‘Legal Decisions’ listed on the American Bar Association Blawg Directory

The American Bar Association has recognized ‘Legal Decisions’ and listed it on its Blawg Directory here:


This is great motivation for me to continue writing at this blog. Thank you to all readers and the ABA.


Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by UNHRC

The UNHRC has adopted the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” that was submitted by John Ruggie, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights.

The Guiding Principles (found here) do not have any binding effect on any State nor do they create any new international law obligations. However, John Ruggie believes that the UNHRC endorsement of the Principles will establish them as a global reference point for human rights and business and they will provide civil society, investors and others the tools to measure real progress in the daily lives of people.

These Guiding Principles are grounded in recognition of:

  1. States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms;
  2. The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights;
  3. The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.

These Guiding Principles (31 in all) apply to all States and to all business enterprises, both transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.

The implications of these Guiding Principles for lawyers was discussed in a recent panel discussion, the summary of which can be found here.

Pros and Cons of International Commercial Arbitration: An Analysis by Wragge & Co.

See here.

Among the advantages are:

Enforceability, Neutrality, Flexibility, Privacy and Confidentiality, Finality, Ability to Select Arbitrators. 


Among the disadvantages are:

Procedural hurdles, Joiner, Speed & Cost, Pre-emptive remedial measures. 

United States to treat cyber attacks and computer network sabotage as acts of war

In the recent past, the threats of attacks on critical cyber and network systems have increased manifold, especially with the crippling governmental and industrial reliance on technology for all their integral activity and information.

It was only a matter of time that these cyber frameworks would become new targets and frontiers where wars and clandestine debilitating operations could be carried out. A timeline of cyber attacks shows that these attacks date back to 1973, and the recent attack on Lockheed Martin and many other American confidential servers show that Cyberwar is here to stay.

Not surprising that the Pentagon wouldn’t sit quietly facing imminence of and having already faced such attacks. The WSJ reported recently that the Pentagon would consider cyber attacks originating in another country on certain key systems as an act of war and would be avenged with  a military response from the United States.

A few weeks ago, the White House released a policy document for the cyberspace called “The International Strategy for Cyberspace” which sought to protect vital cyberspaces in the US from attack and if they were electronically attacked, that would result in a retaliatory attack.

The article cites many military personnel concluding that such cyber attacks could be similar to that of traditional warfare, coming within the ambit of a legal ‘armed attack’,   if they have similar effects and therefore require the equivalent response. Difficulties could also arise in determination of the course of the attack, whether it was supported by a government etc. All of such considerations would be necessary in evolving a strategy to undertake unilateral military campaigns against such cyber attacks.

Voice of America cites a former defense official who says:

Pentagon strategy documents are usually more about capabilities than specific actions. “The Pentagon doesn’t decide when we go to war.  And the Pentagon doesn’t decide these policy questions.  The Pentagon is the doer.  They are the ones who take action when they are directed by competent political authority and the command structure.  The Pentagon is in the training and equipping business.  And what they do is, they have to anticipate the kind of capabilities that they’re going to need to have in the future for future conflicts.”

However, some others say this is an important first step towards a strategic policy against cyber war and will serve as a warning to any future perpetrators considering such attacks.

Also, see this Yale Journal of International Law article on the link between Cyber attacks and Article 2 (4), U.N. Charter, prohibition on use of force.

Even though doctrinal and legal definitions of acts of war, armed attack etc. are unclear, this trend in the United States is a movement in the right direction as it shows evolution of traditionally held beliefs of what constitutes war.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: