Week in Review and How Satellites Could Prove Helpful in the Battle Against Human Rights Violations

From an international law perspective, this past week was quite eventful. On September 25, 2007, the General Assembly commenced its 62nd session of general debate [website] with the appearance of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, being the source of major commotion. In addition, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia rendered another decision sentencing two former senior officers of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and acquitted another. The press release to the decision can be found here and the decision here.

On another note, National Geographic reported [report, in English] this week that satellite images could help to expose and monitor human rights abuses. A collaboration of three human rights organizations with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) [website] analyzed satellite images of eastern Myanmar. With the help of those images, researchers could back reports of human rights violations in that region. For example, comparison of high resolution satellite images of rural dwellings at two different time points appear to document complete destruction of settlements. Such methods could prove useful in cases where the sending of envoys and journalists to countries suspected of committing human rights violations is either prohibited or very difficult to achieve. The hope is that satellite images providing tangible proof of human rights abuses get accepted by the international community and put human rights violators under pressure by making it more difficult for them to mask their deeds.

Recent Microsoft Decision Strains the Relationship Between the EU and the US

This week, the European Court of First Instance (for a short introduction to the EU judicial system visit my website) upheld a ruling by the European Commission imposing a $ 700 Million fine against Microsoft [link to decision]. The Court examined the following issues: (1) Microsoft's refusal to provide competitors with so-called "interoperability information", (2) Microsoft's "tying" of the Media Player to the Windows PC operating system, and (3) the Commission's decision to appoint a "monitoring trustee" in order to keep an eye on Microsoft's compliance with EU law. With regards to point (3) the Court found no legal basis in Community law for the appointment of a monitoring trustee. On point 1 and 2, however, the Court agreed with the Commission. The Court essentially based its decision on Microsoft's dominant position on the PC operating system market. According to the Court, a corporation with a dominant role may under certain circumstances be compelled to grant a license. After discussion of pertinent EU case law, the Court determined three such circumstances:

"– in the first place, the refusal relates to a product or service indispensable to the exercise of a particular activity on a neighbouring market;

– in the second place, the refusal is of such a kind as to exclude any effective competition on that neighbouring market;

– in the third place, the refusal prevents the appearance of a new product for which there is potential consumer demand."

For more information, please refer to the Court's decision. A good summary of the decision is provided by the press release which is available here.

With regards to the Windows Media Player, the Court essentially holds that customers should have a choice whether to have the Media Player or another competing product instead. Microsoft now has two months to file an appeal with the European Court of Justice.

The above-discussed judgment has turned sour the relationship between the United States and the European Union. Following the publication of the decision, Thomas Barnett, the US antitrust official, vehemently criticized the judgment. In his view, the decision could prove harmful to the consumer, cool down innovation, and discourage competition. The European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, countered calling Barnett's statements unacceptable because he should not have criticized a court outside his jurisdiction. Reuters has more [news article, in English].

As globalization and internet foster transnationalism, shouldn't this also be reflected in the legal debate? Sure, the fact that a US state official expresses criticism with regards to a decision by a European Court may give such criticism more weight. Yet, differing opinions are inherent to the legal world, and even more so if different legal systems are involved. Ideally, such divergent opinions should initiate legal debate which might finally lead to a new consensus in the spirit of transnational law.

Lawsuit Against God - Does a US Court Have Jurisdiction?

Last week, State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha filed a lawsuit against God accusing the Almighty of terrorist threats, causation of fear, death and destruction. With his suit, the Senator intended to make a legal point by showing that everyone can sue everyone in US courts. Meanwhile, God seems to have filed two responses in which he challenges the jurisdiction of a US court to try the case. AP has more.

From a conflict of laws perspective this is an interesting question. Does the fact that a Nebraskan Senator takes offense warrant assumption of jurisdiction by a US court? The global scope of the alleged malefactions makes the decision not easier. Alternatively, the domicile of the defendant could be pivotal which raises the issue of locating God. Considering the omnipresence of the Almighty, a domicile in the US could be construed ... Given the complexity of the situation, maybe the US court could request legal assistance and ask Jesus - or his deputy to avoid bias - for a Last Judgment.

Addendum to European Treaty Updates

Ever wondered about how all these European Treaties interrelate? In order to cast light on the thicket of treaties, I have posted a slide presentation on the Core European Treaties on my website. I hope this helps.