International

John RWD Jones and Dr Misa Zgonec-Rozej discuss the UN asset-freezing regime which recently came under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.  

The first case heard by the Supreme Court, A v HM Treasury [2010]UKSC 2, [2010]2WLR 378, dealt with the UN Security Council’s (“UNSC”) counter-terrorism measures – namely (a) the sanctions regime against Al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated persons and entities and (b) measures of a general nature provided in UNSC resolution 1373 (2001) to prevent and suppress any acts of terrorism. 

Mr Justice Fulford believes that trial by jury would cause insurmountable practical problems in administering justice.  

The most effective means of delivering international criminal justice has long been debated, and perhaps this vexed issue was most vociferously and comprehensively addressed during the relatively recent Preparatory Committee for the International Criminal Court, which culminated in the Rome Conference in 1998. During those memorable – indeed, now near legendary – debates the majority of the countries of the world investigated, wrestled with, and argued over how best to create a workable and appropriate form of trial for the world’s first permanent international criminal court. 

Joseph Holmes argues the case for trial by jury in international criminal trials.  

The objective of international criminal justice is, backed by the weight of global consensus, to replace the “culture of impunity” with a “culture of accountability”. However, there is a real danger that the administration of international criminal justice is coloured by political influence. Consider the following basic propositions. 

Oliver Doherty, who attended the 2009 annual Salzburg Summer School on international criminal law, commends the course to students and junior practitioners alike.  

At the end of the Bar Vocational Course, (soon to become the Bar Professional Training Course) many aspiring barristers, whether or not they have secured pupillages, seek opportunities for volunteering and broadening their horizons, including short university courses which focus on particular areas of practice. 

Adrian Hughes QC and Steven Thompson discuss the Bar Council’s engagement with China’s rapidly developing legal market.  

Change in China has been rapid and extraordinary since the first visit of a Bar Council delegation 20 years ago. At that time, the Pu Dong commercial area of Shanghai was still marshland and the emerging Chinese legal profession entering only its second decade. Now, as the main image of Pu Dong’s financial district shows (see below), the landscape is completely different. 

Max Hardy reports on the UK’s participation in the 2009 International Moot Court.  

It sometimes seems that what lawyers contribute to the proper functioning of society is either overlooked or treated with an erosive level of cynicism. It was therefore hugely refreshing to go to The Hague where there is  a very different attitude. The city can lay claim to being the capital of international jurisprudence, being the seat of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It was therefore a very appropriate place to take part, on 20–21 November 2009, in the International Moot Court (“IMC”). The IMC was founded 12 years ago to coincide with the 750th anniversary of the foundation of The Hague. 

James Ewins, the Field Office Director of IJM in Bangalore, explains how he is using his legal experience and skills gained at the family Bar to his advantage in freeing slaves in India.  

It may seem like a career at the family Bar advising upon and litigating big-money divorce cases has nothing in common with freeing slaves in South India. And I confess it was not any similarity in the subject matter that persuaded me to move to Bangalore with my wife and three children, to be Director of the International Justice Mission (“IJM”) field office there. But having been here for a few months, I have come to appreciate how my experience can be used to my advantage, and through me to the advantage of the millions of slaves in India today. 

What happens when the judiciary in young democracies seeks to apply result-orientated judgments to the emotional evaluation of a particular case? South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has had to deal with two such cases. David Wurtzel reports on Mr Justice Harms’ speech to CEBA.  

When does judging become irrational? When it reaches a conclusion and then looks for the reasons to justify it. On 8 June Mr Justice Harms, the Deputy President of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”), gave a speech to the Commonwealth in England Barristers’ Association (“CEBA”) on how creative judging or result-orientated judgments—ie reaching a conclusion and then looking for the reasons to justify it—has been used in an emerging democracy with reference to two specific cases before the SCA. The following is an extract from his speech. 

Sam Clyndes, who worked as an intern at the Mississippi Office of Capital Defense Counsel, highlights the problems facing defendants in death-penalty cases.  

What is the road to judicial killing in the state of Mississippi, where I spent three months on an internship with Amicus, the charity which assists in the provision of legal representation for those awaiting capital trial and punishment in the US, at the Office of Capital Defense Counsel (“OCDC”)? 

Sappho Dias sends a clear message to the judges purporting to try Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.