket attacks by Hamas. That is not part of the IHL equation, since the point of IHL is precisely for it to apply in all conflicts, just or unjust, legitimate or illegitimate, equally to all sides.

What IHL tries to weigh – with great difficulty in some cases – is whether the expected civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The military advantage is just that, a military one. Does the attack hurt Hamas or not, and how much – not whether hurting Hamas in the first place is a good idea. It likewise must be emphasized that IHL proportionality is assessed in relation to every given attack, not in relation to the overall picture of the conflict. Without having a good idea about the facts on the ground, just knowing that on the whole many more Palestinians are killed than Israelis cannot suffice for making a judgment on proportionality.

The third type of proportionality is one under human rights law. Was it, for example, really necessary to kill a certain person, if he could have been captured instead? This type of proportionality was relied on, for instance, by the Israeli Supreme Court in the Targeted Killings case, to limit the use of targeted killings to measures of last resort. But it is also questionable if, and to what extent, this principle applies to the Gaza conflict, both because of the question whether Israel actually exercises effective overall control over Gaza, thus incurring extraterritorial human rights obligations, and because of the application of IHL as lex specialis.

Finally, I’d just like to add a few words to Dapo’s analysis of the question of how we are to legally characterize the Gaza conflict in the sense of IHL. Unlike Dapo, I don’t think that the characterization of the conflict depends on whether Gaza is still considered to be occupied by Israel or not. It is one thing to say that an international armed conflict is necessary for a belligerent occupation to arise in the first place. It is quite another to say that any conflict in an occupied territory, no matter how distant in time from the setup of the occupation, should qualify as international. It is precisely because no sovereign continues to claim Gaza that I would say that the conflict is probably non-international (FYI, for my criticism of the Israli Supreme Court’s qualification of the conflict in the Targeted Killings case, see this article in the International Review of the Red Cross).

But, as Dapo pointed out, the qualification of the conflict is not that important for the IHL proportionality assessment. What is important are the facts, and it is the facts that we are most sorely lacking.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Israeli raids in Gaza: Proportionality and the Status of Hamas Policemen

Published on December 29, 2008        Author: 

The latest Israeli raids in Gaza are said to have killed over 300 people (injuring over 1000 others) with most of the dead being Haman policemen and security officials. Israel has launched the raids in response to the repeated rocket fire into Israel from Gaza. Given the very high Palestinian casualties resulting from Israel’s raids and (as far as I can tell) the very low numbers killed or injured in Israel as a result of rocket fire there will be a debate about whether Israel’s actions are proportionate [I have found it difficult to find precise numbers of Israelis killed or injured by the rockets prior to the Israeli air raids]. Indeed, the UN Secretary General has been quoted as condemning Israel’s “excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians” (see here). No doubt, human rights groups and others will accuse Israel of acting disproprotionately under international humanitarian law (IHL). The relevant rule of IHL that will be invoked is the rule that forbids attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or civilian damage which is excessive when compared with the concrete and direct military advantage to be gained (Art. 51, Additional Protocol I 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949). It is well known that the proportionality calculation is one which is not easy to make in practice nor is it easy to explain in theory. Afterall, one is not comparing two things that are necessarily commensurate, unless one makes a straight forward comparison between life lost and life expected to be saved by the military operation. Using that crude comparision, some will suggest that the taking of over 300 lives in order to save just a handful would be disproportionate (if the operation could be expected to cause such loss of life). I do not intend to disagree with that analysis.

However, I suggest that in this case, starting from the proportionality analysis is to start in the wrong place. The recent Israeli raids raises other more basic legal issues under IHL. The answers to those issues might suggest that one never gets to making a proportionality calculation. The proportionality rule requires a comparision between civilian loss (or life or of property) and the military advantage to be gained. Since we are told that most of the deaths caused by those raids are to Hamas policemen or security officials one has to ask whether these are civilians. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Territorial Scope of Application of the Genocide Convention

Published on December 29, 2008        Author: 

In the Bosnian Genocide case, Bosnia alleged that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY, Serbia) was responsible for, inter alia, committing genocide and failing to prevent genocide on Bosnian territory. This argument, of course, immediately raised the question whether the FRY had any obligations under the Genocide Convention regarding its actions outside its own territory.

To answer this question, it is first necessary to recall that the Court interpreted the Convention so as to contain three distinct sets of obligations of state parties:

(1) The obligation to criminalize the crime of genocide and its ancillary crimes in their domestic law, and to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes;

(2) The (positive) obligation to prevent genocide;

(3) The (negative) obligation not to commit genocide through their own organs or agents.

