Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Call for Submissions: The Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law (Reminder/Update)

The Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law has issued an updated call for submissions for its forthcoming fifth volume (2020). The deadline is now July 30, 2021. Here's the call:
The Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law (EtYIL) is a peer-reviewed academic book series that focuses on international, regional comparative legal and policy matters that most concern developing countries more generally and Ethiopia and (the Horn of) Africa specifically. The Yearbook is now a well-established and respected source of legal and policy scholarship. It has recently been independently evaluated and included in Scopus. We are pleased to invite interested scholars to consider submitting long or short articles, current development pieces, case reports and book reviews for consideration for the FIFTH (2020) volume of the Yearbook (submission guidelines and other details available here). Submission deadline for this volume is now 30 July 2021. We would like to hear your potential ideas and topics at ethiopianyearbook@gmail.com or at Zeray.yihdego@abdn.ac.uk.

van Oosterom: With an Orange Tie: A year on the Security Council

Karel J.G. van Oosterom
has published With an Orange Tie: A year on the Security Council (Barnes & Noble Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
A seat on the UN Security Council is a coveted post. With five permanent and ten elected members, the Security Council is responsible for international peace and security, mediating in conflicts, sending out blue helmets and imposing sanctions. Ambassador Karel J.G. van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations, therefore conducted intensive lobbying for a seat on the Security Council. When the time finally came in 2018, it was the beginning of an intense year. In "With an Orange Tie" Van Oosterom gives the reader intimate insights into the Security Council. He shows the manner in which diplomats discussed international conflicts and how the Council helped to prevent Ebola from becoming a global pandemic; it was a year fraught with tension in places like Syria, Yemen, Iran and North Korea, and with issues such as MH17 and the spy affair in Salisbury. He also discusses the importance of the UN and what it meant to the Netherlands to be a member of the Security Council for a year.

Taylor: A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The UN Human Rights Committee's Monitoring of ICCPR Rights

Paul M. Taylor
(Univ. of Queensland - Law) has published A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The UN Human Rights Committee's Monitoring of ICCPR Rights (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
A new and an essential reference work for any international human rights law academic, student or practitioner, A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights spans all substantive rights of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), approached from the perspective of the ICCPR as an integrated, coherent scheme of rights protection. In detailed coverage of the Human Rights Committee's output when monitoring ICCPR compliance, Paul M. Taylor offers extraordinary access to forty years of its Concluding Observations, Views and General Comments organised thematically. This Commentary is a solid and practical introduction to any and all of the civil and political rights in the ICCPR, and a rare resource explaining the requirements for domestic implementation of ICCPR standards. An indispensable research tool for any serious enquirer into the subject, the Commentary speaks to the accomplishments of the ICCPR in striving for universal human rights standards.

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Radpey: The Sèvres Centennial: Self-Determination and the Kurds

Loqman Radpey (Univ. of Edinburgh) has posted an ASIL Insight on The Sèvres Centennial: Self-Determination and the Kurds.

Call for Papers: Colloquium for New Research in International Law

The International Law Research Cluster at the University of Technology Syndey Faculty of Law has issued a call for papers for a colloquium on "New Research in International Law," to be held online on December 11, 2020. The call is here.

