International Law

Back to the Course Home Page

Link(s) O' the Day(s) for the second half of the course

For the weeks of  March 10th, March 24th, March 31st, April 7th, and April 14th and afterwards.

{Link(s) O' the Day(s) for the first half of the course are here.}

Wednesday, March 10th

At the very end of class, I mentioned that the Carter Administration was the first US administration to push human rights to the top of the foreign-policy agenda, and that this initiative surely influenced the US State Department's writings quoted in the Filartiga case.  The State Department now has an Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. (The State Department has one Secretary, one Deputy Secretary, five Undersecretaries, and roughly thirty Assistant Secretaries or equivalents thereto)  The current Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, Harold Hongju Koh, was a law professor in his immediately previous job.  See a description of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Affairs, the bureau that he now leads instead of discussions in a classroom, or a biography of Mr. Koh

The State Department's equivalent of a "General Counsel," by the way, is "the Legal Adviser," whose rank is equivalent to that of an Assistant Secretary.   See a description of the Office of the Legal Adviser or a biography of the current office-holder, David Andrews.

Thursday, March 11th

The Law School's biography of Professor Martin fails to mention, as did I, that he hails from the Hoosier State, which apparently sponsors this not-very-Midwestern-looking official web site of the state of Indiana.

Professor Martin mentioned Eleanor Roosevelt's active role in the drafting of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  There is a biography of Eleanor Roosevelt on the White House site.  Mrs. Roosevelt--whose maiden name was also Roosevelt, by the way--hailed from the Empire State, home to the United Nations' headquarters.  Her work on the UN Universal Declaration followed her husband's death, and thus followed her controversial years as First Lady.  Some Democrats urged her to run for Vice President in 1948, according to this CNN story.   (The Universal Declaration was issued only a month or so after that election, so perhaps she declined to run for Vice President in part to focus on the Declaration.)

{Digression o' the Day:  The White House site includes biographies of all the first ladies.  One of them, it appears, may have a political future in the Empire State once her controversial years as First Lady have drawn to a close.  Her biography on the White House site reveals that she was born in Illinois, a fine state from which to hail, and that she attended the Yale Law School, a fine law school from which to graduate.}

Towards the very end of class, Professor Martin mentioned the Eisenhower Administration's promise not to bring human-rights treaties before the Senate.  As Professor Martin also mentioned, not all subsequent administrations treated that promise as binding.  Just five years after the signing in 1985 of the Convention Against Torture, President Bush--who made it to the Oval Office despite the obloquy of being US Ambassador to the UN when a scattering of anti-US Ambassadors danced in the aisles--presented that treaty to the US Senate.  As the materials on pages 512-515 of the textbook show, the Senate made its advice and consent to that treaty contingent upon a variety of understandings and presidential statements.  Such a response is among the Senate's many options when presented by the President with a treaty for its advice and consent. 

The Senate's own Web site discusses these options on this page, which generally discusses the Senate and treaties, but you must scroll down a bit on the page, look for some purple print, and then click on "Senate Options" if you want to go straight to the discussion of the Senate's options. 

{Another Digression o' the Day: The just-cited page is part of the Senate site's discussion of the Senate's history.  That page includes a search engine allowing you to find every Senator, past or present.  Alas, you will find no matches if you enter "Jefferson" into the last-name field and "Thomas" into the first-name field.   Mr. Jefferson, known to history chiefly for founding the University of Virginia, prepared for that task by first serving in the House of Burgesses, the Continental Congress, the Virginia State Legislature, the Virginia Governorship, the US ambassadorship to France, the State Department, the Vice Presidency, and the Presidency (of both the United States and the American Philosophical Society)--but never in the US Senate.  See also the fourth paragraph of the Digression o' the Day for February 24th, which discusses Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase--effected by an international treaty, of course.  And finally, see the home page of UVA's own Virginia Quarterly Review, which includes on its lists of distinguished contributors not only one Dumas Malone--a UVA professor whose multi-volume biography of Jefferson won the Pulitzer Prize--but also ... Eleanor Roosevelt.}

Friday, March 12th

The governmental authorities in Taipei on Taiwan have a Web site that describes themselves as "The Republic of China on Taiwan."  The governmental authorities in Beijing describe themselves as "The People's Republic of China."  They, but not The Republic of China on Taiwan, are allowed to have a building called an "embassy" in Washington, D.C.

