THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (5832C)

January Term 2018, Western Law

Ryan Liss
ryan.liss@yale.edu

I. COURSE OVERVIEW
The jurisdictional framework for prosecuting international crimes (such as war crimes or
crimes against humanity) is unique. Ordinarily, the law provides that criminal law violations will be
prosecuted by the courts of states with a connection to the offence or offender (the “nexus state”).
Section 6 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for instance, provides as a default rule that Canadian courts
cannot prosecute offences that take place beyond Canadian territory. In the case of international
crimes, however, a legal regime has developed that permits the prosecution of such crimes before
domestic courts that are not connected to the offence, and before international tribunals, in addition
to the courts of the ordinary nexus state.
This course will examine this unique character of international criminal jurisdiction from three
perspectives—doctrinal, theoretical, and historical—to better understand what exactly it means to
categorize conduct as an international offence.
The first part of this course will explore this unique legal framework from a doctrinal
perspective, examining the fundamentals of the international criminal justice system—including the
crimes, institutions, and jurisdictional principles that define the field today.
The second part of the course will examine the unique theoretical and conceptual challenges
this framework poses: What is it that distinguishes international offences from domestic offences?
And can this unique jurisdictional framework be justified as a matter of criminal law theory?
The third part will turn to the history of the idea of international crime. It will examine how
the character of the quintessential international offence has changed over the past two hundred years
(from piracy, to waging war, to crimes against humanity). And it will examine what this history can tell
us about the core question of what makes international crime distinct from domestic crimes.
The course will involve a combination of lecture, class discussion, and presentations, as well
as a series of interactive moot and negotiation exercises in which students will adopt the roles of
international criminal lawyers and treaty negotiators.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon the completion of this course, students will be able to identify the main institutions and
criminal prohibitions that compose the international criminal justice system. They will understand the
unique jurisdictional framework at the heart of the international criminal justice system, and the
challenges and possibilities this framework offers. Students will have the resources to explore core
questions raised in criminal law theory, and the various ways these questions have been addressed in
the unique context of international criminal punishment. Moreover, students will understand the core
changes that mark the history of international criminal law over the past two centuries.
In addition, students will build their capacity in advocacy, negotiation, and scholarly analysis.
They will hone their ability to collaborate with colleagues, develop and present an adversarial

1
argument, analyze an academic argument, and engage in negotiations in the course of drafting a legal
instrument.

III. COURSE MATERIALS

Required and optional readings will be posted online on the course OWL website. In addition, a copy
of Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3d ed (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2014) will be placed on reserve at the library for general reference.

IV. COURSE EVALUATION

The evaluation for this course will be composed of two main components: (1) a research essay and
proposal; (2) in-class participation, including involvement in discussions, presentations, and
experiential exercises.

(1) Research Paper: Paper and Paper Proposal

• Paper (60%): Students will write a research paper examining any issue related to the
course (max. 5000 words including footnotes and citations, due February 26, 2018).
Students are especially encouraged to engage in novel and critical research on an issue of
international criminal law related legal history or legal theory.

• Paper Proposal (5%): A draft paper/topic proposal will be due for in-class peer feedback
on January 23, 2018. The proposal should be brief (max. 1/2 page), setting out the topic
the research paper will address and questions the student intends to explore in their
research. A final version of the proposal must be submitted to the instructor by January
29, 2018 for approval of the topic.

(2) In-Class Participation: Presentation, Negotiation Exercise and Reflection Paper, and
General Participation

• Presentation (10%): Each student will sign-up to give one presentation (approx. 10 mins)
on an assigned reading in the second or third week of the class. Students should provide
a basic overview of argument in the reading, offer critical assessment, and prepare five
questions for discussion. Sign-up for the presentations will be completed online (to be
explained during the first day of class).

• Negotiation Exercise and Reflection Paper (15%): On the final day of class (January
26, 2018), students will participate in a mock treaty drafting exercise, setting out the
appropriate subject matter jurisdiction of an international criminal institution if it were to
be created today. Teams of students will be assigned a role (either as representatives of
various states, as representatives of non-governmental organizations, or as a member of
the secretariat of the drafting conference). Students will have time in earlier class sessions
to prepare as a team. They should also meet outside of class and complete research on the
state or institution they represent to ensure they are prepared for the exercise. After the

2
 exercise, each student should prepare a brief reflection paper (max. 1 page single-spaced),
reflecting on their experience (due January 29, 2018).

