2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

I N T E R N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y A F F A I R S working through the UN—has been notoriously slow in arriving at a definition of terrorism. This report fully addresses these and other problems, concerns, and criticisms, indicating when they are justified and what can be done about it. Part I of the report surveys the conventions on terrorism, the treaties that require prosecution or extradition of suspected terrorists and those that require other anti-terrorism measures relating to finance and to security of nuclear facilities. Part II addresses anti-terrorism efforts in the UN context, including the negotiation of a comprehensive convention on terrorism and the adoption of a Security Council resolution requiring all states to take measures to suppress and prevent terrorism. Part III discusses the potential contribution of the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals to the prosecution of suspected terrorists. Part IV describes the array of international measures relevant to preventing terrorist acquisition of WMD, including WMD treaties, a Security Council resolution, export control arrangements, programs to secure materials and weapons, and the initiative to prevent shipment of WMDrelated items. I. CONVENTIONS ON TERRORISM (A) Treaties in Force Twelve multilateral treaties relating to terrorism have entered into force in the last forty years. The United States is a party to all of them. 5 (1) 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 6 This treaty does not define specific offenses; it broadly covers “(a) offences against penal law” and “(b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.” The state of registration of the aircraft is deemed to have jurisdiction over these acts and must enact legislation or other measures to ensure its ability to prosecute. The Tokyo Convention inter alia provides authority for the commander of the aircraft to take necessary measures to protect the 5. A list of the states that have signed, ratified or acceded to each of these treaties, along with reservations attached thereto is available from the United Nations Treaty Collection, http:// untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp. 6. Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (“Tokyo Convention”), Sept. 14, 1963, 20 U.S.T. 2941, 704 U.N.T.S. 219. T H E R E C O R D 22
P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E C U T I O N O F T E R R O R I S T A C T S aircraft and requires states to permit the aircraft to land and to take custody of the perpetrator when necessary. Many of the acts that fall within the scope of this treaty are also addressed in more detail in the aviation-related treaties described below. (2) 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 7 This treaty covers the prosecution of individuals accused of committing hijackings using force, threat of force, or any other form of intimidation. It also covers accomplices and attempted hijackings. State parties agree to adopt legislation making these acts punishable by “severe penalties.” States are required to take measures to establish jurisdiction over acts committed in their territory and in aircraft registered to them. States must also take measures to establish jurisdiction over alleged offenders located in their territory and either prosecute or extradite them. The Hague Convention improves on the Tokyo Convention by detailing specific unlawful acts and requiring prosecution or extradition and the administration of “severe penalties.” (3) 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation 8 This treaty covers violent acts against persons on board that are likely to endanger flight safety, destruction of the aircraft, damage to the aircraft that is likely to endanger flight safety, and destruction or damage of air navigation facilities. It also covers accomplices and attempted acts. Like the 1970 Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention requires states to adopt severe penalties against these offenses and to take measures to exercise jurisdiction over acts committed in their territory and in aircraft registered to them. States must also take measures to establish jurisdiction over alleged offenders located in their territory and either prosecute or extradite them. The distinction between the Hague and Montreal Conventions is that the Hague Convention is aimed at acts of hijackings, whereas the Montreal Convention covers bombings and other violent acts that are likely to cause an aircraft to crash. 7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (“Hague Convention”), Dec. 16, 1970, 22 U.S.T. 1641, 860 U.N.T.S. 105. 8. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (“Montreal Convention”), Sept. 23, 1971, 24 U.S.T. 564, 1975 U.N.T.S. 177. 2 0 0 7 V O L. 6 2 , N O. 1 23
Page 1 and 2: THE RECORD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF TH
Page 3 and 4: Of Note THE NEW YORK CITY BAR PRESE
Page 5 and 6: O F N O T E cial Department, were p
Page 7 and 8: R E C E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P
Page 21: P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E
Page 25 and 26: P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E
Page 71 and 72: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L devoted
Page 73 and 74:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L The Repo
Page 75 and 76:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L 2. It wo
Page 77 and 78:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Territor
Page 79 and 80:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L the U.S.
Page 81 and 82:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L An exemp
Page 83 and 84:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Conclusi
Page 85 and 86:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L do busin
Page 87 and 88:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L mestic i
Page 89 and 90:
Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 91 and 92:
Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 93 and 94:
J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N S
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
W E B S I T E A C C E S S I B I L I
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Formal Opinion 2006-3 Outsourcing L
Page 139 and 140:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 141 and 142:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 143 and 144:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 145 and 146:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 147 and 148:
Formal Opinion 2007-1 Applicability
Page 149 and 150:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 151 and 152:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 153 and 154:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 155 and 156:
Formal Opinion 2007-2 Secondment of
Page 157 and 158:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 159 and 160:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 161 and 162:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 163 and 164:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 165 and 166:
Report of the Task Force on the Law
Page 167 and 168:
L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
show all

2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?