Thursday, June 21, 2018
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
- Stephen Allen & Chris Monaghan, Introduction
- Stuart Lakin, Justifying Bancoult (No 2): Why Justice Hercules Must Sometimes Disappoint Us
- Adam Tomkins, Environmental Protection v the Right of Abode: A Case Study in the Misuse of Power
- Richard Gifford, How Public Law has not been able to provide the Chagossians with a Remedy
- T.T. Arvind, The Subject as a Civic Ghost: Law, Dominion, and Empire in the Chagos Litigation
- Chris Monaghan, An Imperfect Legacy: The Significance of the Bancoult litigation on the Development of Domestic Constitutional Jurisprudence
- Colin Murray & Tom Frost, The Chagossians’ Struggle and the Last Bastions of Imperial Constitutionalism
- Ralph Wilde, Anachronistic as colonial remnants may be...’ Locating the Rights of the Chagos Islanders as a Case Study of the Operation of Human Rights Law in Colonial Territories
- Thomas D. Grant, The Once and Future King: Sovereignty over Territory and the Annex VII Tribunal’s Award in Mauritius v. United Kingdom
- Stephen Allen, The Operation of Estoppel in International Law and the Function of the Lancaster House Undertakings in the Chagos Arbitration Award
- David M. Ong, Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitral Tribunal Award for the Balance between Natural Environmental Protection and Traditional Maritime Freedoms
- Sue Farran, Learning from Chagos, Lessons for Pitcairn?
- Amy Schwebel, ‘International Law and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: What Next for the Chagossians?
- David Snoxell, The Politics of Chagos: Part Played by Parliament and the Courts Towards Resolving the Chagos Tragedy
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
- Jae Woon Lee & Xiongfeng Li, Ongoing Tension in the Air
- Ratna Juwita, An Aretaic Jurisprudence Approach to the Character of the Secretary-General of the United Nations as a Norm Entrepreneur to Save the Earth from the Adverse Impact of Climate Change
- Lowell Bautista, The South China Sea Arbitral Award amidst Shifting Philippine Foreign Policy
- Seokwoo Lee & Hee Eun Lee, Contemporary Issues and Challenges
- Si Jin Oh, Relevance of History and Theory in the Historical Injustice Issues of East Asia
- Seokwoo Lee, Territorial Settlements in Peace Treaties
- Buhm-Suk Baek, Universality of Human Rights, but Not Uniformity of Implementation?
- Sangmin Shim, The North-South Divide on Sustainable Development and the Recent Developments in the Asian Context
- Pyoung Keun Kang, Implications of the Development of International Law upon the Protection of Foreign Investors and Investments from the Perspective of Developing States
- Eon Kyung Park & Taegil Kim, Historical Injustice in Asia and the Role of International Economic Law
- Seung-Jin Oh, Historical Injustice and Dispute Settlement in Asia
- Sung-Won Kim, The Eastphalian Project Revisited
Monday, June 18, 2018
- Dominic Tierney, Accidental primacy: balancing and the path to power
- Jeffrey S Lantis & Daniel J Bloomberg, Changing the code? Norm contestation and US antipreneurism in cyberspace
- Rodney Bruce Hall, Deontic power, authority, and governance in international politics
- Emma-Louise Anderson, African health diplomacy: obscuring power and leveraging dependency through shadow diplomacy
- Philip Cunliffe, From peacekeepers to praetorians – how participating in peacekeeping operations may subvert democracy
- Milja Kurki & Ken Booth, Responses to Justin Rosenberg’s ‘IR in the prison of Political Science’ and ‘Rethinking International Relations – again’
- Benjamin Tallis, Justin Rosenberg’s IR jail break: commentary of the best kind
- Nathan Alexander Sears, Multiplicity – within and between
- Olaf Corry, Societies are not the only source of multiplicity