New Issue: Leiden Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law (Vol. 33, no. 3, September 2020) is out. Contents include:
  • Editorial
    • Elies van Sliedregt, International outlaws
  • International Legal Theory
    • Juan Pablo Scarfi, Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The Rise of Latin American Legal Anti-imperialism in the Face of the Modern US and Hemispheric Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine
    • Nicolás M. Perrone, Speed, Law and the Global Economy: How Economic Acceleration Contributes to Inequality and Precarity
  • International Law and Practice
    • Rossana Deplano, The Parliament of the World? Reflections on the Proposal to Establish a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
    • Vladislava Stoyanova, Fault, Knowledge and Risk within the Framework of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
    • Marco Pertile & Sondra Faccio, What We Talk About When We Talk About Jerusalem: The Duty of Non-recognition and the Prospects for Peace after the US Embassy’s Relocation to the Holy City
    • Eliana Cusato, International Law, the Paradox of Plenty and the Making of Resource-Driven Conflict
    • Juan Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo, The Control of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights over Amnesty Laws and Other Exemption Measures: Legitimacy Assessment
    • Pasha L. Hsieh, Rethinking Non-Recognition: The EU’s Investment Agreement with Taiwan under the One-China Policy
    • Francesca Capone, The Alleged Tension between the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and State Sovereignty: ‘Much Ado about Nothing’?
    • Marika Sosnowski, ‘Not dead but sleeping’: Expanding International Law to Better Regulate the Diverse Effects of Ceasefire Agreements
    • Irma Johanna Mosquera Valderrama, BEPS Principal Purpose Test and Customary International Law
  • International Court of Justice
    • Felix Fouchard, Allowing ‘leeway to expediency, without abandoning principle’? The International Court of Justice’s use of Avoidance Techniques
  • International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
    • Nicola Palmer, International Criminal Law and Border Control: The Expressive Role of the Deportation and Extradition of Genocide Suspects to Rwanda

New Issue: Journal of Conflict Resolution

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 64, no. 9, October 2020) is out. Contents include:
  • Articles
    • Dimitar Gueorguiev, Daniel McDowell, & David A. Steinberg, The Impact of Economic Coercion on Public Opinion: The Case of US–China Currency Relations
    • Iain Osgood & Corina Simonelli, Nowhere to Go: FDI, Terror, and Market-specific Assets
    • Lesley-Ann Daniels, How and When Amnesty during Conflict Affects Conflict Termination
    • Devorah Manekin & Reed M. Wood, Framing the Narrative: Female Fighters, External Audience Attitudes, and Transnational Support for Armed Rebellions
    • Aaron M. Hoffman & José Kaire, Comfortably Numb: Effects of Prolonged Media Coverage
    • Scott Gates & Mogens K. Justesen, Political Trust, Shocks, and Accountability: Quasi-experimental Evidence from a Rebel Attack
    • Karin Dyrstad & Solveig Hillesund, Explaining Support for Political Violence: Grievance and Perceived Opportunity
    • Hema Preya Selvanathan & Bernhard Leidner, Modes of Ingroup Identification and Notions of Justice Provide Distinct Pathways to Normative and Nonnormative Collective Action in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Benatar & Schatz: The Protection of Foreign Investments in Disputed Maritime Areas

Marco Benatar (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) & Valentin Schatz (Univ. of Hamburg) have posted The Protection of Foreign Investments in Disputed Maritime Areas (in Investments in Conflict Zones: The Role of International Investment Law in Armed Conflicts, Disputed Territories, and ‘Frozen’ Conflicts, Sebastian Wuschka & Tobias Ackermann eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Where the rights of foreign investors are harmed in disputed maritime areas, the question arises whether these investors can invoke international investment agreements (IIAs) to seek redress. IIAs cover both bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral investment agreements (MIAs). BITs can be described as ‘reciprocal legal agreement[s] concluded between two sovereign States for the promotion and protection of investments by investors of the one State (“home State”) in the territory of the other State (“host State”)’. Reciprocal rules and protections of investments may also increasingly be found in multilateral agreements, which can be seen – at least from this perspective – as MIAs. IIAs are the primary instruments for the protection of foreign investments in international investment law. Typical provisions contained in IIAs include definitions of the notions of investment and investor, substantive protections of foreign investors (eg, concerning expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security), and dispute settlement clauses (usually providing for both investor-state and state-to-state arbitration).

But do they apply to investments in disputed maritime areas? And if this is the case, can an arbitral tribunal established under an IIA’s dispute settlement clause make all findings of fact and law required to apply the IIA without exceeding the scope of its jurisdictional mandate?

