On February 1

On this day in ...
... 2006 (5 years ago today), asserting the freedom of the press was at stake, 6 newspapers in 4 European countries "reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which have provoked outrage, trade boycotts and threats of violence towards Danes." The 12 cartoons had been published in several months earlier in "a right-of-centre Danish broadsheet." The controversy has resurfaced at times since; for example, in 2009, when Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was selected as NATO Secretary-General, and just last month, when trial began involving an alleged plot to attack the cartoonist.

(Prior February 1 posts are here, here, and here.)

Olympus XZ-1

f/5.6, 1/800 s. ja ISO 100.
Nyt olen kuvannut Olympus XZ-1 tuotantomallilla, joka varmisti käsitykseni siitä, että Olympus on tehnyt hienon pokkarin. Vajaat pari viikkoa sitten kokeilemani esituotantokappale oli hyvin lähellä tuotantomallia, mutta minulla ei ollut lupaa sanoa mitään lopullista esim. kuvan teknisestä laadusta tai julkaista täysikokoisia kuvia.

Olympus on XZ-1:n kanssa eräällä tavalla pelkistetyllä linjalla, sillä säätimien ja nappuloiden kustomointi ei ole mahdollista. Tämä ei mielestäni ole ollenkaan huono asia, vaan osoitus siitä, että joku on jo suunnitteluvaiheessa miettinyt asioita. Käyttöliittymä on selkeä ja toimiva.
Liikkuvan kohteen kuvaaminen ei ole ongelma, koska laukaisuviive on lyhyt.
f/4, 1/640 s. ja ISO 100.
Tarkennus on nopea ja tarkennuspisteen valinta sujuvaa. Laukaisuviive on lyhyt ja myös raakakuvaaminen käy rivakasti tarpeen vaatiessa.

Kameran päällä olevan virtakytkimen kanssa minulla oli lieviä vaikeuksia, sillä painelin sitä tahattomasti, kun käsittelin kameraa. Laitoin kameran vahingossa päälle useita kertoja. Liukuva tai käännettävä virtakytkin olisi painonappia parempi, mutta kyllä napin kanssakin oppii tulemaan toimeen.

Lisävarusteena saatava etsin VF-2 muuttaa XZ-1:n käsittelyn miltei järkkäritasolle, mutta toisaalta hintakin nousee siinä samalla miltei järkkäritasolle. Erillisen etsimen kuva on hyvälaatuinen ja käyttökelpoisuus on aivan eri maailmasta kuin joidenkin pokkareiden optisilla etsimillä.
Olympus XZ-1 ja etsin VF-2.
Jos hinta ei hirvitä, niin suosittelen VF-2 etsintä. Sama etsin käy PEN-sarjan kameroihin, joten joillekin etsin saattaa olla monikäyttöinen.
f/3.2, 1/640 s. ja ISO 100.
Olympus XZ-1:n valovoimainen objektiivi on erittäin terävä koko polttovälialueellä, joka vastaa 28 - 112 mm kuvakulmaa. Hyvä valovoima antaa mahdollisuuden käyttää suhteellisen alhaisia herkkyyksiä. Onhan f/2.5 yli kaksi aukkoväliä kirkkaampi kuin pokkareille tyypillinen telepään valovoima f/5.6.

Sisäänrakennettu harmaasuodatin auttaa kirkkaassa valossa pitämään kuvausaukon parhaan suorituskyvyn alueella. Suodinta kannattaa käyttää, koska valon taipuminen eli diffraktio huonontaa tällaisissa pikkuobjektiiveissa terävyyttä suhteessa enemmän kuin esim. ns. täyden kennon kameroiden optiikoissa.

Hyvästä valovoimasta on yksi haitta: irrallinen linssinsuojus. Yhdysrakenteinen linssinsuojus ei mahdu rakenteisiin, koska objektiivin etulinssi on verrattain kookas. Sama koskee esim. Panasonic LX5 ja Samsung EX-1 kameroita.
f/2.8, 1/320 s. ja ISO 100.
Alhaisilla herkkyyksillä Olympuksen kuva on terävä ja kaikin puolin hyvälaatuinen. Korkeilla, yli ISO 800, herkkyyksillä XZ-1 ei ole aivan parhaiden pokkareiden tasolla, mutta ei huono. Kokonaisuutena Olympuksen kuva on teknisessä mielessä pokkareiden parhaimmistoa.
f/2.2, 1/1000 s. ja ISO 100.
Olympus on onnistunut tuottamaan mainion pokkarin, joka kannattaa ehdottomasti ottaa huomioon, jos tämän tapaisen kameran osto on ajankohtainen.

PÄIVITYS 20.2.2011: Olen poistanut yhden kappaleen, jossa käsitellään VF-2 etsimen toimintaa, koska kappaleessa oli virheellistä tietoa.

New Updates and Links: 1 February 2011

CSS Shenandoah being repaired at the Williamstown Dockyard in February, 1865. Image courtesy of The Age.

Here are some interesting links around the interwebs concerning the Civil War navies:

"Rebels Down Under Exhibition" - The ship that brought the American Civil War into Port Phillip in 1865 is the focus of a new exhibition at Seaworks at Williamstown (Victoria, Australia).

