law

RECENT POSTS

November 29, 2012 | 12:34 PM | By  | 

Rule of Law Index 2012 – latest from Seattle’s quiet revolutionary front | 

The new Rule of Law Index for 2102 is out! Apparently, Nordic countries are most law-abiding and Asia is full of scofflaws. Here’s a link to an interactive map (below is just a screen grab):

World Justice Project

Never heard of the Rule of Law Index?

It was started out of Seattle. I’ve mentioned before (here and here, for example) that post-WTO Battle in Seattle is still full of a lot of folks trying to change the world. This is another example.

William Neukom

The World Justice Project was launched a few years ago by Seattle attorney and former Microsoft general counsel Bill Neukom. The initiative is aimed at “reducing corruption, improving public health, enhancing education, lifting people from poverty and protecting them from injustices.” Neukom, I should note, was the lead attorney in Microsoft’s battle with the federal government defending the software giant from federal anti-trust charges and has worked hard to protect Microsoft’s intellectual property rights.

So, yes, he’s a corporate cage fighter. But that was his day job. Shining a light on global lawlessness, government corruption and human rights violations is Neukom’s side job.

As Inter Press reports, the project has issued its annual Rule of Law Index rankings of how well countries do when it comes to adhering to nine factors: Limited government powers; absence of corruption; order and security; fundamental rights; open government; regulatory enforcement; civil justice; criminal justice; and informal justice. The US did a fair to middling job, as Inter Press notes:

Botswana, in particular, scored consistently among the higher-income countries, besting the United States, for example, in three factors: providing fair and equal access to the criminal and civil justice systems, and fair enforcement of regulations.

Here’s the annual report for the 2012 rankings.

 

FILED UNDER: Basics, corruption, government, human rights, law, Microsoft, William Neukom, World Justice Project
February 28, 2012 | 10:12 AM | By  | 

On human rights, U.S. pursues ‘global governance’ on its own | 

The Council on Foreign Relations has produced an interactive “Global Governance” monitor to, as they say: “Track, map and evaluate international efforts to address today’s global challenges.”

Council on Foreign Relations

One of the categories monitored by CFR is international human rights (go to link for map, above is just a screen grab) which as you can tell upon a quick glance at the map is one issue in which the U.S. takes a minority stance.

I point this out because international human rights, as NPR reports, was a big issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The first case is brought by Nigerians with political asylum in the U.S. who are seeking to sue Shell Oil for complicity in government abuses and atrocities they suffered in Nigeria. The other regards an American citizen allegedly abducted and murdered by the Palestinian Liberation Organization:

Human rights are front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in two cases testing how American law intersects with international law. At issue in both cases is whether foreign nationals in the United States can sue corporations or other entities in U.S. courts for alleged violations of human rights.

Given this, it’s worth taking a closer look at CFR’s Human Rights map. It’s interactive, full of lots more information (and better resolution at their website).

As the map shows, the United States is among a minority of countries to have not agreed to adhere to the statutes of the International Criminal Court. I’m not an expert on international law, but I wondered if these cases going to the U.S. Supreme Court next week should not more appropriately be heard at the International Criminal Court.

Why is the U.S. legal system in charge of deciding if Nigerians can sue Royal Dutch Shell Oil? Why is the U.S. Supreme Court trying a case, the one against the Palestinian Authority, which perhaps should be more a matter for the International Criminal Court, or maybe the U.S. State Department or diplomats?

These cases are all being brought on the basis of some obscure 1789 law called the Alien Tort Law, which was originally passed to fight pirates. NPR reports:

Shell Oil counters that corporations cannot be sued in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute because international law doesn’t recognize corporate liability for human rights crimes.

Well, why doesn’t it? Again, I am not at all knowledgeable when it comes to international law. Are these cases being tried here because of the gaps in international law governing corporate behavior — or because the U.S. refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Or both?

In any case, the CFR map indicates how the U.S. often tends to avoid participating in  established ‘global governance’ mechanisms and, instead, often ends up trying to govern the globe on its own.

FILED UNDER: Justice, Politics, Council on Foreign Relations, human rights, International Criminal Court, law, Nigeria, Palestine, Shell Oil, Supreme Court