The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy
Public International Law
(Law 201)
Syllabus
Professor Glennon
Spring, 2015
INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. The International Court of Justice
a. The Statute of the International Court of Justice [documentary supplement].
b. Generally [556-562]
c. Jurisdiction in contentious cases [582-624].
d. Michael J. Glennon, Nicaragua v. United States of America: Constitutionality of U.S. Modification of ICJ Jurisdiction, 79 AJIL 571 (July,
1985).
e. Michael J. Glennon, Protecting the Court's Institutional Interests: Why Not
the Marbury Approach? 81 AJIL 121 (Jan., 1987).
f. Norwegian Loans Case, ICJ Reports 1957 (separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht)(excerpt).
g. Yorum Dinstein, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 279-282 (3RD ed.
2001).
h. Tim Harford, Happiness: A Measure of Cheer, FINANCIAL TIMES, Dec. 27,
2010.
i. David Brooks, Beware Stubby Glasses, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 10, 2013.
j. Marlise Simmons, A Former Ground Zero Goes to Court Against the
World’s Nuclear Arsenals, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 27, 2014.
2. Rules on state responsibility
a. General principles of responsibility [498-502].
b. Attribution of conduct to a state [503-512].
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
2
c. Breach of an international obligation 512-519].
d. Circumstances precluding wrongfulness [519-529].
e. Michael J. Glennon, Has International Law Failed the Elephant? 83 AJIL
1, 30-34 (1990)(excerpt).
f. Reparation for the breach of an international obligation [529-532].
g. Countermeasures and self-help [532-541].
h. Letter of Michael J. Glennon to Robert C. Byrd, Aug. 20, 2002.
3. Attribution: a case study―Nagorno-Karabakh (Chiragov v. Armenia, Dec.
14, 2011)
a. Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom,[GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July
2011.
b. Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.)
[GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-II.
c. Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV.
d. Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240.
e. Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR
2004-VII.
f. Issa and Others v. Turkey, no. 31821/96, 16 November 2004.
g. Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI.
h. Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no.
310.
i. Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV.
THE USE OF FORCE
4. Use of force by states: The Just War Doctrine
a. Summary of criteria.
b. William V. O’Brien, THE CONDUCT OF JUST AND UNJUST WAR 13-70
(1981).
c. Jimmy Carter, Just War—Or a Just War?, N.Y. TIMES, March 9, 2003.
d. John McCain, The Right War for the Right Reasons, N.Y. TIMES, March
12, 2003.
e. Michael J. Glennon, Idealism in the U.N., 129 POLICY REVIEW 3 (2005).
5. Use of force by states: Emerging norms in the pre-Charter era
a. Ian Brownlie, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES
14-50 (rev. ed. 1981).
b. J.L. Brierly, THE LAW OF NATIONS 397-413 (Waldock, ed., 6th ed. 1963).
c. Yorum Dinstein, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 59-80 (3RD ed.
2001).
d. Customary international law [1129-1134].
e. Pre-UN efforts to discourage war [1135-1141]
f. The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), p. 403 [supplement].
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
3
g. Thomas A. Bailey, A DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
649-651(6th ed. 1958).
h. Yoram Dinstein, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 23-29 (3RD ed.
2001).
i. “Definition of Aggression” Resolution (3314), Dec. 14, 1974, p.p. 409412 supplement.
6. Use of force by states: The UN Charter
a. The prohibition of the use of force [1142-1164].
b. J.L. Brierly, THE LAW OF NATIONS 413-432 (Waldock, ed., 6th ed. 1963).
c. Thomas M. Franck, Who Killed Article 2(4)?, 64 AM. J. INT’L L. 809-837
(1970).
d. Michael J. Glennon, How War Left the Law Behind, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 21,
2002 at A33.
e. Michael J. Glennon, LIMITS OF LAW, PREROGATIVES OF POWER 67-100
(2001).
f. Anthony Clark Arend, International Law and the Recourse to Force: A
Shift in Paradigms, 27 STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1-47
(1990).
g. “The Brezhnev Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine: Apples and Oranges?”