This chapter seeks to answer these questions. In so doing, it will define the concept of ‘disputed maritime areas’ for present purposes (section 2). Next, it will address the spatial scope of IIAs as a matter of substantive law in relation to maritime areas generally and disputed maritime areas specifically (section 3). Thereafter, this chapter will turn to specific challenges of procedural law raised by investor-state dispute settlement in relation to investments in disputed maritime areas (section 4). An ensuing section will assess the different approaches investment tribunals could follow in dealing with the aforementioned challenges (section 5), followed by concluding remarks (section 6).

New Issue: European Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law (Vol. 31, no. 1, February 2020) is out Contents include:
  • Editorial
    • COVID-19 and EJIL; The Self-Asphyxiation of Democracy; Publishers, Academics and the Battles over Copyright and Your Rights I; Festschrift? ‘That Which Is Hateful to You, Do Not Do to Your Fellow! That is the Whole Torah; The Rest is Interpretation’ (from the Elder Hillel in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a); Vital Statistics; A Less Exclusive Submission Process; In this Issue
  • The EJIL Foreword
    • André Nollkaemper, Jean d’Aspremont, Christiane Ahlborn, Berenice Boutin, Nataša Nedeski, & Ilias Plakokefalos, with the collaboration of Dov Jacobs, Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law
  • Articles
    • Ezgi Yildiz, A Court with Many Faces: Judicial Characters and Modes of Norm Development in the European Court of Human Rights
    • Tilmann Altwicker, Non-Universal Arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights
    • Eyal Benvenisti & Doreen Lustig, Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874
  • Focus: Interpretation and Custom
    • Danae Azaria, ‘Codification by Interpretation’: The International Law Commission as an Interpreter of International Law
    • Kristina Daugirdas, International Organizations and the Creation of Customary International Law
    • Orfeas Chasapis Tassinis, Customary International Law: Interpretation from Beginning to End
    • Jan Klabbers, The Cheshire Cat That Is International Law
  • Roaming Charges: Death Wall
  • EJIL: Debate!
    • Ivar Alvik, The Justification of Privilege in International Investment Law: Preferential Treatment of Foreign Investors as a Problem of Legitimacy
    • Jürgen Kurtz, On Foreign Investor ‘Privilege’ and the Limits of the Law: A Reply to Ivar Alvik
  • Critical Review of Governance
    • Dai Tamada, The Timor Sea Conciliation: The Unique Mechanism of Dispute Settlement
  • Changing the Guards
    • Michael Waibel, The EU’s Most Influential Economic Policy-maker: Mario Draghi at the European Central Bank
  • Review Essay
    • Lorenzo Cotula, Investment Contracts and International Law: Charting a Research Agenda. Review of Rudolf Dolzer, Petroleum Contracts and International Law; Jola Gjuzi, Stabilization Clauses in International Investment Law: A Sustainable Development Approach
  • Books Reviews
    • Jan Klabbers, reviewing Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism
    • Alina Miron, reviewing Stephen Fietta and Robin Cleverly, A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation; Alex G. Oude Elferink, Tore Henriksen and Veierud Busch (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law. Is It Consistent and Predictable?
    • Joshua Paine, reviewing Rodrigo Polanco, The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes: Bringing Back Diplomatic Protection?
  • The Last Page
    • Theodor W. Adorno, ... nach Auschwitz

Monday, August 10, 2020

Call for Submissions: German Yearbook of International Law (Reminder/Update)

The German Yearbook of International Law has issued an updated call for submissions for its forthcoming volume 63 (2020). The deadline is October 1, 2020. Here's the call:

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Editors welcome submissions for volume 63 (2020) of the GYIL, inviting interested parties to submit contributions for consideration for inclusion in the forthcoming edition.

2020 has proven to be the most consequential year in modern history. Recent global events have highlighted the existence of serious challenges for international law and its institutions. The German Yearbook for International Law (GYIL) wishes to open submissions for articles on all topics of relevance to public international law. In particular, however, we are interested in articles addressing recent international developments such as the impact of Covid-19 on global health and the World Health Organisation, the international dimensions of the Black Lives Matter movement and the fight against racism, the ongoing struggle against climate change, and the implications of political and legal changes in Hong Kong for democracy. Submissions from the entire academic community are welcomed. Articles will be independently peer-reviewed by a board of renowned experts. All work submitted will be scrutinised based on its intellectual quality and its advancement of academic discourse.

