Professor Corri Zoli Talks Iran & Economic Warfare on WAER

SU National Security Expert: “Economic Warfare” With Iran, Others Might Achieve Results

(WAER | July 17, 2019) With the Iran Nuclear deal hanging by a thread, a Syracuse University national security expert says Iran is using it as a tool to push back against the US, Britain, and other allies to gain a stronger foothold in the region. Corri Zoli is a law professor and Director of Research for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at SU.

“You have the Middle East/North Africa region going through this enormous transformation right now. Iran is trying to get leverage, trying to be an agent of change in that transformation.”

“They can create enough of a division such that the EU will continue to back their nuclear deal and keep giving them support. They can continue to try and beef up their economic standing, and still do their proxy war meddling in the region. Then they can ultimately achieve their ‘Persian Crescent,’ the idea that they will try to dominate the Middle East.”

Zoli says the nuclear pact is full of structural and policy limitations that allow Iran to push the limits. She says playing nice just doesn’t work with a pro-conflict actor like Iran that has repeatedly tried to destabilize the region. Zoli says the sanctions are a form of diplomacy, even if it seems to be ramping up tensions.

“It’s highly coercive. It’s highly hard power. But as an alternative to actual military intervention, it’s a very strong and powerful tool and the US is uniquely positioned to use it because we have one of the strongest economies in the world.”

Zoli says the Trump administration’s economic sanctions are strategic, if not unpredictable, and could reap results that evaded the Obama administration’s softer touch.

“The accommodationist strategy can be extremely risky. The more economic warfare strategy…not the soft power, but the hard power approach, can be more effective. Political respect is a wonderful thing, a very idealist conception. But many of these nations said ‘prove it.’ Then you’re in the realm of pragmatics. Unless you play in that realm, it’s very hard to get the policy outcomes that you want.”

ECONOMIC WARFARE AS A LARGER STRATEGY

Professor Zoli says the Trump Administration’s use of what she calls “economic warfare” with Iran and others seems to be part of a larger and perhaps effective approach to pressure countries into action.

“You’ve got all the hard power of economics, which is even more pernicious than war. You can really destroy whole economies. In a war, you can hurt certain areas of a country, but you usually don’t grenade the entire economy. Whereas with economic warfare, you truly can.”

Zoli acknowledges this runs the risk of ramping up tensions with Iran, which is being targeted for violating the nuclear deal. She says, however, that political polarization and personalities seem to distract from what might result in positive policy outcomes.

“You have the Middle East/North Africa region going through this enormous transformation right now. Iran is trying to get leverage, trying to be an agent of change in that transformation. The gulf monarchies, with the US as an ally and others, are trying to block that power move.”

Zoli says we’re seeing much the same strategy playing out with North Korea and its nuclear program.

“Where is the economic pressure on North Korea? China. There you’ve got the economic warfare web. The Trump Administratiion and his advisors know that North Korea is essentially a client state of China. Anything it decides to do or not do is going to be based on some kind of prior relationship with China.”

Zoli knows allies might be a bit disgruntled, but NATO’s European states are contributing more to their own defense for the first time in history.

Read the article on WAER.

 

William C. Banks Featured in AJIL Unbound Cyber Attribution Symposium

Banks, William. “The Bumpy Road to a Meaningful International Law of Cyber Attribution.” AJIL Unbound, 113 (July 2019).

Attributing computer network intrusions has grown in importance as cyber penetrations across sovereign borders have become commonplace, writes William C. Banks in an article featured in the American Journal of International Law’s AJIL Unbound Symposium on Cyber Attribution

Although advances in technology and forensics have made machine attribution easier in recent years, identifying states or others responsible for cyber intrusions remains challenging. Banks’ essay provides an overview of the attribution problem and its international legal dimensions and argues that states must develop accountable cyber attribution mechanisms for international law to have practical value in this sphere.