• General Participation (10%): The class will be structured around active participation,
discussion, and engagement. Students will be expected to attend all classes having read the
material, and to be ready to participate. In addition to engaging in discussion on a voluntary
basis, students will also be assigned two “on-call” dates during the course, during which
they should be prepared to be called upon to answer questions about the material. The
on-call list assignments will be circulated to students during the first week of the course.
Finally, the course will involve several small experiential exercises in which students will
be expected to participate and collaborate with their peers.

Summary of Assignments and Deadlines

Presentation Date to be determined by student sign-up
Draft Paper Proposal January 23, 2018 (in-class for peer feedback)
Negotiation Exercise January 26, 2018 (in-class)
Paper Proposal January 29, 2018 (to instructor by email)
Negotiation Reflection Paper January 29, 2018 (to instructor by email)
Research Paper February 26, 2018 (to instructor by email)

All assignments due to the instructor by email should be sent to ryan.liss@yale.edu by midnight (EST)
on the due date note above. The one exception is the Research Paper, which should be submitted by
4:00pm (EST) on the due date, as required by Western Law. Please include 5832C, your last name,
and the assignment name in both the subject line and file name (e.g. 5832C Smith Reflection Paper).

V. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Illness: In case of illness, please consult Western’s Policy on Accommodation for Medical
Illness: https://studentservices.uwo.ca/secure/index.cfm. For questions about accommodation for
medical illness of work worth less than 10% of the total course grade, see the course instructor.
Use of Electronic Devices: Electronic devices (e.g. laptops, tablets, cell phones) are
permitted inside the classroom, but use of devices for non-academic purposes may have an impact on
a student’s General Participation mark.
Scholastic Offences: Scholastic offences are taken seriously and students are directed to read
the appropriate policy, specifically, the definition of what constitutes a Scholastic Offence, at the
following Web site: http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/handbook/appeals/scholastic_discipline_undergrad.pdf.
Plagiarism: All required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to
the commercial plagiarism detection software under license to the University for the detection of
plagiarism. All papers submitted for such checking will be included as source documents in the
reference database for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of papers subsequently submitted to the
system. Use of the service is subject to the licensing agreement, currently between the University of
Western Ontario and Turnitin.com: http://www.turnitin.com.
Support: Students who are in emotional/mental distress should refer to Mental

3
Health@Western http://www.uwo.ca/uwocom/mentalhealth/ for a complete list of options about
how to obtain help. Students should also consult the Western resources on JustBalance.ca. Mysty
Clapton, Assistant Dean (Student Services) is available to help students identify resources that may be
of assistance to them.

VI. COURSE SCHEDULE

Date Topic(s)
January 9, 2018 Introduction: course overview; the idea of international criminal law;
background concepts of public international law
January 10, 2018 The International Institutions of International Criminal Law: the
international tribunals and their relationship to national courts
January 11, 2018 Prosecutions before National Courts: the basic rules of criminal jurisdiction
and universal jurisdiction
January 12, 2018 Contemporary International Crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes, and the crime of aggression
January 15, 2018 International Criminal Justice as Regressive: critical accounts of
international criminal justice and international criminal jurisdiction
January 16, 2018 Guest Lecture on Current Issues in Sexual and Gender-Based Violence:
Professor Valerie Oosterveld
International Criminal Justice as Progressive (or Aspirational): accounts
of international criminal justice and jurisdiction as challenging pervasive
violence and entrenched power
January 17, 2018 Introduction to Criminal Law Theory and the Objectives of International
Criminal Punishment
January 18, 2018 Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 1: justifying international
criminal jurisdiction by gravity of international crimes
Film: Prosecutor
January 19, 2018 Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 2: justifying international
criminal jurisdiction by concerns of “humanity”
January 22, 2018 Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 3: justifying international
criminal jurisdiction on the basis of the nexus state’s failure to govern
Reviewing the Competing Positions: comparing the gravity, humanity, and
state failure theories
January 23, 2018 History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 1: piracy as the core
international crime in the Nineteenth Century
January 24, 2018 History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 2: crimes against peace as the
core crime at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials
January 25, 2018 History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 2: the contemporary focus
on atrocity crimes, and recent developments concerning the crime of
aggression
January 26, 2018 Treaty Drafting Conference and Course Conclusion

4
VII. ASSIGNED READINGS

1. Introduction (January 9)
• Chapter 1 “What is International Criminal Law,” in Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to
International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
2014).
• Chapter 3 “Sources,” in Malcolm Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), read pp 69-89, 93-98, 113-119, 123-127; skim remainder (note: if you
have a background in public international law you can choose to skip the Shaw chapter).