ASIL panel, April 11, 1987 in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 81ST ANNUAL MEETING 561-578.
h. A. Mark Weisburd, USE OF FORCE: THE PRACTICE OF STATES SINCE
WORLD WAR II 315-322 (1997).
i. Thomas M. Franck, RECOURSE TO FORCE 109-134 (2002).
j. Remarks of W. Michael Reisman, “Article 2(4): The Use of Force in Contemporary International Law,” ASIL panel, April 12-14, 1984 in PROTH
CEEDINGS OF THE 78 ANNUAL MEETING 74-87.
k. Michael J. Glennon, Force and the Settlement of Political Disputes, The
Hague Academy of International Law, September 7, 2007.
7. Thirteen Days (2000).
8. Use of force by the United Nations
a. The Charter’s framework [1221-1276].
b. Michael J. Glennon, LIMITS OF LAW, PREROGATIVES OF POWER 13-19
(2001).
c. UN Security Council, Resolution 1441, Nov. 7, 2002.
d. Iraq
i. Adam Roberts, Law and the Use of Force after Iraq, SURVIVAL 3156 (Summer 2003).
ii. Sean D. Murphy, Assessing the Legality of Invading Iraq, 92
GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 173 (2004).
e. Is anything ultra vires?
i. Thomas M. Franck, RECOURSE TO FORCE 20-44 (2002).
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
4
ii. Michael J. Glennon, Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power (2001),
101-143 (re-read and review).
9. Self-Defense
a. Generally [1134-35; 1165-1181; 1188-1192].
b. Christine Gray, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 105-108
(2000).
c. Yoram Dinstein, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 157-222 (3RD ed.
2001).
d. Thomas M. Franck, RECOURSE TO FORCE 45-97 (2002).
e. Reprisal; The Naulilaa (1949) [1132-1134].
f. Michael J. Glennon, The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in the United Nations Charter, 25 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND
PUBLIC POLICY 539-558 (2002).
g. David Sanger, Syria War Stirs New U.S. Debate on Cyberattacks, N.Y.
TIMES, Feb. 24, 2014.
10. Counter-terrorism: Preemption and prevention
a. Anticipatory self-defense [1181-1187].
b. The National Security Strategy Statement, September 20, 2002.
c. George Bush, Remarks at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York, June 2002.
d. John Shaw, Startling His Neighbors, Australian Leader Favors First
Strikes, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 2, 2002.
e. Statement of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on the Bush Doctrine of Preemption, Oct. 7, 2002.
f. Ken Ringle, A Duel with Tradition, WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 19, 2001 at
C01.
g. Thomas M. Franck, RECOURSE TO FORCE 97-108 (2002).
h. Michael J. Glennon, Preempting Terrorism: The Case for Anticipatory SelfDefense, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Jan. 28, 2002 (vol. 7, issue 19).
i. Mary Ellen O’Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, ASIL Presidential Task Force on Terrorism (2002).
j. Anthony Clark Arend, International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military
Force, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY 89-103 (Spring, 2003).
k. The Pan Am 103 trial [419-421].
l. Michael Dobbs, North Korea Tests Bush’s Policy of Preemption, WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 6, 2002 at A01.
m. Michael R. Gordon, Serving Notice of a New U.S., Poised to Hit First and
Alone, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 27, 2003.
11. Internal conflicts and humanitarian intervention
a. Generally [1192-1220].
b. David Rhode, Insurgents Create Growing Instability in Nepal, N.Y.
TIMES, Dec. 29, 2002.
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
5
c. Michael J. Glennon, LIMITS OF LAW, PREROGATIVES OF POWER 19-35
(2001).
d. The Case of Kosovo, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 653-662 (2nd ed. 2000).
e. Thomas M. Franck, RECOURSE TO FORCE 135-173 (2002).
f. The Responsibility to Protect [1044-1045].
g. Gareth Evans & Mohamed Sahnoun, The Responsibility to Protect, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, November, 2002.
h. Sir Jeremy Greenstock (U.K.), Statement to the U.N. Security Council,
March 24, 1999.
i. UK paper on the legal basis for humanitarian intervention in Kosovo (Foreign Office cable)(undated).
j. Report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,
Dec., 2004 (excerpts on humanitarian intervention).
k. UK Government Statement on Legality of Humanitarian Intervention, Jan.
