The World Trade Organization, unlike other international organizations, may require its acceded members to accept more stringent rules of conduct than those binding upon its original members. The scope and content of such rules are country-specific, depending on the result of accession negotiations. The country-specific rules are set out in the protocol of accession concluded between the acceding country and the WTO. Cumulatively, accession rules have formed a significant part of WTO law, and some have given rise to major disputes, generating WTO case law on accession.
Despite the general acceptance of WTO accession practice, important questions concerning its legality and legitimacy remain unanswered. Substantively, the accession protocols modify the rules of conduct contained in the WTO multilateral trade agreements when applied to the acceded members. Yet, it is unclear on what legal basis the accession protocols have acquired this authority and what the proper relation should be between accession protocols and the WTO agreements. Normatively, the more stringent rules of conduct result in less favorable treatment of the acceded members, in derogation of the WTO principle of nondiscrimination. But it is unclear how such derogation may be justified. Confusions over the status of accession protocols and the absence of clear rationale for the country-specific rules have led to problematic jurisprudence, creating uncertainty in the rights and obligations of acceded members vis-à-vis other members of the WTO.
This article seeks to resolve this conundrum of WTO accession protocols, building on insights from existing scholarship. On the question of legality, the author takes a comparative and historical approach, and proposes that WTO accession protocols can be most aptly characterized as subsequent practice of an international organization modifying its underlying treaties. On the question of legitimacy, the article identifies the lack of reason and transparency in the accession rules as the main problem, and critiques the “entry fee” theory offered by a WTO panel as the justification for all accession rules. The article then makes suggestions on what should and can be done to mitigate the problems caused by WTO accession protocols.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
This article examines the evolution of international law as a professional and intellectual discipline in the Republic of China (ROC), which has governed Mainland China (1912-1949) and post-1949 Taiwan. The ROC’s centennial development fundamentally shaped modern China’s course of foreign relations and postwar global governance. The article argues that statism, pragmatism and idealism define the major features of the ROC’s approach to international law. These characteristics transformed the law of nations into universally valid normative claims and prompted modern China’s intellectual focus on the civilized nation concept. First, the article analyzes the professionalization of the discipline of international law. It offers insight into the cultivation of China’s first-generation international lawyers in the Foreign Ministry, international law societies and the Shanghai Mixed Court. Second, it explores the ROC’s approach of assertive legalism in applying international law to advance diplomatic objectives. The nation’s strategic engagement with unequal treaties, the League of Nations, and the United Nations contributed to its Grotian moment. The assertion of legal claims in judicial proceedings and Taiwan’s international standing further reinforced the dynamic dimension of the discipline. Therefore, this article provides a valuable case study of twentieth century international lawmaking in East Asia.
- Dossier spécial : La responsabilité des organisations internationales : un état des lieux à l'issue des travaux de la commission du droit international des Nations Unies
- Y. Kerbrat, P. Klein, & V. Michel, Présentation
- G. Gaja, Note introductive de l’ancien rapporteur spécial
- P. Jacob, Les définitions des notions d’« organe » et d’« agent » retenues par la CDI sont-elles opérationnelles ?
- P. Palchetti, Les autorités provisoires de gouvernement (PIS G) du Kosovo, EULEX et ONU : les principes d’attribution à l’épreuve
- P.J. Kuijper, Attribution — Responsibility — Remedy. Some comments on the EU in different international regimes
- A. Tzanakopoulos, L’invocation de la théorie des contre-mesures en tant que justification de la désobéissance au Conseil de sécurité
- Y. Kerbrat, Sanctions et contre-mesures : risques de confusion dans les articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité des organisations internationales
- M. Aznar, La distinction entre sanctions et contre-mesures
- P. Bodeau-Livinec, Les faux-semblants de la lex specialis — L’exemple de la résolution 52/247 de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies sur les limitations temporelles et financières de la responsabilité de l’ONU
- G. Marhic, Le régime de responsabilité des opérations de paix de l’Union européenne : quelles règles applicables ?
- M. Forteau, Régime général de responsabilité ou lex specialis ?
- F. Mégret, La responsabilité des Nations Unies au temps du choléra
- V. Richard, Les organisations internationales entre responsibility et accountability : le régime de responsabilité esquissé par la CDI est-il adapté aux organisations internationales ?