A Day to Remember Justice

By David M. Crane

(Re-published from Jurist | June 26, 2019) June 26 is a day designated by the United Nations as International Day in support of victims of torture. The General Assembly resolution creating the date imagined this as a day stakeholders – member states and their citizens – would unite in support of those that have endured torture and cruelty and recommit to ending its scourge. As international legal experts on this matter, we are using this opportunity to remind member states of their commitments, specifically that victims have meaningful access to seek judicial redress. Access to justice is the key feature of the right to redress and is a critical part of the global fight against impunity to which we have all committed ourselves.

“The Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program employed by the U.S. post 9-11, has seen scant judicial redress afforded to victims.”

Article 14, of the CAT enumerates that signatories must provide in their “legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.” Even for countries that have a strong record against torture and cruelty and enacted domestic protections against their use, this requirement to open up their legal systems to victims, has proved more challenging. Our work has been undertaken in the context of these domestic challenges, to support the legal right to redress, compensation and rehabilitation for victims.

As a former International Chief Prosecutor and a Registrar before international courts, charged with seeking justice for victims of heinous human rights abuses, we have personally witnessed the importance of and healing effect that victims derive both from judicial redress and an opportunity for adequate compensation. The impact of meaningful judicial redress on both victims and their societies’ healing and reconciliation is profound. It also acts as a powerful deterrent for future human rights abuses.

The Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program employed by the U.S. post 9-11, has seen scant judicial redress afforded to victims. Although the program was run by the U.S., many European countries, including the U.K., enrolled as junior partners. All governments involved in this shameful program have shied away from transparency and accountability, including providing victims with judicial redress options, but none has been able to completely bury their moral and legal responsibilities …

Read the full article.

David M. Crane is a Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence.

William C. Banks: Trump’s Assertion “May Be Unlawful”

(Associated Press | June 13, 2019) An expert in constitutional law tells the Associated Press that President Donald Trump’s assertion that he would be open to accepting a foreign power’s help in his 2020 campaign is not appropriate and “it may be unlawful.”

Jean-Pierre Bemba’s Request for Compensation for Damages from the International Criminal Court

By David M. Crane

(Re-published from Jurist | June 9, 2019) Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Bemba) is the leader of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC) and was the commander-in-chief of its military forces during the Central African Bush War from 2003-2004, during which the MLC was accused of committing war crimes, as well as, crimes against humanity.

“The ICC does not have precedent in awarding damages to those seeking compensation under the court’s jurisdiction, and there does not seem to be a set test to determine whether a party seeking compensation from the ICC will receive such damages.”

Bemba was arrested on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role as the leader of the MLC  near Brussels in May 2008 and was handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on July 3, 2008. Bemba was held by the ICC for over two years before his trial began in November 2010, throughout the duration of his trial which lasted until 2014, and still after the conclusion of his trial, until his convictions on March 21, 2016.

The ICC sentenced Bemba to 18 years detention for war crimes and crimes against humanity convictions, plus an additional year and a €290,000 fine for witness tampering.

Bemba appealed his convictions in 2016, citing procedural and legal errors in the lower court judge’s ruling, which Bemba’s counsel said should have resulted in a mistrial. The ICC chamber to which Bemba appealed found on June 8, 2018 that the trial chamber had ignored significant testimonial evidence proving that Bemba had a limited ability to investigate and punish war crimes in the Central African Republic during and after the violence in 2003 and 2004. This conclusion lead to Bemba’s acquittal.

Bemba submitted a request for compensation to the ICC on March 8, 2019. The ICC Prosecutor and Registrar asked the judges to dismiss this claim, but the Pre-Trial Chamber II judges presiding over the claim denied this request.

Bemba’s claim totaled €68.8 million, including: €12 million for the period of his alleged unlawful incarceration, €10 million in aggravated damages, €4.2 million in legal fees, with the remaining €42.4 million being for property damage.

Bemba’s request for property damage compensation stems from those losses consequent to Bemba’s arrest and detention as well as those losses caused by the ICC’s mistakes in managing Bemba’s frozen assets, as the assets seized by the ICC upon Bemba’s conviction were allowed to rot.

