IGA 105: The Politics of International Law
Spring 2014
** DRAFT UPDATED December 20, 2013 **
Professor
Kathryn Sikkink
Office: Littauer 308
Telephone:
E-mail: kathryn_sikkink@hks.harvard.edu
Assistant
Derya Honça
Office : Rubenstein 215
Telephone : 617-495-1923
Email : derya_honca@hks.harvard.edu
Time and Location
Tuesday and Thursday, 2:40 pm-4:00 pm, L230
Office Hours: Monday: 1:15-3:15 (or by appointment)
Course Description
This course starts from the assumption that increasingly policymakers need to know more about
international law in order to understand and act in world politics. International politics is now so
interpenetrated with international law concepts and practices that one can no longer be an
effective policy maker working on international topics with a basic familiarity with international
law. The central goal of the course is to familiarize students with international law and with a
broad range of analytical and policy tools to enable them to think and act critically when drafting
and implementing policies related to international law. The course provides an introduction to
some aspects of the method and substance of international law, learning some key legal concepts
like sovereign immunity, jus cogens, general principles of international law, principles of
jurisdiction etc. But this is not a law course. We cover legal subjects to understand how politics
and law interact in shaping international relations today. We will explore the following issues:
How do we explain where particular laws and norms come from? Why do states commit to
international treaties and to soft law? How do these affect the shape of global politics and the
outcomes of particular events? How often do states obey or comply with international law, and
why? We will also examine substantive areas of international law such as the use of force and
the laws of war, human rights, environmental law, and international criminal law.
1
Expectations and Evaluation:
This is a graduate-level course and will have the associated standards and assignments: complete
attendance at scheduled classes, assignments completed on time, and evaluation according to
students’ class participation and quality of written assignments.
Class Participation
You are expected to come to each session prepared to discuss the day’s assignment, readings and
cases, and to make thoughtful contributions to the learning of your classmates. Class
participation, attendance, and the timely completion of the Three Daily Questions (see below)
account for 30% of your course grade.
This course uses regional panels to bring different country perspectives in the room and to make
sure that everyone actively participates in class conversations. Students will be asked to select a
country to be their focus throughout the semester. You should sit with your regional panels on
case study days, where we will have simulations and debates. You should always know your
panel country’s position on an issue we are discussing, and I will call on members of the panel to
tell me if the country signed, ratified, or listed reservations on a treaty that appears on the
syllabus. One four different days, you will be asked to hand in a 200-250 word summary of your
country’s position on different treaties and legal matters that we will be discussing in class.
These brief summaries will together account for 10% of the class grade.
Three Daily Questions
For each class meeting you are required to briefly answer the Three Daily Questions in writing.
Answers to the three questions are mandatory, and graded complete-incomplete. Your answers
are to be posted to the course webpage by 12 pm.
The first question always is “In what you read for today, what did you find most illuminating?
Why?” The second question always is “In what you read for today, what did you find most
puzzling? Why?” The third question is the daily topical assignment, which appears in the black
box on the daily course assignment sheet.
Your answers to the three daily questions should be no longer than a few sentences each. In a
few sentences, you cannot possibly give a thorough, well-defended answer to the topical
question, and a thorough, well-defended answer is not expected. You should, however, give the
beginnings of a thoughtful answer.
You are encouraged to discuss the daily questions with your study group, but your answers must
be your own work. In particular, you may not give an answer to the two “In what you read for
today …” questions if you have not done the reading yourself. Instead, your answer should
simply say, “I have not read enough for today to find something illuminating or puzzling.”
2
On the three days when you are submitting longer written arguments (see below), you do not
need to submit answers to the Three Daily Questions. You may also skip four additional days
without penalty. In total, you are required to submit the Three Daily Questions 17 times.
Case Papers:
During the semester, you will prepare and submit three 500-word case paper (see detailed
instructions at the end of the syllabus with more information on specific cases) from a list of five
possible case opportunities. You will write from the point of view of an international politicallegal expert working within the tradition of international law, and make judgments based on that
role. You should first draw on widely shared legal norms, custom and treaties to inform your
analysis. Given that this class is about the intermingling of politics and law, you will follow your
legal analysis with a political analysis and see how they relate to one another and whether or not
your recommendations vary when political considerations are explicitly taken into account.
Each paper will account for 10% of your grade (for a total of 30%). They are due at the
beginning of class on the day the case is being discussed. Since one of the purposes of the case
paper is to promote informed discussion of the case, I will not accept any late case papers.
Because you have five case opportunities in which to submit a paper, if some emergency arises,
you can submit a case paper at a later date.
Final Policy Memo:
In the final policy memo, due during finals week, you will write a longer (1,500 word) legal
policy memo, on one of three topics: 1) Do we need a more well developed legal framework to
regulate the use of drones, and if so, what should it be? 2) What existing or future possible legal