- Hannes Peltonen, A prison break into the past? A comment on Justin Rosenberg’s ‘International Relations in the prison of Political Science’
- Alex Prichard, Anarchy, anarchism and multiplicity: Preface to a fuller dialogue with Rosenberg
- Brieg Powel, Deepening ‘multiplicity’: A response to Rosenberg
- Justin Rosenberg, IR 101
- Ulrich Wagrandl, Transnational militant democracy
- Petra Gümplová, Popular sovereignty over natural resources: A critical reappraisal of Leif Wenar’s Blood Oil from the perspective of international law and justice
- Mark Machacek, Global public–private partnerships and the new constitutionalism of the refugee regime
- Diego Werneck Arguelhes & Leandro Molhano Ribeiro, ‘The Court, it is I’? Individual judicial powers in the Brazilian Supreme Court and their implications for constitutional theory
- Markus Patberg, Challenging the masters of the treaties: Emerging narratives of constituent power in the European Union
- Zoe Scanlon & Robert Beckman, Assessing Environmental Impact and the Duty to Cooperate
- Jonathan G. Odom, Guerrillas in the Sea Mist
- Abdullah Al Arif, Legal Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Fisheries Law and Its Application in the Marine Fisheries Regime of Bangladesh
- State Law of the Sea Practice in Asian Pacific States
- Jiayi Wang, Solid Wastes Import Control in China
- Kentaro Nishimoto, Japan’s Act of 2017 on Research Whaling
- Current Legal Developments
- Ted L. McDorman, The South China Sea Tribunal Awards
- Katherine Seto & Quentin Hanich, The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the New Conservation and Management Measure for Tropical Tunas
- The Law of the Sea and Ocean Governance
- Michel Morin, Fifty Years on from Arvid Pardo’s Speech at the United Nations
- Julia Gaunce, On the Interpretation of the General Duty of “Due Regard”
- Wu Shicun, Reviewing the South China Sea Situation and Exploring the Way Forward
- Hong Nong, The Applicability of the Archipelagic Regime in the South China Sea: A Debate on the Rights of Continental States’ Outlying Archipelagos
- Francesco Munari, Migrations by Sea in the Mediterranean: An Improvement of EU Law is Urgently Needed
- Coastal and Ocean Management
- Elizabeth Edmondson, Adrian Gerhartz-Abraham, Lucia Fanning & Megan Bailey, Addressing Tensions between Participation and Protection: Use of the U.S. Antiquities Act of 1906 in Marine Conservation
- Julia Jabour & Danielle Smith, The Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area: Can It be Successfully Managed?
- Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen, Integrated Ocean Management in the Arctic: Comparative Analyses of the Implementation and Use of Marine Protected Areas in Canada and Norway
- Elise Johansen, Norway’s Integrated Ocean Management: A Need for Stronger Protection of the Environment?
- Environmental Management
- Gail S. Fraser & Angela V. Carter, Seabird Attraction to Artificial Light in Newfoundland and Labrador’s Offshore Oil Fields: Documenting Failed Regulatory Governance
- Joana Correia Prata, Plastic Litter in Our Oceans: A Case for Government Action
- Living Resources Management
- Guillermo Compeán, Review of Management and Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean
- Valentin J. Schatz, Marine Fisheries Law Enforcement Partnerships in Waters under National Jurisdiction: The Legal Framework for Inter-State Cooperation and Public-Private Partnerships with Non-governmental Organizations and Private Security Companies
- Joeli Veitayaki, Esaroma Ledua, Akosita Nakoro, Hyun Pyo Hong, Deukhoon Peter Han, Sukran Moon & Annette Breckwoldt, Future Use of Past Practices: Policy Implications of Insights from Two Community-Based Marine Resource Management Initiatives in Fiji
- Maritime Transport and Security
- Leah Beveridge, Arctic Pilots for Canadian Corridors: Is There a Role for Pilotage in the Canadian Low Impact Shipping Corridors?
