Search results

The case came as a result of information that Afghan terror detainees transferred by the British Armed Forces to the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) were beaten and physically mistreated. Maya Evans, a U.K. peace activist, sought to stop that practice and brought a case before the British High Court of Justice. On 25 June 2010, the Court decided that there was a chance that detainees were indeed mistreated at the NDS detention facility in Kabul. Therefore, the Court banned detainee transfers to this NDS facility. Transfers to the NDS facilities in Kandahar and Lashkar Gah remained allowed, although the Court imposed a series of ‘safeguards’ and monitoring arrangements on all future transfers of detainees.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, are remote-controlled, unmanned planes that can be operated from anywhere in the world by pilots located thousands of miles away from the drone. Specific individuals can be targeted and fired upon from thousands of miles away.

Amidst reports that the United States Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are using drone strikes to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the non-profit organisation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a request with the US Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to records about the US drone program as well as its legal basis under domestic and international law. Faced with a refusal from the CIA to even confirm or deny the existence of such records, the ACLU filed a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court held, however, that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records falls within the exemptions to disclosure outlined by the Freedom of Information Act because such records pertain to national security and are protected from disclosure by the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the National Security Act of 1947.

The decision is presently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Between 1931 and 1945, some 200,000 women were forced into sexual slaverty by the Japenese Army. These women, referred to as “comfort women” were recruited through forcible abductions, deception and coercion. Once captured, they were taken by the Japanese military to “comfort stations”, that is, facilities seized or built by the military near the front lines for express purpose of housing these women. Once there, the women would be repeatedly raped, tortured, beaten, mutilated and sometimes murdered. They were denied proper medical attention, shelter and nutrition.

The present lawsuit was brought by fifteen former “comfort women” against Japan on the basis of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action on the grounds that Japan enjoyed immunity from proceedings as a sovereign State and the action did not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in the FSIA.

After the ‘Coastal Road Massacre’ of 11 March 1978 in Israel, the injured victims of the attack and relatives of the deceased attempted to take legal action in the United States against several non-state organisations and Libya, which they considered responsible for the attack. They based their action on, most importantly, a paragraph of the US Code which allows aliens to file action against an alleged violation of the law of nations or a treaty. 

After the District Court had dismissed their case, the Court of Appeals had to assess the plaintiffs’ appeal against this Opinion. It turned out that the Appellate Panel disagreed on basically everything except on the final conclusion: the dismissal was affirmed. Judge Bork denied the existence of a right to sue altogether, stating that nor the law of nations, nor treaties provided the plaintiffs with this right. Judge Robb considered the questions to be answered in this case too political to be answered in a court. Matters regarding the international status of terrorist acts and sensitive matters of diplomacy should be left to politicians, in his opinion.