• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1918 on Somalia (Apr. 27, 2010)

• U.S. Manual for Military Commissions (Apr. 27, 2010)

• Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie (Apr. 9, 2010)

European Court of Justice

• M and Others v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (Apr. 29, 2010)

• The House of Representative of Belgium Approves Burqa Ban (Apr. 29, 2010)

• Bosnian-Serb Suspect Turned over to Bosnian Authorities by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials to Face War Crimes Charges (Apr. 27, 2010)

• Grenada-Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Treaty Enters Into Force (Apr. 27, 2010)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1918 on Somalia (Apr. 27, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 3 pages)

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted Resolution 1918, calling on all states to criminalize piracy under national law. The Security Council recognized that the continued threat of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia and the failure to prosecute those responsible have undermined international anti-piracy objectives. Prior to this resolution, Russia had proposed the creation of a special tribunal after Kenya decided to stop prosecution of suspected pirates on its soil. Kenya also rescinded agreements made with the European Union, United States, Great Britain, Canada, China, and Denmark to prosecute suspected pirates.

In this resolution, the Security Council asked member states to consider prosecuting suspected pirates and enabling the imprisonment of those convicted. Thus, in an effort to create possible venues to try suspected pirates, the Security Council tasked the Secretary-General with presenting a report within three months enumerating possible options to assist in “prosecuting and imprisoning persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, including, in particular, options for creating special domestic chambers possibly with international components, a regional tribunal or an international tribunal.”

U.S. Manual for Military Commissions (Apr. 27, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 281 pages)

The United States Department of Defense has issued a new Manual for Military Commissions. The 280-page document contains comprehensive procedural guidelines, special rules of evidence, and a penal code enumerating prosecutable offenses.

Critics have emphasized the timing of the Manual—hours before the scheduled pre-trial proceedings in the case against Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen currently held in Guantánamo. Amnesty International has issued a press release comparing the 2010 Manual to the one issued by the Bush administration in 2007, criticizing the continued insistence to “reserve[ ] the right to continue to detain individuals indefinitely even if they have been acquitted by a military commission.” Amnesty International argues that indefinite detention “flies in the face of judgments of the International Court of Justice and authoritative legal conclusions stated by the UN Human Rights Committee.”

Huffington Post reported that while the 2010 edition “on the whole . . . is substantially fairer than the 2006 version of the law,” the inclusion of “some very troubling language in the new Manual relating to the proof required to convict for certain offenses, . . . undermines the Obama Administration’s claims of respect for the law of war and adherence to the rule of law.”

Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie (Apr. 9, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 24 pages)

John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and translational corporations and other business enterprises, has issued the 2010 progress report mandated by the Human Rights Council.

For this report, the Special Representative was tasked with “providing concrete guidance and recommendations to States, businesses and other actors on the practical meaning and implications of the three pillars.” The three pillars are also known as the “protect, respect, and remedy” policy framework, which recognizes a state duty to protect individuals against human rights abuses through appropriate legislative and judicial measures; a corporate duty to respect those rights; and a victim’s right to appropriate remedies for human rights abuses. The Council also asked the Special Representative to promote the three-pillar framework by “coordinating with relevant international and regional organizations and other stakeholders.”

With respect to the first pillar, the Special Representative reported that to prevent corporate-related human rights abuses, states should work on preventative measures. Regarding the second pillar, the Special Representative urged businesses to rely on existing human right instruments when conducting business assessments. Finally, for last pillar, the Special Representative noted that the existing remedial framework “remain[s] underdeveloped.”

European Court of Justice

M & Others v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (Apr. 29, 2010)

Click here for document (approximately 20 pages)

The European Court of Justice held that the United Kingdom could not restrict the disbursement of social security payments and social assistance benefits to spouses of individuals whose funds and economic resources had been frozen under the United Nations and EU anti-terrorism financing regimes.

The U.K. government argued that payments to spouses of designated persons were prohibited by the EU regulation as these payments could benefit, either directly or indirectly, a designated person living with the lawful recipient. However, under the U.K. legislation implementing the EU regulation, certain payments were authorized under a licensing mechanism, pursuant to which the government continued to disburse benefits to spouses; however strict conditions had to be fulfilled. Thus, the spouses of designated individuals receiving social security and other social benefits were required to itemize all expenses and provide the Treasury with receipts for all purchases to demonstrate that no government moneys benefited the designated individual.

The Court, agreeing with the House of Lords, ruled that these restrictions were not required by either the Security Council resolutions or EU implementing regulation. The Court found the government’s narrow reading of the sanctions unnecessarily restrictive. The Court explained that the requirement that spouses remain in charge of the benefits, with criminal penalties in case of noncompliance, and the government’s own supervision of pre-calculated benefits meant to cover only basic household needs, ensured that the moneys paid by the government would not be used to sponsor terrorism or terrorism-related activities. Any additional restrictions, such as the ones required under the U.K. legislation, were found unnecessarily limiting.

The House of Representative of Belgium Approves Burqa Ban (Apr. 29, 2010)

Click here for voting sheet (approximately 1 page)

The Belgian House of Representatives voted 136-0 to ban the wearing of full-face cover in public. The law, which now has to pass the Senate, would ban the wearing of clothing that obscures a person's face in public places.

A day after the Belgian lower house voted in favor of the law, a similar French draft law was leaked to the press. Deutsche Welle reports that the penalty for wearing a full-face covering would be much higher in France if the French law came into force. According to the French draft legislation, a person wearing a garment to conceal the face ‘“could be fined up to 150 euros ($200).’ In Belgium, the proposed law would include fines of 15 to 25 euros (about $20 to $33) and imprisonment for up to seven days.”

Bosnian-Serb Suspect Turned over to Bosnian Authorities by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials to Face War Crimes Charges (Apr. 27, 2010)

Click here for press release (approximately 1 page)

On April 27, 2010, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed Marko Boskic, a Bosnian Serb residing in the United States, to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Boskic was turned over to Bosnian authorities to face war crimes charges for his direct participation in the killing of at least 1200 unarmed prisoners of war near Srebrenica in 1995.

Boskic was arrested by U.S. immigration authorities in 2004 and charged with fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents. Allegedly, Boskic failed to disclose his foreign military service and criminal acts when he applied for admission to the United States. He was convicted of two counts of immigration fraud and sentenced to sixty-three months imprisonment by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The arrest and subsequent conviction are the result of a transnational investigation between both ICE and FBI agents, as well international war crimes investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

The removal proceedings against Boskic were commenced after he completed a substantial part of his sentence. It is still unclear whether Boskic will stand trial at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina or at the ICTY.

Grenada-Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Treaty Enters Into Force (Apr. 21, 2010)

Click here for press release (approximately 1 page)

On April 27, 2010, Foreign Ministers of Grenada and Trinidad and Tobago exchanged instruments of ratification of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas, one week after the formal treaty signing in Port of Spain.

According to the press release of Government of Grenada, the treaty is the “first delimitation agreement between Grenada and its oil-rich CARICOM [Caribbean Community] neighbour” and includes “a formal line which is drawn to indicate where Trinidad and Tobago’s jurisdiction ends and Grenada’s begins.” The treaty permits the exploration for oil and gas in Grenada’s waters and seeks the protection of marine species there.