Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 

About: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): International law & Human rights. It has an ISSN identifier of 0010-1931. Over the lifetime, 278 publications have been published receiving 2775 citations. The journal is also known as: The Columbia journal of transnational law.

War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law

Abstract: Over the last decade, a new global industry has arisen, made up of private firms that sell military services. These companies, known as “privatized military firms” (“PMFs”), sell everything from small teams of commandos to massive military supply operations. PMFs have operated in places as diverse as Sierra Leone and Iraq, and on behalf of many states, including the United States. The rise of PMFs signals an important new development in the way that war is now carried out. Unfortunately, the legal side has not yet caught up to these events. This article examines the applicability of present international laws and definitions to PMFs and finds a gap in effectiveness. It next looks at national attempts at legal regulation and the challenges that they face. Finally, it surveys some of the potential solutions that have been offered to this legal quandary, seeking to offer workable proposals for how the PMF industry might be brought under some standard of regulation.

Non-Refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence

Abstract: Developed states have what might charitably be called a schizophrenic attitude towards international refugee law. Determined to remain formally engaged with refugee law and yet unwavering in their commitment to avoid assuming their fair share of practical responsibilities under that regime, wealthier countries have embraced the politics of non-entree, comprising efforts to keep refugees away from their territories but without formally resiling from treaty obligations. As the early generation of non-entree practices—visa controls and carrier sanctions, the establishment of “international zones,” and high seas deterrence—have proved increasingly vulnerable to practical and legal challenges, new forms of non-entree predicated on interstate cooperation have emerged in which deterrence is carried out by the authorities of the home or a transit state, or at least in their territory. The critical question we address here is whether such cooperation-based mechanisms of non-entree are—as developed states seem to believe—capable of insulat- ing them from legal liability in ways that the first gen- eration of non-entree strategies were not. We show that three evolving areas of international law— jurisdiction, shared responsibility, and liability for aiding or assisting—are likely to stymie many if not all of the new forms of non-entree. Powerful states are thus faced with a trade-off between the efficiency of non-entree mechanisms and the ability to avoid responsibility under international refugee law. If, as we believe probable, the preference for more rather than less control persists, legal challenges are likely to prove successful. Law will thus be in a position to serve a critical role in provoking a frank conversation about how to replace the duplicitous politics of non-entree with a system predicated on the meaningful sharing of the burdens and responsibilities of refugee protection around the world.

Using Law for a Righteous Purpose: The Sun Zhigang Incident and Evolving Forms of Citizen Action in the People's Republic of China

Abstract: The Chinese government’s rule of law campaign has created greater awareness of legal issues and generated bottom-up pressure for legal change. This dynamic was highlighted in April 2003, when Chinese media reports on the death of a young man named Sun Zhigang while in police custody sparked a public outcry. This public pressure, coupled with a groundbreaking citizen legal challenge, eventually prompted China’s State Council to dismantle a controversial form of administrative detention called “custody and repatriation.” The Sun Zhigang incident demonstrated that by leveraging a wave of media coverage and public opinion in a case of mass concern, co-opting laws and official rule of law rhetoric, formulating a technical, well-grounded legal appeal within the system, and focusing on modest legal reform goals that did not challenge fundamental state or Party interests, lawyers could successfully accelerate legal reform without triggering the type of damaging backlash directed against other, more politicized citizen actions. Although reformers failed in their secondary goal of creating a precedent for National People’s Congress annulment of an administrative regulation, their efforts had broad impacts in promoting the development of constitutionalism, generating political pressure for law enforcement reforms, creating an enhanced sense of citizen empowerment, and providing a refined model for law-based citizen rights actions. Legal activists have successfully applied similar moderate legal strategies in some subsequent cases, while more aggressive, politicized tactics have prompted negative state responses. Overall, the citizen action strategies refined in the Sun Zhigang incident have provided legal reformers with one path forward for promoting modest but meaningful legal reform in China. Recent government efforts to control the scope and potential impact of some citizen initiatives will provide a key test of the degree to which this reform model is sustainable in the near-term.