Confederate Navy Prisoners of War on the Civil War Days & Those Surnames Blog.
Here is a nice link to our friend Craig Swain on his great contributions thus far to the Civil War Navy Sesquicentennial. If you have not had a chance to check out his blog (To the Sound of the Guns), it is highly recommended.
For our Pennsylvania fans, you can also keep in mind that there will be a free lecture at Gettysburg National Military Park: “‘One of the most cowardly and disgraceful acts’: The Destruction of the Norfolk Navy Yard." The lecture will be held at the Gettysburg National Military Park visitor center at 1:30 pm. For more information, go to www.nps.gov/gett or call 717-334-1124 extension 8023.

Raphael Semmes Wins Quarterfinal Poll #3; Final Quarterfinal Poll Posted

Rear Admiral Raphael Semmes, famed Captain of the CSS Alabama and Sumter, won this past week's quarterfinal poll against John M. Brooke. Semmes received a decisive 15 votes to Brooke's 2. The final quarterfinal poll is posted, squaring Matthew F. Maury against Thomas Lockwood. After the final quarterfinal poll is completed, we will begin the exciting semifinal polls with the remaining four winners from previous polls.

News---FBI Recovers Revolver Stolen 36 Years Ago From MOC in Richmond

Civil War Artifact Being Returned to Museum After 36 Years, Stacie J. Bohanan, FBI Media Representative, Knoxville, Tennessee, January 18, 2011

During December 2010, the Knoxville Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) received a report that a Civil War revolver stolen in 1975 from the Museum of the Confederacy (MOTC) in Richmond, Virginia, may have been recovered in Seymour, Tennessee. The weapon, a .36 caliber Spiller and Burr revolver, is a prized archetype with an estimated value of $50,000.

Ms. Krissy Evans initially discovered the revolver among items belonging to her recently deceased father and contacted an artifacts appraiser to determine the value of the weapon. Following a substantial research effort to establish the authenticity and historical value of the artifact, it was also determined the weapon had been stolen from the MOTC 36 years earlier. Upon learning that the weapon had been stolen, Ms. Evans immediately offered to return the artifact to the museum to ensure the appropriate historical preservation of the gun. Knoxville FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard L. Lambert noted, “Ms. Evans is to be commended for her ethical integrity. By returning this artifact to the museum, Ms. Evans has ensured that it will be preserved and treasured for generations to come.”

Text and Image Source: FBI Knoxville Tennessee

On the Job - Center for Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights is seeking a Regional Manager for Europe for their international law program.

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) is a global human rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women’s reproductive freedom. Founded in 1992 and located in New York City, CRR is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization dedicated to promoting women's equality worldwide by guaranteeing reproductive rights as human rights.

The Center is seeking a talented, creative and strategic Regional Manager for Europe to oversee and develop the work of the Regional Program in all areas of program work. The Regional Manager for Europe reports directly to the Director of the International Legal Program and will be required to travel extensively internationally. This position will be based in New York for a minimum of a year and may possibly move to the region after that year.

Responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

  • Developing and implementing short and long-range advocacy and litigation strategy for the Center's work in Europe and maintaining and assessing its effectiveness.
  • Identifying potential strategic litigation cases in collaboration with partner organizations. Developing the factual record and pleadings, researching and writing legal memoranda, amicus curiae and case briefs on transnational and international and regional human rights law and claims for use in national and/or international and regional fora, including the European Court of Human Rights.
  • Providing technical assistance to NGOs, government and parliamentary officials, and other stakeholders on law reform processes at the national level and produce relevant legal and advocacy materials.
  • Participating in and draft reproductive-rights related submissions to UN and regional human rights bodies.
  • Researching and drafting Center publications for stakeholders in Europe and UN bodies.
  • Cultivating partnerships with law firms and law schools to leverage our work. In particular cultivate relationships with firms and law schools based in Europe.
  • Developing and maintaining effective relationships with national and regional partners with a view to collaboration on national, regional and international advocacy and litigation.
  • Developing and supporting capacity building activities on legal and human rights strategies to advance reproductive rights in the Europe region.
  • Representing the Center externally through public speaking and interaction with the media; and assisting in fundraising strategies.
  • Recruiting, managing and mentoring junior staff.
Candidate Requirements: The ideal candidate will be a creative and strategic thinker and have good judgment and excellent analytical capabilities; strong writing skills; the ability to work quickly and effectively under pressure; the capacity to take initiative, prioritize, and pay close attention to detail while juggling multiple tasks; strong coordination skills; and the ability to work effectively as part of a team and in partnership with other organizations.

Applicants must have: A law degree and at least seven years of experience working on legal or human rights strategies. Substantial knowledge of the United Nations and the European human rights systems; familiarity with international and regional human rights law; effective public speaking skills, and excellent writing skills in English, are required; fluency in another UN language is desirable.

To Apply: Send cover letter and resume to: resumes@reprorights.org

The deadline for submitting applications will be March 1st.

