¹ See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty-Fourth Session, UN GAOR, 67th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 1–2, UN Doc. A/67/10 (2012), available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc//reports/2012/All_languages/A_67_10_E.pdf [hereinafter 2012 Report].

² See McRae, Donald, The Work of the International Law Commission, 2007–2011: Progress and Prospects, 106 AJIL 322, 324–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 30.

⁴ Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, para. 46, in 2012 Report, supra note 1 [hereinafter Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens].

⁵ Id., Art. 3.

⁶ Id., Art. 2(b).

⁷ Id., Art. 1(1).

⁸ Id., Art. 1, cmt. 5.

⁹ See Nick Cumming-Bruce & Rick Gladstone, In Appeal on Aid, U.N. Braces for Doubling of Syrian Refugees, N.Y. Times, Dec. 20, 2012, at A17.

¹⁰ Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, supra note 4, Art. 2(a).

¹¹ Id. Such exclusions are also likely intended to cover transfers of prisoners due to law enforcement agreements, for purposes of testifying or serving a sentence in another country.

¹² Id., Art. 2, cmt. 5.

¹³ Id., Art. 1(2).

¹⁴ Id., Art. 1(1).

¹⁵ Id., Art. 1, cmt. 2.

¹⁶ See International Law Commission, Expulsion of Aliens: Memorandum by the Secretariat, UN doc.A/Cn.4/565, at 98–101 (2006) [hereinafter Secretariat 2006 Memorandum].

¹⁷ For examples of treaties that accord protections only to aliens lawfully present in the state, see Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 32, July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 13, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; European Convention on Establishment, Art. 3, Dec. 13, 1955, ETS No. 19, available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/019.htm; American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 22(6), Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS 123, 9 ILM 673 (1970), as amended by protocols of Nov. 14, 1988, 28 ILM 156, and June 8, 1990, 29 ILM 1447; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 12(4), June 27, 1981, 21 ILM 58 (1982); Arab Charter on Human Rights, Art. 26, May 22, 2004, reprinted in 12 Int’l Hum. Rts. Rep. 893 (2005).

¹⁸ Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, supra note 4, Art. 3.

¹⁹ See, e.g., Iccpr, supra note 17, Art. 13.

²⁰ See, e.g., id., Art. 4.

²¹ Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, supra note 4, Art. 3, cmt. 2.

²² Id., Art. 4.

²³ Id., Art. 5.

²⁴ Id., Art. 26(1).

²⁵ Id., Art. 26(4).

²⁶ Id., Art. 27.

²⁷ Id., Art. 19.

²⁸ Id.

²⁹ Id., Arts. 6, 7.

³⁰ Id., Art. 9. This provision is the one draft article that regulates a state’s treatment of its own nationals and, indeed, is a rule about nationality law, not about expulsion as such. Are formulation oriented more toward expulsion might prohibit astate from expelling an alien whose nationality it has withdrawn solely for the purpose of expulsion.

³¹ Id., Art. 10; see Secretariat 2006 Memorandum, supra note 16, at 546 (“A State may be entitled to expel all enemy aliens in the context of an armed conflict under international law even though this may result in the expulsion of a large number of individuals.”). On mass expulsions generally, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts, Mass ExpulSion in Modern International Law and Practice (1995).

³² Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, supra note 4, Art. 11. in this definition, the element relating to the state’s intent is important. If a state fires an alien from a government position and due to the loss of that job the alien has no economic choice but to return to his own state, the alien has not been “expelled” unless it can be shown that the firing was undertaken “with the intention of provoking the departure.”

³³ Id., Art. 12.

³⁴ Id., Art. 13.

³⁵ Id., Art. 14.

³⁶ Id., Art. 15.

³⁷ Id., Art. 16.

³⁸ Id., Arts. 17, 18, 20.

³⁹ Id., Art. 21.

⁴⁰ Id., Art. 22(1).

⁴¹ Id., Art. 22(2).

⁴² Id., Art. 23(1).

⁴³ Id., Art. 24. The nonrefoulement provision of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 3(1), opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 UNTS 85, is limited to the sending of a person to another state where he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, so the draft articles go further in adding “or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

⁴⁴ Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens, supra note 4, Art. 23(2).

⁴⁵ Id., Art. 29(1).

⁴⁶ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 14.

⁴⁷ Id., para. 273(a).

⁴⁸ Id., paras. 48–53.

⁴⁹ Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, Art. 3, in 2012 Report,supra note 1 [hereinafter Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters].