- Megan Drewniak & Dimitrios Dalaklis, Expansion of Business Activities in the Arctic: The Issue of Search and Rescue Services
- Stephan Gollasch & Matej David, Ballast Water Management Convention Implementation Challenges
- Armando Graziano, Gesa Praetorius, Jens-Uwe Schröder-Hinrichs, Maximo Q. Mejia & Aditi Kataria, It Takes Two to Tango: EU Policy Makers’ Bi-dimensional Approach to Flag State Performance
- Rumesh H. Merien-Paul, Hossein Enshaei & Shantha Gamini Jayasinghe, Liquefied Natural Gas as a Marine Fuel in Australia: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Strategic Decision-Making
- Yubing Shi, The Implications of the Paris Agreement for the Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping
- Michael Stein, Integrating Unmanned Vehicles in Port Security Operations: An Introductory Analysis and First Applicable Frameworks
Seibert-Fohr: Digital Surveillance, Meta Data and Foreign Intelligence Cooperation: Unpacking the International Right to Privacy
Anti-terrorism measures have led to increasing digital interception of private communications and to mass surveillance, the extent of which had been unseen until recently. When a few years ago the discussion started about how to deal with this phenomenon, the call for a new legal instrument quickly erupted. However, this the article demonstrates that this is not a blind spot of international law. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to privacy and the protection against unlawful interference with correspondence. The Human Rights Committee which is entrusted with the interpretation of the Covenant has taken recent cyber-related developments as an opportunity to unpack the right to privacy in the context of its state reporting procedure. The article by Anja Seibert-Fohr describes and systematizes the Human Rights Committee’s interpretation of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with respect to the protection of privacy against digital surveillance, meta data retention and foreign intelligence cooperation and outlines the respective legal standards. The author demonstrates that the Covenant provides the necessary legal ground to confront new technological challenges without ignoring the exigencies of the altering security situation. Safeguard procedures play a central role in this undertaking. The Committee, having identified various shortcomings in national legal frameworks, has specified the necessary safeguards to effectively protect the right to privacy against arbitrary interference. It has also clarified the territorial scope of protection under the Covenant which is not limited to domestic measures but also extents to transnational surveillance and digital intelligence sharing. The Committee thus has specified the meaning of Article 17 and laid important groundwork for the consideration of cyber-related issues. The author concludes with an outlook, describing new issues which the Committee will need to consider in the future, and makes general recommendations for the future conceptualization of the right to privacy in the digital age more generally.
- Special Focus Section: OECD Conference – Evaluating and Enhancing Outcomes of Investment Treaties
- Andrew Kerner, What Can We Really Know about BITs and FDI?
- Ursula Kriebaum, Evaluating Social Benefits and Costs of Investment Treaties: Depoliticization of Investment Disputes
- Stephan W Schill & Vladislav Djanic, Wherefore Art Thou? Towards a Public Interest-Based Justification of International Investment Law
- W Michael Reisman, The Past and Future of the Great Compact : White & Case International Arbitration Lecture (Lamm Lecture, University of Miami School of Law, 9 February 2017)
- Case Comments
- Jean Ho, Sanum Investments Ltd v The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic: Circumstantial Indicia in Treaty Interpretation
- Yannick Radi, Philip Morris v Uruguay: Regulatory Measures in International Investment Law: To Be or Not To Be Compensated?
- Philip Devenish & Odysseas G Repousis, CEAC v Montenegro: When does an investor have a ‘seat’ in its home state?