Sesquicentennial News---- 150 Canon Volleys Within One Hour in Gettysburg, April 30

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Adams County, and Gettysburg National Military Park are hosting The Official 150th Gettysburg Kick-Off Event entitled The Invasion of Pennsylvania - Gettysburg. Sueinf Friday, April 29, 2011 and Saturday, April 30, 2011 the event will include 150 volleys from artillery. The launch event will feature the advancement of Union and Confederate troops into this historic town, followed by living history encampments at various locations throughout Gettysburg, reenactment skirmishes and a formal evening program. The highlight of this event will be the firing of 150 cannon shots to salute the brave men and women who fought in the American Civil War. Here's the posted schedule

Friday, April 29
7:00 - 9:00 PM Living History Encampments throughout Gettysburg
8:00 PM Luminary on Lincoln Square
8:00 PM Songs and Stories of a Civil War Hospital

Saturday, April 30
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM Living History Encampments throughout Gettysburg

10:00 AM - 5:00 PM Historic Church Walking Tours

11:00 AM Skirmish - "Holding the Line"

12:00 Noon The African American Experience

2:00 PM Skirmish - "A Hasty Retreat"

4:00 PM Skirmish - "Defending Cemetery Heights"

5:30 PM Period Worship Service

6:30 PM Musical Performance at the Pennsylvania Monument

7:00 PM Kick-Off Ceremony to include a one-hour 150 volley Cannonade

8:00 PM Songs and Stories of a Civil War Hospital

CWL: On this schedule it does not note the location of the events. Possibly the 150 volleys may take place on the reenacment sites on Pumping Station Road or the Yingling Farm.

Text Source: Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau

Image Source: Howizers.com

Egypt: From Social Networks to Social Movements



Stronger Signals: But From Whom?
Human Rights Watch is calling on the aid donor governments of the United States and the European Union to send strong signals urging the Egyptian government to stop using violence against its own people (see press release here.) Let’s hope any such signals work. The text of a Joint UK-France-Germany Statement appears here, the text of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s televised interview can be read here, and Friday evening’s statement by U.S. President Barack Obama is linked here. Of course, what matters most are the strong and clear signals being sent by the Egyptian people themselves.
Fluid Situation
The remarkable events in Egypt remain fluid. Thousands of peaceful protesters are demanding democratic change. BBC reports indicate that dozens of civilian protesters have been killed or injured by live fire from police and security forces, which Human Rights Watch condemns as violations of international law.
The protests have been predominantly peaceful and the mood among many ordinary Egyptians is cautiously celebratory and hopeful for the possibility of a democratic future.
There are isolated incidents of looting, particularly in poorer areas where there is no national army presence. Some civilian watch groups are forming to protect neighborhoods.
So far, the national army, made up of conscripted Egyptians from all classes, is believed to remain “neutral.” Many protesters see the domestic police forces as allied with the presidency of Hosni Mubarak.
Beyond Information Control
Whatever “signals” are being sent internationally through diplomatic channels, the Egyptian government has impose blackouts on other means of communication including the internet and cellular access (press release.)
As previous IntLawGrrls posts indicate, information technology and social networks have been central to communication and organizing in recent popular uprisings, mass disaster response, elections monitoring, and political dissent in places like Tunisia, Algeria, Haiti, Iran, Kenya, China, and elsewhere. (See our North Africa series and our posts here, here, here, and here.) Obviously, this is equally true in Egypt.
Ironically, and even necessarily, the rise of new media is occurring just as international old media is suffering from severe budget cuts, the withdrawal of foreign correspondents, and the closure of foreign desks. See, for example, this story about budget cuts to the World Service of the BBC.
From Social Networks to Social Movements
Protesters and their relatives and friends outside Egypt used social networks like Facebook and Twitter to provide up-to-the- minute information about where to assemble and about police crackdowns. They texted, e-mailed, and used Skype to let each other know that they were safe. Smartphones recorded both peaceful events and injuries to civilians on the streets; YouTube posted the video clips. Bloggers, of course, posted everything they could get their hands on. Others stayed glued to the Al-Jazeera television network for round-the-clock visual images of the protests and abuses.
Rather than change their behavior, some governments still try to hide by blocking the internet. But, as discussed on today’s broadcast of CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” creative bloggers, tweeters, e-mailers, social networkers, and even Old School ham radio operators the world over often find ways around government attempts to silence the peoples’ voices.
Knowing About Rights
Oddly, it seems that governments never learn that people already know that they have basic rights . They may not know the names of treaties or declarations or principles. They may not know how to translate international norms into domestic constitutional provisions or state and local statutes. They may not concern themselves with the best ways to balance state and private obligations or how to present legal arguments on the most effective remedies before judicial or administrative bodies. Hopefully, lawyers, judges, and legal scholars working at their direction can assist in that regard.
Still, ordinary people know when they are prevented from saying what is on their minds. They know when their children cannot attend school. They know when only certain favored classes benefit from government programs or from natural resources or job opportunities. They know when women, minorities, and children are scapegoated and mistreated. They know when an election is not really an election. They know when their homes are inadequate or non-existent. They know that they should not be beaten up, tortured, abused, raped, or shot.
Lawyers and human rights activists can, therefore, also work in solidarity with people to ensure that such rights are respected, protected, promoted, and fulfilled by powerful actors. This must be so not only for elites in palaces and high places in Geneva, Washington, London, and Paris, but also in small jail cells, apartments, and streetcorners in Cairo, Kingston, Beijing, Chicago, and Ciudad Juarez.
The Right to Self-determination, the Right to Know, and More
This latest version of a new social movement seems to have taken the international media and pundits by surprise. Yet the hopes and dreams of the people in the streets sound very familiar even though new and unpredictable technologies and consequences may surround them.
People throughout the region appear to be marching for the realization of the full range of familiar human rights (civil, political, economic, social, and cultural) outlined in the International Bill of Rights.
Nevertheless, I excerpt below only a few articles from the International Bill which seem to be particularly relevant to the Egyptian crisis at the moment.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Freedom of Assembly
Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association…
The Right to Political Participation
Article 21
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Right to Self-determination of Peoples
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
Helpful Resources on Egypt, Human Rights, and Internet Access
Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (main page for UN expert)
Egypt (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights country homepage)
2009 Human Rights Report on Egypt (U.S. Department of State, 10 March 2010)
Egypt (Human Rights Watch continuously updated page)
"Egypt Women Blog For Their Rights" (BBC News, 18 March 2009)
Association for Progressive Communications (coalition advocating for increased grassroots digital access)
My heartfelt thanks to Northeastern University School of Law Research Assistants Melissa Joyce and Gil Rochbert and to Northeastern University undergraduate Research Assistant Nicholas Martin.
(Photo: UN Photo. Boys working in carpet factory in Egypt)