The provisions of the law are that Article 85 of the ICC’s Rome Statute governs compensation claims by persons who have been arrested pursuant to the ICC’s jurisdiction or convicted by the ICC. The governing clause provides two primary bases for bringing claims for compensation: the first is found in Article 85(1) while the second is laid out in Article 85(3). Article 85(1) of the Rome Statute states that “[a]nyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” Article 85(3) is vaguer and states that “[i]n exceptional circumstances, where the court finds conclusive facts showing that there has been a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice, it may in its discretion award compensation . . . according to the criteria provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to a person who has been released from detention following a final decision of acquittal or a termination of the proceedings for that reason.”

Claims for compensation must follow the ICC’s Rules of Evidence and Procedure, specifically Rule 173(2), which requires that a request for compensation be submitted to the court no later than six months from the date the person making the request was notified of the decision of the court concerning unlawful arrest or detention; reversal of a conviction; or existence of a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice.

Any party seeking compensation on such grounds must submit a written request containing the grounds for and the amount of compensation being sought to the ICC’s Presidency. The ICC then designates a three-judge chamber to consider the request. Rule 174 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides that judges handling such requests may hold a hearing or determine the matter based on the request along with any written observations by the prosecutor and the party who filed the request.

In cases in which damages are awarded, judges shall take into consideration “the consequences of the grave and manifest miscarriage of justice on the personal, family, and social professional situation of the claimant.” However, it has been acknowledged that there is no exact formula for calculating such damages.

The ICC does not have precedent in awarding damages to those seeking compensation under the court’s jurisdiction, and there does not seem to be a set test to determine whether a party seeking compensation from the ICC will receive such damages – at this point, it is purely discretionary. However, it does seem as if the ICC tends to look to whether the claim for damages is viable under Article 85(1) or 85(3) of the Rome Statute and proper under Rule 173(2) before considering the amount of compensation requested …

Read the full article.

David M. Crane is a Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence.

Syracuse University Named a US Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence

The US Intelligence Community has designated Syracuse University as one of eight national Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (ICCAE), with a funding award of $1.5 million over five years. Established in 2005 by Congress, the ICCAE program is designed to increase the number of culturally and ethnically diverse, multi-disciplinary professionals in the intelligence community. Syracuse University is one of only eight universities nationwide—including the University of Arizona, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and University of Southern California—and only one of two private universities selected.

“At its heart this effort aims to build a diverse workforce for the intelligence community that represents the full spectrum of our country’s population—reflected ethnically and culturally, and by gender, through sustainable national security education programs that will complement students’ primary areas of study.”

In its proposal, Syracuse University will lead a consortium of schools—known as the Partnership for Educational Results/Syracuse University Adaptive, Diverse and Ethical Intelligence Community Professionals (PER/SUADE)—to recruit and educate talented, diverse students interested in public service careers in the intelligence field. The consortium’s partner schools include Norfolk State University, a historically black university; The Grove School of Engineering at The City College of New York and other institutions.

This multi-faceted recruitment and education initiative leverages the University’s leadership and strengths in a wide range of security-related disciplines, cutting across STEM, public affairs, law, forensics, military affairs, disability studies, and language and cultural studies. Building dynamic and sustained partnerships with the consortium partners will enable PER/SUADE to share complementary strengths and attract diverse students, like military veterans, as well as historically underrepresented students, including women; ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse students; and students with disabilities.

“It is an honor for Syracuse University to be selected for this auspicious designation,” says Vice Chancellor and Provost Michele Wheatly. “This recognition acknowledges the tremendous research of faculty members engaged in these interdisciplinary fields and the strength of our academic enterprises committed to supporting a diverse set of scholars in the classroom and the field.”

Affiliated faculty members will support PER/SUADE’s mission by developing an intelligence-related curriculum, including major and minor degree options and a certificate program; professional development and faculty research opportunities; and culturally immersive experiences.

“This significant designation as an academic center of excellence and funding demonstrate scholarship and the impact of the University’s broadening research portfolio,” says Vice President of Research John Liu. “Syracuse University has a long history and commitment to excellence in research and education in public service and to the highly regarded values of diversity and ethics. Our faculty across various interdisciplinary fields are well positioned to further advance scholarship and education in global understanding and elevate our work in educating under-resourced students with diverse experiences and backgrounds.”