- C. Espaliu Berdud, De la vie et de la mort des normes impératives du droit international
- N. Hajjami, Que signifie l’expression « prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires » dans la pratique du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies ?
Human rights treaties contain provisions for the so-called democratic rights. These provisions are textually almost identical in various regional and universal human rights treaties, yet courts and other judicial bodies have constructed diverse understandings of democracy through interpretation. The main questions that arise are whether human rights treaties require a multiparty political setting and how they accommodate limitations on the will of the people. This article analyses developments in the context of the ICCPR and the three regional systems. It demonstrates that human rights courts have clearly established a requirement for multiparty elections and have even attempted a more robust, substantive definition of democracy. However, a new problem has arisen in recent case law. The electoral process has become dominated by political parties and electoral systems have often proven to be unable to accommodate independent candidates. The result is that candidates wishing to run at elections may be forced to associate with others. The contemporary interpretation of human rights treaties does not necessarily provide for suitable avenues to take part in elections outside of the framework of party politics. If it was once questionable whether human rights treaties guarantee the right to associate in political parties, it now seems that parties have become too central in the exercise of the so-called democratic rights.
Since the inception of the international investment law system, investment promotion and protection have been the raison d’être of investment treaties and states have confined their policy space in order to attract foreign investment and protect their investors abroad. Languishing in relative obscurity until recently, the right to regulate has gradually come to the spotlight as a key component of negotiations on new generation investment agreements around the globe. States and regional organisations, including, notably, the European Union and the United States, have started to examine ways in which to safeguard their regulatory power and guide – and delimit – the interpretive power of arbitral tribunals, by reserving their right to pursue specific public policy objectives. The monograph explores the status quo of the right to regulate, in order to offer an appraisal and a reference tool for treatymakers, thus contributing to a better understanding of the concept and the broader discourse on how to enhance the investment law system’s legitimacy.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
- Special Issue: International Water Law
- Stephen C. McCaffrey, International Water Cooperation in the 21st Century: Recent Developments in the Law of International Watercourses
- Alistair Rieu-Clarke & Rémy Kinna, Can Two Global UN Water Conventions Effectively Co-exist? Making the Case for a ‘Package Approach’ to Support Institutional Coordination
- Gabriel Eckstein & Francesco Sindico, The Law of Transboundary Aquifers: Many Ways of Going Forward, but Only One Way of Standing Still
- Ruby Moynihan & Bjørn-Oliver Magsig, The Rising Role of Regional Approaches in International Water Law: Lessons from the UNECE Water Regime and Himalayan Asia for Strengthening Transboundary Water Cooperation
- Makane Moïse Mbengue, A Model for African Shared Water Resources: The Senegal River Legal System
- Patricia Wouters, The Yin and Yang of International Water Law: China's Transboundary Water Practice and the Changing Contours of State Sovereignty
- A. Dan Tarlock, Mexico and the United States Assume a Legal Duty to Provide Colorado River Delta Restoration Flows: An Important International Environmental and Water Law Precedent
- Owen McIntyre, The Protection of Freshwater Ecosystems Revisited: Towards a Common Understanding of the ‘Ecosystems Approach’ to the Protection of Transboundary Water Resources
- Michelle Lim, Is Water Different from Biodiversity? Governance Criteria for the Effective Management of Transboundary Resources
- Regular Articles
- Arie Trouwborst, Exploring the Legal Status of Wolf-Dog Hybrids and Other Dubious Animals: International and EU Law and the Wildlife Conservation Problem of Hybridization with Domestic and Alien Species
- Leonie Reins, In Search of the Legal Basis for Environmental and Energy Regulation at the EU Level: The Case of Unconventional Gas Extraction
- Róisín Áine Costello, Reviving Rylands: How the Doctrine Could Be Used to Claim Compensation for Environmental Damages Caused by Fracking
- Case Note
- Lorenzo Squintani & Hans H.B. Vedder, Towards Inverse Direct Effect? A Silent Development of a Core European Law Doctrine
Call for Papers: The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights
Call for Papers:
“The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping:
Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights”
A Joint ESIL IGPS/SHARES Project Symposium
The European Society of International Law Interest Group on Peace and Security (ESIL IGPS) and the Research Project on Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES Project) organize a joint symposium to be held in conjunction with the 10th ESIL Anniversary Conference in Vienna, Austria, on 3 September 2014.