Go On! Religion & International Law

Santa Clara University School of Law's annual international law symposium will be on the topic of "Religion & International Law."
The event will be Friday, Feb. 18 and Saturday, Feb 19, 2011 in the California Mission Room, Benson Center, Santa Clara University.
The Symposium homepage is here. Online registration may be undertaken here (MCLE credit is available). The papers and proceedings will be published in our Journal of International Law.
The Symposium is organized around a series of papers by our main presenters as well as commentary from other experts. The full schedule is here.
Speakers and commentators include (full bios are here):
Lama Abu-Odeh (Georgetown) (top right)
Peter Danchin (U. Maryland)
Haider Hamoudi (Pittsburgh)
IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Saira Mohamed (Berkeley Law) (top left)
Anissa Helie (John Jay College of Criminal Law & International Solidarity Network of Women Living Under Muslim Laws)
► Dr. Hisham Hellyer (Warwick)
Asifa Quraishi (Wisconsin) (middle right)
Brett Scharffs (Brigham Young)
Shadi Mokhtari (American) (middle left)
► Dr. Manisuli Ssenyonjo (Brunel University)
Seval Yildirim (Whittier) (bottom right)
IntLawGrrl Karima Bennoune (Rutgers-Newark) (bottom left)
The keynote speaker is Robert Steiple, the first ever U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.
Hope to see you there!

On January 31

On this day in ...
... 2006 (5 years ago today), Sandra Day O'Connor completed her last day as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, nearly a quarter-century after she'd become the 1st woman to hold that position. It'd be an overstatement to say that O'Connor (right) "retired," however, for the former Justice has remained active. (photo credit) Among other things, she's: written the Senate to support CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women that the United States has signed but not ratified; campaigned for an end to the election of state judges; served on a task force on the International Criminal Court convened by the American Society of International Law; and interviewed Justice John Paul Stevens, her just-retired colleague, for Newsweek.

(Prior January 31 posts are here, here, and here.)

Carte postale de Paris

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Leila Nadya Sadat, who contributes this guest post)

Greetings from Paris, where this semester I am the Alexis de Tocqueville Distinguished Fulbright Chair. The first woman to receive the Chaire Tocqueville, I will be in residence in Paris throughout Spring 2011, teaching at the University of Cergy-Pontoise.
I’ve started a blog to chronicle my experiences here. I’ll be focusing on comparative approaches to international law and, in particular, international criminal law and the International Criminal Court. My blog, titled An American in Paris and now one of the “connections” in the list at IntLawGrrls’ righthand column, already has a few posts. I plan to cover legal and non-legal topics of interest during my tenure as a Fulbright, as well as commentaries on academic life abroad.
Please feel free to drop in!

Go On! Global impact/Sacramento

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

"The Global Impact and Implementation of Human Rights Norms" is the theme of a symposium to be held March 11 & 12, 2011, at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California.
To be discussed is the growing incorporation of human rights norms "into the development of substantive law in fields as diverse as labor law, intellectual property, and armed conflict."
Among the Pacific McGeorge faculty who will moderate is IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Linda Carter.
Panelists will include Dinah Shelton, Vice President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Justice Richard Goldstone, who's visiting this semester at Stanford Law School; Judge Fausto Pocar of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and law professors Svitlana Kravchenko (University of Oregon), Kristen Jakobsen Osenga (University of Richmond), Adrienne Stone (University of Melbourne), Kristen Boon (Seton Hall), and Sabine Schlemmer-Schulte (Pacific McGeorge).
Details and registration here.

Päivän kuva, Sigma 85 mm f/1.4

Canon 5D mk2 ja Sigma 85 mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/80 s. ja ISO 1600.
Sulantoblogin toimituksen pöytä on väärällään objektiiveja kokeilua varten. Moni lujika on toivonut, että kokeilisin Sigma 70 - 200 mm f/2.8 APO DG HSM uusinta kuvanavakaajalla varustettua mallia. Sellainen on nyt edessäni, kuten myös Sigma 85 mm f/1.4, josta olen myös saanut lukijoilta kokeilupyyntöjä.

Tarkoitukseni on Sulantoblogin käytännönläheiseen tyyliin verrata Sigman 85 millistä Canon 85 f/1.2L ja Nikkor 85 mm f/1.4 AFS laseihin. Sigma varmasti houkuttaa monia, koska sen hinta on n. 900 euroa, kun taas Nikkor maksaa vajaat 1500 ja Canon astronomiset n. 2200 euroa.