- Nelson Goh, The Power of Tribunals to Enjoin Criminal Proceedings: A Widening Power or Converging High Bar? Italba Corporation v Oriental Republic of Uruguay; Hydro Srl and others v Republic of Albania; Teinver and others v Argentine Republic
- Carlos José Valderrama, Perú – Buenas Prácticas de Cómo Enfrentar Demandas Internacionales Iniciadas por Inversionistas Privados
- John Shijian Mo, The Dilemma of Applying Bilateral Investment Treaties of China to Hong Kong and Macao: Challenge Raised by Sanum Investments to China
- Michael Hwang & Aloysius Chang, Of Forks and Dead Ends: Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
- Yuka Fukunaga, Abuse of Process under International Law and Investment Arbitration
- Christine Sim, Dealing with Ex Post Information in Investment Arbitrations: Quiborax SA et al v Plurinational State of Bolivia
- Cherie Blair & Ema Vidak Gojković, WikiLeaks and Beyond: Discerning an International Standard for the Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence
- Brian Kotick & Joel Dahlquist Cullborg, A (Counter) Balancing Act: The Express Power to Order a Security on a Stay of Enforcement Pending Annulment
- Patrick M Norton, The Role of Precedent in the Development of International Investment Law
- Duncan Watson & Tom Brebner. Nationality Planning and Abuse of Process: A Coherent Framework
International law and legal institutions are central to the post-Cold War rules-based international order. The multilateral arrangements underpinning this order are coming under visible stress, however, as state and non-state actors seek to challenge, reshape, and in some cases withdraw from international institutions and their associated global and regional regimes, including across economic, environmental, human rights/humanitarian, and security-related spheres. This dynamic raises questions about the ability of governments and international institutions to navigate evolving collective policy challenges (e.g. climate change, financial regulation, terrorism, shifts in trade relationships, and shifting forms of warfare) in an increasingly unstable international political environment.
This workshop will provide an opportunity to consider how (and whether) international law can be considered to be under pressure in different areas, the political, economic and social drivers involved, and the implications of these for the future of international law and governance.
The organisers welcome papers from researchers and practitioners exploring: the nature, extent and manifestations of international legal contestation and resistance; the material and ideational sources and drivers of these processes; the causal and constitutive mechanisms involved; legal and political implications, and the resilience and adaptability of existing regimes and institutions to emerging trends.
Abstracts of not more than 300 words should be submitted to email@example.com by 30 June 2018, and should be accompanied by a one-page CV for each applicant.
We are particularly keen to encourage contributions from PhD students and early career researchers, and can offer modest travel bursaries for a small number of attendees. Please indicate when you submit your abstract whether you would like to be considered for one of these, along with details of the amount sought. Lunch will be provided.
- Long Articles
- Deborah Whitehall, A time-map for international law: 2017 Cambridge International Law Journal–Lauterpacht Centre for International Law Annual Lecture
- Clara Chapdelaine-Feliciati, Deconstructing the Convention on the Rights of the Child: semiotics, significs and semioethics of gendercide
- Melissa Conway, Ordering individual criminal responsibility: proposing a hierarchy of the modes of liability
- Sacha Garben, The problematic interaction between EU and international law in the area of social rights
- Samuli Haataja & Afshin Akhtar-Khavari, Stuxnet and international law on the use of force: an informational approach
- Michail Vagias, Retroactive state criminal jurisdiction under international law
- Noam Zamir, The classification of armed conflicts between occupying states and non-state armed groups in cases of belligerent occupation
- Short Articles
- Frederick Cowell, Understanding the legal status of Universal Periodic Review recommendations
Sunday, June 17, 2018
- Nam Kyu Kim, Are Military Regimes Really Belligerent?
- Alyssa K. Prorok, Led Astray: Leaders and the Duration of Civil War
- S. Erdem Aytaç, Luis Schiumerini, & Susan Stokes, Why Do People Join Backlash Protests? Lessons from Turkey
- Anselm Rink & Kunaal Sharma, The Determinants of Religious Radicalization: Evidence from Kenya
- Thomas M. Dolan, Clayton Besaw, & Joseph Butler, Where the Insurgents Aren’t: Rurality, Information, and Nonterritorial Insurgency
- Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir & Martin C. Steinwand, Distributive Outcomes in Contested Maritime Areas: The Role of Inside Options in Settling Competing Claims
- María José Hierro & Aina Gallego, Identities in between: Political Conflict and Ethnonational Identities in Multicultural States
Friday, June 15, 2018
This article examines the manner in which the rise of populism affects the use of international law by domestic courts. It argues that populism may have a negative effect on the willingness of domestic courts to refer to international law. It further argues that although such response is understandable, it is regrettable, since incorporation of international law into domestic court rulings can serve as a counter-populism measure. Maintaining international law as part of the domestic legal discourse is particularly important in a populist setting, for two reasons. First, where constitutionalism is overtaken by populists, international law can serve as an important source on which courts can draw to protect human rights. In addition, referral, analysis and application of international law are means of maintaining pluralism in legal and public debate and, accordingly, of enhancing democracy.