The symposium, entitled “The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights”, is organized against the background of an ongoing evolution in UN peacekeeping operations especially in relation with the increasing number of missions for the protection of civilians, the robust use of force mandate given by the UN Security Council to some peacekeeping missions and the recent creation of “offensive” combat forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Intervention Brigade) and Mali (MINUSMA). The more expansive mandates of peacekeeping forces raise critical questions pertaining to the law applicable to such forces, and the allocation of responsibility in situations where members of peacekeeping forces act in contravention of their international obligations. The symposium will discuss whether there indeed is a major shift in UN peacekeeping practice and will explore important questions of international law raised by these new practices.
In particular, it will examine the applicability of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and human rights that impact on the UN, troop contributing states, the host state, and non-state armed actors. It also will explore whether the rules of international responsibility are sufficiently developed to assign responsibility to the Security Council and/or member states for actions taken where peacekeepers are engaged in the robust use of force or armed conflict. In this context it will also seek to address issues of shared responsibility that may arise from the interplay among these actors and to consider how the new practices may pose new challenges in determining and apportioning responsibility among states, international organizations and non-state actors.
Please submit a 500 words abstract proposal via email to Prof. Theodore Christakis (Christakis@wanadoo.fr) and Dr. Ilias Plakokefalos (I.Plakokefalos@uva.nl) by 4 May. The proposal should also include the author’s name and affiliation, the author’s brief CV and contact details, and should indicate whether the author is an ESIL member. Please note that submission of abstracts is open to ESIL members and non ESIL members, but the organizers will seek a balanced representation of ESIL members on the program of the event. Please submit all these elements in a single pdf document. Successful applicants will be informed by 15 May.
Please note that unfortunately, the ESIL IGPS and SHARES Project are not in a position to cover expenses for travelling and accommodation, or to waive the ESIL conference fee. Information on the 10th ESIL Anniversary Conference is available here.
Please also note that the intention of the ESIL IGPS and SHARES Project is to publish the best papers in a book, special issue of a law journal and/or the ESIL IGPS/SHARES Project webpages. Participants are required to send an extended outline of their paper by 25 August.
Brummer: Minilateralism: How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft
Economic diplomacy is changing. The multilateral organizations that dominated the last half of the twentieth century no longer monopolize economic affairs. Instead, countries are resorting to more modest “minilateral” strategies like trade alliances, informal “soft law” agreements, and financial engineering to manage the global economy. Like traditional modes of economic statecraft, these tools are aimed at both liberalizing and supervising international financial policy in a world of diverse national interests. But unlike before, they are specifically tailored to navigating a post-American (and post-Western) world where economic power is more diffuse than ever before. This book explains how these strategies work and reveals how this new diplomatic toolbox will reshape how countries do business with one another for decades to come.
- Tom Ruys, Of Arms, Funding and “Non-lethal Assistance”—Issues Surrounding Third-State Intervention in the Syrian Civil War
- Xiaohui Wu, From Assimilation to Autonomy: Realizing Ethnic Minority Rights in China's National Autonomous Regions
- Charles De Bock, The Crime of Aggression: Prospects and Perils for the Third World
- Rein Müllerson, Ukraine: Victim of Geopolitics
- Julio Barboza, The Beagle Channel Dispute: Reflections of the Agent of Argentina
- Sienho Yee, En Route to the Final Shape of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: Some Pivotal Negotiating Procedural Steps Worthy of Consideration by Future Treaty-makers and Leaders in Treaty-making
- Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann, Combating Desertification in Central Asia: Finding New Ways to Regional Stability through Environmental Sustainability?
Monday, April 21, 2014
The fall of the United Nations 'safe area' of Srebrenica in July 1995 to Bosnian Serb and Serbian forces stands out as the international community's most egregious failure to intervene during the Bosnian war. It led to genocide, forced displacement and a legacy of loss. But wartime inaction has since spurred numerous postwar attempts to address the atrocities' effects on Bosnian society and its diaspora. Srebrenica in the Aftermath of Genocide reveals how interactions between local, national and international interventions - from refugee return and resettlement to commemorations, war crimes trials, immigration proceedings and election reform - have led to subtle, positive effects of social repair, despite persistent attempts at denial. Using an interdisciplinary approach, diverse research methods, and more than a decade of fieldwork in five countries, Lara J. Nettelfield and Sarah Wagner trace the genocide's reverberations in Bosnia and abroad. The findings of this study have implications for research on post-conflict societies around the world.