Sain kokeiltavaksi myös pari pikkukenoisille tarkoitettua Sigmaa: 10 - 20 mm f/3.5 ja 17 - 50 mm f/2.8. Näistäkin voit lukea käyttökokemuksia lähiaikoina täältä Sulantoblogista.

Ylinnä aivan ensimmäinen kuvani Sigman 85 millisellä. Tyttäreni koirineen pistäytyi kylässä ja mikäs sen helpompaa kuin hyödyntää eläinkunnan edustajaa taas kerran. Superlyhyt terävyysalue sopii joihinkin kuviin tooodella hyvin.

On January 30

On this day in ...
... 2011 (today), Californians will mark the 1st annual Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution. Korematsu was born in Oakland on this day in 1919. Though an American citizen, he, like hundreds of thousands of other persons of Japanese heritage, was interned by the United States during World War II. As we've posted, his conviction for refusal of U.S. orders was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1944. It was set aside by write of coram nobis in 1984, and 4 years later Korematsu received the Presidential Medal of Freedom (left). (photo credit) The day in honor of Korematsu, who died in 2005, was established last fall following unanimous votes in both house of California's legislature.

(Prior January 30 posts are here, here, and here.)

Turistikuvia Burmasta

Hyvä ystäväni valokuvaaja Kimmo Haimi kävi sukeltelemassa Burman vesillä ja oli kuulemma ollut tosi hauskaa. Hyvä niin, että edes joku pääsee pois tämän lumen ja jään keskeltä hetkeksi.

Sukeltelun ohessa Kimmo näppäili muutamia potretteja paikallisista ja varsin kelpo potretteja näppäilikin. Hienoja vailla turhaa kikkailua. Minä pidän tällaisesta. Muutama esimerkki alla.

Tekniikasta kiinnostuneille kerrottakoon, että Kimmo käytti Nikon D700 kameraa ja Nikkor 24 - 70 mm f/2.8 objektiivia. Kuvissa näyttää olevan exiffit mukana, elleivät ne ole kadonneet matkalla blogiin.




Arvaustehtävän vastaus

Arvaamallahan tämä oikeasti piti yrittää ratkaista, koska en ainakaan minä olisi voinut mitään kiistatonta nähdä kummassakaan kuvassa ollakseni aivan varma käytetystöä kamerasta.

Oikeita Canon arvauksia taisi tulla kommenteissa lievä enemmistö, joten onko näinkin  pienessä koossa sittenkin jotain paljastavaa? Tuskin, ehkä...

Joka tapauksessa ylempi kuva on Olympuksella ja alempi Canonilla kuvattu.

Kiitos paljon kommentteja lähettäneille.

The Contours of Law of War Detention

My institution recently co-hosted with the International Committee of the Red Cross an intensive workshop on International Humanitarian Law for law students. At left, is Lt. Colonel Chris Jenks of the Office of the Judge Advocate General teaching conflict classification.
This was the fifth annual such workshop, which focuses on lectures and hands-on exercises to elucidate the principles and challenges of applying humanitarian law to contemporary armed conflicts. In the past, the Workshop has culminated with a multilateral negotiation and drafting exercise focused on the intersection of acts of terrorism and the law of armed conflict. This year, participants engaged in a role play (two photos at right) in which they made comments before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities on a domestic law-of-war detention draft statute entitled the "Law of War Privileged and Unprivileged Belligerents Preventative Detention Act of 2011."
The exercise required students to debate a number of foundational issues, including:
  1. The definition of "armed conflict" to distinguish law of war detentions from other forms of administrative and punitive detention that the United States might engage in.
  2. The definition of "battlefield" to enable authorities to distinguish between battlefield detentions (which could be effectuated for short periods of time with minimal process) and detentions made outside of the battlefield. The draft language defined "battlefield" a number of alternative ways, including with reference to active zones of conflict (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, and the FATA areas of Pakistan), but also more generally as any area in which hostilities or acts of terrorism are regularly planned or launched and in which belligerents are billeted or trained. This is the topic of Laurie Blank's (Emory) research, as we've featured here.
  3. The definition of "member," to account for the fact that membership in Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces" was one contemplated ground for detention. The draft legislation also grappled with how a detainee could demonstrate that any prior membership relationship had been terminated, as by desertion, withdrawal, or discharge.

  4. The definitions of "privileged" and "unprivileged" belligerents and differential detention regimes for each. The former was defined with reference to the categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. The latter was defined with reference to both membership in enumerated and unenumerated groups as well as on conduct grounds. The legislation listed various forms of conduct that might constitute grounds for detention, including acquiring terrorist skills, possessing a thing that is connected with a hostile act, providing substantial support to any hostile or terrorist act against U.S. armed forces or coalition forces, and directly participating in hostilities against the United States or coalition partners without the privilege of doing so. In preparing these competing formulations, we drew on definitions of "enemy combatant" that have been employed in post-9/11 military orders, legislation, and jurisprudence as discussed here.

The legislation was premised on a three-phase detention regime:

  • Phase one involved a short (48 or 72 hours) battlefield detention that could be effectuated by any member of the U.S. armed forces (or member of a coalition force) pursuant to a minimal burden of proof. Extensions were contemplated in exceptional circumstances upon the order of any commanding officer.