Submission Guidelines

Papers submitted should be in English, be between 10,000-12,500 words (inclusive of footnotes), and conform with the house style of the GYIL (which is available on our website). Submissions, including a brief abstract, statement of affiliation, and confirmation of exclusive submission, should be sent by 1 October 2020 to the Assistant Editor of the GYIL via e-mail: yearbook@wsi.uni-kiel.de

More information can be found at our website or via the website of the Walther Schücking Institute for International Law.

Duval & Kassoti: The Legality of Economic Activities in Occupied Territories: International, EU Law and Business and Human Rights Perspectives

Antoine Duval
(Asser Institute) & Eva Kassoti (Asser Institute) have published The Legality of Economic Activities in Occupied Territories: International, EU Law and Business and Human Rights Perspectives (Routledge 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This edited volume explores the question of the lawfulness under international law of economic activities in occupied territories from the perspectives of international law, EU law, and business and human rights.

Providing a multi-level overview of relevant practices, policies and cases, the book is divided in three parts, each dealing with how different legal fields have come to grips with the challenges brought about by the question of the lawfulness under international law of economic activities in occupied territories. The first part includes contributions pertaining to the international law dimension of the question. It contains chapters on the conjunction between jus in bello, jus ad bellum and international human rights law in the context of exploitation of natural resources in territories under belligerent occupation; on third party obligations flowing from the application of occupation law in relation to natural resources exploitation; and on State practice with regards to trading with occupied territories. The second part focuses on EU law and contains contributions that assess the EU’s approach to occupied territories and the extent to which this approach comports with the EU’s obligations under international law; contributions providing an in-depth assessment of the case-law of the CJEU on occupied territories; as well as contributions pertaining to the political considerations that may influence the legal framing of questions pertaining to occupied territories. The final part focuses on the business and human rights perspective, with chapters on investment arbitration as a means for holding the occupant accountable for its conduct towards foreign investments and investors; on the role and impact of the soft law framework governing corporate activity (such as the UN Guiding Principles) on business involvement with occupied territories; as well as a final case study on the dispute involving Israeli football activity in settlements located in the OPT and the legal responsibility of FIFA in this regard.

Sunday, August 9, 2020

Vanhonnaeker: Shareholders' Claims for Reflective Loss in International Investment Law

Lukas Vanhonnaeker
(McGill Univ.) has published Shareholders' Claims for Reflective Loss in International Investment Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

New Issue: Journal of Space Law

The latest issue of the Journal of Space Law (Vol. 43, no. 2, 2019) is out. Contents include:
  • Anne-Sophie Martin & Steven Freeland, Exploring the Legal Challenges if Future On-Orbit Servicing Missions and Proximity Operations
  • Ermanno Napolitano, Interdisciplinary Team Teaching in Space Legal Education
  • Gemmo Bautista Fernandez, Where No War Has Gone Before: Outer Space and the Adequacy of the Current Law of Armed Conflict
  • Stefan Pislevik, Law Without Gravity: Arbitrating Space Disputes at the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Relevance of Adverse Inferences
  • Michelle L.D. Hanlon & Bailey Cunningham, The Legal Imperative to Mitigate the Plume Effect: An “Aggravation and Frustration” that Imperils our History and our Future

Nortje & Quénivet: Child Soldiers and the Defence of Duress under International Criminal Law

Windell Nortje
(Univ. of the Western Cape - Law) & Noëlle Quénivet (Univ. of the West of England - Law) have published Child Soldiers and the Defence of Duress under International Criminal Law (Palgrave Macmillan 2020). Here's the abstract:
This book investigates the use of duress as a defence in international criminal law, specifically in cases of child soldiers. The prosecution of children for international crimes often only focuses on whether children can and should be prosecuted under international law. However, it is rarely considered what would happen to these children at the trial stage. This work offers a nuanced approach towards international prosecution and considers how children could be implicated and defended in international courts. This study will be of interest to academics and practitioners working in international criminal law, transitional justice and children’s rights.