The Web site of the Government of Tibet in Exile is named "," as it turns out.  A CNN story about a speech by the Dalai Lama includes a brief reference to China's position that Tibet policy is a matter of Chinese internal affairs. 

{The Digression o' the Day for today involves the Dalai Lama and a conference (and a course) held at UVA in the fall of 1998.}

Spring Break

Wednesday, March 24th

Note: Today's links are an effort to put up on the Web some of the many newspaper articles that students have generously brought to my attention during the portion of the semester that preceded Spring Break.  Thanks to all of you!

This March 4th story from the Washington Post describes US plans to impose very significant trade-related penalties on European imports in response to the EU's banana-import regime.   The decision follows a WTO Appellate Body ruling against the EU on that reimge, and the dispute is expected to be the subject of a compliance-phase WTO ruling in the near future.  Note the crucial role that both the WTO's legalistic dispute-resolution mechanism specifically and the idea of the rule of law generally plays in the article.   The banana dispute is also affecting international treaty-based cooperation between the US and Caribbean nations on international trade in illegal drugs, as a now-removed CNN story about Antigua once revealed.

This March 5th story from CNN's financial-news pages discusses not only the banana case but also a variety of other US-EU trade disputes, with several mentions either of domestic statutes or of the WTO's dispute-settlement process.

This March 5th editorial from the Washington Post discusses China's apparent Security Council veto of a UN peace-keeping mission to Macedonia (formally known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , as we discussed in class).  The Post characterizes Chinese behavior as "reckless willingness to risk a further spread of war in the Balkans," and argues that the UN Security Council should not be given, as "[s]ome Europeans argue," authority over NATO actions in Europe.  And what caused the Chinese veto, by the way?  Macedonia's "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan," according to the Post.

This March 6th front-page story from the Post discusses the US, the PRC, and Taiwan, especially in the context of US weapons sales to the Other of Taiwan.  (Students of journalism will note that the PRC has now adopted the  predilection of governmental officials in the US for giving reporters information anonymously.)

In the general context of discussing difficulties that US firms are having in doing business in China, this story from the Kansas City Star discusses barriers to trade erected by the People's Republic of China, which hopes to accede to the World Trade Organization, the terms of which would almost certainly prohibit at least some of the barriers discussed.   (China may negotiate a variety of exceptions, however.)

Someone also gave me a story from the Washington Post about the US position on the International Criminal Court, an entity designed chiefly to examine accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity (such as genocide).  The US refused to sign the treaty establishing the Court but wishes to stay involved in negotiations shaping the Court's future.  (For a PDF-format version of the treaty, courtesy of the UN, go here.)  The on-line verson of the Post story is no longer available (except for a fee), but the Post's story was prompted by discussions between the US and other nations at the first meeting of the Court's Preparatory Commission.  For some examples of domestic courts conducting war-crimes trials, see this page.

The troops of SFOR (who operate in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the mandates of the UN, NATO, and the Dayton Peace Accords) have the jurisdiction to apprehend war criminals indicted by the UN-constituted International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and turn them over to that body.  NATO troops did just that in December of 1998 with respect to a Serbian general.  This pair of stories given to me by one of you, however, involves that part of the SFOR mission relating to the disarmament of individuals and organizations within Bosnia possessing weapons in violation of the Dayton Accord, whether they be military units manned by Bosnian citizens or simply a pair of trucks.  Note how these press releases from the Web site of the US forces contributing to a mult-national division in Bosnia are careful to state the international legal foundations of the actions taken by US and Russian soldiers.

Thursday, March 25th

Note: Today's links involve some news, related to earlier topics in the course, that broke over Break.. 

There's been some alleged or apparent progress on North Korea and nuclear inspections.  The story is vague on whether the North Koreans have agreed to comply with the Agreed Framework or are instead allowing access beyond that promised in that Framework.  {Fittingly for the day before St. Patrick's Day, the very end of the story describes an implicit atoms-for-potatoes deal.  (Dan "Mr. Potatoe Head" Quayle seems to be in the running for the presidential nomination again, by the way.)  For a link about the not-funny-at-all Irish potato famine, see this page.}

The entire Commission of the EU resigned amidst allegations of "cronyism and financial irregularities," as this CNN story tells it.  Some people welcomed the resignations as a chance to start with a clean slate.  Note that none of the resigning commissioners is accused of direct or personal involvement in the irregularities.  For a resignation of someone directly involved in cronyism (and nepotism), see this story about former Indonesian President (and "strongman") Suharto.  Of course, politicians--even US Presidents--resign or don't resign for all sorts of reasons.

