Blood-Diamonds: The International Response

By Christine N. Armstrong

Christine Armstrong graduated this spring from Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work at Siena College, graduating in 2013 with a major in Political Science and a minor in Classical Studies.  Christine is was an associate editor of the Albany Law Review.
During her time at Albany Law, Christine participated in the Moot Court program, winning the Karen C. McGovern Senior Prize Trial Competition. She served as a teaching assistant for Professor Chung’s Contracts class, Professor Heverly’s Torts class, and was a Sponsler Fellow for Professor Moore’s Civil Procedure class. She also served as an intern to the Hon. Judge Thomas James McAvoy in the Northern District of New York.
Christine accepted a position at Seward & Kissel, LLP, in New York City.
She prepared this paper for Prof. Bonventre’s International Law of War & Crime Seminar.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (“The DRC”) is a country located in central Africa. While perhaps one of the most mineral rich nations in the world, the DRC suffers from what is called the “paradox of poverty.” It is a phenomenon where a country has extraordinarily rich natural resources but extremely poor citizens, because corrupt government officials and rebel armies prevent the nation’s wealth, extracted from these resources, from being distributed to its people.

The DRC is a country marred by the exploitation and sale of its minerals and diamonds, which are used to fund armed conflicts and civil war within the country.  This paper will discuss the DRC, it’s “blood diamonds” and “conflict minerals,” how the profits from these sales are being used to commit crimes against humanity within the DRC, and the international response to these atrocities.

____________________________

To read the entire paper, open HERE.

Security Council Peacekeeping Operations: U.N. Failure at Keeping the Peace

By Emily von Werlhof
Emily von Werlhof, Editor-in-Chief of International Law Studies, is a third year student at Albany Law School concentrating in International Law. She is a native Californian and alumna of the University of Washington.
At the Law School, Emily has been active in Albany Law's Women's Law Caucus and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic and Immigration Project (FVLC). She was a member of the first student team to handle an immigration case, and she helped get freedom from domestic violence declared to be a fundamental human right in Albany. She recently spent her summer interning for a judge on the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, South Africa, as well as working on immigration and refugee law as an intern for the Legal Resources Center in Cape Town.
Emily has also worked with the Albany Law Pro Bono Society Veteran’s Project, was last year’s chair of the Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling and Negotiation Competition, and is currently an article editor for the Albany Government Law Review.
She prepared this paper as an Independent Research Project with Prof. Alexandra Harrington.


The United Nations (U.N.) Security Council was established through the U.N. Charter as one of the six main organs of the United Nations. Pursuant to Chapter V, Article 24 of the U.N. Charter, membership of the U.N. confers on the Security Council “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”

The Security Council first met in London, in 1946, and is now permanently located in the U.N. Headquarters in New York. In order to carry out the Security Council’s responsibility, peacekeeping forces have been utilized.

The U.N. Security Council is responsible for U.N. Peacekeeping Operations around the world. The first peacekeeping operation was launched in 1948. Currently, U.N. Peacekeeping forces are deployed on four continents with 15 active operations.

This paper will discuss the effectiveness of the U.N. Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility by evaluating the ability of U.N. Peacekeepers to successfully complete their mandate, and comparing that success to the monetary, social, and political costs of deploying Peacekeepers. The first section of this paper will examine the structure of the U.N. Security Council and its operating constraints. The second section will evaluate the peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Pakistan, Congo, Lebanon, and Sudan, as well as their ability to successfully carry out their mission mandate.

The third section will discuss the monetary, social, and political costs of the several operations evaluated in section two. The fourth section will conclude by arguing that the U.N Security Council has failed to uphold its primary responsibility because the monetary, social, and political costs of deploying peacekeepers significantly outweighs the success of peacekeeping operations and is in need of restructuring.
____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE

The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law [The Presentation]

By Dana P. Stanton
Dana Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This presentation was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar. It is the companion to Ms. Stanton's paper of the same title that was published by ILS on Sept.16, 2013.

As was stated in the introduction to that companion paper:
The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
This presentation outlines how rape was used as a weapon in war, why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently, compares rape to torture, explores the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

(click to enlarge slides)

___________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to Download [by clicking on File] and then Open the downloaded power-point presentation.)

The Living Death: Prosecuting Rape as Torture Under International Law

Dana P. Stanton is a 2013 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. She did her undergraduate work in chemical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and she worked as an engineer for General Electric in the Operations Management Leadership Program.
During law school, Dana was an associate editor on the Albany Law Review, and she interned with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid Clinic and the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, as well as with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the New York State Office of the Attorney General's Environmental Protection Bureau.
Dana is now an associate at the law firm of McNamee, Lochner, Titus and Williams in Albany, NY.
This paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar.

The torture of men has traditionally been taken more seriously under international law than sexual violence against women.   As a consequence, wartime rape was not prosecuted in international tribunals until the late 1990s.
However, the physical and psychological harm to rape victims can be just as severe as the harm to torture victims. International tribunals have begun to bring rape within the realm of jus cogens norm by prosecuting rape as a form of torture.
Part I of the paper explains how rape was used as a weapon in war, and Part II discusses why rape was not prosecuted as a war crime until recently. Part III explains rape from the victims’ perspective and Part IV compares rape to torture. Parts V through VII explore the sexual violence in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the jurisprudence arising therefrom. Finally, Part VIII discusses the significance of jus cogens for international rape prosecutions.

_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

African Union: Current Issues

By Gizem Basbug

Gizem Basbug, a third year student at Albany Law School, is a Senior Editor of International Law Studies. A native of Turkey, she is a graduate of the University of Virginia.

She prepared this presentation for the International Law of War and Crime Seminar, Fall 2011.

(click to enlarge on all slides)

_____________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to download the presentation and view it from there.)