Tag: Prohibition

The UK proposal will be debated at a Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on June 26-28 in The Hague. Independent technical bodies like the OPCW can provide facts. The OPCW’s so-called Fact Finding Mission has so far investigated 83 alleged chemical attacks and confirmed their use in 14 cases. In 2015, the UN Security Council Resolution created the JIM with the assignment of identifying the “individuals, entities, groups, or governments who were perpetrators, organisers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemical weapons.” However, the JIM’s mandate ended in December 2017, after Russia, in the Security Council, vetoed an extension of the mechanism’s work. So there is currently no international, independent, impartial mechanism specifically mandated to investigate who is behind chemical weapons attacks. To be sure, identifying those responsible for the attacks is of paramount importance for upholding the norm against chemical weapons. Yet, giving the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat and its head, the director-general, responsibility for identifying the perpetrators also entails serious risks, including possible damage to the OPCW and to the convention itself. The participants, a group of about 30 mostly Western states, vow to cooperate to hold those accountable who are responsible for chemical weapons use. Giving the director-general a role in attributing responsibility would likely expose the head of the organization, and the members of the Technical Secretariat who would be involved in investigations into responsibility, to constant accusations of being partial. Should Russia and its allies continue to obstruct or instrumentalize such proposals, CWC states parties could still vote on new mechanisms at the November conference.

A Minnesota voter had sued after being told to remove a "Please I.D. "While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned application." The Supreme Court in 1992 upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place. Voting monitors and judges would ostensibly enforce the policy and settle any disputes. Andrew Cilek, a local political activist in Minneapolis who brought the suit, was told twice in 2010 to remove his Tea Party-related apparel. When he returned a third time with his lawyer, Cilek was given a ballot but his name was recorded for possible prosecution, which can include a $300 fine. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the high court acted too hastily in tossing out Minnesota’s statute, and should have first given state courts a chance to offer a "definitive interpretation" of the law. "Especially where there are undisputedly many constitutional applications of a state law that further weighty state interests," she said, "the Court should be wary of invalidating a law without giving the state's highest court an opportunity to pass upon it." During the February oral arguments, the justices mentioned a range of possible political apparel that could be regulated, including that related to the #MeToo movement; rainbow-colored shirts supporting gay rights; union apparel; and pro-Trump "Make America Great Again" gear. But "reasonable" restrictions on speech on government property might be allowed if they were viewpoint-neutral.