The President and the Congress reached a political agreement about ballistic-missile defenses, a topic we mentioned early in the course.   See the Links O' the Day for January 22nd and January 27th.  Those links focus on the Russian reaction to the ballistic-missile defense, but the reaction of the People's Republic of China--driven by the PRC's belief that the US may provide such a defense to Taiwan--is an important part of the current political climate, as are technological developments in North Korea.

Friday, March 26th

We talked on Thursday about diplomatic immunity, including a fair amount of discussion about espionage.  North Korea kindly provided some very recent examples of smuggling involving diplomats  and, it would appear, espionage without diplomats.  (See a CNN story about smuggling diplomats and a pair of CNN stories, one describing a chase by Japanese ships in Japanese waters of unflagged ships with lots of antennae and one very similar story adding the information that the unflagged ships went to North Korea.)  Query re diplomatic smugglers: Did Interpol's inspection of the luggage violate international law?  Query re non-diplomatic non-smugglers: If the allegedly North Korean ships were chased "through Japanese waters", could the Japanese have legally used their own warships to sink the North Korean ships?

The war in Kosovo also raises a number of international legal questions.  Many of those issues have been discussed indirectly, or not at all, in the course.  Some of those issues, however, have come up in one form or another previously.

This CNN story talks about Russian and Chinese opposition to the war, and about how the US and Britain would oppose any Security Council resolution condemning the NATO airstrikes.  What does this division imply for the role of the Security Council in this war, given the Council's procedural rules?  (One also wonders why the story didn't mention which side the French are taking.  Sloppy journalism, or sophisticated Gallic fence-sitting?)

Note also that we talked on Thursday about a nation-state's recalling its own diplomatic representatives or declaring persona non grata the diplomatic representatives of other nation-states, and that this same story has as its lead the fact that Russia has "expelled" NATO representatives from Moscow.  The story doesn't say, but do you think the expulsion involved handcuffing them and driving them to the Russian border and then kicking them out of the car?  Do you think that those NATO representatives have diplomatic immunity?  Are the two questions related?

Finally, note that this same story mentions "the NATO air base at Aviano, [Italy,] where many of the jets that are attacking Yugoslavia are based."  That is the same base from which the US Marine pilot flew the training mission leading to the ski-gondola accident discussed briefly in the Link O' the Day for February 26th and more extensively in the LotD for March 5th.  (Is there a difference, by the way, between the death of civilians that NATO has acknowledged could well result from its missions in Serbia and Montenegro, on the one hand, and the death of civilians that did result from the training mission, on the other?)


Wednesday, March 31st

Both Senator Helms (R, NC) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) have home pages. 

The UNCLOS home page is on the UN site, and the UNCLOS home page notes that the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) serves as the secretariat for the UNCLOS.  Professor Moore stated that the UNCLOS does not create any UN institutions and is not housed within the UN; he must consider the DOALAS secretariat to be so purely administrative as not to count as a creation or housing.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which was created by the UNCLOS to resolve disputes about the law of the sea, is also at the UN Web site.  Its site does not mention administrative duties conducted for it by the UN.  Note also that the UNCLOS is a treaty quite separate from the treaty that is the UN Charter.  In this respect, ITLOS contrasts with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the ICJ "was set up in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations to be the principal judicial organ of the Organization, and its basic instrument, the Statute of the Court, forms an integral part of the Charter," according to this page on the ICJ site

For a more complicated explanation of the relationship between the UN and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, go here. For a listing of the nations that have joined the United Nations (by joining the Charter), the Statute of the ICJ, and UNCLOS, you can register for the free United Nations treaty service (look for the "How to register" link); and then, after you've registered, look under "Status of Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General," and then under "Table of Contents," and then under Chapter I (for the UN Charter and ICJ Statute) and Chapter XXI (for the Law of the Sea, with UNCLOS listed as the 6th agreement).

Thursday, April 1st

Today is a good day to provide you with the answers to the multiple-choice questions on the examination, which you can find here.