arrangement would be both possible and effective in contributing to stabilization in climate
change? 3) Should the countries of the world write a new treaty on violence against women? In
each case, you will survey the existing legal situation with regard to the issue, and then make
political and legal recommendations about a course of actions. You must refer to class readings
about international law so your recommendations for practice are informed by what you have
learned in your class. The final policy memo will be worth 30% of the grade.
Enrollment
Auditing is limited and by permission of instructor. Those taking the course for credit have
precedence at office hours.
Grading
The HKS Academic Council has issued recommendations on grading policy, which include the
following curve: A (10-15%), A- (20-25%), B+ (30-40%), B (20-25%), B- (5-10%).
Academic Integrity
“We expect you to express your ideas and to sustain arguments in your own words. Failure to do
so is plagiarism. It is unethical and often illegal. Plagiarism ranges from the blatant—purchasing
a term paper or copying on an exam—to the subtle—failing to credit another author with the
3
flow of ideas in an argument. Properly acknowledging the use of the words of others and
avoiding excessive quotation of the work of others will eliminate most plagiarism problems. If
you want to quote from a published work, including a Web page, you must put the passage in
quotation marks and provide a citation. Simply changing a few words from the writings of other
authors does not alter the fact that you are essentially quoting from them. Paraphrasing of this
sort, where you use the words of another almost verbatim without acknowledging your source, is
the most common form of plagiarism among undergraduates. When you state another author's
viewpoint, theory, or hypothesis—especially when it is original or not generally accepted—you
must also include a reference to the published work. In general, citations are unnecessary when
the information is considered common knowledge or a matter of widespread agreement.
Common knowledge can often be identified by its appearance in several of the assigned readings
for class…. Failure to maintain academic integrity in any portion of the academic work for the
course shall be grounds for awarding a grade of F for that assignment. (This paragraph was
drawn in its entirety from Clark Miller’s syllabus at:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sdn/syllabi/files/Miller-Science_and_Democracy.pdf)
Class Page
The Class Page is only available over the Intranet. Go to the HKS home page. Select the login
button on the screen. Enter your username and password. Select IGA105 in Course Listings and
you’re in!
If you are not a KSG student and need access to the Class Page, there is a procedure connected to
the cross-registration process. Auditors can also be accommodated through this same process.
Daily Topics and Required Readings:
Session 1: January 28, 2014: Introduction to the Politics of International Law
Required Reading:
Shirley Scott, chapter 1 “International Law and World Politics Entwined,” in International Law
and World Politics, 1-18. (CW).
Robert Keohane, “International Law and International Relations: Two Optics,” Harvard Journal
of International Law 38 (1997 (487-502),
Session 2: January 30, 2014: Case #1: The Obama Administration and the decision whether or
not to intervene militarily in Syria (How was international law and world politics entwined in
this episode).
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy, Principles of International Law, Chapter 1, “Foundations of International Law,”
pp. 3-30.
4
Also read: The United Nations Charter (Preamble and Chapters I, V, VI, and VII), The Chemical
Weapons Convention (Preamble, Article I and Article XII).
Ian Hurd's blog post on Syria:
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/08/31/syria-insta-symposium-ian-hurd-dont-bomb-assadeven-legal/
Rosa Brooks' blog post on Syria:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/20/so_you_want_to_intervene_in_syria_
without_breaking_the_law?page=0,1
Anne Marie-Slaughter on targeted killings of Heads of State:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/05/01/mercy_killings
Case country assignment due in class: Figure out your country’s position regarding the legality
of the US retaliating against Syria for using chemical weapons against its people.
Session 3: February 4, 2014 What is international law? What is legalization? Who are the
relevant actors in International Law?
Questions: How do the authors define law and legalization? Do their definitions affect the kinds
of research they do or the kinds of conclusions they reach? What is the difference between soft
law and hard law and between law and norms? What are the causes and consequences of
increasing legalization in the international arena? Let’s continue to use the case of Syria to
think about some of these questions, e.g. Who are the actors involved in the case of trying to
destroy chemical weapons in Syria?
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy, Chapter 2, “Actors in International Law,” p. 33-74.
Kenneth W. Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and
Duncan Snidal, “Introduction,” and “The Concept of Legalization,” and “Hard and Soft Law in
International Governance,” in Special Issue on "Legalization and World Politics," International
Organization 54:3 (Summer 2000): add pages.
Session 4: February 6, 2014 International Law Creation:
Questions: Why and how do new norms and law emerge? Where do they come from? Why do
some norms flourish and get incorporated in hard law treaties while others remain as soft law?
How do norms change? We will compare the case of the landmine treaty to the case of drones,
which are not explicitly governed by a single treaty.
5
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy, chapter 3, “International Law Creation,” pp. 77-124.
Richard Price, "Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Landmines,"
International Organization 52:3 (Summer 1998), pp.613-644.
Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,”
pp. 887-917, in International Organization 52, 4 (Autumn 1998).
Session 5: February 11, 2014: Treaties I
Required Reading:
Shirley V. Scott, Reading a Multilateral Treaty, 141-157.