14, 2014.
l. Eric Posner, Vladimir Putin, International Lawyer (blog post), March 18,
2014.
12. The law of war
a. General
i. Just war theory [review item 4(a) above].
ii. International humanitarian law [1276-1297].
iii. Michael Walzer, JUST AND UNJUST WARS 35-44; 127-137; 255-268
(3rd ed. 1977).
iv. Michael Walzer, JUST AND UNJUST WARS 207-222 (3rd ed. 1977).
v. Remarks of W. Michael Reisman, “Application of Humanitarian
Law in Noninternational Armed Conflicts,” ASIL panel, April 18,
1991 in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 85TH ANNUAL MEETING 85-90.
vi. Adam Roberts & Richard Guelff, Introduction, DOCUMENTS ON
THE LAWS OF WAR 1-16 (1982).
vii. The Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949, p. 334 documentary supplement.
viii. The Torture Convention, documentary supplement.
ix. The internet [1304-1305]
b. Iraq and the war on terror
i. Alan Cooperman, CIA Interrogation Under Fire, WASHINGTON
POST, Dec. 28, 2002 at A09.
ii. Dana Priest & Bart Gellman, U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations, WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 26, 2002 at A01.
iii. Ends, Means and Barbarity, THE ECONOMIST, JAN. 11, 2002 at 1820.
iv. Human Rights Watch, Letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, December 28, 2002.
v. International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative, Military Occupation of Iraq (April 14, 2003).
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
6
vi. Kenneth Roth, The Law of War in the War on Terror, FOREIGN
AFFAIRS (Jan./Fed. 2004).
vii. Special White House announcement concerning application of Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan, Feb. 7, 2002.
viii. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, The McCain Amendment Is
Flawed THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 10, 2005 at A11.
ix. Philippe Sands, America Cannot Circumvent the Law on Torture,
FINANCIAL TIMES, December 5, 2005 at 19.
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS
13. Nuremberg and its aftermath
a. The Nuremberg Trials [1306-1326].
b. Judgment at Nuremberg, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONnd
AL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 112-126 (2 ed. 2000).
c. The Genocide Convention and draft code of crimes [409-411; 1328-1332].
d. Yoram Dinstein, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 106-134 (3RD ed.
2001).
e. Kevin Sullivan, Churchill Urged Electric Chair for ‘Gangster’ Hitler,
WASHINGTON POST, January 2, 2006 at A07.
14. International Criminal Tribunals
a. Yugoslavia [1327-1340].
b. Rwanda [1341-1344].
c. Other tribunals [1344-1349]
d. The International Criminal Court [1350-1371].
i. “The United States and the International Criminal Court,” remarks
of John R. Bolton to the Federalist Society, November 14, 2002.
ii. Kenneth Roth, The Court the US Doesn’t Want, N.Y. REV. OF
BOOKS, Nov. 19, 1998, in Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INnd
TERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1195-1198 (2 ed.
2000).
iii. Steven Erlanger, Dispute Over New Court Imperils Widened Alliance, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 31, 2002.
iv. Elizabeth Becker, On World Court, U.S. Focus Shifts to Shielding
Officials, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 7, 2002.
v. American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, 96 AJIL 975-977
(2002).
15. The ICC and the Crime of Aggression
a. Michael J. Glennon, The Blank-Prose Crime of Aggression, 35 YALE
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL Law 71 (Winter, 2010).
b. ICC Web Site
c. Statement of Harld Koh, State Department Legal Adviser, Mar. 23, 2010
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
7
THE REACH OF STATE POWER
16. Jurisdiction
a. Introduction [755-762]
b. Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, WHO CONTROLS THE INTERNET? 1-10
(2008).
c. The bases of jurisdiction to prescribe
i. The territorial principle [767-773; 779-781].
ii. The nationality principle [784-791].
iii. The passive personality principle [793-798].
iv. The protective principle [798-803].
v. The universality principle [804-815].
1. Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1132-1142 (2nd ed. 2000).
2. Henry Kissinger, DOES AMERICA NEED A FOREIGN POLICY?
273-282 (2001).