ESIL LAWSEAIG - Call for Papers
International Law and . . . the Sea
Vienna, 3 September 2014
The dominion over the sea and the regulation of maritime activities has had an important influence on the development of international law. It has generated a specific corpus of international rules, which have been partly codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). On the one hand, general international law (i.e., subjectivity, law of treaties, international responsibility, immunities, use of force, etc.) has greatly influenced the development of the law of the sea and the drafting the LOSC. On the other hand, the law of the sea has introduced new legal concepts (e.g., the common heritage of mankind) and created novel legal frameworks (e.g., the regime of the exclusive economic zone), which are affecting general international law. They are even calling for a re-consideration of some basic concepts, such as jurisdiction and sovereignty.
This panel is intended to focus on the interplay between general international law and the law of the sea and to answer the following question: what has the law of the sea “given” to general international? In this context the term ‘given’ wants to be value-neutral.
The Application Process
Please submit a 500 words abstract proposal via email to Seline Trevisanut (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 1 June 2014. Successful applicants will be informed by 30 June 2014. The deadline for the submission of final papers is 15 August 2014.
In addition to the abstract, the following information must be provided on the submission:
• The author’s name and affiliation
• The author’s contact details
• Whether the author is an ESIL member
Papers will be selected by the co-convenors of the Interest Group (Prof. Erik Franckx, Prof. Miguel Garcia, and Dr. Seline Trevisanut), on the basis of abstracts submitted. Only one abstract per author will be considered.
In order to participate in the Interest Group panel, speakers must be members of ESIL. The membership can be formalised once abstracts have been accepted. Unfortunately, the ESIL LAWSEA IG is not in a position to cover expenses for travelling and accommodation, or to waiver the ESIL conference fee.
The working languages of the panel are English and French. Since no translation will be provided, participants should have passive understanding of both languages and active understanding of at least one of them.
- Jean-Paul Costa, Remise des insignes de chevalier de Légion d’honneur à Me Pierre Lambert – 5 décembre 2013
- Linos-A Sicilianos, L’élargissement de la compétence consultative de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme – À propos du Protocole no 16 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
- Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, Les méthodes d’interprétation de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme Justice in context
- Nicolas Bernard, Les ressources – préjudicielles notamment – qu’offre l’article 34, paragraphe 3, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (droit à une aide au logement)
- Yannick Lecuyer, Splendeurs et misères de l’ordre politique européen – Contribution à l’étude de la construction jurisprudentielle d’un ordre constitutionnel européen ,
- Vincent Bonnet, L’accouchement sous X et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme : une histoire sans fin ? (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Godelli c. Italie, 25 septembre 2012)
- Jérôme Martens & Jean-François Neven, La consolidation du devoir d’assistance des États envers les mineurs étrangers en séjour irrégulier (obs/s. Comité eur. drts. sociaux, D.E.I. c. Belgique, 23 octobre 2012)
- Xavier-Baptiste Ruedin, Nouvelles requêtes faisant suite à un premier arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., arrêt Sampani e.a. c. Grèce, 11 décembre 2012)
- Antoine Bailleux, Entre droits fondamentaux et intégration européenne, la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne face à son destin (obs/s. C.J.U.E., Stefano Melloni et Åkerberg Fransson, 26 février 2013)
- Katarzyna Blay-Grabarczyk, Conciliation de la protection des droits d’autrui et de la liberté de la presse : la quête d’un équilibre introuvable
- Audrey Lebret, Le « oui » français au mariage homosexuel et le principe d’égalité : de la souveraineté du législateur quant à l’opportunité de la réforme au contrôle renforcé du juge quant à ses effets (obs/s. Cons. const. (fr.), 17 mai 2013, no 2013-669 DC, 17 mai 2013)