  • Phase two, continued detention, would only follow a hearing before a Review Board (whose precise composition was in dispute). The government would be subject to a higher burden of proof at this stage, with possible standards ranging from preponderance of the evidence to compelling evidence. Phase 2 was subject to periodic review (6 months was proposed in keeping with the security detention regime envisioned by the Fourth Geneva Convention).

  • Stage three, so called extended detention, would follow after an undetermined number of periodic reviews and would be subject to an even higher burden of proof. Students also debated whether periodic review should be automatic or subject to some showing of changed circumstances or new evidence.

  • Students also debated a provision that would dissolve all detention orders after ten years.

Some members of the Committee were designated as opposed to the legislation altogether; accordingly, they argued that the original Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) provides all the detention authority the United States needs going forward. Other testified that it is harder to justify contemporary detentions under the 2001 AUMF, especially where individuals are detained far from Afghanistan. In addition to these substantive provisions, students also discussed various procedural issues concerning conditions of detention, the handling of classified information, and access to the outside world.

Now that they have had a chance to grapple with such specifics, the students involved in this exercise will no doubt be in a better position to evaluate President Obama impending Executive Order on indefinite detention to govern current detainees.

Post-Conflict Justice Survey Invitation

If you are now working or have ever worked in the field of post-conflict justice, you are invited to take part in a survey about your work experiences. You can take the survey in English here or in French here. Those who have worked on accountability (trials, international/hybrid criminal tribunals, truth and reconciliation commissions, and so on) and those who have worked on post-conflict rule of law are all welcome to participate.The survey should take only about 15 minutes to complete, it is anonymous, and participants are eligible to win a $100 amazon.com gift card. (We've given some away already!) More details are discussed in my earlier post about this study.
To those of you who have already completed the survey, thank you! If you haven't taken it yet, please take a few minutes to fill it out and help us understand this growing area of international law. And of course, you are also welcome to forward this invitation to your post-conflict justice colleagues and friends.
This survey is part of a research study that I am conducting. If you would like any additional information, you can contact me directly at ebaylis@pitt.edu.

Displaced

Probably not the ad placement this tourism company was hoping for.
News on Egypt -- the latest country in North Africa to take to the streets -- here, there, everywhere.

On January 29

On this day in ...
... 1996 (15 years ago today), in a statement televised live, French President Jacques Chirac announced that his country no longer would test nuclear weapons. He made the announcement several months after the resumption of French tests, and "a day after France exploded its sixth and biggest nuclear device in the South Pacific." (credit for October 1995 photo of wave from French nuclear test at Mururoa atoll) On September 24, 1996, France would sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; a couple years later it ratified that treaty, which cannot enter into force until all nuclear powers join it. (prior post)

(Prior January 29 posts are here, here, and here.)

"Judicial restraint" chez le Conseil

Today the Conseil constitutionnel rejected a challenge to French law that prohibits same-sex marriage.
Plaintiffs identified only as Corinne C. et Sophie H. had contended that Articles 75 and 144 of the Code Civil (in English here) -- each of which designates that the couple to be married will be compsed of a man and a woman -- denied them rights and liberties guaranteed by the French Constitution.
Invoked was Article 6 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (available here in the original French), which, in English translation, sets out the principle of equality:
Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
The 6-man, 2-woman Conseil (prior posts here, here, and here) articulated as its basis for sustaining the ban on same-sex marriage a structural / separation-of-powers / judicial restraint argument. It's an argument that American constitutionalists will find rather familiar.
Pivotal was ¶9 of the 11-paragraph judgment styled Mme Corinne C. et autre [Interdiction du mariage entre personnes de même sexe]. Per loose translation by this 'Grrl, ¶9 repeated the gist of Article 6 quoted above, then continued with additional considerations:

► The principle of equality is not contravened by legislation that regulates different situations in different fashions, nor by certain inequalities adopted in the general interest, provided that the resulting difference in treatment bears a direct relationship to the goal underlying the legislation;
► In maintaining the principle according to which marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the legislature, exercising power granted by Article 34 of the Constitution, has deemed that the difference of situation between same-sex and opposite-sex couples can justify different family law rules;
► It is not for the Conseil constitutionnel to substitute its judgment for that of the legislator respecting the nature of this difference of situation;
► For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

With that, it would seem, French marriage-equality advocates must move chez le Parlement.

Kumpi on kumpi?

Onko tämä kuvattu Olympus XZ-1 vai Canon 5D mk2 kameralla?
Onko tämä kuvattu Olympus XZ-1 vai Canon 5D mk2 kameralla?
Sain eilen torstaina kokeiluun Olympuksen XZ-1:sta myyntimallin ja lisäksi kokeiluun tuli Canon 70 - 300 mm f/4 - 5.6 L IS USM, josta olen saanut lukijoiltani kyselyjä. Kuvasin tänään iltapäivällä ennen työkeikkaa muutamia kuvia Olympuksella ja Canonin zoomilla, joka oli kiinni Canon 5D mk2 rungossa.

Koska suurin osa valokuvista katsellaan tietokoneen näytöltä, niin tässä perjantai-illan iloksi kevytmielinen arvaustehtävä. Huomasin nimittäin, että olin kuvannut sekä Olympuksella että Canonilla miltei samanlaiset kuvat.

Kysynkin nyt, että kumpi yllä olevista kuvista on kummalla kameralla kuvattu?

Kumpaakaan kuvaa ei ole rajattu, ainoastaan koko on pienennetty.

