Article III requires a private plaintiff to show injury in fact, which means at a minimum that the alleged illegal conduct made her worse off. Factual injury does not automatically follow from violation of a statutory duty owed to the plaintiff, and Ms. Edwards has not alleged the type of harm alleged by plaintiffs in the common law cases that she invokes—no misappropriation of her property, no loss of desired opportunity or benefit, no injury to reputation.

For at least 280 years the law has been clear that when someone breaches a duty of loyalty owed to you by taking a kickback or otherwise introducing a conflict into a transaction, you can sue on the basis of that alone, without showing a further harm in terms of economic loss.

In Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether Congress divested the federal district courts of their federal question jurisdiction [28 USC § 1331 text] over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [FCC summary, PDF]. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that federal courts lack jurisdiction over private actions under the act. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

The Federal question jurisdiction statute ... broadly grants Federal courts jurisdiction over all actions arising under Federal law unless Congress has provided otherwise. That grant of jurisdiction encompasses rights of action that are created and governed by substantive Federal law. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act sets for forth such a right of action. It provides detailed substantive standards and it grants a private right of action to recover for their violation. The TCPA permits that action to be filed in a State court if the State court allows such action, but it says nothing one way or another about whether the action may also be filed in Federal court.

The prohibition of crimes against humanity is a jus cogens or peremptory rule, and the punishment of such crimes is obligatory pursuant to the general principles of international law. Furthermore, crimes against humanity are the culmination of violations of fundamental human rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture or other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment. According to the principles of State responsibility in international law, the Syrian Arab Republic bears responsibility for these crimes and violations, as well as the duty to ensure that individual perpetrators are punished and that victims receive reparation.

The Syrian government has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations since March when the first anti-government protests started. Last week, the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee approved [JURIST report] a draft resolution [text, PDF] condemning the Syria's human rights violations calling for an immediate end to them. The death toll of Syrian protesters steadily increased since the beginning of the first outbreak of anti-government protests and earlier this month, the number exceeded 3,500 [JURIST report], an increase of 900 from September's number [JURIST report]. The allegations of human rights violations continued to increase as well and last month, Syria was urged [JURIST report] to allow UN human rights experts to conduct investigations into these allegations. In August, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] recommended [JURIST report] the UN Security Council [official website] to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] for the violence against anti-government protests after her demand [JURIST report] to the Syrian government to stop the killings of protesters in March.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official profile; JURIST news archive] announced in July that Magnitsky's pre-trial death was the result of criminal acts [JURIST report] and not attributable to the denial of medical treatment from prison doctors. Prior to his death, Magnitsky was held in prison for 358 days with little to no access to legal representation, his family or medical professionals. Last year, US lawmakers introduced a bill [JURIST report] that would prohibit the US State Department [official website] from issuing visas to individuals, or their family members, who are connected to Magnitsky's death. In 2009, shortly following Magnitsky's death, a Russian human rights group alleged [JURIST report] that Magnitsky had been murdered while in prison.

Considering the evidence available, the actions and involvement of the Burma Army in causing extensive and prolonged displacement of civilian populations throughout Burma are likely to amount to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. In order to establish the facts, investigate allegations of these grave breaches of international law and hold the perpetrators responsible for their role in such crimes, the international community should support a UN mandated Commission of Inquiry into international crimes in Burma. This does not have to come at the expense of parallel engagement with the Burmese authorities—on the contrary, the Burmese authorities would be expected to welcome such independent inquiries.

Myanmar's human rights record has been at the center of discussion recently. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] announced [JURIST report] this month, after meeting with Myanmar President Thien Sein [BBC backgrounder], that he hopes to visit Myanmar soon and praised the nation for ongoing reforms. Last month, US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell indicated that Myanmar's civilian-led government was planning dramatic changes including releasing hundreds of political prisoners [JURIST report] and consequential dialogue with pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Myanmar has sought to improve its international reputation following a transfer of power from a military regime to a civil system in March after holding its first elections in 20 years. Myanmar's government formed the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) in September to promote and safeguard the country's constitutional rights [JURIST report]. In August, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar Tomas Ojea Quintana urged the government of Myanmar to investigate human rights abuses [JURIST report] and improve its rights record. In May, Myanmar began releasing as many as 15,000 prisoners [JURIST report] as part of an amnesty program after a visit from a special envoy from the UN secretary-general, but rights groups claim the government has not gone far enough.

In Vasquez v. United States [docket], the court will determine whether the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit violated the Supreme Court's precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis [opinion, PDF] solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel's statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on the jury at all. The court will also determine whether the Seventh Circuit violated Vasquez's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that he should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case.

In Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine (1) whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [text, PDF] outside sales exemption and related regulations; and (2) whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt from the FLSA overtime-pay requirement.

In the consolidated cases of Dorsey v. United States [docket] and Hill v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether the district court erred in not sentencing the defendant-petitioner pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 [materials] where petitioner was sentenced on December 2, 2010, after the effective date of the FSA and the amendments to the sentencing guidelines mandated by the FSA. The Seventh Circuit ruled [order, PDF] in Hill that "the relevant date for determining whether the Act applies is the date of the offense conduct, rather than the date of sentencing."

establish a national independent and impartial mechanism to determine the accountability of those in government who have committed unlawful or negligent acts resulting in the deaths, torture and mistreatment of civilians with a view to bringing legal and disciplinary action against such individuals, including those in the chain of command, military and civilian, who are found to be responsible under international standards of—superior responsibility.

Last week, the Bahrain government admitted the use of excessive force [JURIST report] in the protests. This admission, which was made in anticipation of the independent BICI report, was a reversal of the government's previous defense of its actions [CNN report]. In June, Khalifa announced that an independent commission would investigate human rights violations [JURIST report] related to the country's pro-democracy protests. Earlier that month, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official websites] announced that Bahrain agreed to permit a UN commission [JURIST report] to investigate human rights violations related to protests. In April, human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Doctors Without Borders (DWB) [advocacy websites] criticized Bahrain for rampant human rights abuses [JURIST report] related to anti-government protests.