3. The Pinochet Litigation, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston,
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1198-1214
(2nd ed. 2000).
4. Daphne Eviatar, Debating Belgium’s War-Crimes Jurisdiction, N.Y. TIMES, JAN. 25, 2003.
5. Human Rights Watch, Belgium: Questions and Answers on
the “Anti-Atrocity Law” (June, 2003).
d. Judicial and enforcement activities
i. Jurisdiction to adjudicate [815-818].
ii. Jurisdiction to enforce [818-829].
iii. Extradition [838-850].
17. The act of state doctrine
a. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964) [670-675].
b. Aftermath and implications [675-678].
18. Immunities of foreign states
a. Sovereign immunity
i. Absolute immunity [851-854].
ii. Restrictive immunity [854-860].
iii. The role of the executive branch [860].
b. Diplomatic and consular immunity
i. Diplomats and consuls [935-940].
ii. Head-of-state immunity [924-935].
19 & 20. Human rights: commonalities and divisions
a. Generally [956-961]
b. The utility of “rights”
i. Joe Klein, The Tone-Deaf Democrats, TIME, Nov. 21, 2007.
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
8
ii. Isaiah Berlin, The Question of Machiavelli, N.Y. REV. OF BOOKS,
Nov. 4, 1971.
iii. The Notion of ‘Rights’: Origins and Relations to ‘Duties’, Henry J.
Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONnd
TEXT 324-348 (2 ed. 2000).
iv. Comment on some characteristics of the liberal political tradition,
Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
nd
IN CONTEXT 361-365 (2 ed. 2000).
v. Jonathan Tepperman, Foxes and Hedgehogs, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 16,
2005.
c. Cultural relativism: A case study of hate speech
i. Generally [994, n. 7].
ii. Universalism and cultural relativism, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 366-408 (2nd ed.
2000).
iii. Hate speech, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 749-766 (2nd ed. 2000).
iv. Hate-speech Protocol to Cybercrime Convention, 96 AJIL 973-975
(2002).
v. Hate speech, Kathleen M. Sullivan & Gerald Gunther, CONSTITUth
TIONAL LAW 1046-1051 (14 ed. 2001).
vi. Blair Wins Parliament Vote Criminalizing 'Glorification' of Terror, NY TIMES, Feb. 16, 2006
vii. Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952).
viii. Whitney v. California (Brandeis, J. dissenting)(1927).
ix. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
x. Cohen v. California (1971).
xi. Prosecutor v. Nahimana (2003).
21. Human rights: fundamental norms
a. Substantive law
i. Global institutions [983-998]
ii. Significant treaties [975-982].
iii. Customary norms [996-999].
iv. Rights of women [988-994].
v. Incorporation into U.S. law [995; 1014-1021; 1045-1050].
c. b. Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CONTEXT 1274-1289 (2nd ed. 2000).
d. The right to development, Henry J. Steiner & Philip Alston, INTERNAnd
TIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1315-1323 (2 ed. 2000).
22. Human rights: Factfinding and Evidence ― a case study
a. International Human Rights Law Group & Washington Office on Latin
America, Report concerning contra abuses in Nicaragua (1985)("FoxGlennon Report").
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
9
b. Letter of John Norton Moore, 81 AJIL 185 (1987)
c. Letter of Michael J. Glennon, 81 AJIL 393 (1987).
23. Democracy promotion*
a. Michael McFaul, Democracy Promotion as a World Value, THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Winter 2004-05.
b. The Backlash against Democracy Assistance, The National Endowment for
Democracy, June 8, 2006.
c. Peter Ackerman & Michael J. Glennon, The Right Side of the Law, THE
AMERICAN INTEREST, Sept.-Oct. 2007.
24. Protecting the environment: Biodiversity and endangered species
a. Michael J. Glennon, Has International Law Failed the Elephant? 84 AJIL 1
(1990).
b. James S. Shikwati, Ivory and Eco-Imperialists, WASHINGTON POST, Nov 10,
2002.
c. Marc Kaufman, Increased Demand for Ivory Threatens Elephant Survival,
WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 27, 2007.
d. Limits on international trade [1510-1514].
e.
f. Richard Conniff, Useless Creatures, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 13, 2014.
