The Volokh Conspiracy

Despite the recent United Nations Human Rights Council’s report, France and many other European countries are against attempts to revive the peace process, end the occupation and remove settlements. They prefer a “long-term stalemate” (which sounds like Boogie Yaalon’s “long term conflict management plan“). Outside pressure to push peace could backfire and benefit hardliners on both sides, according to European journalists interviewed recently by Reuters.

Of course, I am not talking about Israel’s occupation of parts of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine previously occupied by Jordan, but rather about Turkey’s occupation of a full-fledged EU member state.

In other European contortions, while France bombs terrorists “on the footsteps of Europe” in Mali, thousands of Hezbollah members operate openly in Europe. Their activities are now known to include bus bombing. France and other European powers have long been reluctant to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization – apparently because they only kill Jews, and most elsewhere, according to an astounding analysis in the New York Times:

There’s the overall fear if we’re too noisy about this, Hezbollah might strike again, and it might not be Israeli tourists this time,” said Sylke Tempel, editor in chief of the German foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik.

Europe has recently been indicating that it will be pressuring Israel to take so-called risks for peace. But Europe is not unbiased, nor is its attitude towards Israel driven principally by Israel’s actions. European actors are driven by political agendas, fear, and a variety of factors. And given their fear of taking on Turkey, or even Hezbollah, they are ill placed to talk about risks for peace.

France is fighting a rather serious war in Mali. What does international law say about this go-it-alone incursion into a foreign country? Given the controversy over recent interventions with mixed motives, such as the U.S. war in Iraq, it is worth consider the international legal basis for the assault and its conduct.

I. Security Council Resolution.
France has invoked the U.N. Security Council Res. 2085, passed on Dec. 20th, as the basis for their intervention. However, this is not so simple. Yes, the Council did use its Chapter VII authority to “authorize the deployment” of foreign forces to Mali – just not French force. Rather, the entire resolution is about green-lighting the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA), a ECOWACS effort. France is not part of AFISMA, or of ECOWACS. Only AFISMA is authorized to “support the Malian authorities in recovering the areas in the north of its territory under the control of terrorist, extremist and armed groups.” (Par. 9b).

As for other U.N. member states, the resolution merely calls on them to provide logistic, training and other kinds of “support” to the ECOWACS mission (par. 14). France is not providing support, it is taking the lead role in direct combat operations. Indeed, it jumped in before AFISMA got there, because it judges the U.N. authorized African effort would be too little, too late.

Alas, an authorization by one group of countries to intervene is not a carte blanche to all interested parties, and we will have to look elsewhere for France’s authority. One should add that this aggressive reading of UN resolutions is a bit ironic given France’s criticism of US readings of resolution before the Iraq War.

II. Third-party defense: Mali’s invitation.
France’s use of force in Mali is a lot less troublesome because it was done at the invitation of the government of Mali. Every nation has the inherent right of self-defense, recognized by Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter; the charter also allows states to come to the defense of others. This kind of thing should raise no eyebrows.

There are two wrinkles in the current situation worth mentioning. First, the Malian leadership was, at least until France’s invasion, not recognized by the international community, or France for that matter, as the country’s constitutional government. Last March, a group of soldiers lead by junior officers overthrew the democratically elected government. The action met with broad international condemnation. France, for example, proclaimed that it “condemns this forceful overthrow of the constitutional order in the strongest possible terms. It calls for the restoration of the constitution and institutions.” The military junta agreed to put in a puppet prime minister for to head an interim government pending elections, easing some international concerns. But then the army sacked the new interim prime minister in December, in what I would call a “re-coup.”

Indeed, the ECOWACS forces were first being sent to Mali to topple the government they are now coming to assist. The dubiousness of the government may be way France makes its weak Security Council resolution claim.

France is of course free to recognize anyone it wants as the legitimate government of Mali, and one does not need to be to “legit” to be a legitimate government. I do not know the status of EU, French or US relations with the government. But it is at least not fully satisfying if the invasion of Mali, and bombardment of its cities at the risk of innocent casualties, is authorized by a new half-baked junta. We wouldn’t want that to become a rule, to put it mildly.

