The political philosophers of the eighteenth century might have been surprised if told that their favorite doctrine of natural rights was the intellectual successor of certain theories of the Roman law and of the scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yet the “ state of nature,” which filled so large a place in the discussion of natural rights, has been called “ an exaggerated perversion of what, in traditional system, was quite a subordinant point” From Locke to Hooker, and back through the scholastic philosophy, the germ of natural rights has been traced to the jus naturœ and the jus gentium of the Roman law. Grotius and his successors preserved the tradition in another and more direct line. The continuity of Grotius with the doctrine of the Roman law was complete. “ The law of nature,” said Holland, “ is the foundation, or rather the scaffolding, upon which the modern science of International Law was built up by Gentilis and Grotius. The change in the meaning of jus gentium made by Grotius and his successors, and the influence which the jus naturœ had in forming the new conception of the law of nations can only be referred to here.

Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse, & Nzirorera. Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73(C). Decision on Prosecutor's Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Judicial Notice. At <http://www.ictr.org>.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Appeals Chamber, June 16, 2006.

In an interlocutory appeal in Prosecutor v. Karemera, the appeals chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) held that the commission of genocide against the Tutsis in 1994 is a “fact of common knowledge” of which trial chambers must take judicial notice (Appeals Decision, paras. 35, 38). The decision represents a significant reversal in ICTR practice: although some trial chambers have been willing to take notice of “widespread and systematic attacks” against Tutsis in Rwanda, they have uniformly insisted that the question of whether the attacks amounted to genocide is so fundamental that formal proof is required.

As noted in the indictment, Edouard Karemera and Jospeh Nzirorera were minister-level officials in the Rwanda’ interim government (Indictment, paras. 1, 3) and served, along with Mathieu Ngirumpatse, as the national executive leadership of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND) (id., para. 9). They are charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, genocide, and—alternatively—complicity in genocide (id.). The prosecution alleges that they created, recruited, and organized the Interahamwe, the vicious youth wing of the MRND; provided members of the Interahamwe with weapons and military training; and helped formulate and implement policies of the interim government of April 8, 1994, that were intended to incite, encourage, and abet killings of Tutsis (id., para. 14).

Until recently, the view that new states start life unencumbered by the treaties which applied to their territories before independence has been almost universally and, too often, one might add, uncritically accepted. An exception, often explained away as only apparent, was made for “localized” treaties. And in the past fifteen or twenty years, the case for the continued force of multilateral “lawmaking” treaties has been pressed; this would be a real exception to the general clean-slate rule. Unless a bilateral treaty could be characterized as “localized,” however, the new state, according to the prevailing opinion, was freed of any continuing obligation by the act of becoming independent.

One of the best-known antitrust decisions in the last quarter of a century is United States v. Aluminum Company of America et al., now usually referred to as the ALCOA case. Although the Sherman Act had for some time been given an extraterritorial application when American corporations were involved, the novelty of ALCOA was that the decision, written by that eminent jurist, Judge Learned Hand, for the first time interpreted our antitrust laws as rendering illegal contracts of a foreign corporation which were made abroad with other foreign corporations and which related to business carried on and to acts to be performed abroad. No American party was involved, and no act took place in the United States, in the part of the case that is here to be considered. Jurisdiction was claimed merely on the basis of an adverse “effect” on our foreign and domestic commerce.

The third item on the first list of subject-matters taken up for further consideration by the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law (Geneva, April 8,1925) reads: "Diplomatic privileges and immunities." It is to be hoped and expected that the committee, in considering a problem as old as international law itself, will not feel satisfied with clinging to conceptions and solutions of by-gone centuries, but will endeavor to give them, within the frame-work of post-war international law, a new stamp.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) was precipitated by several of the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. First, the administration perceived the need to respond to the Court’s invalidation of the military commissions established pursuant to the president’s Military Order of November 13,2001, as contrary to Congress’s stipulation that such tribunals conform to the laws of war. In addition, the Court’s holding that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda carried important implications for other national security policies. Most important, the Court’s interpretation of the scope of common Article 3 imperiled the president’s program for the interrogation of Qaeda detainees because that article prohibits cruel and degrading treatment and violating it was a criminal offense under the War Crimes Act.

Gentlemen: The address that I am to make, in response to the gracious invitation of our eminent President, on this too burning and too present subject, will be a very simple and a very modest endeavor. Do not expect a doctrinal study, an exposition, or a critical appreciation of the conduct of the belligerents in the struggle that is being so desperately waged on both sides. The time has not yet come to pass reasoned judgment upon the acts which have been committed by certain belligerents and which are of such a nature as to humiliate us as men and to distress us as Frenchmen. I am speaking here in the name of the Institute as a whole. In addition, the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, which is particularly well qualified in such matters by reason of the nature of its studies, has expressly commissioned me, as one of its members, to lay before you its protest against these abominable acts. Can it be possible that mankind, whom we have considered civilized through the efforts of many centuries, has come to such a pass? I do not wish to say anything of a polemical nature, which is not in keeping in this place and at this time. I wish to confine myself to statements of a purely legal character. The brevity of the exposition may incline you to excuse its dryness.

The fifty-eighth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights opened with the United States in an observer seat for the first time ever. The Commission ultimately adopted ninety-two resolutions and eighteen decisions, thirty-nine of which were adopted by roll-call vote. Subsequently, at its July 2002 session, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC, the parent body of the Commission) approved nearly all of the Commission's decisions by similar votes. The United States was also reelected to the Commission for its fiftyninth session during a separate ECOSOC meeting.

The debate during the Commission's deliberations was more chaotic and fractious than in prior years, reflecting the membership of an increased number of repressive governments that sought to block international scrutiny of their human rights practices.