The program will provide students interested in pursuing a career in the area of intelligence with a strong academic foundation and experiences that will increase their success in finding a career in any of the US intelligence agencies. Along with their studies, ICCAE students will have opportunities to study abroad at more than 45 locations, with language instruction, cultural immersion and regional studies, and to participate in seminars, career talks, field trips and conferences.

“The goal of national security is to defend liberty as well as our physical security,” says Hon. James E. Baker, Co-Principal Investigator, Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration, and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT). “This program will benefit our nation and all who live in it by producing a diverse group of adaptive and insightful intelligence professionals who hold an unwavering commitment to public service with a keen understanding of ethics and the rule of law. These values and virtues were embodied in the life of Judge Jack Downey [a US intelligence officer who was captured and detained in Chinese prisons during and after the Korean War], whose service is recognized in the form of the Downey Fellowship for academically excellent students.”

The partnership consortium will take a three-part approach to address current educational needs and challenges for the intelligence community. The approach recognizes that emerging professionals need to adapt to the demands of highly dynamic and changing environments; acknowledges that diverse perspectives and experiences enhance a person’s ability to analyze situations; and recognizes that the next generation of the best security and intelligence professionals will put ethics and the rule of law at the forefront of their analysis and practice.

“At its heart this effort aims to build a diverse workforce for the intelligence community that represents the full spectrum of our country’s population—reflected ethnically and culturally, and by gender, through sustainable national security education programs that will complement students’ primary areas of study,” says Vice Admiral Robert Murrett (Ret.), Principal Investigator, Maxwell School Professor of Practice, and Deputy Director of INSCT. “It will leverage contributions from virtually all the schools and colleges at Syracuse University, and provide additional career opportunities for our students.”

Syracuse University Named a US Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence

Corri Zoli Explores Terror’s Organizational Tactics in Terrorism and Political Violence Article

Zoli, Corri & Aliya H. Williams G’17. “ISIS Cohort Transnational Travels and EU Security Gaps: Reconstructing the 2015 Paris Attack Preplanning and Outsource Strategy.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 31 (June 2019).

In this article Zoli and Williams explore the underappreciated role of organizational tactics in terrorist violence in an understudied single case: ISIS’s execution of the Nov. 13, 2015 Paris attacks.

It is one of the first systemic reconstructions of the journeys made by two ISIS strike cohorts in the coordinated attacks, as teams traveled from the Levant to Europe. In contrast to other high-profile attacks, terrorism scholars have not undertaken a detailed reconstruction of this event, even while open source information is now available. By examining the transnational travels of foreign terrorist fighters, the authors identify ISIS’s distinctive terrorist outsourcing strategy in which operatives used their experiences to adapt to changing security conditions, while EU governments revealed limited responses.

Both elements in this tightly-knit dynamic—terrorist outsourcing savvy using FTFs and EU security policy failures—were necessary to achieve this high-profile attack.

Zoli’s and Williams’ essay contributes to descriptive empirical and theoretical knowledge of terrorist tactical innovation and adaptive operational learning, as these capacities are enhanced by on-the-ground organized networks to increase organizational (versus so-called “lone wolf”) campaign success. By using a single case interdisciplinary and exploratory framework, the authors claim that terrorism studies can delve deeper into superficially understood phenomena to isolate concepts with future cross-case value, such as cohorts and tactical adaptation.

Like the Warmbiers, Former CIA Detainees Deserve Chance to Seek Justice

By David M. Crane 

(Re-published from The Hill | May 19, 2019) In the headlines again recently was the tragic case of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier, when it was disclosed that North Korea billed the United States $2 million for his medical treatment while a captive. Warmbier died in 2017 shortly after arriving home following more than a year in North Korean detention. Arrested by the North Koreans for spying, Warmbier was accused of ripping down a propaganda poster in a restricted area of his hotel in Pyongyang. He likely suffered unimaginable torture during his time in detention, but because of the opaque nature of the North Korean regime, little is known about his treatment and what caused the severe brain injury that led to his coma and death.

“Indeed, if the United States expects other countries to open their courts for U.S. victims overseas, it needs to do that for those who claim torture and ill-treatment by the United States.”

