Ian Hurd, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, writing at preeminent international law blog Opinio Juris:

It is well known that the [U.N.] Charter forbids the use of force except as self-defense or as sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Everything else amounts to aggression and is illegal.

The issue of whether and how the U.S. and/or the rest of the world should react to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is open to debate on ethical, moral, political, and practical levels.

But it is not open to any debate from an international law perspective: the U.S. proposal, whether approved and implemented by President Obama or the Congress to which he has deferred on the decision, is prohibited generally by international law and specifically by the United Nations charter.

I wrote yesterday about Ms. Dalelv’s 16-month sentence for sex outside marriage, among other absurd charges to levy against a victim of rape, in the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. I’m happy to report that, according to Reuters, the 24-year-old has been “pardoned” and will be able to go back to Norway.

The fact that UAE called it a “pardon” is as unconscionable as the sentence itself, but freedom by any name is better than being jailed in the kind of nation that would punish a rape victim.

Update: she has been “pardoned.”

A Norwegian woman was raped, reported it to police, and was charged and convicted of extramarital sex, drinking alcohol, and perjury. She was sentenced to 16 months in jail.

For being raped.

And that’s three months longer than her attacker.

This is a major problem of international law. What happens when the economic and business relationship between two states places citizens in the crosshairs of antiquated and ignorant laws? What is the remedy when the Western expectations of a visitor are shattered by foreign norms that, well, prompt Western folks to use words like “antiquated” and “ignorant.”

The Norwegian government has the woman safely housed in what sounds like a naval base, but there is a warrant out for her arrest.

We will find out. I’ll be keeping an eye on this story.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times:

the new proposal focuses on strengthening wiretap orders issued by judges. Currently, such orders instruct recipients to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, leaving wiggle room for companies to say they tried but could not make the technology work. Under the new proposal, providers could be ordered to comply, and judges could impose fines if they did not.

Concerns that this would prompt similar measures from repressive governments abroad are not overblown. If we expect foreign companies to submit to these procedures, their governments will expect US companies to do the same. I’m surprised this article doesn’t mention anything about what the Obama administration’s diplomats and international law folks think about all of this.

The Carribean nation Antigua and Barbuda and the World Trade Organization say a US ban on online gambling is costing jobs and “billions of dollars.” The WTO has approved a plan to allow infringement of US-based copyright interests to the tune of $21 million per year.

The recovery looks de minimis next to the claimed loss, but experts quoted in Annie Lowery’s New York Times article are probably right: this a ploy to get US artists up in arms about Congress conceding to Antigua and Barbuda on this conflict.

What a strange, strange story.

As I learned in that international law class I took last semester (for which, in case you were wondering, I earned a very respectable grade), there are Administration lawyers working feverishly behind every such move to ensure that we’re complying with international law, or that we have defensible reasons why we are not so compliant.

If international law interests you at all, particularly the role treaties play, you should click the link above this sentence. Professor Duncan Hollis edited The Oxford Guide to Treaties and is an expert on the topic. I’m currently in his International Law course at Temple Law and his experience and expertise make it a must-take course for anyone considering Temple Law.

Cliff Kuang of Co.Design:

Whatever your stance on drone killings, the fact remains that there’s been very little national dialogue on the topic. Indeed, some would say that’s a direct result of the main problem with the policy: Its complete lack of transparency.

Mr. Kuang points to the New York Times piece from this past June. It’s a good place to start, and taken along with this the infographic, starts to bring the severity of the issue into focus.

Perhaps reasonable people will come to different conclusions, but if you don’t at least have an opinion on this, get one.

Joseph Menn, quoting an anonymous source for Reuters:

We knew certain parts of government really wanted” evidence of active spying, said one of the people, who requested anonymity. “We would have found it if it were there.

I don’t know enough about this specific issue and the problem of cyberwarfare threats generally. My time in International Law this semester and previous courses like Cyberlaw and Cyberprivacy are coalescing in my mind into a strong area of interest, though, so I expect to follow this and similar issues closely and (hopefully) develop more substantive opinions about them over the next two months.