JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, June 13, 2010

[JURIST] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [official website; BBC profile] on Sunday announced [press release] the composition of an internal probe into the May 31 Israeli raid on several Turkish ships bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip [BBC backgrounder]. To head the probe, Netanyahu appointed former Israeli Supreme Court [official website] Justice Yakov Tirkel, along with Shabbtai Rosen, an international law professor and former Israeli diplomat, and retired Major General Amos Horev, a former Israeli army leader. Due to the "exceptional circumstances" of the events in question, the commission will also be overseen by two international observers, Nobel Prize laureate David Trimble and former Canadian military prosecutor Ken Watkin, to ensure the impartiality of the inquiry. The commission will produce a published report of its conclusions with respect to a number of issues, including:

Examination of the security circumstances surrounding the imposition of the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip ... the conformity of the actions taken by Israel ... with the rules of international law ... [and] the question of whether the mechanism for examining and investigating complaints ... in relation to violation of the laws of armed conflict ... as implemented with regard to the present incident, conform with ... the rules of international law.

Addressing his cabinet in its weekly meeting on Sunday, Netenyahu reiterated [press release] Israel's policy on the blockade of Gaza: "The principle of our guiding policy is clear - to prevent ... war materiel from entering Gaza and to allow the entry of humanitarian aid and non-contraband goods into the Gaza Strip." The proposed commission will be voted on the by the government Monday.

The panel will investigate the events that took place in the early hours of May 31, when Israeli forces raided six ships attempting to deliver more than 10,000 tons of aid to the Palestinian territory of Gaza. The raid left numerous wounded and resulted in the shooting deaths of nine pro-Palestine activists - eight Turks and one American. Last week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] reiterated the importance of an international component [JURIST report] in the investigation into the raid. Ban's original proposal to establish an investigatory panel comprised of representatives from Israel, Turkey, and other unnamed countries, was rejected by Israeli officials [JURIST report]. Israeli officials have insisted that Israel has the ability and the right to resolve matters through an internal investigation and does not require international oversight. Also last week, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [official website] launched an internal investigation [JURIST report] into the flotilla attack. The investigatory unit will study the outcomes of the incident, "establish lessons," and present its findings by July 4. Netanyahu and the nation's seven senior ministers also decided to establish a panel of jurists [Haaretz report] to investigate the attack. The panel's inquiry will be independent from the IDF investigation. The Turkish flotilla on which the violence occurred was one of six organized by the Free Gaza Movement [advocacy website] to carry protesters and humanitarian supplies to the isolated Palestinian enclave. The Gaza naval blockade began in 2007 after Hamas forcibly expelled their chief rival, Fatah [CFR backgrounders] from Gaza.

[JURIST] Mauritian Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam [official website] announced Saturday that his country will begin to try and imprison suspected pirates [JURIST news archive]. Ramgoolam, who announced the policy after meeting with EU security officials, said that Mauritius had to act to protect its interests in fishing and tourism. Mauritius joins three [Reuters report] of the region's nations - Kenya, Tanzania and Seychelles - in its asserted willingness to take legal action. Jurisdictional complications and unrest in Somalia [CFR backgrounder] have made the prosecution of pirates a legal and political ordeal in which few nations have been willing to engage. The African island nation faces the mounting threat of piracy by Somali pirates, making the western edge of the Indian Ocean increasingly hazardous to commercial shipping. At the Africa-France Summit [official website] in May, Ramgoolam emphasized the significance of the piracy problem, calling it an impediment to development [allAfrica report]. The effects of piracy are estimated to cost USD $250 million per year.

Piracy remains an issue of international concern. In May, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) [official website] announced that Seychelles would create a UN-supported center [JURIST report] to prosecute suspected pirates. Also in May, the executive director of the UNODC opened a conference on international crime by warning [JURIST report] about the inadequacies of the current international system in dealing with crimes like piracy. In April, the UN Security Council [official website] unanimously approved [JURIST report] a resolution calling on member states to criminalize piracy under their domestic laws and urging Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] to consider an international tribunal for prosecuting piracy. The resolution [text] came the same week that the UN announced the establishment of a trust fund to finance five projects [UN News Centre report] aimed at combating piracy in the West Indian Ocean.

[JURIST] Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard [official websites] on Friday filed a motion [text, PDF] in the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] to dismiss a case challenging the validity of the the state's controversial immigration law. The suit was filed by Washington-based researcher Roberto Frisancho, alleging that SB 1070 [materials] would lead to him being harassed when he visits Arizona because he is a US-born Hispanic. The defendants' motion claims that the action filed by Frisancho should be dismissed because the plaintiff's injury claim is not ripe and lacks standing:

Plaintiff's assertion of injury rests on speculation about what may happen in the future. It also rests on an erroneous understanding of Arizona law because it fails to consider the amendments to SB 1070 that prohibit law enforcement officials from relying on race, color or national origin to formulate reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence unless permitted to do so by the United States or Arizona Constitution. This lawsuit presents no justiciable controversy and should be dismissed.

Five suits have been filed against Brewer since she signed the bill into law in April. Two claims were file by Arizona police officers claiming that the law will be almost impossible to enforce without engaging in racial profiling. The law, which takes effect July 29, criminalized illegal immigration and requires police officers to question an individual's immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" to believe the individual is in the country illegally.

Arizona's new immigration has been widely criticized in regard to the laws constitutionality and alleged "legalization" of racial profiling. Earlier this month, the city of Tucson, Arizona joined a lawsuit [JURIST report] against the the state's new immigration law arguing that it law violates the Commerce Clause and Fourth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounders] of the US Constitution [text], in addition to federal immigration law, through which the federal government has "fully occupied" the field of immigration control. Tucson was originally named as a defendant along with Brewer in the federal lawsuit [complaint; JURIST report] filed in April by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. However, the city responded by filing a crossclaim against Brewer seeking an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] filed suit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] last month, challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking an injunction, though some find the law constitutional on its face [JURIST op-ed]. The Obama administration, though supporting immigration reform, has sharply criticized the law [JURIST report], calling it "misguided" and expressing concern that it could be applied in a discriminatory fashion. These criticisms are shared by Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] who called the law a "violation of human rights" [JURIST report]. In May, a group of UN experts found that the law could violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US.

[JURIST] The US International Trade Commission (ITC) [official website] on Friday voted to launch an investigation [press release] into allegations made by HTC Corp accusing Apple [corporate websites] of patent infringement on certain portable electronic devices. HTC filed a complaint with the ITC in May [JURIST report] claiming that Apple had infringed on five of HTC's patents, and is seeking an exclusion order and a cease and desist order, which would ban Apple's importation of iPhones, iPads and iPods. The complaint alleges violations of § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [text], which regulates the importation and sale of certain portable electronic devices that infringe patents in the US. The ITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the commission's six administrative law judges, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The judges will make an initial determination of whether Apple violated § 337, and that determination will be subject to review by the commission as a whole. The commission stated that a target date for completion will be determined within 45 days of the investigation's commencement.

In March, Apple filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against HTC in the US District Court for the District of Delaware [official website] alleging that several of HTC's products infringe 10 patents owned by Apple. Apple also filed a complaint [text, PDF] against HTC with the ITC claiming infringement of 10 other Apple patents, seeking to bar the importation of infringing devices. Apple has recently been involved in numerous legal actions over alleged patent infringement. In October, Finnish telecommunications company Nokia [corporate website] filed suit [JURIST report] against Apple alleging that Apple infringed 10 of its patents since the first iPhone was released in 2007. The patents cover wireless data transmission, speech coding, and security/encryption.