ICTY Manual on Developed Practices

The United Nations has published the “International Criminal Trinunal for the Former Yugoslavia Manual on Developed Practices.”  The manual is a synthesis of best practices for prosecuting individuals for human rights violations.  The text includes the following chapters: 

Investigation

Indictment

Arrest Warrants

Pre-Trial

Trial Managementl

Trial Judgement Drafting

Appeals

Enforcement of Sentences

Referral of Cases to Domestic Jurisdictions

Judicial Support Services

Legal Aid and Defence Counsel Issues

 

ICTY Manual on Developed Practices

http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/Reports%20and%20Publications/manual_developed_practices/icty_manual_on_developed_practices.pdf

From the Introduction to the Manual:

As the ICTY proceedings draw to a close, it has become increasingly important to emphasize the shared responsibility of international and national jurisdictions in the prosecution and prevention of war crimes, and crimes against humanity and genocide. The close cooperation between international and domestic courts is essential to maintaining the radical departure from a culture of impunity and to fostering a culture of accountability. In this perspective, one should view the completion of the ICTY’s mandate as a strategy devised to allow the continuation by domestic actors of the activities that were initiated by the ICTY. The ICTY’s pioneering role and its unprecedented body of practice and case law will be its most significant achievement, and the continuation of its work through the local prosecution of war crimes by courts in the region its real legacy.

However, criminal proceedings for violations of IHL at the domestic level will only succeed if domestic institutions have sufficient resources and adequate capacity to handle complex criminal trials of this nature. The purpose of this Manual is to contribute to this process of capacity-building by sharing the ICTY experiences and established practices in the prosecution and adjudication of complex cases. Other international and mixed jurisdictions will also benefit from this work, so that the know-how developed by the ICTY may provide some guidance on the challenges of delivering justice.

Presidential Cyberspace Policy Review

Upon taking office, President Obama directed that a 60-day, comprehensive, “clean-slate” review be undertaken to assess U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity. This 76-page paper contains the review team’s conclusions. It also outlines the beginning of a way forward toward “a reliable, resilient, trustworthy digital infrastructure for the future.”

Hat tip to DocuTicker.

Happy Days No More

In the not too distance past, say back when Happy Days was a popular TV show, the annual song and dance between publisher, library director and dean went something like this:

Legal publishers would post annual price increases with an average of 11% – 15%.

The library director would then tell his or her dean, “Gosh, Look at this:  Law books are going up by 11% – 15%.”

The dean would then take out his or her checkbook and tell the director, “Outrageous.  Here’s your library’s annual 15% budget increase.”

Those days are over.  So over.  So, so over.

Today when I tell the dean that a certain publication is going up by a double-digit price increase, his reply is quick and unequivocal:  “That’s easy,” he says, “cancel it.”

Many of us — myself included — still have not received next year’s library budget.  But there is no doubt in my mind that a sea change in library collections will be forced by changing budgets and starting next year (by next year, I mean next “fiscal year,” which for us begins on September 1, 2009 – so next year is right around the summer corner).  I anticipate a reduction of at least 15%.  Further, my book funds — i.e., funds used for monographs — are entirely endowment based; I shudder to think what will happen there.

Let’s take a few examples of how the law library landscape might change.

We subscribe to both United States Code Annotated (USCA) and United States Code Service(USCS).  Last year here’s what we paid for each:

We paid $1,645 for USCS (a Lexis product); and we paid a total of $5,376 to West for their USCA in 2008, including all bound volumes and pocket parts.

Each set is a complete annotated version of the United States Code.  The quality on both is extremely good.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any student, professor or practitioner can perform adequate legal research with just one or the other — no one needs both.  So faced with that fact and the budget reality, which one will the dean say “that’s easy” — the one that costs $ 1,645 or the one that costs $ 5,376?

Depending upon how my budget situation shakes out, we may even face the rather drastic step of cancelling some online databases.  There are three gigantic legal online commercial databases, each with its own benefits and features, but each also a complete online law library.  Here’s what they are costing us:

Bloomberg Law:  Free

LexisNexis:  $ 68.00 per FTE, with minimum of $ 15,000 and maximum of $ 50,850

Westlaw:  $ 73.27 per FTE, with minimum of $ 15,878 and maximum of $ 64,206

Looking back over the past few years helps show pricing patterns, which could aid in the decision making:

LexisNexis:

2008:  $ 34,980 (6% increase over previous year)
2007:  $ 33,000 (5%)
2006:  $ 31,497 (5%)

I should note that this year LexisNexis “gets it” and are holding next year’s price to the same amount as last year’s.  We’ll be adding them to our Good Guys list (see also this item).

Westlaw:

2008:  $ 39,951 (7% increase over previous year)
2007:  $ 37,338 (7%)
2006:  $ 34,773 (14%)

Some things will have to go.  Over the rest of the summer I and my colleagues will be making some tough decisions.  Redundancy is nice, but may not be affordable.

Columbia Science and Technology Law Review Goes Open Access

From an announcement on their website:

Letter from the EIC

Hello, and welcome to Volume X of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review.

Starting with this volume, we’ve made two significant changes to how we publish, and I wanted to write this note to explain those changes and why we did them.

First, we’ve decided to meet the standards set out by the Open Access Law Program and formally seek to become an Open Access Law Journal. To that end, we’ve refined our author agreement (already very liberal) to explicitly ensure that authors retain their copyrights, and we’re making our agreement public on our website. At the same time, we’re also embracing open publication, formally putting our articles under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial No-Derivatives license, and allowing our authors to distribute themselves under even more liberal licenses if they so choose.

Second, in order to meet the standards set forward by the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship, we’re moving our backend from our own server to professionally maintained, archival-quality services run by the Columbia Library. We were already publishing in the relatively open PDF format. As a result of these two choices, we can now be fully confident that our digital scholarship has the same permanence and long-term “shelf life” as a paper journal- a big step forward for digital scholarship in general.

For readers of our journal, these two small changes should not have much impact. Expect the same high quality content, delivered more reliably, and with clearer terms explaining your ability to use and share our scholarship with others. In addition, as a result of our partnership with the Columbia Libraries, in coming volumes you’ll see new functionality on our website, like subscriptions via email.

For authors, both current and future, we expect that these changes will improve our already high citation rankings. It will also clarify your rights and make sure that your writing benefits you, first and foremost. Authors interested in these benefits, should, of course, feel free to contact us about publication!

It has been a pleasure and an honor to serve with a terrific, patient staff this year; we hope you enjoy and learn from the results, as we have.

Sincerely,

Luis Villa

Editor-in-Chief, STLR Volume X

 

More on the Durham Statement here, here, and here.