Qin: WTO Reform: Multilateral Control over Unilateral Retaliation – Lessons from the US-China Trade War

Julia Ya Qin (Wayne State Univ. - Law) has posted WTO Reform: Multilateral Control over Unilateral Retaliation – Lessons from the US-China Trade War. Here's the abstract:
Preventing trade wars is a key function of the WTO rule-based system. But as the United States and China waged the largest trade war in history, the WTO sat on the sidelines, unable to do anything to stop the fight. Why has the system failed so spectacularly? In a search for answers, this article examines the context of the US-China conflict and makes a number of findings. First, under WTO law, the burden of avoiding this trade war was placed on China, the victim of US aggressive unilateral tariffs; and contrary to China’s claim, its retaliatory tariffs cannot be justified by general principles of international law. Second, the WTO rule prohibiting unilateral retaliation was born out of a grand political bargain, but it embodies the wisdom of Adam Smith and achieves the goal of the Havana Charter to turn retaliation into an instrument of international order. Third, the WTO’s inability to prevent China’s resort to unilateral retaliation reveals a deficiency in its existing legal design, but that deficiency can be fixed procedurally as proposed herein. Given the importance of preventing large-scale trade wars in the future, improving multilateral control over unilateral retaliation should be a top priority in WTO reform.

New Issue: Revista romana de drept international

The latest issue of Revista romana de drept international (No. 22, June-December 2019) is out. Contents include:
  • Articole
    • Apollin Koagne Zouapet, Putem transforma vechiul în nou? Scurte observații privind protecția diplomatică în lumina „dreptului internațional al drepturilor omului”
    • Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu, Participarea la cercetare științifică, accesul la drepturi reproductive și dreptul la sănătate sexuală și reproductivă: abordarea Comitetului ONU pentru Drepturi Economice, Sociale și Culturale în Comunicarea S.C. și G.P. c. Italiei

New Issue: Revista Tribuna Internacional

The latest issue of Revista Tribuna Internacional (Vol. 9, no. 17, 2020) is out. Contents include:
  • Artículos
    • Emiliano Jeronimo Buis, La Anfictionía Pileo-Délfica y la solución judicial de controversias interestatales en el mundo griego clásico: ¿Un antecedente antiguo de la Corte Internacional de Justicia?
    • Ruggero Cozzi Elzo, Fundamentos del principio de distinción en el derecho internacional humanitario
    • Eduardo Picand Albónico, La sucesión por causa de muerte en el sistema chileno de Derecho internacional privado
    • Laisa Branco Coelho C. de Almeida & Emanuele Mario Zavanella, The Brazilian 'Blue Amazon' Program: A New Chapter for Submarines Nuclear-Powered International Domain?
    • Sebastian Ramos Zeballos, Evolución histórica de la responsabilidad internacional por hecho ilícito, desde los clásicos hasta la Sociedad de Naciones
    • Claudio Nash Rojas, Desafíos del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos en tiempos de cólera
    • Edison Garcés Cartes, El Caso Samarco y principios rectores sobre empresas y derechos humanos
  • Ensayos
    • Rafael Mauricio Plaza Reveco, Preferential Tax Regimes. Offshore Corporate Profits in the Asia-Pacific Region
    • Claudia Cardenas, El Proyecto de Ley de Cooperación entre el Estado de Chile y la Corte Penal Internacional

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Kaufmann-Kohler & Potestà: Investor-State Dispute Settlement and National Courts: Current Framework and Reform Options

Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler
(Univ. of Geneva - Law) & Michele Potestà (CIDS) have published Investor-State Dispute Settlement and National Courts: Current Framework and Reform Options (Springer 2020). Here's the abstract:
This open access book examines the multiple intersections between national and international courts in the field of investment protection, and suggests possible modes for regulating future jurisdictional interactions between domestic courts and international tribunals. The current system of foreign investment protection consists of more than 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), most of which provide for investment arbitration as the forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States. However, national courts also have jurisdiction over certain matters involving cross-border investments. International investment tribunals and national courts thus interact in a number of ways, which range from harmonious co-existence to reinforcing complementation, reciprocal supervision and, occasionally, competition and discord. The book maps this complex relationship between dispute settlement bodies in the current investment treaty context and assesses the potential role of domestic courts in future treaty frameworks that could emerge from the States’ current efforts to reform the system.The book concludes that, in certain areas of interaction between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the “division of labor” between the two bodies is not always optimal, producing inefficiencies that burden the system as a whole. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by introducing a more fruitful allocation of tasks between domestic and international courts and tribunals – whatever form(s) the international mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes may take.Given its scope, the book contributes not only to legal analysis, but also to the policy reflections that are needed for ongoing efforts to reform investor-State dispute settlement.

Karton: International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action

Joshua Karton (Queen's Univ., Canada - Law) has posted International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action (Journal of Dispute Resolution, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The idea of “comparative law in action” seems nonsensical given the sterile and academic reputation of comparative law as a discipline. This Article argues that comparative law in action does not merely exist, it thrives in the field of international commercial arbitration (“ICA”). Comparative law methods pervade every stage of an international arbitration and are indispensable to ICA practice.

For many aspects of international arbitral proceedings, multiple laws conceivably apply. With no default options, the parties must make numerous choices: there is “too much law.” For other aspects of ICA, there is “too little law”: no applicable body of law provides any legal rule binding the parties or the arbitral tribunal, which must instead determine or develop the governing legal regime anew for each arbitration. In both situations—too much law and too little—comparative law methods are essential. Moreover, even if arbitrators and counsel were not constrained to think comparatively, the professional context within which they work would ensure that comparativism remains central to ICA practice.

The Article concludes by considering the implications of international arbitration as comparative law in action, for comparative law as a discipline and for the development of transnational law in the Twenty–First Century.

Bodansky: Top 10 Developments in International Environmental Law: 1990-2020

Daniel Bodansky (Arizona State Univ. - Law) has posted Top 10 Developments in International Environmental Law: 1990-2020 (Yearbook of International Environmental Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
The thirtieth anniversary of the Yearbook of International Environmental Law presents an opportunity to take stock of how international environmental law has developed since 1990, both as a subject area and as a discipline. In this essay, I briefly outline the foundational elements of international environmental law–which to a significant degree had been laid as of 1990–and my top ten list of developments since then.

Milewicz: Constitutionalizing World Politics: The Logic of Democratic Power and the Unintended Consequences of International Treaty Making

Karolina M. Milewicz
(Univ. of Oxford - International Relations) has published Constitutionalizing World Politics: The Logic of Democratic Power and the Unintended Consequences of International Treaty Making (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
The elusive ideal of a world constitution is unlikely to be realized any time soon – yet important steps in that direction are happening in world politics. Milewicz argues that international constitutionalization has gathered steam as an unintended by-product of international treaty making in the post-war period. This process is driven by the logic of democratic power, whereby states that are both democratic and powerful – democratic powers – are the strongest promoters of rule-based cooperation. Not realizing the inadvertent and long-term effects of the specialized rules they design, states fall into a constitutionalization trap that is hard to escape as it conforms with their interests and values.

Meyer: Trade Law and Supply Chain Regulation in a Post-COVID World

Timothy Meyer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) has posted Trade Law and Supply Chain Regulation in a Post-COVID World (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

COVID-19 hit as the world was undergoing the most significant upheaval in the international trade regime since at least the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The pandemic has given urgency to a preexisting demand in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere for the localization of supply chains. When the crisis hit, many developed countries realized that their supply chains for critical medical supplies and pharmaceuticals were concentrated in China. When the pandemic temporarily halted production in China, developed countries faced significant shortages of medical supplies. As a result, approximately eighty nations restricted the export of such products.