There is a further wrinkle: France is helping Mali against an internal threat. The International Court of Justice, however, ruled that “self defense” within the meaning of the UN Charter only applies to foreign invasion. Now of course it said that in an advisory opinion which in no way binds France, or any other country. Moreover, it was the opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, so the reasoning was probably of a very sui generis kind (and was criticized as such by Judges Buergenthal and Higgins).

III. Self-defense.
France has also described the action as one of its own self-defense. The defense minister has said that they were acting quickly to prevent the creation of “a terrorist state at the doorstep of France and Europe.” Of course, this would expand the concept of anticipatory self-defense beyond any broad contours suggested for it, and should probably not be understood as a legal justification, rather than an explanation of why it choose to intervene in this former colonial conflict, and not, say, the much bloodier one in its former colony of Syria.

IV. Conclusion.
Whatever reservations one might have about the legitimacy of the Malian military-run government, they do appear to be the de fact authority in the country to the extent there is one. Certainly in the absence of protest by any other claimants to official authority, French action does not seem to violate international law in any formal way. However, its invocations of Security Council resolutions and self-defense are as spurious as superflous.

NEXT WEEK: Hopefully some discussion of France’s use of force, especially given it is conducting operations against ununiformed combatants in civilian population centers. I would like to know more about the extent of civilian casualties, but doubt there will be an international inquiry.

In the next few days, I’ll discuss possible sources of Art. I authority for the the federal prosecution of three foreigners for fighting on the side of al-Shabab in Somalia, and brought forcibly to the U.S. for trial. Previously, I’ve argued that this prosecution cannot be sustained under the Offenses Clause. But first lets put this in historical and political context.

The use of the material support statute to prosecute foreign fighters in foreign wars is certainly novel, but it has a a historical cousin, which highlights the unusualness of the present prosecution in Brooklyn.

The Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, and subsequent Act, banned Americans from participating, or providing what we might call material support, to the belligerents in the Napoleonic Wars. The idea was such involvement could drag the U.S. into the war. The measures were extremely controversial, leading to the Pacificus-Helvedius debate between Hamilton and Madison. One of the secondary questions was the source of constitutional authority: it was variously placed in what I’d call the “dormant war power” – violations of neutrality by citizens undermined Congress’s prerogative of choosing our wars – or various treaty obligations to the particular warring states. Foreign commerce would do too. (I discuss the Art. I basis for the law in Part II.D.2 of this new article.)

The extraterritorial application of the Material Support statute to foreigners engaged in foreign wars essentially applies the Neutrality Act to the world. Not only must Americans stay of the of designated conflicts, everyone else must to. Of course, the effect is the opposite of the Neutrality Act: instead of distancing the US from foreign wars, it imports them into U.S. court rooms.

It is interesting to note that two of the men have Swedish citizenship, and the third had British citizenship. He became a news item last year when the U.K. revoked his citizenship shortly before his mysterious disappearance in Africa. He only reappeared in Brooklyn federal district court.

Given the lack of protest by Sweden, and the citizenship-stripping by Britain, one might think they are happy/complicit about the U.S. prosecution. I’ve noted before the process of “Goalization,” how countries transfer pirates to African countries with less cumbersome justice systems – a kind of cheapest-justice-provider. Apparently the European governments were watching these Islamist fighters for a while but couldn’t move against them. So maybe transferring terror suspects to the U.S. for trial is the European version of America’s sending them to Egypt or Iraq...

A few days before Christmas, the U.S. indicted three men at the Federal District courthouse in Brooklyn for plotting suicide bomb attacks. This is an extraordinary, almost unique case: none of the people or conduct has any connection to the U.S. The defendants are foreign nationals, captured by some African government ont their way to join up with al-Shabab, the Somali Islamist group. To be clear, there is no suggestion that they planned to target American nationals or facilities, or had even ever been to this country before.