Le principe ne bis in idem interdit que l’on soit « jugé deux fois pour la même chose ». Or la pluralité des juges compétents pour les crimes « les plus graves » (génocide, crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité) augmente la probabilité de doubles procédures. Cet ouvrage décortique l’histoire, les justifications et la mise en oeuvre du principe dans le droit des TPI et de la CPI, et permet de dégager plusieurs hypothèses. La prégnance d’un idéal répressif, d’abord : la « lutte contre l’impunité » favorise la multiplication des procédures. Une ratio legis surprenante, ensuite : le principe ne bis in idem paraît servir moins à protéger l’accusé qu’à répartir les compétences entre juges concurremment compétents. Originale et minutieuse, cette première étude du principe ne bis in idem ouvre également certaines pistes vers la théorie du droit.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
'Statelessness' is a legal status denoting lack of any nationality, a status whereby the otherwise normal link between an individual and a state is absent. The increasingly widespread problem of statelessness has profound legal, social, economic and psychological consequences but also gives rise to the paradox of an international community that claims universal standards for all natural persons while allowing its member states to allow statelessness to occur. In this powerfully argued book, Conklin critically evaluates traditional efforts to recognize and reduce statelessness. The problem, he argues, rests in the obligatory nature of law, domestic or international. By closely analysing a broad spectrum of court and tribunal judgments from many jurisdictions, Conklin explains how confusion has arisen between two discourses, the one discourse inside the other, as to the nature of the international community. One discourse, a surface discourse, describes a community in which international law justifies a state's freedom to confer, withdraw or withhold nationality. This international community incorporates state freedom over nationality matters, bringing about the de jure and effective stateless condition. The other discourse, an inner discourse, highlights a legal bond of socially experienced relationships. Such a bond, judicially referred to as 'effective nationality', is binding upon all states, and where such a bond exists, harm to a stateless person represents harm to the international community as a whole.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
L’ouvrage rassemble une vingtaine d’articles que Jean Salmon a écrits au cours des années et qui se consacrent à la place et au rôle de l’argumentation en droit international.
Ces réflexions se situent à la croisée des enseignements du philosophe Chaïm Perelman sur la rhétorique et ceux de l’internationaliste Charles Chaumont sur les contradictions en droit international.
Le droit entend conformer les faits d’existence à du devoir être ; il le fait par un langage, exprimé dans le cadre d’un système et d’institutions, qui, elles-mêmes sont dominées par les contradictions entre les valeurs et les aspirations des États, créateurs par leurs volonté commune ou antagonistes des règles qui les gouvernent.
L’ordre juridique qui en résulte n’est ni clos, ni complet ; il est lacunaire, permet l’esquive. Il est fondé fréquemment sur un langage ambigu, faisant une place importante aux notions confuses La solution des antinomies n’est pas aisée en raison de l’absence d’hiérarchie entre les règles ou entre les organes chargés de les résoudre.
La qualification unilatérale reste majoritaire, l’idéologie affichée ou occultée dominante. Dans un tel contexte, l’argumentation, quoique soumise à ces contraintes et aux rapports de force, est présente à chaque moment de la vie du droit : sa création, son interprétation, son application au cas concret ou son évolution. L’identification de l’auditoire que l’on désire convaincre, le choix des arguments susceptibles d’y parvenir sont essentiels. Néanmoins, la prétention que le raisonnement juridique est présidé par le syllogisme judiciaire est largement illusoire. La motivation du juge international, essentielle pour régler les conflits, étant elle-même une argumentation qui doit convaincre, est un exercice d’autant plus délicat.
Friday, April 18, 2014
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Engaging the Writings of Martti Koskenniemi: Introduction to the Symposium
- Martti Koskenniemi, Histories of International Law: Significance and Problems for a Critical View
- Kim Lane Scheppele, The Empire of Security and the Security of Empire
- Tomer Broude, Keep Calm and Carry On: Martti Koskenniemi and the Fragmentation of International Law
- Sean D. Murphy, Deconstructing Fragmentation: Koskenniemi’s 2006 ILC Project
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, From Interdisciplinarity to Counterdisciplinarity: Is There Madness in Martti’s Method?
