Suchergebnisse

At the time this essay is being written (in mid-February), much is still not known about the system of military commissions contemplated by the president's Military Order of November 13, 2001, and about the circumstances in which such commissions will be used. For example, it is not yet clear what offenses will be tried, what rules of evidence will be adopted, whether the defendants' choice of counsel will be restricted, and whether defendants will be able to pursue ajudicial appeal of their conviction or a collateral challenge to their detention. Presumably, these points will be clarified by further orders or regulations from the executive branch.

Since the end of the Cold War a decade ago, the United Nations has exercised authority in significant new ways to address various aspects of resolving conflicts and dealing with their consequences. These new approaches have included the use offeree to end interstate and internal violence, the resolution of boundary issues and other disputes that might prolong the conflict, the elimination of threatening weapons capabilities, the prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law, and the compensation of victims of the conflict. These actions have been taken either with the consent of the state or states involved, or pursuant to the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or both.

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) responded to requests by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. These opinions deserve careful attention, and have already been the subject of considerable scholarly commentary.