This expansive interpretation of the Convention is not uncontroversial. It is entirely possible to read the Convention as solely requiring (1) criminalization, that the (2) obligation to prevent genocide is merely hortatory, and that (3) is found nowhere in the treaty (see, for example, this article by P. Gaeta in the EJIL). For what it’s worth, I am entirely in agreement with the Court. But when do states actually have these various obligations, and is there is a single territorial scope of application of the Convention?

According to the Court, the territorial scope of the Convention varies with the particular set of obligations in question.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Genocide
 
Comments Off on Territorial Scope of Application of the Genocide Convention

The Two Faces of the Genocide Convention

Published on December 24, 2008        Author: 

In keeping with Christmas spirit, here’s my next post on the Genocide Convention.

Can a state be responsible for genocide? What does that even mean? Aren’t international crimes, in the sage words of the Nuremberg Tribunal, committed by men, not by abstract entities?Can a state even possess genocidal intent, a basic requirement for the crime of genocide?

A full answer to this question requires revisiting many old debates, particularly those during the drafting of the Genocide Convention and on then Draft Article 19 on state crimes of the International Law Commission’s project on state responsibility, that was removed from the final ILC Articles.

If there is one thing is made clear from an examination of the Convention’s travaux, as well as state practice, that is that states have excluded any form of state criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide or any other international crime. That does not mean, however, that no state responsibility exists. In my EJIL article on state responsibility for genocide, I’ve argued that the attribution model developed by the ILC, coupled with the fundamental distinction between primary and secondary rules of state responsibility, provides a simple answer to the conundrum of state responsibility for international crimes. If an individual commits an international crime such as genocide, and if the acts of this individual are attributable to a state, pursuant to the generally applicable secondary rules of attribution (if, for example, the individual is a state organ), than the state is responsible for the crime committed by that individual as an internationally wrongful act.

This responsibility is again not criminal, but the regular state responsibility recognized in international law, that carries with itobligations of cessation and reparation. It rests on a primary obligation of states not to have individuals whose acts are attributable to them to commit international crimes. Genocide is thus at the same time both an international crime, for which individuals are criminally responsible, and an internationally wrongful act, for which states to which the acts are attributable bear their own responsibility. That does not mean there is a ‘tort’ of genocide or ‘civil’ genocide in international law – genocide still, at all times, remains an international crime, and its elements must be proven to the exacting standards demanded by the relevant body of primary rules. Thus, for example, though a state – an abstract entity – cannot have genocidal intent, such intent of the individuals whose acts are being attributed to the state must be conclusively established.

The next question is whether this type of responsibility, that in my view undoubtedly exists in customary international law, also exists within the (jurisdictional) confines of the Genocide Convention. The ICJ gave an answer to this question in the Bosnian Genocide case.

Both at the preliminary objections and at the merits stage of the case the FRY/Serbia disputed the existence of a separate obligation of a state under the Convention not to commit genocide, asserting that the Convention was a classical international criminal law treaty, dealing with crimes committed by individuals, not states. All the Convention does is to require states parties to criminalize in their domestic law the crimes that it defines, and then prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. Though Article IX of the Convention confers jurisdiction upon the Court to resolve disputes between contracting states ‘relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III’, this was, in Serbia’s argument, merely a compromisory clause which did not create substantive rights and obligations.

The Court disagreed. It held that ‘Article I [of the Convention], in particular its undertaking to prevent, creates obligations distinct from those which appear in the subsequent Articles [of the Convention]’ so that the ‘the Contracting Parties have a direct obligation to prevent genocide.’ Moreover, according to the Court, even though

Article [I] does not expressis verbis require States to refrain from themselves committing genocide …[i]t would be paradoxical if States were thus under an obligation to prevent, so far as within their power, commission of genocide by persons over whom they have a certain influence, but were not forbidden to commit such acts through their own organs, or persons over whom they have such firm control that their conduct is attributable to the State concerned under international law. In short, the obligation to prevent genocide necessarily implies the prohibition of the commission of genocide.

(Genocide judgment, paras. 162, 165 & 166)

Though Serbia was on the facts not found responsible for the commission of genocide in Bosnia, the Court’s judgment affirmed the attribution model developed by the ILC and the distinction between primary and secondary rules. States can thus be brought before the ICJ under Article IX of the Convention not merely for failing to criminalize or prosecute genocide, but also for committing it through their organs or failing to prevent it.