Students must select and read one of the following treaties in advance of class
o Charter of the United Nations
o Chemical Weapons Convention
o Landmine Treaty
o Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) (1979)
o Convention against Torture (CAT)
o Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
o United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (and its Kyoto
Protocol)

Individual In-class Exercise: Diagraming a Treaty (will be handed in for participation
points)
Session 6: February 13, 2014 Why do States Commit to International Treaties?
Questions: How and why do norms spread or diffuse? Why do states ratify international
treaties? How can we accommodate traditional understandings of sovereignty with the
widespread ratification by states of treaties that appear to undermine their sovereignty?
Consider this case question: Why have so many states ratified the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” despite the large number of
reservations against the treaty, and the belief that some parts of the treaty may not consistent
with domestic cultures and practices?
Required Reading:
Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics Chapter 3,
“Theories of Commitment,” pp. 57-111.
6
Session 7: February 18, 2014 International Law Interpretation and Dispute Resolution,”
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy Chapter 4: “International Law Interpretation and Dispute Resolution,” pp. 125170.
Case: Nicaragua vs. U.S. (World Court Case – read the case).
Discuss – Did the US break international law when it funded the groups that mined the harbor of
Nicaragua?
Session 8: February 20, 2014: International Law Compliance and Enforcement I.
Questions on compliance: What difference do global norms and institutions make? What do we
mean by compliance? How would we know compliance if we saw it? Under what conditions will
states comply with global norms and institutions? What are the factors that facilitate compliance
and the mechanisms through which compliance is enhanced? For example, is enforcement
necessary or at least useful for compliance?
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy, Chapter 5 “International Law Compliance and Enforcement” pp. 173-219.
Abram and Antonia Chayes, "On Compliance," International Organization 47:2 (1993), pp.
175-20.
Harold Koh, “Review Essay: Why Do Nations Obey International Law?” Yale Law Review
106:8 (1997), p. 2598-265
Session 9: February 25, 2014: The conditions under which states will comply with
international law.
Required Reading:
Kal Raustiala and Anne-Marie Slaughter, “International Law, International Relations, and
Compliance,” in Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsneaes, Thomas
Risse and Beth Simmons, (Sage, 2002), pp. 538-558.
Read: Judith Goldstein, Douglas Rivers, and Michael Tomz, “Institutions in International
Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and WTO on World Trade,” International
Organization 61 (Winter 2007): pp. 37-67.
Chapter 6, “Power, Governance, and the WTO: A Comparative Institutional Approach,” by
Gregory Shaffer, in Power and Global Governance, edited by Michael Barnet and Raymond
Duvall, pp.
7
Case country assignment due in class: Figure out your country’s position regarding the WTO.
Is your country a member? Who are its major trading partners, and is the WTO useful for dealing
with these trade partners? What is your country’s position on protecting international property
rights? Has it ever used the WTO dispute settlement system?
Session 10: February 27, 2014: U.S. Non-compliance with the Torture Convention:
Guest Speaker: Juan Mendez, Special Rapporteur on Torture
Required Reading:
Read: Juan’s Mendez report on Guantanamo
Daniel W. Hill "Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior." Journal of Politics
1161 (2010): 1169.
Kathryn Sikkink, “The U.S. and Torture: Does the Spiral Model Work? in From Commitment to
Compliance: The Persistent Power of Human Rights. Edited by Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp, and
Kathryn Sikkink (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 145-163.
Session 11: March 4, 2014 Use of Armed Force: Jus ad Bellum
Required Reading:
Sean Murphy, chapter 14, pp. 491-515 only.
Case 514: Pew Case Studies: The Kuwait Crisis: Sanctions, Negotiations, and the Decision to go
to War,”