Voit arvailla itseksesi, jos haluat, mutta kommenttejakin saa toki lähettää. Kerron huomenna oikean vastauksen.

Sesquicentennial News---USPS Commemorates Civil War

Fort Sumter and Bull Run Stamps Will Lead Off Civil War 150th Anniversary Commemorative Series, Bob Janiskee, National Parks Traveler, 01/04/2011.

This year the U.S. Postal Service will issue stamps commemorating the 150th anniversary of two important Civil War events, the beginning of the war and the first great land battle. National parks preserve the sites of both of these events. Fort Sumter and Bull Run Stamps Will Lead Off Civil War 150th Anniversary Commemorative Series. The battle scenes depicted on this year's Civil War 150th anniversary commemorative stamps are reproductions of well known artworks.

The Confederacy was launched soon after South Carolina seceded from the Union in December 1860, and the Civil War got underway four month later. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, forcing its surrender the next day. No longer a war of words centered on the slavery issue, the Civil War was now a shooting war. Both sides raised armies of eager volunteers who believed that the war would soon be over, and with few casualties to count.

These beliefs were put to a severe test on July 21, 1861, when the first major land battle was fought at Manassas, Virginia. The First Battle of Bull Run -- called the First Battle of Manassas or just "First Manassas" in the South -- yielded a Confederate victory, thousands of casualties, and the sobering realization that both the North and the South might have to raise huge armies, shift their economies to a war footing, and fight a long and costly war.

Over the next four years, the U.S. Postal Service will issue a series of stamps commemorating the Civil War's 150th anniversary. A souvenir sheet of two stamps will be issued each year, with the final issue in 2015. The first issue is scheduled for release on April 12, 2011, the 150th anniversary of the war's beginning. It will be a sheet of two stamps, one depicting the firing on Fort Sumter and the other depicting the Battle of Bull Run. Additional information about the Civil War stamps and other commemorative stamps to be issued this year can be found at this US Postal Service website.

Phil Jordan, the Postal Service's veteran art director (since 1991), has chosen scenes for the initial Civil War commemorative stamp issue that are well known to Civil War history buffs and art collectors. The Fort Sumter stamp is a reproduction of a Currier & Ives lithograph entitled “Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor” (ca. 1861). The First Bull Run stamp is a reproduction of “The Capture of Rickett’s Battery," a 1964 painting by Sidney E. King that shows fierce fighting on the Henry Hill site where a key Union battery had been placed.

The stamp pane features comments on the war by President Abraham Lincoln, black abolitionist/human rights leader Frederick Douglass, and Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. (It was at the First Battle of Bull Run that the latter earned his famous nickname.) Also included on the stamp pane are some of the lyrics to “Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier,” a folk song of sacrifice and lament that was popular during the Civil War. The stamp pane’s background image is a ca. 1861 photograph of a Union regiment near Falls Church, Virginia.

Both sites depicted on this initial stamp issue are preserved within the National Park System. Fort Sumter National Monument in Charleston, South Carolina, was established in 1948 and now attracts over three-quarters of a million visitors a year. From the park's Fort Moultrie unit on Sullivans Island, the battered remains of the brick masonry fort (which was repeatedly bombarded by Union gunships during the war) can be viewed from the vantage point of Confederate gunners who opened fired on Fort Sumter during that fateful April day in 1861.

Virginia's Manassas National Battlefield Park, which is located about 20 miles southwest of Washington, DC, preserves and interprets the sites of two major battles, including First Bull Run (First Manassas). At the park's Henry Hill Visitor Center you can see Sidney King's original oil-on-plywood painting of “The Capture of Rickett’s Battery" and then go walk the very ground depicted in the painting (as well as the staunchly-defended Confederate position on Henry Hill where General Thomas J. Jackson earned his nickname "Stonewall").

As the name implies, the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) was not the only major battle fought for control of Manassas, a key railroad junction. The Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas), an even larger battle with considerably more casualties, took place August 28–30, 1862, and resulted in another Confederate victory.

Text Source: National Parks Traveler
Images' Sources: Top---National Park Traveler; Middle and Bottom---National Park Service, Fort Sumter and Manassas web pages