In my next post I will deal with the territorial scope of state obligations under the Convention.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Genocide
 

Prosecution of Senior Rwandan Government Official in France: More on Immunity

Published on December 24, 2008        Author: 

French authorities have announced this week (see here) that a senior Rwandan official, Rose Kabuye, who is curently detained in France, will be allowed to travel to Rwanda for the Christmas holidays. Rose Kabuye was at the time of her arrest the Chief of Protocol to current Rwandan President Paul Kagame. She is accused (see here), under French Anti-Terrorism laws, of complicity to murder in connection with the killing in 1994 of then Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana. It was, of course, that murder which led to the Rwanda Genocide.  She was arrested in November at Frankfurt Airport (Germany) under an arrest warrant issued by French officials. She was subsequently transferred to France. Her arrest has worsened the already bad relations between Rwanda and France. They have also led to a diplomatic row between Rwanda and Germany and Rwanda has expelled the German Ambassador in the country.

Rose Kabuye’s arrest, detention and prosecution raises questions regarding the immunity of foreign officials from criminal prosecution in foreign domestic courts. The particular question at issue in the Kabuye case is: which State officials are entitled to personal immunity? Was it lawful for France to issue an arrest warrant for a senior Rwandan official and was it lawful for German authorities to execute that warrant? Or was (is) Rose Kabuye within that category of officials who are entitled to personal immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign States for so long as they serve in their official position?  Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Prosecution of Senior Rwandan Government Official in France: More on Immunity

Immunity and International Criminal Tribunals

Published on December 20, 2008        Author: 

Earlier this week, the Trial Chamber at International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) hearing the case against Radovan Karadzic issued a decision in which it stated that “According to customary international law, there are some acts for which immunity from prosecution cannot be invoked before international tribunals [para. 17 of the decision]”. The statement was made in the context of a ruling granting, in part, a request by Karadzic for the disclosure of certain documents by the Prosecutor.  Karadzic alleged that, at a meeting in Belgrade in July 1996, he reached an “immunity agreement” with US diplomat Richard Holbrooke in which he was promised that he would not face prosecution at the Tribunal if he withdrew from public life. He sought any documents in the possession of the Prosecutor concerning the alleged agreement and the meeting at which it was reached. He argued that the Holbrooke offer was attributable to the Tribunal because it was made in consultation with other members of the UN Security Council or believed to be so. The Trial Chamber ruled that the documents sought were not relevant to the preparation of Karadzic’s defence other than being of potential relevance to in the determination of any eventual sentence. It considered “it well establihed  that any immunity agreement in respect of an accused indicted for genocide, war crimes and/or crimes against humanity before an international tribunal would be invalid under international law [para. 25].”

Although Karadzic and the Trial Chamber discussed the alleged agreement in terms of immunity, the suggestion being that it related somehow to immunities conferred by international law, it may have been more accurate to refer to it as an amnesty agreement. Afterall, the suggestion in the alleged agreement was not that Karadzic was entitled to immunities which international law ordinarily accords but rather that the tribunal would refrain from prosecuting him.

The Trial Chamber’s view that international law immunities do not apply to prosecution for international crimes before international criminal tribunals is erroneous. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Immunity and International Criminal Tribunals

60 Years of the Genocide Convention

Published on December 15, 2008        Author: 

Many thanks to Dapo for inviting me to blog here at EJIL: Talk! – hopefully the blog will turn out to be as successful in the blawgosphere as the EJIL is in print. In the next couple of weeks I intend to write on various topics, first about certain issues regarding the the Genocide Convention, which has had its sixtieth anniversary last week, on December 9th.

On any account, the Convention is an extraordinary treaty, a historic pronouncement by states that the practice of exterminating human groups merely on account of their nation, race, religion or ethnicity, is something that can never condoned or resorted to. At the same time, the Convention is in many ways a deeply disappointing instrument.

One, rather obvious item of disappointment would be its record of compliance. How many genocides, exactly, has the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide actually prevented or punished? In the face of, say, Darfur, it is hard to escape the impression that the Convention has hardly been a success. Some authors have even conducted empirical studies suggesting that the Convention has contributed little or nothing to the actual compliance with the norms that it enshrines (see here, at 1981-1982).

For what it’s worth, I believe that this initial reflex of disappointment should be resisted. Before we ask ourselves whether the Convention does what it was supposed to do, we need to look at what it actually says. And it says very, very little. The definition of the crime of genocide requires the specific intent to (physically or biologically) destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, this enumeration of protected groups being exhaustive. The narrowness of this definition is such that it excludes the vast majority of acts that most lawyers, and by far the majority of the general public, think of as genocide.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Genocide