UN Charter, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ (Be sure to take careful notes)
o Preamble
o Ch. I: Purposes (Articles 1-2)
o Ch. V: The Security Council (Articles 23-32)
o Ch. VI: The Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Articles 33-38)
o Ch. VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts
of aggression (Articles 39-51)
James Morrow, “When do States Follow the Laws of War?” American Political Science Review
Vol. 101: No. 3 (August 2007), pp. 559-572.
Session 12: March 6, 2014 Jus ad Bellum II: Kosovo Case:
8
Required Reading:
Case 252 “Coercive Diplomacy Before the War in Kosovo: America’s Approach in 1998.”
Session 13: March 11, 2014: Humanitarian Intervention, R2P
Michael Byers and Simon Chesterman, “Changing the Rules about Rules? Unilateral
Humanitarian Intervention and the Future of International Law,” 177-203 in Holzgrefe and
Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge,
2003).
Thomas Franck, “Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention,” 204-231
in Holzgrefe and Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political
Dilemmas (Cambridge, 2003).
Session 14: March 13, 2014 Laws of War: Jus in Bello:
Sean Murphy, Chapter 14 “Use of Armed Force,” 2nd half: pp. 515-529.
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (Basic
Books, 1977), chapters 16, 18 and 19, (Basic Books, 1977) pp. 251-268; p. 287-327.
International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), International Humanitarian Law: Answers to
your Questions (ICRC: Geneva, 2002), 1-40.
In-class video: International Humanitarian Law: A Universal Code, 15 minutes
NO CLASS (Spring Break): March 18 and 20, 2014
Session 15: March 25, 2014: Nuclear Weapons and the Use of Force
Required Reading:
India Nuclear tests case, #519
Session 16: March 27, 2014 Human Rights Law
Sean Murphy, chapter 10 “Human Rights,” pp. 333-381.
Kathryn Sikkink, “Norm Diffusion from the Global South: Latin America and the Idea of
International Human Rights,” Global Governance, Special Symposium (forthcoming)

In class: Youtube video on human rights
9
Session 17: April 1, 2014 Debate: Is the U.S. use of drones in Pakistan illegal and/or
immoral?
Case issue: What do international norms and international law say about the use of drones as
opposed to the use of landmines and chemical weapons? Is the U.S. use of drones in Pakistan
illegal and/or immoral?
Required Reading:
“Living under Drones: Legal Analysis,” at: http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report-legality/
and Harold Hongju Koh, “How to End the Forever War?” Speech at the Oxford Union May 7,
2013. http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-5-7-corrected-kohoxford-union-speech-as-delivered.pdf
Session 18: April 3, 2014 Tuesday, October 15: Treatment of Suspected Terrorists and
Detainees
Evangelista, Matthew, “Suspected Terrorists as Prisoners and Targets,” in Law, Ethics, and the
War on Terror (Polity, 2008), 55-102.