This Companion is a one-stop reference resource on the Phnom Penh based ‘Khmer Rouge tribunal'. It serves as an introduction to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, while also exploring some of the Court’s practical and jurisprudential challenges and outcomes. Written by Nina Jørgensen, who has worked as senior adviser in the tribunal’s Pre-Trial and Supreme Court Chambers, the Companion offers both direct insights and academic analysis organized around six themes: legality, structure, proceedings, jurisprudence, legitimacy and legacy. This comprehensive Companion will provide a platform for interested sectors of domestic and international society, to assess the value of the Extraordinary Chambers, both during the tribunal’s lifespan and after it has closed its doors.
Morrow & Cope: The Limits of Information Revelation in Multilateral Negotiations: A Theory of Treatymaking
We develop the first general model of multilateral treatymaking. The rules by which multilateral treaties are negotiated and take effect differ in crucial ways from those governing other political institutions, such as bilateral treaties, legislatures, and courts. Multilateral treaties usually generate more utility as the number of members increases, but they allow dissatisfied parties to opt-out of the regime. These and other key differences produce a unique, "broader-deeper" tradeoff that affects how states bargain strategically over the formation of multilateral treaties. As a result, existing models of how other political institutions bargain and develop policies do not satisfactorily explain large treaty formation. Using mechanism design, we show how states negotiating multilateral treaties adopt their positions, including to what extent they reveal private information about their preferred policies. Among other things, we find that states that strongly favor a treaty and those that strongly oppose it readily reveal their positions and expected values from the treaty; states that require small concessions to ratify and those that weakly support the status quo request their desired changes. The strategic logic of multilateral negotiations means that imitating another type risks triggering policy changes adverse to a state's true preferences. These findings lay the groundwork for a line of theoretical and empirical research on multilateral cooperation through international law.
Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations from An African Perspective addresses the often neglected question of whether African regional human rights instruments impose extraterritorial obligations on State parties, and if so, the extent and scope of these obligations.
The prevalence of extraterritorial violations of human and peoples’ rights in the African system, due to the actions or omissions of African as well as non-African states, has not gone unnoticed. Strengthening extraterritorial obligations in Africa is an urgent necessity to ensure a rights-based African regional order that seeks to address, among other issues, challenges stemming from globalisation, accountability for human rights violations in Africa where a third state or entity (as well as an intergovernmental organisation) is involved, and to ensure respect and protection of the human rights of future generations. With the increasing quasi-judicial and judicial scrutiny of the extraterritorial reach of human rights and states’ duties, at both international and regional levels, including from the African Commission, the African region is ripe for extraterritorial analysis.
Individualrechte aus dem EU-Recht müssen gerade gegenüber den Mitgliedstaaten der EU wirksam durchsetzbar sein. Philipp Tamme untersucht, inwieweit der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hierzu beitragen kann. Anhand der in Straßburg bislang entschiedenen Fälle werden die Ursachen für Rechtsschutzdefizite auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene analysiert sowie die formellen und materiellen Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche konventionsrechtliche Sanktionierung von Unionsrechtsverstößen herausgearbeitet. Ausgehend von den allgemeinen Grundlagen wird im Einzelnen die Durchsetzung von Verfahrensrechten, Rechten aus EU-Richtlinien, Freizügigkeitsrechten und politischen Rechten behandelt. Hieran knüpfen jeweils weitergehende Vorschläge an, die auf eine rechtsstaatsorientierte Optimierung des Individualrechtsschutzes im europäischen Mehrebenenverbund abzielen.
After the end of the Cold War, the once utopian dream of an international criminal court gained momentum. In July 1998, civil society, scholars, and practitioners welcomed the establishment of a permanent international criminal tribunal with great enthusiasm.
