Human Rights Law Commons^™

A Human Rights Exception To Sovereign Immunity: Some Thoughts On Princz V. Federal Republic Of Germany, Mathias Reimann

Michigan Journal of International Law

Though narrow in scope, this article is emphatic in its message. It is time to deny immunity to foreign sovereigns for torture, genocide, or enslavement, at least when they are sued by Americans in American courts. Such a denial would be consonant with two developments that have marked international law since World War II: the restriction of sovereign immunity and the expansion of human rights protection.

Sovereign Immunity And Violations Of International Jus Cogens - Some Critical Remarks, Andreas Zimmermann

Michigan Journal of International Law

The scope of this article, like the one to which it responds, is limited. It does not purport to resolve any question relating to the municipal law of the United States, such as the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Instead, it considers the problem from a purely international law perspective. Furthermore, it does not indulge in a complete description of attempts made by the Federal Republic of Germany to pay compensation - as far as feasible - for all the blatant human rights violations committed by Nazi Germany in the period 1933-1945.

Paul Touvier And The Crime Against Humanity, Michael E. Tigar, Susan C. Casey, Isabelle Giordani, Sivakumaren Mardemootoo

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Prosecuting And Defending Violations Of Genocide And Humanitarian Law: The International Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

A symposium discussing the international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established by the United Nations Security Council’s . Christopher L. Blakesley discussed the procedural aspects of the War Crimes Tribunal.

The United States Should Withdraw Its Reservations To The Genocide Convention: A Response To Professor Paust's Proposal, Maria Frankowska

Michigan Journal of International Law

A reiteration of Professor Paust's views on the topic, followed by an alternative course of action, and the international and domestic aspects of the withdrawal process.

Legal And Political Considerations Of The United States' Ratification Of The Genocide Convention, Jay Rosenthal

Antioch Law Journal

On December 11, 1948, the United States officially signed the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the Convention).1 The Convention was sent to the Senate as part of the ratification process for the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting. 2 But the Senate declined to give advice and consent to the Convention, and has maintained that position for over thirty-six years. Ninety-six countries have now deposited their instruments of ratification with the United Nations, making them parties to the Convention. The United States is not a party. …

The Genocide Convention And The Constitution, Myres S. Mcdougal, Richard Arens

Vanderbilt Law Review

What is traditional for common crimes can scarcely be oppressive innovation for mass-murder. Even freedom of communication is not, furthermore, an absolute in democratic preference: security and human decency must likewise have their place.

It is no little irony that argument must be made in support of a convention to suppress genocide. "The spectacle," writes a contemporary journal of opinion, "of modern man explaining his right to existence is an odd one." The Genocide Convention is but one of many interrelated measures in a world-wide program to secure peace and respect for the dignity of the individual human being. Rational …