Case 297: The Extraordinary Rendition of Abu Omar: Ethics and the War on Terror
Case Paper 3 due in class
Session 19: April 8, 2014: The International Court of Justice
 Read Statute of the ICJ
 Case 275 “A Question of Sovereignty: Bahrain, Qatar and the International Court of
Justice”
 In-class: submit case paper 1 determining how the ICJ should rule
 In-class: Discussion of Part B of case
Vienna Convention and Angel Beard Case


The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1961)
Case 248: Governor Gilmore and the Execution of Angel Beard


In-class: Submit Case paper 2
In-class: Students receive Part B of Breard case
Harold Hongju Koh Paying “Decent Respect” to World Opinion on Death Penalty, 35 U.C.
Davis L. Rev. 1085 (2002)
10
Session 20: April 10, 2014 Basics of International Criminal Law & Fact-finding
Commissions
 Excerpt of Murphy, Sean D. “the crimes” 416-423.
 Stephen Wilkinson, ‘Standards of Proof in International Humanitarian and Human Rights
Fact-Finding and Inquiry Missions’, (2012) Geneva Academy, pages 1-14 only.
 Morten Bergsmo & William Wiley, ‘Human Rights Professionals and the Criminal
Investigation and Prosecution of Core International Crimes’, Manual on Human Rights
Monitoring (2008), 1-28. (
Session 21: April 15, 2014: The International Criminal Court I
Case: “Establishing an International Criminal Court: The Emergence of a New Global
Authority” Pew Case Studies in International Affairs #258
Benjamin Schiff, “River of Justice,” 14-41 in Building the International Criminal Court.
Check out the Council on Foreign Relations interactive timeline of leaders facing
international criminal prosecution.
Bartram S. Brown. “Bringing a Case to the ICC: Pathways and Thresholds” in Sarah B. Sewell
and Carly Kaysen (eds). The United States and the International Criminal Court: National
Security and International Law (3 page chart – will be handed out in class)
Watch the Film: International Criminal Court, Institutional Video, 25 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYg0JzsmQ3o
 In-class case scenarios
 In-class lecture on crimes, triggers, jurisdiction and complementarity (ICC PowerPoint
Session 22: April 17, 2014 Simulation: Commissions of Inquiry and the ICC
 Simulation Scenario
Session 23: April 22, 2014 The International Criminal Court II
Required Reading:
Case 270: The International Criminal Court: Could American Military Officers Be Tried in The
Hague?
John R. Bolton, “American Justice and the International Criminal Court,” remarks at the
American Enterprise Institute, 3 November 2003, 1-6.
11
Watch film, “The Reckoning: Battle for the International Criminal Court,” 60 minutes
Judith Kelley, “Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal
Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements,” American Political Science Review Vol. 101:
No. 3 (August 2007), pp. 573-589.

County case assignment due in class: Did your country support the creation of the ICC?
Did it ratify the Rome Statute? Why did it ratify the Rome Statute? Has your country
signed an Article 98 agreement with the US?


Case Paper 4 due
In class role play, convince the President of course of action
Session 24: April 24, 2014: Environmental Law:
Case issue: Climate Change—why was it easier to reach agreement on the Ozone Treaty
than on a comprehensive treaty for Climate Change?
Robert Keohane and David Victor, “The Regime Complex for Climate Change,” Perspective on
Politics, Vol. 9:1 (2011): pp. 7-23.
Joshua Busby, Chapter 4 “Climate Change: The Hardest Problem in the World,” in Moral
Movements and Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 104-150.
Case: “The Negotiations Leading to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer.” Goodman, Allan. Pew Case Studies in International Affairs, #447
1 page assignment due in class: Figure out your country’s position on both the Montreal
Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol—did it ratify and support these treaties? Did it file any
reservations? Why do you think it adopted the positions it did?
Session 25: April 29, 2014: Should there be a new treaty on Violence Against Women?
Session 26: May 1, 2014: Last day of class –
Case Papers: Detailed Instructions:
3 times during the semester you will be asked to prepare a 2-4 page case paper from three of
these five cases below.
Objective:


To apply a theory or concept to a real situation.
To generate animated class discussion.
12



To allow you to explore a problem by sorting out relevant facts, developing logical
conclusions and presenting them to your peers.
To familiarize you the problems that real life policy makers face including coping with
ambiguity and decision-making in complex situations.
To help you develop your analytical and problem solving skills.
Requirements:



Case papers are between 2-4 pages long – see directions below on specific cases (12
point font, double spaced with 1 inch margins).
I am not asking you to write how you personally would respond to these cases. I am
asking you to put yourself in the shoes of an international political-legal expert working
within the tradition of international law, and to make judgments based on that role. You
should first draw on widely shared legal norms, custom and treaties to inform your
analysis. Only after that, may you provide personal and/or political commentary on the
case the relevant moral and legal standards under discussion. Given this class is about
the intermingling of politics and law it may be useful to follow your legal analysis with a
political analysis and see how they relate to one another and whether or not your
recommendation varies any when political considerations are explicitly taken into
account.
Follow the directions for each specific case outlined below.
Evaluation:



Evidence of a clear thesis statement that is well supported in a coherent and persuasive
essay that is responsive to the assigned question or topic.
Very good writing which includes proper spelling, good grammar and appropriate prose
and uses citation correctly and where needed.
Thoughtful engagement of legal concepts while paying attention to political practice.
Case Paper 1: Territorial disputes, Sovereignty and the ICJ
 After reading part A of the case, write a 2-3 page essay in which you reflect on how you
believe the ICJ will rule in this case (based on your best legal judgment) and explain w
Case Paper 2: The Execution of Angel Beard
 After reading part A of the case write a 2-3 page essay in which you address the
following question:
o Whether or not the US violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention.
 In your answer be sure to clarify what US obligations under the Vienna
Convention are.
 You may want to analyze and assess the arguments made by the US and
Paraguay before the ICJ as support for your argument.
 Be sure to also address the counter argument to your own.
 After reading part B, write a short response (of approximately 1 page or more) in which
you either 1) explain what you believe the appropriate balance is between state
sovereignty and deference to the Court; or 2) how in the US context a tradition of state’s
rights complicates US foreign policy and its ability to honor treaty commitments.
13
Case Paper 3: The Extraordinary Rendition of Abu Omar: Ethics and the War on Terror

Write a 2-4 page essay in which you answer the question of whether the struggle against
violent Islamic extremism is best understood and addressed as a war (guided by the laws
of war and international humanitarian law) or as a particularly virulent form of crime
(guided by an international criminal law framework). Be sure to also address what tools
are most appropriately used by states in the response. Your answer should draw on the
bodies of international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international
human rights law and be able to distinguish between them.
Case Paper 4: US Military Personnel and the ICC
 Write this essay from the perspective of your assigned role (as either Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense or the Attorney General) and advise the President of the right course
of action, as you see it. This should be a persuasive essay in which there is a clear,
succinct and easily discernible course of action being advocated for (clear thesis). You
must provide convincing evidence and/or arguments to support your position. Be sure to
consider both long- and short-term and domestic and international ramifications of the
course of action that you are advocating.
Case Paper 5: Should the UN Security Council Refer the case of Syria to the ICC?
 Write an essay from the point of view of a legal and political advisor to the legal
department of the foreign ministry of one of the current members of the Security Council
(Either one of the P-5, or one of the 10 non-permanent elected members). Advocate a
clear, succinct and easily discernible course of action (clear thesis), and provide
convincing evidence and/or arguments to support your position. You should take both
legal and political concerns into account in your memo.
14