The Court was greeted as a fundamental step in the evolution of the universal system of human rights protection, and in the fight against impunity for core crimes.
When the Court resumed its work and reality hit, it soon became apparent that International criminal justice is time-consuming, costly, and very complicated. It seems that after the initial euphoria, scholars became aware that the ICC could not achieve the expectations, which had been put on the Court. State parties became more and more impatient with a Court, which needed ten years to render its first judgment. Both intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations started to criticise the effectiveness of the first permanent international criminal tribunal.
Today the ICC faces accusations of asymmetrical implementation of international criminal justice with some African states withdrawing from the Rome Statute. In addition, it is difficult to impart the importance of international criminal justice when a humanitarian catastrophe is taking place in Syria, while the ICC is condemned to inaction. With recurring nationalism all over, it seems hardly imaginable that an international criminal court, with universalistic aspirations, would be created again today.
With the participation of ICC judges, international scholars and practitioners, the Conference aims to facilitate exchange of ideas on the role and limits of the ICC. This interdisciplinary Conference brings together international judges, prominent scholars, including criminologists, criminal and international lawyers, experts in the fields of international relations, and senior officers from International Criminal Tribunals in order to address the following key research questions: Can proceedings be made more effective thereby improving the Court’s reputation, and if so how? What are the Court’s real goals and functions? How do they relate to the selection of situations to investigate and cases to prosecute? And how to unfold the rather complicated triangle relationship between the Court, the Security Council and the state parties?
Au milieu du XXe siècle, le paradigme de la sécularisation annonçait, sinon la disparition totale, au moins la perte de toute influence du religieux sur le politique. Quelques décennies après, un brusque virement de la perception dominante s’était produit. Le (re)surgissement des fondamentalismes dans les principaux courants religieux de la planète demandait alors une révision de la réconfortante vision d’un monde libre de virulences religieuses et marchant droitement vers un avenir de progrès. Le paradigme du choc des civilisations s’est donc substitué à celui de la sécularisation.
Scrutant de manière critique ces deux paradigmes, cet ouvrage propose une analyse de la place des groupes religieux en droit international. De la liberté collective de religion aux persécutions religieuses, et de la protection des groupes religieux minoritaires à la poursuite pénale des responsables des crimes contre ces groupes, les différentes formes d’encastrement du religieux à l’intérieur du discours juridique international sont abordées. L’ouvrage met en exergue les subtils compromis politiques sous-jacents à la construction de ce discours, les formes juridiques n’étant qu’une des manifestations d’un équilibre toujours instable entre le religieux et le séculier.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Call for Papers: The Judicial Power of Africa’s Supranational Courts / Le pouvoir judiciaire des Cours supranationales d’Afrique
In the field of supranational adjudication, the African continent presents a puzzling paradox. Africa boasts a high number of supranational courts, but at the same time there appears to be a lack of willingness among Member States to comply with rulings issued by these courts. On 21 September 2018, the University of Luxembourg will host a conference on this issue. It will discuss which forms of judicial power are being favoured by African States on the one hand and by African supranational courts on the other. It will analyse to what extent approaches of activism or, conversely, restraint, are being considered as legitimate and effective by these actors. The conference will be bilingual (English and French).
The organizers look forward to receive abstracts from junior scholars who will discuss the conference theme on the basis of a specific judicial decision from an African supranational jurisdiction, such as the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organisation pour l’harmonisation en Afrique du droit des affaires (OHADA) and the Court of Justice of the Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA). The University of Luxembourg will cover travel expenses and accommodation for one week.
Applications including an abstract of the presentation (max 400 words, in English or French) as well as a CV should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline is 30 June 2018.
