The Statute of the International Court of Justice recognizes “the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations”
as a subsidiary source of international law. Publicist facilitates the rapid, global dissemination of the teachings of contemporary publicists.
With honor and humility I accepted an invitation from the U.S. State Department to participate as a technical advisor in a weeklong rule of law[1] seminar in Togo, with attorneys, judges, law professors and students. My modest mission was to explain various models for delivery of free legal services and assist in developing proposals for establishing a bar association pro bonoprogram in conjunction with the nation’s principal law school at the Université de Lomé.
When the State Department first invited me to participate in its speaker specialist program, I admit that for me it was all about having a glimpse of an otherwise inaccessible part of the world and the attendant cultural, professional and intellectual exchange. Only after my initial program visit did I become familiar with the concept of “rule of law” (l'état de droit), as well as the related concepts of access to justice and the law and development movement.[2] This was to be the focus of my journey to Togo.
At their core, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations can be understood as a series of attempts to operationalize the international legal principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”[3] The negotiations make clear that a global agreement to address the problem of climate change must necessarily apportion responsibility to act among diverse parties. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CDR) has guided the process of apportionment within the UNFCCC since its inception in 1992.[4] Although the principle has never been susceptible to precise definition,[5] CDR has found expression within the climate change regime through a series of agreements in which parties have divided themselves into different groups in order to take on different responsibilities to act. This shifting landscape of responsibility demonstrates that the principle of CDR has evolved over time. As a result, it has taken on different meanings at different stages in the life of the negotiations.
The goal of this Article is to analyze the results of the Copenhagen negotiations with a focus on the shifts in meaning and interpretation of the principle of CDR that occurred there. We argue that, although the Copenhagen negotiations failed to produce a legally binding agreement, the parties involved in the negotiations made important, albeit measured progress toward agreeing on a new instantiation of the principle of CDR. This long elusive progress represents an important step in crafting the post-2012 regime.
From March 16 to 17, 1988, the Iraqi government waged the worst chemical attack in modern history in the Halabja region of Iraqi Kurdistan. The attack was made principally on civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths and many more severe and permanent injuries. In particular, women sustained long-term reproductive injuries including birth defects and infertility. These reproductive injuries must be recognized and appropriately treated under both Iraqi domestic and international law. This paper considers how the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) may prosecute reproductive crimes perpetrated during the 1988 Halabja attack in Iraqi Kurdistan.