A biography of President Carter, the named defendant in Goldwater v. Carter, is here, courtesy of the White House, and containing the opening "Fast Fact": "Jimmy Carter championed human rights throughout the world."  (See the Link o' the Day for March 10th.)  President Carter has also been mentioned earlier in the course in connection with his pronunciation of "nuclear", as well as on page 112 of the textbook in the Mazarr article about North Korea.  He remains quite active in foreign affairs as a private citizen, not only in traveling to North Korea but also in monitoring foreign elections for fairness, in founding and participating in activities of the Carter Center, and by engaging in some Car(ter)pentry for Habitat for Humanity.

Here's a very brief biography of Barry Goldwater, courtesy of the folks from Grolier Online, as well as a slightly longer bio of Goldwater, courtesy of the US Senate, where Goldwater was serving when he was the named plaintiff in Goldwater v. Carter.   Senator Goldwater gave his name to the Goldwater-Nichols Act.  In the eyes of many, the Act, which strengthened the relative strength of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in comparison to high-ranking military officers within the various military services, very much helped US forces perform effectively in the Persian Gulf War.  (At least one analyst argues in this essay, however, that the Act has unintentionally led to an alarming erosion of civilian control over the US military.) 

Digression o' the Day: Senator Goldwater, by the way, would have been President Goldwater if he had beaten Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential campaign.  Goldwater, however, garnered only 52 electoral votes to Johnson's 486.  Goldwater's percentage of the popular vote, 38.5%, was lower than Walter Mondale's, 40.6%, in the latter's landslide loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984, but higher than George McCovern's, 37.5%, in that liberal's lallapaloser to Richard M. Nixon in 1972.  See this index page to US presidential-election statistics.  You can find maps showing which state electorates voted for Presidential candidates after you download the PDF file accessible here.

Friday, April 2nd

We preceded our continuation of the discussion of Goldwater v. Carter with some inquiries about international law and Kosovo.  Today's Link o' the Day discusses international law on prisoners of war and on declarations of war, with reference in the latter discussion to domestic law as well.

At about 9 p.m. on Friday, April 2nd, the second story in the "Latest News" section on the Department of Defense site was a report on Pentagon press secretary Kenneth Bacon's statement that the Geneva Convention applied to US soldiers captured near the Serbia-Macedonia border.  See this page. Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field), a provison that you may read in full here, requires "humane" treatment of "members of armed forces who have laid down their arms," even "in the case of armed hostilities not of an international character."  The United States and Yugoslavia are both formal adherents to the 1949 Convention, although Yugoslavia entered some reservations with respect to the Convention.  (See page 428-29 of the State Department's very long publication, Treaties in Force, available on-line here if you have a PDF viewer such as Acrobat.   If you don't, you can download Acrobat for free here.)

The Pentagon press secretary's statement did not mention another 1907 Hague Convention, the Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities, which states in Article I: "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."  See the full text of that treaty here.  The United States, but not Yugoslavia, is a party to that treaty.  (See page 432 of Treaties in Force, mentioned in the paragraph above.)  Note that it then becomes important as to whether the Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities codifies customary law or creates new law: only in the former case would the United States be obliged to give previous and explicit warning to Yugoslavia.

As far as I know, neither the President nor the US Congress has declared war on Serbia and Montenegro.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war under clause 11 of section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution, and everyone seems to interpret that power as exclusively congressional in light of the fact that Article II does not have any text setting forth a like power for the President.  (For the Digression o' the Day, which involves a whimsical discussion of declarations of war against software pirates based upon an actual CNN On-line headline, go here.) 

Whether one could fulfill the requirement of the Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities by a communication from the President--that is, in a way that is clearly insufficient for domestic purposes--is an open question, but there certainly are instances in which international legal obligations and their domestic validity are not entirely consonant.  It's perhaps an even more complex question because Congress has failed to declare any wars since December of 1941, despite the occurrence since then of what are commonly called the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War. 

One might also wonder if perhaps NATO could declare war on Serbia and Montenegro on behalf of NATO's members.   Historically, only nations have issued declarations of war, not international organizations.  Regardless, I don't recall that NATO has issued a formal declaration of war against Serbia and Montenegro. 