⁵⁰ 2012 Report, supra note 1, paras. 57–60.

⁵¹ McRae, supra note 2, at 336.

⁵² Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, supra note 49, Arts. 9–11.

⁵³ This topic is not concerned with a state official’s immunity from the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals, the official’s immunity from the jurisdiction of the state of his or her own nationality, or the official’s immunity from civil jurisdiction.

⁵⁴ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 82.

⁵⁵ Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djib. v. Fr.), 2008 ICJ Rep. 177, para. 188 (June 4).

⁵⁶ Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 51–58 (Feb. 14); see also Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction & Admissibility, 2006 ICJ Rep. 6, para. 46 (Feb. 3).

⁵⁷ International Law Commission, Second Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, Undoc. A/Cn.4/631, para. 94(a)(June 10, 2010) (prepared by Special Rapporteur Roman Anatolevich Kolodkin).

⁵⁸ Id., para. 18.

⁵⁹ Id.

⁶⁰ Id., para. 94(n).

⁶¹ Id., para. 63.

⁶² Id., para. 68.

⁶³ Id., para. 84.

⁶⁴ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 28.

⁶⁵ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Judgment, para. 84 (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 3, 2012), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16883.pdf.

⁶⁶ Id., para. 91.

⁶⁷ Id., para. 82.

⁶⁸ Id., paras. 92–97.

⁶⁹ If such reasoning is relevant to the immunity of officials, it may refute arguments advanced by some judges in national and international proceedings. See, e.g., R. v. Bow St. Metro. Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 3), [1999] UKHL 17, [2000] 1 A.C. 147, 278 (H.L.) (Lord Millett); Italy v. Lozano, Corte suprema di cas sazione [Cass.], sez. un., 24 luglio 2008, No. 31171 (It.), Int’l L. Domestic Cts. [Ildc] 1805, available at http://www.cortedicassazione.it/Documenti/31171_Iraq.pdf (in Italian); Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001) (Grand Chamber) (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis and Caflisch, joined by Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto, and Vajić, and dissenting opinions of Judge Ferrari Bravo and of Judge Loucaides), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3fe6c7b54.html.

⁷⁰ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, supra note 65, paras. 98–104; see Joint Sep. Op. Higgins, Kooijmans & Buergenthal, Jj., Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, supra note 56, para. 79.

⁷¹ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, supra note 65, para. 85.

⁷² 2012 Report, supra note 1, paras. 140–41.

⁷³ Agreement on the Maritime Boundary, U.S.-Ussr, June 1, 1990, S. Treaty Doc. No. 101-22 (1990). By a separate exchange of notes concluded on the same day, the two states agreed “that, pending the entry into force of that Agreement, the two Governments agree to abide by the terms of that Agreement as of 15 June 1990.” See U.S. Dep’t of State, Fact Sheet: Status of Wrangel and Other Arctic Islands (Sept.8,2009),at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/128740.htm.

⁷⁴ Maritime Boundary Agreement, U.S.-Cuba, Art. 5, Dec. 16, 1977, S. Exec. Doc. H, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979).

⁷⁵ See Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, U.S.-Russ., Apr. 8, 2010, Protocol, pt. 8, S. Treaty Doc. No. 111-5 (2010), available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140047.pdf. See generally Amy F. Woolf, The Newstart Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, Cong. Res. Serv. Rep. R41219 (2011).

⁷⁶ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 25, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, 8 ILM 679 (1969).

⁷⁷ Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of The United States, §312, cmt. h (1987).

⁷⁸ See Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18, Jurisdiction, paras. 220–21 (July 6, 2007).

⁷⁹ Energy Charter Treaty, Art. 45(1), opened for signature Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 UNTS 95, 34 ILM 360 (1995). A similar issue arises in the Implementing Agreement on Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention, which calls for provisional application by states “in accordance with their national or internal laws and regulations.” Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Art. 7(2), July 28, 1994, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-39, at 265 (1994), 1836 UNTS 41.

⁸⁰ Kardassopoulos, supra note 78, paras. 225– 46; see Yukos Universal Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para. 301 (Nov. 30, 2009), at http://www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/Yukos_interim_award.pdf (“In the Tribunal’s opinion, by signing the [Energy Charter Treaty], the Russian Federation agreed that the Treaty as a whole would be applied provisionally pending its entry into force unless the principle of provisional application itself were inconsistent ‘with its constitution, laws or regulations.’”).