Statutes and Treaties:

o Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS 26, read preamble, arts 1-2, 7,
39-42, 103; skim remainder

2. The International Institutions of International Criminal Law (January 10)

• Prosecutor v Dusko Tadić, IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
on Jurisdiction (ICTY Appeals Chamber) (2 October 1995), at paras 1-3, 26-40, 49-64.
• Chapter 1 “The Creation of the Court,” in William Schabas, An Introduction to the International
Criminal Court, 5th ed (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
• Sarah Nouwen & Dustin Lewis, “Jurisdictional Arrangements and International Criminal
Procedure,” in Lorenzo Gradoni et al, eds, International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules
(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013).

Statutes and Treaties:

o Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90, read
preamble, arts 1-28; skim remainder.
o Skim Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible
for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory
of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, UN Doc S/25704 at 36, annex (1993) and
S/25704/Add.1 (1993), adopted by Security Council on 25 May 1993, UN Doc
S/RES/827 (1993) (“ICTY Statute”).
o Skim United Nations, Establishment of the Mechanism for International Criminal
Tribunals (“MICT”).

Optional Reading:
o Chapters 7-9, in Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and
Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014) (on course
reserve).
o Harold Koh, “International Criminal Justice 5.0” (2013) 38 Yale Journal of
International Law 525.

5
3. Prosecutions before National Courts (January 11)
• Chapter 3 “Jurisdiction,” in Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and
Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
• Wendy Gillis, “Rwandan genocide: The long road to justice,” Toronto Star (5 April 2014).
• The Arrest Warrant Case:
o Skim excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment (14 February 2002), [2002] ICJ Rep 3.
o Read excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Separate Opinion of Koroma (14 February 2002), [2002]
ICJ Rep 3.
o Skim excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Separate Opinion of Higgins et al (14 February 2002),
[2002] ICJ Rep 3.
o Read excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Separate Opinion Guilluame (14 February 2002), [2002]
ICJ Rep 3.
• Roger O’Keefe, “Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept” (2004) 2 Journal of
International Criminal Justice 735, read pp 735-747 (read the rest of the article if you need
further clarification beyond Cryer chapter and Arrest Warrant Case, skim otherwise).

Statutes and Treaties:

o Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 6(2).
o Excerpts from Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, SC 2000, c 24.

Optional Reading:
o R. c. Munyaneza, 2009 QCCS 2201 (the decision is quite long, but a quick skim provides
a good sense of the case).
o Excerpts from Libman v The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 178.
o Skim excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Separate Opinion of Rezek (14 February 2002), [2002]
ICJ Rep 3.
o Skim excerpts from Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Separate Opinion of Bula-Bula (14 February 2002),
[2002] ICJ Rep 3.

4. Contemporary International Crimes (January 11)

• Chapter 4 “The Crimes,” in Roger O’Keefe, International Criminal Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2015).

Statutes and Treaties:

o Review Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS
90, at arts 5-8bis.
o Skim International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes of the International Criminal
Court.

6
 Optional Reading:
o Chapters 10-13, in Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and
Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014) (on course
reserve).

5. International Criminal Justice as Regressive (January 15)

• Mahmood Mamdani, “The Logic of Nuremberg,” London Review of Books (7 November 2013).
• Asad Kiyani et al, “Foreward,” (2016) 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice 915.
• Sarah Nouwen, “Legality on Trial,” (2012) 43 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law
151.
• Tor Krever, “International Criminal Law: An Ideology Critique,” (2013) 26 Leiden Journal of
International Law 701.
• Review Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), at pp 21-26 (from Chapter 1), 67-68
(from Chapter 3).
• Skim Excerpts Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo
v Belgium), Separate Opinion of Rezek (14 February 2002), [2002] ICJ Rep 3.
• Skim Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium),
Separate Opinion of Bula-Bula (14 February 2002), [2002] ICJ Rep 3.