One might also wonder if a formal declaration of war or formal ultimatum is even necessary under the circumstances.   The various governments of NATO did, after all, go to some lengths to warn the government of Serbia and Montenegro that airstrikes would occur unless that government took various measures.  Perhaps this is the equivalent of an "ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."  Whether you accept this equivalency turns on both the generalities and the specifics of trying to equate one set of actions with another, i.e., is it ever possible to have the equivalent of an ultimatum without actually having a formal ultimatum and were the actions of NATO's member states sufficient to constitute an equivalent in this particular case?

Wednesday, April 7th

Today's Link o' the Day features a variety of updates on topics covered earlier in the class.

The WTO Appellate Body has apparently ruled (in favor of the US) in the second round of the US-EU banana dispute, as a CNN Financial News story reported.  {For a later but much more extensively developed story from CNN on the same topic, go here.}

Living in Paraguay can still, as the Filartigas alleged, be hazardous to your human rights--although in the new regime it can apparently be progressive government officials who are murdered, according to this CNN story from March 23rd, rather than repressive government officials allegedly committing murder.

The premier of the People's Republic of China, the subject of our discussion of sovereignty in its myriad variations, has come to the United States for a nine-day visit, according to this CNN story of April 6th.  He will presumably be the beneficiary of the equivalent of diplomatic immunity while he is here, but Sino-American relations at the moment are, owing to missile defense and Kosovo and charges of nuclear espionage, no warmer than the weather at the Sino-Russian border.

And finally, an update on a topic that we have not covered in class: This CNN story is an update on Rwanda five years after ethnic differences led to the death of 800,000 people--in a country of fewer than 10 million--by club and machete.  (If you have RealPlayer or are willing to download it from here, then you can listen to an NPR story about trying to provide psychological help to Rwandan children affected by those events by scrolling about halfway down this page.  {In other updates, Martha Raddatz was at NPR in the fall, when she was the first speaker in the Law School's fall speaker series associated with the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates' Conference, but she has since moved to ABC TV News--a place where, in a move that I'm guessing NPR would not condone, some of the on-line graphics on NATO weaponry actually come from a computer game!  There was a time when you could have scrolled down to the "Air-Launched" and "Sea-Launched" links under "NATO Weapons" on a now-gone page, but ABC TV news has moved on.})  Kosovo has overshadowed the Rwanda-related anniversary, however, just as other events in the Balkans seemed to overshadow the mass slaughters in Rwanda at the time that they occurred.  

Thursday, April 8th

There was a glancing reference in class on Wednesday to the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.  That Amendment, which prevents changes in the compensation of members of Congress from taking effect without an intervening election of House members, was promulgated by the Congress in 1789, ratified by six states between 1789 and 1791, next ratified by Ohio in 1873, then next ratified by Wyoming in 1978, then by Maine in 1983, opening the floodgates to 31 more ratifications between 1984 and 1992 (inclusive).  Sometimes governments take a really long time to accomplish things. 

On the US Constitution more generally, the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency that keeps originals of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on public view in Washington, D.C. (closer to the building housing the DC Circuit and District Courts than to the Capitol or to the Supreme Court), maintains a collection of pages on the Constitution generally, including high-res copies of the pages themselves and biographies of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  I use this site to view the Constitution on-line because it collects not only the text but the dates and states of ratification for the amendments.  (The page-maintainer says he got the page from the House of Representatives, by the way.  The Internet Law Library of the House of Representatives lists a whole bunch of places to see on-line copies of the Constitution; I didn't try to track down which version is the one to which I've linked just above.)

The Yale Law School makes available on-line Professor Ackerman's action-packed c.v.  Note that a few of the entries on the left-hand side of the page use blue-underlined text even though the underlined text is not a link. Bad idea. Sure, Yale is #1 in US News and World Report's rankings of law schools, but obviously what should really matter is whether you can put together a Web page, don't you think?  If you need any more evidence, dare to see the Yale Law School's home page, with its decidedly uninviting post-Goth doors.

Professor Ackerman's co-author, David Golove, has moved from Arizona State University Law School (his home institution as of the writing of Is NAFTA Constitutional?) to Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School, where he is profiled (but not pictured) on this page.  For a highly extraneous page that basically just deconstructs the name "Golove" in a post-modern, pop-music kind of way, see the Digression o' the Day.

