Law Commons^™

Aiding And Abetting In International Criminal Law, Oona A. Hathaway, Alexandra Francis, Aaron Haviland, Srinath Reddy Kethireddy, Alyssa T. Yamamoto

Cornell Law Review

To achieve justice for violations of international law such as genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it is essential to address complicity for international crimes. Beginning in the 1990s, there was a proliferation of international and hybrid criminal tribunals, which sought to hold perpetrators of these crimes accountable and, in turn, generated an explosion of international criminal law jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the contours of aiding and abetting liability in international criminal law remain contested. Courts-both domestic and international-have long struggled to identify the proper legal standard for holding actors liable for aiding and abetting even the most serious violations …

"Mob-Legislating": Jasta's Addition To The Terrorism Exception To Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Rachael E. Hancock

Cornell Law Review

This Note explores the issues with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that JASTA attempts to address, the likelihood of JASTA’s success, and whether or not JASTA is a desirable solution. Though the relatively recent nature of this addition renders the long-term impact difficult to assess, an examination of foreign sovereign immunity doctrine’s origins, evolution, and purpose provides sufficient information to make predictions about potential problems with JASTA. Part I briefly tracks the history of foreign sovereign immunity in the United States and the transition from an absolutist approach to a restricted approach. Part I also discusses the codification of the …

International Cybertorts: Expanding State Accountability In Cyberspace, Rebecca Crootof

Cornell Law Review

States are not being held accountable for the vast majority of their harmful cyberoperations, largely because classifications created in physical space do not map well onto the cyber domain. Most injurious and invasive cyberoperations are not cybercrimes and do not constitute cyberwarfare, nor are states extending existing definitions of wrongful acts permitting countermeasures to cyberoperations (possibly to avoid creating precedent restricting their own activities). Absent an appropriate label, victim states have few effective and nonescalatory responsive options, and the harms associated with these incidents lie where they fall.

This Article draws on tort law and international law principles to construct …