Some Thoughts on Securing the Future of the European Court of Human Rights

It is cliché at this point to say that the European Court of Human Rights (left) is in crisis: we all know that it faces an enormous backlog of applications and that, in spite of the new arrangements introduced by Protocol 14 (once Russia finally ratified it…), these problems are persistent and serious.
Last year there was a meeting in Interlaken to try to come up with some solutions to these difficulties and, in particular, to try to design and envision mechanisms by which the future of the Court could be secured. I blogged about that conference and the Declaration that emerged briefly at the time, and indeed Alistair Mowbray has produced a really excellent overview of both for the Human Rights Law Review which people with access to Oxford Journals can download here.
However, in my view the Interlaken process and the declaration that followed it singularly failed to come properly to grips with what I think is a fundamental element of the challenge faced by the Court: the expectation (quite widespread) that the Court can continue to function as both a constitutionalist court and an adjudicatory court where individuals are at the blunt end of actions that have been clearly—and often repeatedly—found to violate the Convention in Strasbourg jurisprudence. In a paper that I’ve posted as a working paper on SSRN (download free here) and which will appear in final form in the Irish Human Rights Law Review, I argue that persisting with this ‘dual functionality’ poses a serious difficulty for securing the Court and that, in fact, its constitutionalist function ought to be privileged over the adjudicatory one. I want to outline a few of the reasons for this here.
At bottom my argument is that the Court continuing with this dual functionality and especially with having to deal with repetitive applications (which is widely recognised as being problematic) is damaging it, not just because it means there is a huge volume of applications with attendant delay and cost, but primarily because it means that the Council of Europe, domestic political systems and domestic courts can continue to use the Court as a kind of an ‘escape hatch’ from having to properly internalise and apply the principles and judgments of the Convention and Court.
► First of all expecting the Court to continue to deal in some way with non-constitutionalist repetitive applications absolves the Council of Europe from really placing firm political pressure on states that are engaging in activity and behaviour that clearly violates the Convention. It means, in essence, that rather than using international political processes to reinforce and make effective the principles of international law, the Council can (and does) marginalise human rights enforcement by its member states in the comfortable knowledge that the Court will adjudicate on potential violations following which the Committee of Ministers will supervise execution of the judgments. In the article I put it thus:
As we know, the judgments of the Court are binding only on the states that are party to them but of course the principles outlined therein (especially in constitutionalist cases) have implications beyond those state parties. The only way in which the importance of those principles can be fully appreciated by member states within the Council of Europe is through an appropriate level of inter-state interaction, encouragement, reputational trading, and other typical international relations processes. It is incumbent upon states to ensure that compliance with the judgments of the Court and the principles of the Convention is an expected course of behaviour from all member states and, almost more importantly, that failure to do this is subject to political sanction quite apart from the juridical processes of the Court.
► Secondly I say that the adjudicatory function of the Court allows for national political systems—especially but not limited to parliaments—to sideline Convention issues if they wish to. This is especially the case, I think, where a state has a law or norm that is analogous (or, indeed, sometimes identical) to one in operation in another state and that other state had been censured by the Strasbourg Court in relation to the law or norm in question. In those situations one would expect that a state would try to remedy the situation before a case comes before the Court, especially where it a near certainty that if the State does appear before the Court in relation to same it will be found to be in breach of the Convention. This is something we are all too familiar with in Ireland, where we have failed to take action in response to cases against other states when our own law is clearly analogous to the one impugned: one need only think of Norris v Ireland (ECHR 1988) for an example from our past. In the piece I try to foresee what impact refocusing on constitutionalism would have on situations like this:
So what would happen if the European Court of Human Rights were to refocus its efforts on constitutionalist cases so that these repetitious applications would be greatly reduced? In the first place we might expect a greater degree of inter-state political pressure for change within the Council of Europe as considered above; secondly we might see the energies of NGOs that currently apply substantial amounts of energy (and, indeed, resources) to supporting litigants in taking cases ‘to Europe’ could redirect those efforts and resources towards the domestic political processes (which is, after all, where substantive legal change ultimately takes place); thirdly we might see the development of a further and more mature relationship with the Convention within legislative processes. I have written before, with Cliona Kelly, of the failure of the Irish legislative processes to internalise the Convention in an effective manner. Would removing the ‘security blanket’ of the Court’s adjudicatory function (that allows domestic politico-legal processes to abdicate the responsibility to take the Convention and the decisions of the Court into full and appropriate account), combined with real inter-state rights-based scrutiny within the Council of Europe and potentially more well-resourced NGOs putting pressure on the domestic systems, in fact improve the Convention’s effectiveness? I think that is at least a likely outcome.
► And finally I argue—along somewhat the same lines—that reducing or removing the adjudicatory function might invigorate judicial engagement with the Convention, and especially the process of developing autonomous understandings thereof:
[R]ather than considering themselves incapable of developing the Convention beyond the standards outlined by the Strasbourg Court…and being able to rely on the European court of Human Rights to ‘nudge’ them step-by-step along the way…domestic courts would be incentivised to develop their own autonomous understandings of the Convention. Those understandings would, of course, be framed within the constitutionalist principles laid down by the Strasbourg Court, but they would truly entrench the Convention within the domestic legal system.
The Interlaken Declaration did not, I think, engage seriously enough with the problematic nature of the dual functionality of the Court to be able to set in motion a process that would really secure the future of the Court.
A shift away from adjudicatory function (especially in repetitious cases) and refocusing towards constitutionalism would not be easy. Certainly there is a huge pressure from many, including the NGO community, to maintain individual adjudication as central to the Court and I can entirely see the motivation for this. But I think it’s a little bit like a negative circle: we need an adjudicatory court because states won’t embed the constitutionalist principles it espouses but maintaining adjudicatory functions takes away many of the incentives that are required to ensure full internalisation of the Convention in domestic legal and political systems. This is absolutely a quandary, and one that I think is very difficult to emerge from. My piece is trying, at least, to think through some of the elements of that quandary.
There is still time to make changes to the paper before publication and any comments are most welcome!

(Cross-posted at Human Rights in Ireland)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)


'Surely there are women who could make up a third of attendees.'

-- Author/activist Marie Wilson (below right), quoted in a Bloomberg article critical of the failure of the Davos World Economic Forum yet again to include at least 30% women in its gatherings. That figure, the article said, is the critical mass, the tipping point, "the level social scientists have found integrates women’s points of view into discussions." A "new policy to attract more women executives" to the annual gabfest in the Swiss Alps -- about which we've previously posted here, here, and here -- seems to have boosted the percentage to "close to 20 percent this year, up from 16 percent last year."

 
Bloggers Team