• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
As the demand for corroborating evidence for asylum cases rises, the reliability of that evidence takes on increasing importance. This EXPANDED VERSION of the article addresses how the reliability of documentary evidence is evaluated at the various levels of the asylum process, and also examines the history of how this regime came into being.

NEW in the expanded version is a detailed discussion of the history of the immigration authentication rule (8 C.F.R. § 287.6) in the context of two regimes of standard formation: the creation of federal rules of evidence and civil procedure; and the history and development of two international treaty regimes: the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Such a history demonstrates two interrelated trends: (1) that legacy INS and its successors have been slow to adopt best practices developed by U.S. and international bodies over decades of practical experience; and (2) the development of the immigration document authentication rule in the immigration context has failed to take into account special concerns raised by asylum claims.

The article also summarizes the current state of affairs when it comes to how various adjudicators view the reliability of documentary evidence, such as whether or not an applicant for asylum must strictly adhere to the immigration document authentication regimes. In the Maybe You Should camp, Asylum Offices and some federal circuits courts of appeals do not require strict adherence to the immigration rules of authentication. In the Yes You Must camp, some immigration judges and some federal circuit courts support exclusion of evidence if authentication rules are not strictly followed. Finally, the State Department says that if you are an asylum applicant than No You Can't directly verify documents with investigations through consular offices overseas.

Immigration law, asylum, evidence, refugee, treaty, hague convention on foreign documents, apostille, refugee convention, evidence, document authentication, document reliability, forensic document examination

Abstract:
"Little bells" refer to cluster bomblets in Serbo-Croatian. Two international tribunals recently have found defendants liable for civilian deaths caused by cluster munitions. These decisions may herald a turning point in the regulation of these weapons. In 2004, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission held Eritrea liable for civilians killed in cluster munition strikes on Mekele, Ethiopia. On June 12, 2007, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia held the former president of the now defunct Serbian Republic of Krajina criminally liable for deaths and injuries resulting from cluster munition rocket attacks on Zagreb.

Cluster bombs came back onto the world stage during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, with both sides of the conflict deploying the weapon in irresponsible ways. By early 2007, momentum had gathered for a treaty banning cluster bombs. Efforts are also underway at the national level to regulate their use. The two judgments have much to contribute to the current debate over how to eliminate or limit the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions.

These cases are the only ones to date to address several humanitarian law issues in the debate over cluster munition regulation. Adjudicators grappled with whether the characteristics of cluster munitions can be used as evidence of intent to attack civilians or of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks; what precautions users of these weapons must take in advance; and what role does foreknowledge about the wide area nature as well as landmine-like effects of cluster munitions have on culpability. This article analyzes the two judgments in detail and presents lessons to be learned:

A. Advance Awareness of Cluster Weapon Characteristics Can Lead to Criminal Liability

B. The Use of Unguided Cluster Munitions With Wide Area Effects May Lead to Criminal Liability

C. Cluster Munition Use Against Military Targets in Civilian Areas Should Be Presumptively Off-Limits

D. Restricting Cluster Munition Use Should Not Be Seen as a Green Light to Use Even More Destructive Weapons Indiscriminately

E. Duds Matter: Probable Harm in the Immediate and Longer Term Aftermath Must Be a Part of the Proportionality Equation

F. Magic Bullets? Why Trying to Build Better Cluster Bombs Does Not Resolve All the Indiscriminate Effects Associated with Their Use

humanitarian law, cluster bombs, cluster munitions, landmines, law of war, military law, proportionality, attacks on civilians

Abstract:
In February 2007, 46 nations called for a treaty banning inhumane cluster munitions by the end of 2008. After decades of painstakingly slow progress in regulating the use of cluster munitions, a significant portion of the international community appears ready to take more dramatic steps to ameliorate the negative consequences of producing, stockpiling, using, and transferring these weapons. This article provides a brief survey of some developments over the past four years.

International law, cluster munitions, law of war, treaties

Abstract:
This paper addresses basic legal principles of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and how cluster munitions fit into that framework. It then lays out the reasons for ratifying Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The article goes on to argue that another international protocol specifically addressing cluster munitions is needed to clarify international humanitarian law by giving greater emphasis to humanitarian concerns. Finally suggestions are made or actions that can be taken at the national and bi-lateral level to curtail cluster munition use.

International law, law of war, war, human rights