Search results

In July 1995, the safe haven of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces resulting in the deaths of between 8 000 and 10 000 individuals. Members of the Dutch battalion who were responsible for the safeguarding of the enclave were completely overrun by the forces of General Mladic.

In 2007, a civil action was filed before the District Court of The Hague by 10 women whose family members died in the genocide as well the Mothers of Srebrenica, a Dutch association representing 6 000 survivors. They are demanding compensation from the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by alleging that both are responsible for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica.

In the present decision, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the 2008 decision of the District Court of The Hague that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the United Nations enjoyed absolute immunity from proceedings.

Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, Ziyad Yaghi, and Hysen Sherifi are three Americans charged with conspiring to engage in various terrorist activities. The district court convicted them of various counts of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism abroad. Sherifi was also convicted of conspiring to kill members of the uniformed services within the United States.

The defendants had performed various overt acts in furtherance of a terrorist conspiracy, including travelling to the Middle East, participating in weapons trainings and creating a weapons arsenal, raising money for violent jihadist efforts, and posting about their extremist beliefs on social media.

On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appellants challenged their convictions on constitutional and evidentiary grounds. They first argued that the convictions were based on constitutionally protected speech (First Amendment). They also made various evidentiary challenges, including a challenge to the admissibility of lay and expert witness testimony, as well as social media videos and videos collected from defendant’s cell phone demonstrating weapon training. Finally, they challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction.

The Court dismissed all of the appellant’s challenges and upheld the district court’s conviction on all of the charges.

During the Vietnam war, the United States used herbicides (including ‘Agent Orange’) in an effort to deprive the enemy of places to hide in forests and agricultural lands. In the decades after the war, reports on detrimental health effects of Agent Orange started coming out.

In this case, a Vietnamese organisation and several Vietnamese individuals did not sue the United States directly, but claimed that several chemical corporations by manufacturing the herbicides had violated national and international law. The Court rejected their claims based on national law, as under US law product liability against government contractors is barred.

Although the Court held that corporations can be held liable under international law, it also rejected the international law based claims as it did not find any international legal obligation which prohibited the US from using herbicides during the Vietnam war. The Court especially emphasised that the herbicides were not used with the specific intent to harm persons, but to ‘kill plants’. The Court held that since the use of herbicides during the Vietnam war had not been illegal, the manufacturers were not liable. The case was dismissed.

During the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, the United States sprayed toxic herbicides in areas of South Vietnam. Herbicides were considered effective in meeting important US and allied military objectives in Vietnam. Vietnamese nationals and a Vietnamese organisation representing the victims of Agent Orange brought a case before US court against several US-registered companies that were deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War. They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides.

The Plaintiffs brought the case to court under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants the district courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien claiming damages for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty of the United States. They also asserted claims grounded in domestic tort law. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

The District court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of international law because Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) was used to protect United States troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations. On 22 February 2008, the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision.

Lawrence G. Hutchins III was a U.S. Marine Sergeant and a squad leader of a unit conducting counterinsurgency operations. Together with seven other U.S. Marines, they were accused of having killed Iraqi war veteran Hashim Ibrahim Awad on 26 April 2006.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction due to lack of a fair trial when one of Hutchins’ primary attorneys departed shortly before the court-martial began. Hutchins was once more freed on appeal on 26 June 2013 when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out the convictions entered against him, after he has served half of his 11-year sentence. On 28 January 2014 the commanding general of the U.S. Marine Corps moved for third retrial “due to the seriousness of the charges and the amount of evidence that had been compiled through investigations.”