• Treaty and Protocol Between the United States and Russia on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (Apr. 8, 2010)

• Thirty-First Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Mar. 30, 2010)

European Court of Human Rights

• Seven Chamber judgments against Russia Concerning Chechnya and Dagestan (Apr. 8, 2010)

International Criminal Court

• Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Mar. 31, 2010)

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

• CEMEX Caracas Investments B.V. and CEMEX Caracas II Investments B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Mar. 3, 2010)

UNCITRAL

• Chevron v. Ecuador, Partial Award on the Merits (Mar. 30, 2010)

• Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2008 Now Available

Treaty and Protocol Between the United States and Russia on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (Apr. 8, 2010)

Click here for Treaty (approximately 17 pages); click here for Protocol (approximately 165 pages)

The United States and Russia have signed a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty in Prague, thus agreeing to reduce and limit their “strategic offensive arms” arsenals.

If ratified, the agreement will remain in force for ten years “unless it is superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.” The parties also agreed that the right to withdraw from the treaty will be triggered if either party determines that “extraordinary events” jeopardize their “supreme interest.”

Times Online reports that the agreement would require Russia and the United States, “holders of more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons – to slash their respective arsenals by about a third and reduce launchers by a half within seven years.”

Another issue that the treaty does not discuss but that the parties will inevitably face is disposal of the nuclear arms. According to a NY Times article, “[t]he plutonium that is the key ingredient in thousands of nuclear weapons sidelined in the new arms control treaty between the United States and Russia is likely to be around for decades at least, according to experts.”

Thirty-First Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Click here for document (approximately 32 pages)

The United Nations Secretary-General has issued a report on the UN mission in the Congo (MONUC), highlighting some of the challenges that continue to exist in the country due to presence and operations of armed groups in eastern Congo.

The LRA (the Lord’s Resistance Army), a paramilitary group from Uganda, whose leaders have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for atrocities in Northern Uganda, recently committed atrocities in North-Eastern Congo. According to a UN press release, “[a] UN peacekeeper and two contractors in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) died when insurgents on Sunday attacked Mbandaka, the capital of the north-western province of Equateur, at the other end of the country from the continuing violence in the east.”

Moreover, the LRA was specifically mentioned in the report as a “source of insecurity for civilians and general instability” in the region.

It is uncertain if and how the recent deadly attacks will influence the Secretary-General’s recommendation to withdraw up to 2,000 troops from the less crisis-stricken parts of the country by the end of June.

European Court of Human Rights

Seven Chamber Judgments against Russia Concerning Chechnya and Dagestan (Apr. 8, 2010)

Click here for the press release and link to individual cases (approximately 5 pages)

The European Court of Human Rights recently issued seven judgments concerning allegations of unlawful disappearances and deaths in Chechnya and Dagestan. Seven applicants separately alleged that Russian agents operating in Chechnya and Dagestan had violated Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the applicants, close relatives had disappeared after being detained by Russian agents during a security operation. In addition, the applicants claimed that responsible authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into the disappearances and deaths of their relatives.

In the majority of the cases, the Court found that Russia had violated Articles 2, 3, 5, and 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicants damages.

More details about the cases are available on the Court’s web site.

International Criminal Court

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Mar. 31, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 163 pages)

The Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court recently granted the Prosecutor’s request to commence an investigation of crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Kenya. The majority concluded that the evidence presented by the Prosecution, along with the lower standard of proof applicable at this particular stage, provided reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity were committed in Kenya. This decision clears the way for the Prosecution to investigate crimes against humanity committed between June 1, 2005 (date on which Kenya became a state party to the Rome Statute) and November 26, 2009 (date on which the Prosecutor filed the request to investigate).

Judge Hans-Peter Kaul strongly dissented. He believed that the crimes committed in Kenya in relation to the post-election violence of 2007–2008 did not qualify as crimes against humanity under the Court’s statute. As such, he noted, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

CEMEX Caracas Investments B.V. and CEMEX Caracas II Investments B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Mar. 3, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 18 pages)

In a dispute under the Netherlands and Venezuela bilateral investment treaty between CEMEX Caracas (CEMEX) and Venezuela, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal rejected a request for provisional measures by CEMEX. The dispute between the parties arose when Venezuela allegedly deprived the claimant of its ownership rights in CEMEX Venezuela, Venezuela’s largest cement company. In the request for provisional measures, CEMEX argued that the unlawful interference by Venezuela with the claimant’s property rights would “severely aggravate the dispute and increase the Claimant’s damages.”

The ICSID tribunal applied its own precedent and that from the International Court of Justice in determining when provisional measures should be applied. The tribunal emphasized that provisional measures “are extraordinary measures which should be recommended lightly” and should only be “granted to protect the rights of either party in case of urgency and necessity.” The tribunal further noted that the alleged attempts to seize the claimant’s property did not “meet the requirements of urgency and necessity of Article 47 of the ICSID Convention.” The tribunal also rejected CEMEX’s argument that continued legal action by Venezuela further prejudiced and aggravated the dispute between the parties.

UNCITRAL

Chevron v. Ecuador, Partial Award on the Merits (Mar. 30, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 265 pages)

A UNCITRAL tribunal, arbitrating a dispute between Chevron and Ecuador for alleged denial of justice and other violation of the U.S.-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty (BIT), has issued a lengthy first partial award on the merits in favor of Chevron.

The tribunal analyzed an array of claims, including not only the alleged denial of justice under customary international law and specific BIT standards, but also the damages that should be awarded if a violation is found. In addition, the tribunal considered whether the claimant’s contractual claims fell within the definition of “investment” for purposes of the BIT and whether the claimant had exhausted all local remedies prior to commencing arbitration proceedings against the respondent.

The tribunal held that Ecuador had breached Article II(7) of the BIT through the undue delay of the Ecuadorian courts in deciding the claimant’s seven court cases and that Ecuador was liable for the consequential damages. With respect to determining the amount of damages, the tribunal held that “[t]he amount of such damages will be decided by the Tribunal with the help of a procedure set out in a separate Procedural Order of the Tribunal to determine what taxes, if any, would have been due to the Respondent if no breach of Article II(7) of the BIT had occurred.”

According to the Associated Press, Ecuador has rejected the partial award in its entirety. The Attorney General of Ecuador has stated that the multi-million dollar award, a “new effort to compromise the Ecuadorean state in its firm commitment to respect the independence of its judicial system . . . will not succeed.”

Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2008 Now Available

Click here for document (approximately 1164 page)

The United States Department of State has recently issued the 2008 Digest of United States Practice in International Law. The Digest, which covers developments during 2008, is, in the words of Legal Adviser Harold Koh, “a historical record of developments occurring during the period when my predecessor, John B. Bellinger, III, served as Legal Adviser.” This is the first time the Digest is available in print and online.