- Mark A. Pollack, Is International Relations Corrosive of International Law? A Reply to Martti Koskenniemi
- Robert Howse & Ruti Teitel, Does Humanity-Law Require (or Imply) a Progressive Theory of History? (and Other Questions for Martti Koskenniemi)
- Samuel Moyn, The International Law That Is America: Reflections on the Last Chapter of The Gentle Civilizer of Nations
- Jan Klabbers, Towards a Culture of Formalism? Martti Koskenniemi and the Virtues
- Andrew Lang & Susan Marks, People with Projects: Writing the Lives of International Lawyers
- Frédéric Mégret, The Apology of Utopia: Some Thoughts on Koskenniemian Themes, with Particular Emphasis on Massively Institutionalized International Human Rights Law
- Ralf Michaels, Private Lawyer in Disguise? On the Absence of Private Law and Private International Law in Martti Koskenniemi’s Work
The past forty years have seen a wide proliferation of disputes under international law concerning cultural heritage. These have included the restitution of stolen art objects or the protection of monuments. Unlike other fields of international law, international cultural heritage law does not have an ad hoc mechanism of dispute settlement. As a result, controversies are to be settled through negotiation or, if it fails, through existing dispute resolution means. This can result in similar cases being settled in different ways, thereby bringing about an incoherent and fragmentary enforcement of the law.
This book offers a comprehensive and innovative analysis of the settlement of cultural heritage disputes. This examination is two-fold. First, it assesses the existing legal framework and the available dispute settlement means. Second, it explores the feasibility of two solutions for overcoming the lack of a specialized forum. The first is the establishment of a new international court. The second concerns existing judicial and extra-judicial fora and their interaction through the practice of 'cross-fertilization'. The book focuses on the substance of such interaction, and identifies a number of culturally-sensitive parameters (the 'common rules of adjudication'). It argues that existing judicial and non-judicial fora should adopt a cross-fertilizing perspective to use and disseminate jurisprudence containing these common rules of adjudication. It sets out how such an approach would enhance the effectiveness and coherence of decision-making processes and would be conducive to the development of a lex culturalis. This can be defined as a composite body of rules designed to protect cultural heritage by excluding the mechanical application of the norms established for standard business transactions of ordinary goods.
Among the most prominent and significant political and legal developments since the end of the Cold War is the proliferation of mechanisms for addressing the complex challenges of transition from authoritarian rule to human rights-based democratic constitutionalism, particularly with regards to the demands for accountability in relation to conflicts and abuses of the past. Whether one thinks of the Middle East, South Africa, the Balkans, Latin America, or Cambodia, an extraordinary amount of knowledge has been gained and processes instituted through transitional justice. No longer a byproduct or afterthought, transitional justice is unquestionably the driver of political change.
In Globalizing Transitional Justice, Ruti G. Teitel provides a collection of her own essays that embody her evolving reflections on the practice and discourse of transitional justice since her book Transitional Justice published back in 2000. In this new book, Teitel focuses on the ways in which transitional justice concepts have found legal expression, especially through human rights law and jurisprudence, and international criminal law. These essays shed light on some of the difficult choices encountered in the design of transitional justice: criminal trials vs. amnesties, or truth commissions; domestic or international processes; peace and reconciliation vs. accountability and punishment. Transitional justice is considered not only in relation to political events and legal developments, but also in relation to the broader social and cultural tendencies of our times.
- Symposium: Global Climate Governance Without the Us
- Joanna Dafoe & Douglas A. Kysar, Symposium Foreword: ‘Go Ahead Without Us’: Global Climate Change Policy in the Absence of Full Participation
- Stuart Beck & Elizabeth Burleson, Inside the System, Outside the Box: Palau’s Pursuit of Climate Justice and Security at the United Nations
- Daniel A. Farber, Climate Policy and the United States System of Divided Powers: Dealing with Carbon Leakage and Regulatory Linkage
- Kenneth W. Abbott, Strengthening the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change †
- Edward A. Parson, Climate Engineering in Global Climate Governance: Implications for Participation and Linkage
- Michael B. Gerrard & Shelley Welton, US Federal Climate Change Law in Obama’s Second Term
- Andreas Kotsakis, Change and Subjectivity in International Environmental Law: The Micro-Politics of the Transformation of Biodiversity into Genetic Gold
- Uzuazo Etemire, Public Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerian Legislation with International Best Practice
Warfare and boundaries have a symbiotic relationship. Whether as its cause or effect, States historically used war to delineate the borders that divided them. Laws and borders have a similar relationship. Sometimes laws are the product of borders as when national boundaries delineate the reach of States’ authorities. But borders may also be the product of law; laws regularly draw lines between permitted and prohibited conduct or bound off required acts from permissible ones. Both logics are on display in debates over international law in cyberspace. Some characterize cyberspace as a unique, self-governing ‘space’ that requires its own borders and the drawing of tailor-made rules therein. For others, cyberspace is merely a technological medium that States can govern via traditional territorial borders with rules drawn ‘by analogy’ from pre-existing legal regimes.