Optional Reading:
o Immi Tallgren, “The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law” (2002) 13
European Journal of International Law 561.
o Karen Engle, “Anti-Impunity and the Turn to Criminal Law in Human Rights” (2015)
100 Cornell Law Review 1069.
o Frédéric Mégret, “International Criminal Justice: A critical research agenda,” in
Christine Schwöbel, ed, Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law: An Introduction
(New York: Routledge, 2014).

6. Part I: Guest Lecture on Current Issues in Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: Professor
Valerie Oosterveld (January 16)
• Choose one of the following two readings:
o International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, “Policy Paper on Sexual and
Gender-Based Crimes” (June 2014).
o Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15, Decision on the confirmation of
charges against Dominic Ongwen (ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II) (23 March 2016), at pp
4-5, 30-62 (Note: this decision contains details of crimes that might be
disturbing to some readers).

Part II: International Criminal Law as Progressive (January 16)

• Payam Akhavan, “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future
Atrocities?” (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 7.
• Choose one of the following two readings:

7
 o William Schabas, “United States Hostility to the International Criminal Court” (2004)
15 European Journal of International Law 701.
o Harold Koh, “International Criminal Justice 5.0” (2013) 38 Yale Journal of
International Law 525.

7. Introduction to Criminal Law Theory and the Objectives of International Criminal

Punishment (January 17)
• Malcolm Thorburn, “Punishment and Public Authority,” in Antje Du Bois-Pedain et al, eds,
Criminal Law and the Authority of the State (Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2017).
• Mirjan Damaška, “What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?” (2008) 83 Chicago-
Kent Law Review 329, at pp 329-347.
• Hyeran Jo & Beth Simmons, “Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?” (2016)
70 International Organization 443.
• Jens David Ohlin, “Toward a Unique Theory of International Criminal Sentencing,” in Goran
Sluiter & Sergey Vasiliev (eds), International Criminal Procedure: Towards a Coherent Body of Law
(London: Cameron May International Law & Policy, 2009) at pp 373-392.

Optional Reading:
o Chapters 2 “Aims, Objectives, and Justifications of International Criminal Law,” in
Robert Cryer et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014) (on course reserve).
o Mark Drumbl, “Collective Violence and Individual Punishment” (2005) 99
Northwestern University Law Review 539, especially pp 577-595.
o Martti Koskenniemi, “Between Impunity and Show Trials” (2002) 6 Max Planck UN
Yearbook 1.

8. Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 1 (January 18)

• Eugene Kontorovich, “The Piracy Analogy: Modern Universal Jurisdiction’s Hallow
Foundation” (2004) 45 Harvard International Law Journal 183, at pp 183-194, 204-211, 223-
230.
• Margaret deGuzman, “How Serious are International Crimes?” (2012) 51 Columbia Journal
of Transnational Law 18, at pp 19-23, 36-68.
• Michael Guidice & Matthew Schaeffer, “Universal Jurisdiction and the Duty to Govern,” in
François Tanguay-Renaud & James Stribopoulos, eds, Rethinking Criminal Law Theory (Oxford,
UK: Hart, 2012).

Optional Reading:
o Kenneth Randall, “Universal Jurisdiction under International Law” (1988) 66 Texas
Law Review 785.

9. Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 2 (January 19)

• David Luban, “Fairness to Rightness: Jurisdiction, Legality, and the Legitimacy of
International Criminal Law,” in Samantha Besson & John Tasioulas, eds, Philosophy of
International Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010).

8
 • Antony Duff, “Authority and Responsibility in International Criminal Law,” in Samantha
Besson & John Tasioulas, eds, Philosophy of International Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 2010).
• Chapter 5 “The International Harm Principle,” in Larry May, Crimes Against Humanity: A
Normative Account (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Optional Reading:
o David Luban, “A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity” (2004) 29 Yale Journal of
International Law 85.
o Antony Duff, “Can we Punish the Perpetrators of Atrocities?” in Thomas Brudholm
& Thomas Cushman, eds, The Religious Responses to Mass Atrocity: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
o Chapter 4 “The Security Principle,” in Larry May, Crimes against Humanity: A Normative
Account (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
o Massimo Renzo, “A Criticism of the International Harm Principle” (2010) 4 Criminal
Law and Philosophy 267.

