A JUST WAR? PRESIDENT CLINTON’S RESPONSE TO KOSOVO
The problem confronts students with the political, legal and moral choices the U.S. faced when Yugoslavia violated the human rights of Albanians in Kosovo. Background materials review Balkans history and identify the options President Clinton and his advisers considered in January 1999. Students online may either read the text or listen to the audio of the President's address to the nation announcing NATO air strikes. Study guide multiple choice questions accompany each section, and a final three part essay requires systematic analysis of competing principles. A model answer presents conflicting arguments on the legality of NATO’s humanitarian intervention. Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 Case No. 200-3
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CONSIDERS GENOCIDE
A case brought by Bosnia in 1993 charges genocide and seeks damages from Serbia and Montenegro, the former Yugoslavia. Students can explore the facts, research the law, and consider opposing arguments that support one side or the other. Participants can earn a perfect score of 100 by identifying all the best facts and arguments that support each party before writing answers to two questions. After reading how the ICJ decided several issues in 1996, there is a final writing exercise to evaluate the court's opinion. Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 THRO Case No. 200-1
RAPE AND GENOCIDE IN RWANDA: THE ICTR'S AKAYESU VERDICT
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) heard Jean-Paul Akayesu accused of vicious gang rapes and genocide that took the lives of 2,000 Tutsis. The trial court chamber of three judges, two men and one woman, had an unprecedented opportunity to clarify whether rape during internal armed conflict constitutes genocide as well as a crime against humanity. Nongovernmental organizations worked to "engender" the Tribunal while holding accountable the Hutu leaders who orchestrated genocide. The critical 1998 verdict influenced states negotiating improved standards for the prosecution of sexual violence and the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court. Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 THRO Case No. 201-1
PRIME MINISTER RAO'S DILEMMA: TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
The case presents a dilemma confronted by the Indian Prime Minister in 1995 following a terrorist assassination of the Punjab Chief Minister. Political rivals in upcoming national elections might exploit a weak response, but the government's past anti-terrorist measures provoked domestic and international complaints of massive human rights violations. Prime Minister Rao must decide whether or not a) to comply with international law b) to prosecute security personnel who committed atrocities and c) to admit more international human rights observers. The exercise scores students on their ability to distinguish factors which favor human rights reform from those supporting counter-terrorist measures. After writing responses three questions students may review model answers that justify different policy choices. Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 THRO Case No. 200-2
SHAH BANO: MUSLIM WOMEN'S RIGHTS
In India, the "personal laws" of different religious communities that disadvantage women continue to be legally recognized in marriage and divorce cases. In Shah Bano the Supreme Court overruled a Muslim personal law and granted a woman alimony threatening the limited legal autonomy granted to the Muslim minority in India. In response, legislation was proposed to prevent such a court decision in the future. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi faced a rights dilemma in deciding whether to support the Supreme Court ruling or the new legislation. Should India have a uniform civil code or retain personal religious laws? How should we weigh individual women's rights against the rights of a disadvantaged minority group? Can or should we have universal women's rights? Are human rights only the rights of individuals? Can we preserve both cultural traditions and individual rights? Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 THRO Case No. 201-2
DOE V. UNOCAL: FORCED LABOR AND CORPORATE LIABILITY
Widespread allegations of forced labor made Burma's military regime an international pariah in the 1990s. Human rights advocates campaigned for sanctions at the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, the European Union, the U.S. Congress, and in state and local governments. Two major oil companies from France and the U.S. nevertheless proceeded with a natural gas pipeline which they maintained would benefit impoverished villagers and contribute to democratic reform. Burmese plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court charging the pipeline consortium with using forced labor conscripted by the military government. Doe v. Unocal raises significant issues of business ethics, international human rights law, and U.S. court procedure when multinationals allegedly violate rights. Copyright © ISSN 1529-2215 THRO Case No. 202-1
Sanctions or Engagement? SLORC in Myanmar: shares a common introduction with Doe v. Unocal, but then addresses a public policy question: Should the international and U.S. efforts to isolate the military regime be continued?
Business Ethics and SLORC: Unocal's Yadana Project presents the problem as a business ethics case using evidence uncovered in the Doe v. Unocal litigation. Available in PDF format.
GERMANY V. U.S.: THE LaGRAND DEATH PENALTY
In deciding whether to respect the 1999 ICJ decision ordering a delay in Walter LaGrand’s execution, U.S. and Arizona officials confronted the globalization of criminal procedure. Death penalty abolitionists used international treaties binding on the U.S. to challenge the execution of a foreign national denied timely notice of his right to consular assistance. At a time the U.S. finds that Shariah penalties of stoning to death and amputation violate universal human rights, Arizona allowed a German national to choose execution by lethal gas. The LaGrand case challenged the national executive, federal courts, and state government to make policy and legal decisions on compliance with international law. This teaching case might be used as a course module on international or U.S. Constitutional Law, criminal procedure, the death penalty, interest group and NGO litigation strategy, and global human rights. Instructors who wish to arrange an ICJ moot court, a U.S. Supreme Court simulation, Clemency Board role play, or cabinet level debate should consult the appendix listing key decision makers on the ICJ, U.S. Supreme Court, the NGO advocates, and responsible officials from Germany, the U.S., and Arizona.