Friday, April 9th

Foreign Policy has a useful article on Pinochet that is abstracted here.  (The bible of the foreign-policy establishment is actually Foreign Affairs, which comes out quarterly with a rock-grey cover and a rock-solid typographical design.  See the Foreign Affairs site.  The pretender to the throne, Foreign Policy, used to be in a really skinny format, but has now adopted a standard size while also switching to shorter articles and full-color covers.  See the Foreign Policy site.  For a site indexing a number of influential periodicals concerned with international relations, see this page on the Foreign Affairs Envoy.)  Searching the site of the British Foreign Office for "Pinochet" yields a rather bland story from back in November of 1998 as the most recent entry.  The US Embassy in Chile prominently features human rights as a general topic, but has nothing specific about Pinochet on the home page (and lacks a search function).  (Through that Embassy site, I did find a lovely site on the UN Declaration on Human Rights, provided by the US Information Agency.)

On April 9, 1940, Germany attacked Denmark (and Norway).  Germany threatened Copenhagen with aerial terror-bombing -- that is, the deliberate attack by aircraft upon unarmed civilians.  Under this threat, as well as in light of the first-ever paratroop attack and a successful sally by German naval units right into Copenhagen's harbor, the Danish government ordered a cease-fire about two hours after the attack against Denmark began.

On April 9, 1942, more than 70,000 US-born and Filipino-born soldiers--beseiged for more than three months in the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines--surrendered to units of the Japanese Army.  The "Bataan death march" followed, with more than 10,000 prisoners perishing in a march of less than 70 miles to their POW camps.  Many prisoners, half-starved and exhausted from the march, simply collapsed; others were clubbed or bayoneted.  Masaharu Homma, the commander-in-chief of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, was eventually tried by the Tokyo-based International Military Tribunal for the Far East and sentenced to death on 42 counts--only one of which was based on the death march, of which he denied any knowledge.  He was shot on April 3, 1946.

For the text of the 1899 Hague Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, including Article 4 (which states that prisoners "must be humanely treated"), see this page, courtesy of the Fletcher Multilaterals Project.  The more modern version of these rules is in a 1949 Geneva Convention, which you can find here, also courtesy of the Fletcher Multilaterals Project.  Both of these documents were discussed above, in connection with Kosovo, in the Link o' the Day for April 2nd

For the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, see this page, courtesy of The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School.  For an article on the Tokyo war-crimes trials, see this page, courtesy of The History Net.  For a discussion of war-crimes generally, see the war-crimes portion of this page, courtesy of me.

Wednesday, April 14th and afterwards.

With the approach of the end of the semester, I'm going to need to turn my attention away from this Web site and towards such mundane matters as creating a Table of Contents for the course materials, writing the exam, and so forth. Future entries in the Links O' the Day, if any, will therefore be irregular and brief.  ( Immediately below these maroon-colored paragraphs is a discussion that involves dates related both to the beginning of the course and to its impending conclusion.)

I do have a series of pages of bookmarks, including a page devoted to international relations and a page devoted to history.  You might try looking at those pages if you're interested in on-line materials related to international law.

I hope you've enjoyed the Links O' the Day, and their associated Digressions O' the Day.  (I know that I've enjoyed creating them.)  I encourage you to e-mail me with brief messages stating whether and why you found these pages useful, informative, or entertaining.  And thanks!

You may recall that the first Link O' the Day mentioned the Royal Air Force's largest-ever air raid on Berlin, which occurred on January 20th, the same date as our first class meeting.  The week of our last class meeting begins on April 26th.   On April 26, 1937, German bombers operating in support of Francisco Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War conducted the first deliberate attack by airplanes upon civilians.   (The Digression O' the Day is about Pablo Picasso's painting, "Guernica," which was inspired by the German raid.)

You'll note that NATO's efforts in Kosovo very much include an emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties from aerial attack.  See the discussion several paragraphs into this story from the Washington Post, for example.  Whether the driving force behind such concerns is ethical, legal, or simply a matter of good public relations in the CNN age is difficult to untangle.  Regardless, such concern is progress of a sort from the days when the Royal Air Force sought deliberately to "de-house" the industrial workers of a country that had conducted the first airplane raid directed against civilians.

Back to the top of this page.

Back to the Course Home Page.

For corrections, comments, and questions, please e-mail John Setear.

This page was last updated on 04/24/99.