The news raised questions about the negotiations for Warmbier’s release and whether the medical bill the U.S. apparently had agreed to pay essentially was a ransom payment. The Trump administration has denied that it ever was paid. Warmbier’s mother, Cynthia, said that if she knew the North Koreans were after money she would have given it to them from day one. It is understandable that the relatives of victims of torture and cruelty by foreign governments are prepared to do anything to see them released and to gain justice for their families.

The Warmbiers received a modicum of justice in a federal court last December, when North Korea was ordered to pay the family over $500 million in damages. At the time of the ruling, his parents commented, “We are thankful that the United States has a fair and open judicial system so that the world can see that the Kim regime is legally and morally responsible for Otto’s death. … We promised Otto that we will never rest until we have justice for him.” The judge in the case noted that the award was substantial to deter the North Koreans from engaging in this type of behavior again.

Although the U.S. courts have offered a legal venue for the Warmbiers to seek judicial redress, under Article 14 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) and international legal standards, they also should have meaningful access to legal proceedings where the torture took place. They have a right to judicial redress, adequate compensation and means for as full a rehabilitation as possible. This is something that the United States and the 163 other signatories to the CAT have committed to and is an important tool for ensuring reconciliation, healing and prevention.

Unfortunately for the Warmbiers and their quest for justice, North Korea is unlikely to pay a damages award or to provide this sort of judicial process for redress and compensation. But imagine if similar torture, cruel treatment and even death happened to a U.S. citizen in a country that had signed the CAT. The United States surely would demand the right of our citizens to have access to judicial redress and the ability to seek adequate compensation for their treatment.

Indeed, if the United States expects other countries to open their courts for U.S. victims overseas, it needs to do that for those who claim torture and ill-treatment by the United States. Specifically, victims of the U.S. post-9/11 Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program thus far have been unable to seek meaningful redress in U.S. courts. These individuals were suspected of terrorism, rounded up in Afghanistan on promise of a bounty. After months or years of detention, many were released without charge or explanation …

Read the full article.

David M. Crane is a Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence.

Between Hacks and Hostilities: Are the US Government and Private Sector Ready for Persistent Engagement?

By the Hon. James E. Baker

(Re-published from ABA Journal | May 9, 2019) Cybersecurity is necessarily an issue that crosses international boundaries, raising complex questions of sovereignty, jurisdiction, law and policy. In response, lawyers have struggled to find the right legal metaphor or framework to apply to cyberspace. Each of these issues concerns the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative because the way we as a society choose to address these challenges implicates what it means to live and operate under the rule of law.

“What would be even more remarkable would be if the U.S. government did in fact use all the instruments of national power to enforce cyber norms, as it once used all the instruments of national power to contain the Soviet Union.”

The United States government produces almost as many reports and strategies as the ABA. One recent document warrants the attention of the bar, and not just security practitioners. The Department of Defense Cyber Strategy released in September—or more precisely, the unclassified part of the Strategy available to the public—breaks new and important ground, potentially marking a significant shift in the federal government’s strategic posture. How important the Strategy is will depend in large part on whether it is tied to an effective policy and decision-making process.

If I were briefing a senior policymaker on the substance and import of this new Strategy, I would highlight the following key statement:

“We are engaged in a long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. … The United States seeks to use all instruments of national power to deter adversaries from conducting malicious cyberspace activity that would threaten U.S. national interests, our allies, or our partners. … [The United States will] persistently contest malicious cyber activity in day-to-day competition.”

What is remarkable here is not the content of the statement, but the willingness to say it publicly. What would be even more remarkable would be if the U.S. government did in fact use all the instruments of national power to enforce cyber norms, as it once used all the instruments of national power to contain the Soviet Union. Gen. Paul Nakasone, in his capacity as the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has advocated this approach encapsulated in the concept of “persistent engagement” …

Read the full article.

 

William C. Banks Discusses Trump, Barr, & Executive Privilege with Bloomberg Law

(Bloomberg Law | May 9, 2019) William Banks, Syracuse University Law School Professor discusses the clash between House Democrats and Attorney General William Barr over a subpoena for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and Trump’s decision to assert executive privilege. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.