Les juridictions supranationales du continent africain présentent un paradoxe étonnant. En effet, alors que l’Afrique compte un grand nombre de tribunaux supranationaux, il semblerait y avoir un manque de volonté parmi les États Membres à se conformer aux jugements rendus par ceux-ci. Le 21 septembre 2018, une conférence se tiendra à l’Université du Luxembourg concernant cette problématique. Il s’agira de souligner quelles formes de pouvoir judiciaire sont favorisées par les États africains, d’une part, et, par les Cours africaines supranationales, d’autre part. Ce sera par ailleurs l’occasion d’analyser dans quelle mesure ces acteurs considèrent l’activisme ou, au contraire, l’autolimitation judiciaire, comme étant des approches légitimes et effectives. La conférence sera bilingue (anglais et français).
Les organisateurs espèrent recevoir des propositions de communication de la part de jeunes chercheurs qui aborderont la thématique de la conférence sous la perspective d’une décision judiciaire spécifique émanant d’une Cour supranationale africaine, telle que la Cour africaine des droits et des peuples, la Cour de justice de la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO), la Cour Commune de Justice et d’arbitrage de l’Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (OHADA), et la Cour de Justice de l’Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine (UEMOA). Les frais de voyage et d’hébergement d’une durée d’une semaine seront pris en charge par l’Université du Luxembourg.
Les propositions, incluant un résumé de la communication envisagée, en anglais ou en français (400 mots maximum), ainsi qu’un curriculum vitae, doivent être transmises par courriel à email@example.com au plus tard le 30 juin 2018.
Membership in the United Nations has almost quadrupled since its founding in 1945, with the vast majority of new states admitted over this period resulting from the collapse of European imperial regimes. The process of decolonization and the expansion of international organizations are among the most momentous developments in modern global history, yet their impact on one another has more often been posited than examined. The symposium asks what roles international organizations – both inter-governmental and non-governmental – have played in the process of decolonization and how the dissolution of European empires has in turn affected the development of international organizations. It questions the colonial-postcolonial divide in historical scholarship by examining continuities in personnel, expertise, and inequalities and inquires about the ways in which colonial frameworks and the legacies of decolonization continue to inform doctrines and practices of international organizations – for example in the fields of humanitarian relief or development assistance.
The goal is not so much comprehensiveness, but to showcase a variety of methodological approaches, subjects, historical dynamics, and timeframes. While the twentieth century has received the majority of scholarly attention, the symposium seeks to expand the chronology by also paying attention to earlier instances of international organizations affecting decolonization and vice versa, for example in the Latin American context. It further aims to move beyond the examination of more prominent bodies such as the League of Nations and the UN as well as their affiliated agencies in order to showcase other organizations of global reach, such as the Arab League or the International Organization for Migration. It seeks to learn about a variety of actors – colonial subjects, citizens of new states and (former) metropoles, government representatives, experts and volunteers – and examine not only political and economic but also social, cultural, legal, and environmental history. By providing a common focus on the global history of decolonization and international organizations, the proposed conference aims to bring together scholars from diverse regional and thematic subfields.
The conference invites proposals for papers that explore the role of international organizations as
- agents in the process decolonization;
- as hubs for the formation of both inter-imperial and anti-imperial alliances;
- as forums for negotiating the meaning and unfolding of decolonization.
Potential papers might ask how employees of international organizations – international civil servants, experts and volunteers – understood the process of decolonization and how they conceived of their own roles in that process. What role, if any, did people in dependent territories and metropoles assign to international organizations? And how did such conceptions change over time? Aside from exploring the different imaginaries of decolonization, the conference presents an opportunity to learn more about the actual functions performed by international organizations in both (former) colonies and metropoles leading up to, during, and after the formal transfer of political sovereignty – and how these interventions from abroad were affected or conditioned by developments on the ground. At the same time, the conference welcomes contributions that examine how the emergence of new states and non-state actors – such as national liberation movements – altered the work and shape of international organizations themselves.
Prof. Susan G. Pedersen (Department of History at Columbia University) is the keynote speaker at the symposium.
Scholars interested in presenting a paper at the symposium are invited to send a brief abstract of 250-300 words as well as a CV by June 15, 2018, to Eva-Maria Muschik at firstname.lastname@example.org. While limited travel and accommodation support is available, presenters will be encouraged to explore their own funding opportunities.