25. Protecting the environment: Public goods and the global commons
a. Introduction [1486-1491].
b. Memorandum of Larry Summers, Dec. 12, 1991 [World Bank](excerpt).
c. Transborder environmental harm [1491-1502].
d. Preserving collective goods [1502-1510]
e. David Brown, Global Polio Largely Fading, WASHINGTON POST, December 26, 2005 at A01.
f. Daniel Smith, It's the End of the World, and He Feels Fine, N.Y. TIMES,
April 17, 2014
26. Arms control and disarmament: a review session *
a. Background [1297-1304].
b. A review problem: negative security assurances and declaratory U.S. policy concerning use of nuclear weapons
~
Schedule. The class meets Tuesday and Thursday from 11:05 a.m. to 12:20 p.m.
in the Crowe Room. Numerical headings in this syllabus each represent one class
session; materials grouped together normally will be discussed together. Several
topic headings will, however, extend beyond a single class session. Most classes
will consist of lectures and discussion, with a greater proportion of discussion than
*
Coverage of this class is contingent upon progress in earlier classes.
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
10
was possible in The International Legal Order (Law 200). Discussions are predicated on an assumption of familiarity with the assigned materials; readings should
therefore be completed before the relevant class session.
Readings. Bracketed numerical references in this syllabus are to page numbers in
Damrosch, Henkin, Murphy & Smit, International Law: Cases & Materials (5th
ed., West 2009). This book is required. Also required is Michael J. Glennon,
Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism after Kosovo (St. Martin’s/Palgrave 1990). The documentary supplement, Basic Documents Supplement
to International Law: Cases & Materials (5th ed.), by Damrosch, et al, is recommended, although many documents are now available on the internet. A useful
dictionary is James R. Fox, Dictionary of International and Comparative Law
(Oceana, 3rd ed. 2003). Further readings may be added throughout the semester as
events unfold; please check relevant Trunk resource folders before each class.
Accessing reading materials. All of the materials in this syllabus are available on
the Tufts Trunk site for this course, which is accessible from any computer with an
internet browser.
Lecture outlines. Outlines of each lecture normally will be available in the relevant Trunk course document folder shortly before each class. These outlines are
provided to make the class easier to follow for students whose native language is
not English. They should not be seen as a substitute for class attendance.
Recordings. Recordings of classes or any part thereof are not permitted under any
circumstances.
Eligibility. Students may not register or cross-register for this class if it conflicts
with another class in which they are enrolled. Auditors are not admitted in this
course. International Legal Order (Law 200) is a pre-requisite; no waivers are
granted.
Final examination. A three-hour, closed-book examination will be held on a date
announced by the Registrar’s office. It will consist of essay, short-answer and
multiple-choice questions. The format will be similar to that of the examination in
The International Legal Order. To ensure the integrity of the examination process
and also to ensure fairness and equal treatment for all students, re-scheduling of
the exam is permitted only on an emergency basis, involving documented medical
incapacity of the student or death or serious illness within the immediate family.
Mid-semester examination. There is no mid-semester examination.
Public International Law: Spring 2015
Syllabus
11
Grading. The letter grade that results from the final examination may be raised
one-half letter grade for superior performance in class discussions. Recorded
grades are raised only for arithmetical or administrative error; “extra credit” is not
given, nor are grades altered, for additional papers or other work .
Class attendance. Students are expected to attend all class sessions.
Office hours. Office is located at 315 Goddard, across from the Crowe Room.
Office hours are 2:00 to 3:00 on Thursday, other times by appointment—though if
the door is open, as it usually is, feel free to come in. Appointments may be made
directly with me at the email address below. My assistant is Lupita Ervin at [email protected] or (617) 627-4319, in room C405.
Bluebook review. Final exams will be available for review after grades are turned
in. Students wishing to do so should see my assistant Lupita. Bluebooks may not
be altered or removed from the reviewing area.
Recommendations. Students seeking recommendations should consult “Guidelines for Recommendations” in the course information folder on the Trunk web
site.
Contact information. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: (617) 6273941. Web site: http://www.fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/glennon. Please do not use
email for substantive issue discussion―stop by the office.