JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, October 14, 2012

[JURIST] The Syrian military is using cluster munitions [HRW backgrounder] against opposition forces, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported [text] on Sunday. A Youtube video [video], posted by Syrian opposition forces, showed remnants of cluster munitions allegedly near several towns. Markings on the remnants suggest they were dropped from aircraft. The report details several instances of cluster munitions being used and being reported by civilians. HRW has called for Syria to stop using these munitions and for local media to detail the dangers of them more extensively. The use of these munitions are prohibited according to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) [text, PDF], which Syria has neither signed nor ratified, because of the potential harm they pose to civilians. The CCM bans the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster bombs, weapons that break apart, releasing large numbers of smaller, self-contained explosives which spread out before detonating on impact.

This is not the first HRW report calling attention to Syria using cluster munitions. In July HRW reported evidence of Soviet-made cluster munitions being used [JURIST report] in Syria. The Convention was initially agreed upon [JURIST report] by nations in May 2008 following 10 days of negotiations at the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions [official website] while the US, Russia and China each declined to sign it. In November 2010 the former UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro [UN profile] had urged more states to join the CCM at the First Meeting of States Parties [official website]. The CCM officially went into effect in August 2010, six month after the UN's announcement [JURIST reports], as binding international law with 107 countries having signed the treaty and 37 countries having ratified it.

[JURIST] Five UK Royal Marines were charged with murder on Sunday in connection with an incident in 2011 in Afghanistan. The charge allegedly arises out of a video [Telegraph report] that showed marines in an incriminating situation with a wounded member of the Taliban. An independent agency that supervises military prosecutions, the Service Prosecuting Authority [official website], decided to bring the murder charge against five of the nine marines arrested in relation to the incident. The other four were released. The five charged will remain in custody [BBC report] until appearing before a court martial.

There have been several incidents arising out of the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. In February the US Army dropped all charges [JURIST report] against Army Specialist Michael Wagnon, originally charged with killing Afghan civilians. In January US Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to the charge of negligent dereliction of duty. Sgt. Calvin Gibbs was convicted of three counts [JURIST report] of premeditated murder last November and was sentenced to life in prison. In December 2010 Staff Sergeant Robert Stevens pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to shooting two unarmed Afghan farmers. Charges against Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani were dropped [JURIST report] in June 2008.

[JURIST] Three publishing companies on Friday settled [press release] an antitrust lawsuit [complaint, PDF] filed by attorneys general of 49 states, the District of Columbia and five US territories and commonwealths, who had accused the nation's top publishers of a price-fixing conspiracy. The attorneys general brought suit against five publishing companies. Of those companies, Hachette, Harpers Collins and Simon & Schuster agreed to settle, while Penguin and Macmillan [corporate websites] did not and will continue litigation. The settling publishers denied any wrongdoing and stated that they agreed to settle to avoid the cost, uncertainty and risk of litigation. The settlement fund totals $69.04 million and covers people who purchased an e-book published by any of the five publishing companies from April 1, 2010, through May 21, 2012, and lived in one of the areas bringing the lawsuit. People who qualify will be eligible for a credit or check refunding a portion of the purchase price for each qualifying e-book they purchased. A final approval hearing for the settlement will be held in February in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website].

Last month a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York approved [JURIST report] a similar settlement agreement [opinion, PDF] between the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] and certain e-book publishers in a price-fixing suit under the Sherman Act [text]. The DOJ alleged that Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, MacMillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster conspired to fix the prices of e-books in response to Amazon's discount pricing strategy. Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster agreed to the settlement, but the other defendants elected to continue litigating. The DOJ brought the suit in April, and the court denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST reports] in May. Commentators had been very mixed in response to the proposed settlement agreement. Some commentators have suggested that the DOJ's lawsuit is merely "superficial" [JURIST op-ed] and that the effect of the agency agreements may actually have been a net-positive to consumers if Amazon was selling e-books as loss leaders in order to drive the sale of Kindles. Other commentators, however, state that commentators against the settlement agreement and the defendants' arguments are based on a premise that competition is wrong [JURIST op-ed].