This is an aggressive – and unconstitutional – assertion of universal jurisdiction. The U.S. is prosecuting foreign nationals for their participation in a foreign civil war. Congress, as the Supreme Court recently reminded us in the Health Care decision, is truly one of limited regulatory powers, and thus the first question about such a case is what Art. I power gives Congress the power to punish entirely foreign conduct with no U.S. nexus.

The men have been charged under the “material support for terrorism” statute, 18 USC 2339B . Apart from the many controversies about the substantive sweep of the law, it casts a very broad jurisdictional net. By its terms, it applies to foreigners who support designated foreign terror groups with no connection to the U.S. In other words, it makes terrorism anywhere a federal offense.

While the statute has previously been used to prosecute extraterritorial conduct by foreigners that conducted significant dealings in the U.S., this is only the second apparently “universal” prosecution.

The Art I. authority for prosecuting conduct under universal jurisdiction is the “Define and Punish” clause. Yet the clause limits universal jurisdiction to crimes, like piracy, that are i) “offenses against the law of nations,” and ii) treated as universally cognizable by the law of nations. Congress cannot “define” something as a universal offense when the law of nations has not done so – not because of any superiority or comity of international law, but because that is the limit place by the Define and Punish Clause.

I have elaborated this theory of the Define and Punish Clause and its implications in a series of recent papers.

More importantly, recently several federal courts have adopted this position.
Thus in U.S. v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (2012), the 11th Circuit held unconstitutional a universal jurisdiction prosecution of drug trafficking in a foreign country. It held that drug trafficking had not been recognized as a “offense against the law of nations,” and thus cannot be reached by Congress under the Offenses Clause. One of the judges added in concurrence that because drug trafficking is not universally cognizable in international law, it cannot be punished universally through the Offenses power.

Similarly, in U.S. v. Ali, the a D.C. federal district court threw out charges of piracy and conspiracy to commit piracy because universal jurisdiction for such acts only ran on the high seas. And the Fourth Circuit in U.S. v. Dire
680 F.3d 446 (2012) agreed in dicta. (And of course, in Kiobel the Supreme Court is reconsidering whether universal jurisdiction exists under the Alien Tort Act.)

Material support for terrorism is a particularly weak case for the Offenses Clause, as the D.C. Circuit had ruled in Hamdan that it was not a war crime (though this does not rule out its being another type of international offense), and terrorism itself does not violate international law, as the Second Circuit has held in Yousef.

Indeed, I know of know other case in the world of material support for terrorism being prosecuted through universal jurisdiction. In prosecutions under the Define and Punish Clause, courts have increasingly (and properly) required actual evidence of past state practice to establish an international norm, as I’ve discussed here before.

The policy behind the material support statute, when applied without a U.S. nexus, is to punish actors whose political actors whose goals and methods the U.S. disapproves of. Al Shabab is a pernicious and destabilizing force, but that does not give the U.S. Congress Art. I power to criminally punish entirely foreign conduct simply because it runs counter to U.S. foreign policy.

There are other ways the U.S. can, consistent with the Constitution, engage and repress Al Shabab and other purely foreign terror groups. It can help local governments that are fighting them. It can even use military force itself. It the beef with Al Shabab is that it is an ally of other forces actively hostile to the U.S., it members (but perhaps not supporters) could perhaps even be detained militarily as co-belligerents.

(Thanks to Jon Bellish for the pointer.)

UPDATE: The defendants seem to be among the folks discussed in today’s Washington Post renditions story:

The three European men with Somali roots were arrested on a murky pretext in August as they passed through the small African country of Djibouti. . . . U.S. agents accused the men — two of them Swedes, the other a longtime resident of Britain — of supporting al-Shabab, an Islamist militia in Somalia that Washington considers a terrorist group. Two months after their arrest, the prisoners were secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York, then clandestinely taken into custody by the FBI and flown to the United States to face trial.