⁸¹ It should be noted that the Commission’s original drafts of what became VCLT Article 25(2) allowed for the possibility of withdrawing from the provisional regime without necessarily indicating an intent not to join the treaty. That possibility was dropped at the Diplomatic Conference.

⁸² See, e.g., Digest of United States Practice in International Law 413 (1980) (U.S. Department of State response—to a Senate inquiry on provisional application of treaties—asserting that “such a provision itself constitutes a binding international agreement”).

⁸³ Kardassopoulos, supra note 78, para. 209 (“The Tribunal cannot... accept Respondent’s argument that provisional application is only aspirational in character.”); id., para. 210 (“[T]he implication is that it would be applied on the same basis as would in due course result from the [Energy Charter Treaty]’s (definitive) entry into force, and as if it had already done so.”); Yukos Universal Ltd., supra note 80, para. 313 (“[T]he fundamental reason why States agree to apply a treaty provisionally... [is] to assume obligations immediately pending the completion of various internal procedures necessary to have the treaty enter into force.”); id., para. 314 (“Allowing a State to modulate (or, as the case may be, eliminate) the obligation of provisional application, depending on the content of its internal law in relation to the specific provisions found in the Treaty, would undermine the principle that povisional application of a treaty creates binding obligations.”).

⁸⁴ See, e.g., I The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary 652 (Olivier Corten & Pierre Klein eds., 2011) (“[P]rovided that it is valid, the agreement on provisional application produces the same legal effects as any international agreement and as such, it is subject to the rule pacta sunt servanda.”).

⁸⁵ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 157.

⁸⁶ International law association, Statement of principles applicable to the formation of General Customary International Law, Res. 16/2000 (2000),in International law association, Report of the Sixty-Ninth Conference, London 39 (2000); see Mendelson, Maurice H., The Formation of Customary International Law, 272 Recueil Des Cours 155 (1998)Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ International Law Commission, Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/653 (2012) (prepared by Special Rapporteur Michael Wood).

⁸⁸ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 29.

⁸⁹ Id., para. 203.

⁹⁰ Id., para. 206.

⁹¹ International Law Commission, Survey of Multilateral Conventions Which May Be of Relevance for the Work of the International Law Commission on the Topic “The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare),” UN Doc. A/Cn.4/630 (June 18, 2010) (study by the Secretariat).

⁹² Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eighth Session, [1996] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’N 17, UN GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996). Article 9 of this Draft Code provides: “Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court, the State Party in the territory of which an individual alleged to have committed a crime set out in article 17, 18, 19 or 20 is found shall extradite or prosecute that individual.” Those articles deal respectively with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against United Nations and associated personnel, and war crimes.

⁹³ Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: A preliminary Survey of Legislation Around The World 1 (2011), available at http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/info/Ior53/004/2011/en.

⁹⁴ Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Judgment (Int’l Ct. Justice July 20, 2012), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/17064.pdf.

⁹⁵ Sep. Op. Abraham, J., Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 94, para. 21.

⁹⁶ Id., para. 34.

⁹⁷ Id., paras. 36–38. Abraham especially cast doubt on the existence of a customary norm when the crime at issue was committed outside the territory of the state seeking extradition and neither the alleged offender nor the victims were nationals of that state.

⁹⁸ Id., para. 39.

⁹⁹ Diss. Op. Sur, J., Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 94, para. 21.

¹⁰⁰ See 2012 Report, supra note 1, at 120.

¹⁰¹ Id.

¹⁰² Id., para. 222.

¹⁰³ The three study group reports are on file with the author.

¹⁰⁴ 2012 Report, supra note 1, para. 227.

¹⁰⁵ Id., paras. 241–42.

¹⁰⁶ 2012 Report, supra note 1, paras. 250–65; compare Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (Jan. 25, 2000), with Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb.8, 2005),and Concurring& Partially Diss. Op., Stern, ARB., Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 (June 21, 2011).

¹⁰⁷ 2012 Report, supra note 1, paras. 246, 265.

¹⁰⁸ See Report of the International Law Commission on the Workof Its Forty-Eighth Session, UN GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 10, para. 29, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996).

¹⁰⁹ See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Eighth Session, UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, para. 22, UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006).

¹¹⁰ Id.

¹¹¹ Id.

¹¹² See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 66th Sess., Supp. No. 10, para. 365, UN Doc. A/66/10 (2011).

¹¹³ Id.

¹¹⁴ Id.