10. Theory of International Criminal Jurisdiction 3 (January 22)

• Win-chiat Lee, “International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction,” in Larry May & Zach
Hoskins, eds, International Criminal Law and Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2009).
• Chapter 4 “A Jurisdictional Theory of International Crimes,” in Alejandro Chehtman, The
Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
2010), especially pp. 100-110.

Optional Reading:
o Alejandro Chehtman, “Contemporary Approaches to the Philosophy of Crimes
against Humanity” (2014) 14 International Criminal Law Review 813.
o Guyora Binder, “Authority to Proscribe and Punish International Crimes” (2013) 63
University of Toronto Law Journal 278.

11. History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 1 (January 23)

• In re Piracy jure gentium, [1934] AC 586 (UK Privy Council).
• Jacob Sundberg, “The Crime of Piracy,” in M Cherif Bassiouni, ed, International Criminal Law
vol 1, 3d ed (New York: Martinus Nihoff Publishers, 2008).
• Lauren Benton, “Toward a New Legal History of Piracy,” (2011) 23 International Journal of
Maritime History 225.
• Excerpts from UNCLOS and ASIL Report on Jurisdiction.

Optional Reading:
o Chapter 5 “Supressing Unauthorized Nonstate Violence,” in Janice Thomson,
Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
o Joseph Bingham, “Report on Piracy” (1932) 26 American Journal of International
Law Supplement 739.

9
12. History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 2 (January 24)
• Henry Stimson, “The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law” (1947) 25 Foreign Affairs 179.
• Chapter 2 “The Nuremberg Ideas,” in Telford Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A
Personal Memoir (New York: Knopf, 1992).
• Excerpts from International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, “Trial of the Major War
Criminals, Judgment” (1 October 1946), in (1947) 1 International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg,
Trial of the Major War Criminals 171.
• Excerpts from International Military Tribinal for the Far East, United States of America et al v
Araki Sadao et al, “Judgment of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pal, Member from India” 239 (1
November 1948).

Statutes and Treaties:

o Excerpts from Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), in Agreement for
the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis
(London Agreement), 8 August 1945, 82 UNTS 280.
o Excerpts from Treaty Between the United States and Other Powers Providing for the
Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (Kellogg-Briand Pact),
27 August 1928, 94 LNTS 57.

Optional Reading:
o Chapters 6 “The History of International Criminal Prosecutions,” in Robert Cryer et
al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2014) (on course reserve).
o Egon Schwelb, “Crimes against Humanity” (1946) 23 British Yearbook of
International Law 178.
o Chapter 11 “‘God Save Us from Professors!’” in Oona Hathaway & Scott Shapiro,
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2017).

13. History of International Criminal Jurisdiction 3 (January 25)

• Theodor Meron, “International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities” (1995) 89 American
Journal of International Law 554.
• Skim Prosecutor v Dusko Tadić, IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory
Appeal on Jurisdiction (ICTY Appeals Chamber) (2 October 1995), at paras. 65-142.
• Claus Kreß. “The Crime of Aggression and the International Legal Order,” in Claus Kreß &
Stefan Barriga, eds, The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2017).
• Samuel Moyn, “On a Self-Deconstructing Symposium” (2016) American Journal of
International Law Unbound 258.
• International Criminal Court, Press Release, “Assembly activates Court’s jurisdiction over
crime of aggression” (15 December 2017).

Optional Reading:
o Samuel Moyn, “From Antiwar Politics to Antitorture Politics,” in Austin Sarat et al,
eds, Law and War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014).

10
 o Frédéric Mégret, “Epilogue to an Endless Debate” (2001) 12 European Journal of
International Law 247.
o Tom Dannenbaum, “Why Have We Criminalized Aggressive War?” (2017) 126 Yale
Law Journal 1242.
o Institute of International Law, Resolution of the Seventeenth Commission,
“Universal criminal jurisdiction with regard to the crime of genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes” (26 August 2005).

14. Treaty Drafting Conference and Course Conclusion (January 26)

Prepare with your group for treaty drafting exercise.

11