This chapter critiques current formulations drawing law from boundaries and boundaries from law in cyberspace with respect to (a) its governance; (b) the use of force; and (c) international humanitarian law (IHL). In each area, I identify theoretical problems that exist in the absence of any uniform theory for why cyberspace needs boundaries. At the same time, I elaborate functional problems with existing boundary claims – particularly by analogy – in terms of their (i) accuracy, (ii) effectiveness and (iii) completeness. These prevailing difficulties on whether, where, and why borders are needed in cyberspace suggests the time is ripe for re-appraising the landscape.
This chapter seeks to launch such a re-thinking project by proposing a new rule of IHL – a Duty to Hack. The Duty to Hack would require States to use cyber-operations in their military operations whenever they are the least harmful means available for achieving military objectives. Thus, if a State can achieve the same military objective by bombing a factory or using a cyber-operation to take it off-line temporarily, the Duty to Hack requires that State to pursue the latter course. Although novel, I submit the Duty to Hack more accurately and effectively accounts for IHL’s fundamental principles and cyberspace’s unique attributes than existing efforts to foist legal boundaries upon State cyber-operations by analogy. Moreover, adopting the Duty to Hack could constitute a necessary first step to resolving the larger theoretical and functional challenges currently associated with law’s boundaries in cyberspace.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
- Andrea Pinna, L’autorité des règles d’arbitrage choisies par les parties
- Carlos Alberto Carmona, Considerations on the IBA. Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration: a Brazilian point of view
- Cyrus Benson, The IBA Guidelines on Party Representation: An Important Step in Overcoming the Taboo of Ethics in International Arbitration
- Robert G. Voltera, Dissenting and Separate Opinions in Investment Treaty Arbitration – Revisiting the Debate
- Anthea Roberts, State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority
- János Fiala-Butora, Michael Ashley Stein, & Janet E. Lord, The Democratic Life of the Union: Toward Equal Voting Participation for Europeans with Disabilities
- Monica Hakimi, Unfriendly Unilateralism
- Suzanne Katzenstein, In the Shadow of Crisis: The Creation of International Courts in the Twentieth Century
Targeted killing has become a frequently used and highly controversial tool of operational counterterrorism. This chapter analyzes the international law applicable to targeted killing, both during armed conflict and as a tool of offensive counterterrorism outside of armed conflict. In particular, this discussion highlights key legal and policy debates regarding: the authority to use lethal force, the identification of legitimate targets and enemy personnel, the consequences of civilian participation in such strikes, and the nature and parameters of the rules governing the conduct of strikes. Beyond the legal issues, the practice of targeted killing also raises significant questions regarding the appropriate measures of transparency and accountability that should be provided regarding the legal authority for strikes and the civilian harm caused.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
- Special Issue: Nuclear Posture, Nonproliferation Policy, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
- Erik Gartzke & Matthew Kroenig, Nuclear Posture, Nonproliferation Policy, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
- Robert L. Brown & Jeffrey M. Kaplow, Talking Peace, Making Weapons: IAEA Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Proliferation
- Philipp C. Bleek & Eric B. Lorber, Security Guarantees and Allied Nuclear Proliferation
- Matthew Fuhrmann & Todd S. Sechser, Nuclear Strategy, Nonproliferation, and the Causes of Foreign Nuclear Deployments
- Erik Gartzke, Jeffrey M. Kaplow, & Rupal N. Mehta, The Determinants of Nuclear Force Structure
- Michael C. Horowitz & Neil Narang, Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb? Exploring the Relationship between “Weapons of Mass Destruction”