Duncan Hollis

With thanks to my co-author @keitnerlaw.com, we’ve got a new OpEd up @thehill.com with a reminder for Congress about the lessons of the Air Bridge program:

Is Trump Taking Treaties Back to the Middle Ages? The White House has usurped the power to make foreign treaties and keeps their texts secret.

While Trump speaks at the UN, it's worth flagging how he approaches U.S. treaty-making like a medieval monarch. @gregfox.bsky.social & I've got a new @foreignpolicy.com op-ed up on this phenomenon, and the need for Congress to do more.

Ukraine Symposium – Ukraine and the Future of the Ottawa Convention - Lieber Institute West Point Ukraine's “political” decision to cease performance of “irrelevant” Ottawa Convention commitments implies a more immediate effect.

#Ukraine announced its intention to cease performing “irrelevant obligations” of the #OttawaConvention. @duncanhollis.bsky.social analyzes Ukraine’s decision as it has not publicly qualified its withdrawal as a denunciation. lieber.westpoint.edu/ukraine-futu...

Ukraine Symposium – Ukraine and the Future of the Ottawa Convention - Lieber Institute West Point Ukraine's “political” decision to cease performance of “irrelevant” Ottawa Convention commitments implies a more immediate effect.

With thanks to @articlesofwar.bsky.social, I've posted some thoughts today on what happens now that Ukraine (among others) is walking back its Ottawa Convention commitments re landmines.

So pleased after 3+ years of work to see this in print ... Whether you like originalism or not, I've tried to offer insights on why the Constitution uses terms like treaties & compacts (to say nothing of Benedict Arnold's 'sponsion' or Gen. Washington's 'executive' agreement with Lord Cornwallis)

Large Language Models and International Lawyering - ACIL We look forward to welcoming Professor Duncan Hollis to the Amsterdam Law School on Tuesday 17 June. Duncan B. Hollis is Laura H. Carnell Professor of Law at Temple Law School and co-faculty director ...

‘’LLMs are going to be a part of the future of int'l lawyering whether we want them to or not.’’

Join us on 17 June when @duncanhollis.bsky.social will be speaking about his recent paper (w/Ashley Deeks) looking at the potential of LLMs on int'l law.
acil.uva.nl/content/even...

Trump’s Russia-Ukraine Deal Will Be Null and Void International law nullifies any treaty coerced by force—like Moscow has deployed since 2014.

I've got an op-ed out @foreignpolicy.com today that flags the one big international law problem no one seems focused on in the push for a Ukrainian-Russia peace deal. Check it out (should be accessible unless you've used up your monthly free reads at FP).

Martha Finnemore and I have a new co-authored piece up on SSRN about how calls for protecting the public core of the internet (whether as a matter of law or norms) require more definitional work on what the term "public" means. For those interested in digital governance, check it out!

The Breaks

A non-international law/proud Dad post - my youngest's band has just dropped their first EP - for those looking for a Friday afternoon garage-rock "break" - check it out!

Together with UVA's Ashley Deeks, I've got a new paper up on SSRN - we tested out a couple of use cases for int'l lawyers using LLMs (and identify a few others).

In short, we believes LLMs are going to be a part of the future of int'l lawyering whether we want them to or not ... it's now up to the profession to work through & test how well they can do so, to embrace their potential but remain clear-eyed about the risks LLMs pose.

Finally, we worry about LLMs being 4) corruptors - i.e., given automation bias, they may become "the" source for int'l law whether their answers would be the same as analog int'l lawyers might offer. & if that's true, some may look to poison data sets or tilt the scales to get their desired answers

We also see LLMs as 3) creators, legitimately and creatively offering first drafts or ideas for int'l lawyers (especially those just getting up to speed on a topic)

In the end, we see 4 possibilities for LLMs - 1) as a collaborator that can quickly afford first takes and summaries for int'l lawyers; but also 2) as a confounder with its well-known propensity to hallucinate sources or send lawyers down rabbit holes.

Specifically, we examine how well LLMs do identifying custom and/or creating treaty texts (& arguments to persuade specific states to join them). We also explore how LLMs might be employed to interpret or apply int'l law & to digest & summarize large datasets (e.g., all those amici briefs @ the ICJ)

Together with UVA's Ashley Deeks, I've got a new paper up on SSRN - we tested out a couple of use cases for int'l lawyers using LLMs (and identify a few others).

The caveats are that any threat to use force would need to involve force that would be unlawful (a box pretty easily checked) AND credible (trickier but hard to say it shouldn't be presumptively treated as such given the office of the source). #LawSky

Amidst all the (entirely justifiable angst) over the potential acts of aggression/war crimes a US occupation of Gaza would entail, it's worth remembering that int'l law also prohibits threats to use force unlawfully. In other words, the very speech is a violation ...

THE 2024 ARLIN M. AND NEYSA ADAMS LECTURE: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CYBERSPACE: BUILDING CONSENSUS Since the United States first began thinking about international law and cyberspace in the 1990s, it has been clear to us that international law applies to what States do in cyberspace, just as it …

Last Spring, @templelaw.bsky.social was honored to host Rich Visek giving the 1st official State Dept. "L" views on int'l law & cyberspace since Brian Egan in 2018 (which followed Harold Hongju Koh's pathbreaking 2012 remarks). See the link below for Temple Law Review's publication of his remarks!

Greg Fox offers a great overview of legal issues in any Ukraine-Russia peace agreement. I kept reading thinking “But what about…” and he anticipated all my questions. Bottom line - Fox explains how a UNSC Ch VII Res might try to override everything even the obvious coercion and jus cogens problems

Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2023 - United States Department of State The Office of the Legal Adviser publishes the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law to provide the public with a historical record of the views and practice of the Government of...

The 2023 Digest of US Practice in Int'l Law is now available

Israel’s Use of Force Against Syria and the Right of Self-Defense On December 8, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), augmented by other rebel forces, successfully overthrew the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad following more than five decades of rule …

Marko and Mike are always worth reading ... Meanwhile, I'm having deja vu to the days of "preemptive self-defense" arguments ... wonder when/if we'll see this idea back in the foreground

I take a day off to not think about international law & watch the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade and then this happens …

Usually in late-stage treaty negotiations, states decide they’d like to hear less from other stakeholders & move negotiations to ‘informal informal’ meetings. Wonder if that’ll be true here too?

Indeed, combined with the AU's path-breaking common position, we've certainly come a long way from Harold Koh's 2012 speech on the USG position on how IL applies in cyberspace

Overall, I think the statement is a very welcome development & EU Member States deserve praise for getting at least some form of a common position out into the public sphere.

Unsurprisingly, the statement avoids a few of the harder topics that have separated EU states like collective countermeasures and whether functionality losses alone (say, from ransomware) can constitute an armed attack for purposes of either the prohibition on the use of force or the laws of war

I'm a big believer that existing IL applies to cyber ops. But I've never thought anyone would say it's doing a great job in doing so. Do EU Member States really think otherwise? That posture detracts from an otherwise impressive collective effort (one I expect was not easy to negotiate at all)

Cyberspace: Council approves declaration on a common understanding of application of international law to cyberspace Council approves Declaration on a common understanding of application of international law to cyberspace.

EU releases common position on the application of IL to cyber - pretty consistent w/ EU member state positions, including (a) sov'ty & (b) due dilligence are discrete rules of IL in cyber contexts. Interestingly though, suggests existing IL is "fit for purposes" to the digital environment?

As I've argued before, I think the case should be made for a treaty that protects people from States (i.e., state-sponsored cyber attacks) rather than what Russia is proposing - a treaty that protects States from people (i.e., regulating "information" security).