This Article argues that modern trade agreements overly constrain the ability of states to regulate supply chains for critical products such as medical supplies. I make two primary points. First, critics of reshoring have argued that further trade liberalization is the best guarantee against supply chain risks. To the contrary, I argue that modern free trade agreements (FTAs), the primary vehicle through which trade liberalization has proceeded since 1995, do little to encourage the diversification of supply chains and in some cases actually exacerbate supply chain risks, especially through loose rules of origin. Second, I argue that WTO rules constrain preventative regulation of supply chain risks designed to prevent a crisis, while providing exceptions for aggressive action only in the face of a crisis. WTO members are thus put to a choice. They can limit their attempts to preventatively regulate supply chain risks, waiting until a crisis occurs, or they can flout WTO rules. The former option risks more supply chain crises, while the latter option risks further undermining support for and adherence to the multilateral trading system. In this sense, trade law finds itself at a juncture similar to that faced by rules on the use of force two decades ago. Both sets of rules contain limited exceptions for preemptive action in the face of imminent threats. Just as nations like the United States felt that the imminence requirement did not give them enough flexibility to respond to modern threats in the use of force context, so too will nations chafe at the narrow exceptions for crisis-based supply chain regulation in the trade context.

New Issue: International Peacekeeping

The latest issue of International Peacekeeping (Vol. 27, no. 4, 2020) is out. Contents include:
  • Louise Olsson, Angela Muvumba Sellström, Stephen Moncrief, Elisabeth Jean Wood, Karin Johansson, Walter Lotze, Chiara Ruffa, Amelia Hoover Green, Ann Kristin Sjöberg & Roudabeh Kishi, Peacekeeping Prevention: Strengthening Efforts to Preempt Conflict-related Sexual Violence
  • Holger Albrecht, Diversionary Peace: International Peacekeeping and Domestic Civil-Military Relations
  • Barış Arı & Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, Civil Conflict Fragmentation and the Effectiveness of UN Peacekeeping Operations
  • Patrick Hunnicutt & William G. Nomikos, Nationality, Gender, and Deployments at the Local Level: Introducing the RADPKO Dataset
  • Kajsa Tidblad-Lundholm, When are Women Deployed? Operational Uncertainty and Deployment of Female Personnel to UN Peacekeeping

Dunworth: Humanitarian Disarmament: An Historical Enquiry

Treasa Dunworth
(Univ. of Auckland - Law) has published Humanitarian Disarmament: An Historical Enquiry (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
The humanitarian framing of disarmament is not a novel development, but rather represents a re-emergence of a much older and long-standing sensibility of humanitarianism in disarmament. The Book rejects the 'big bang' theory that presents the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention 1997, and its successors – the Convention on Cluster Munitions 2008, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 – as a paradigm shift from an older traditional state-centric approach towards a more progressive humanitarian approach. It shows how humanitarian disarmament has a long and complex history, which includes these treaties. This book argues that the attempt to locate the birth of humanitarian disarmament in these treaties is part of the attempt to cleanse humanitarian disarmament of politics, presenting humanitarianism as a morally superior discourse in disarmament. However, humanitarianism carries its own blind spots and has its own hegemonic leanings. It may be silencing other potentially more transformative discourses.

Trahan: Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes

Jennifer Trahan
(New York Univ. - Center for Global Affairs) has published Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:
In this book, the author outlines three independent bases for the existence of legal limits to the veto by UN Security Council permanent members while atrocity crimes are occurring. The provisions of the UN Charter creating the veto cannot override the UN's 'Purposes and Principles', nor jus cogens (peremptory norms of international law). There are also positive obligations imposed by the Geneva and Genocide Conventions in situations of war crimes and genocide - conventions to which all permanent members are parties. The author demonstrates how vetoes and veto threats have blocked the Security Council from pursuing measures that could have prevented or alleviated atrocity crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes) in places such as Myanmar, Darfur, Syria, and elsewhere. As the practice continues despite regular condemnation by other UN member states and repeated voluntary veto restraint initiatives, the book explores how the legality of this practice could be challenged.