In prior writings, I coined the term “foreign relations exceptionalism” to refer to the view that the federal government’s foreign affairs powers are subject to a different, and generally more relaxed, set of constitutional restraints than those that govern its domestic powers. In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, the authors contend that during the past twenty-five years there has been a revolutionary shift away from foreign relations exceptionalism, that this “normalization” trend is likely to continue, and that this development should be welcomed and encouraged. This essay points out various conceptual and methodological limitations with the normalization thesis. In particular, the essay argues that the authors’ definition of foreign relations exceptionalism is problematic because it relies on artificial distinctions in constitutional law; that their account is too exclusively focused on the Supreme Court and does not present a compelling case even on its own terms; and that their lack of an underlying theory of why normalization is occurring weakens their empirical, predictive, and normative claims.
Friday, May 22, 2015
- Joseph O’Mahoney, Why did they do that?: the methodology of reasons for action
- Jens Steffek, The output legitimacy of international organizations and the global public interest
- Haye Hazenberg, The legitimacy of the global order
- Sebastian Schindler & Tobias Wille, Change in and through practice: Pierre Bourdieu, Vincent Pouliot, and the end of the Cold War
- Vicki A. Spencer, Kant and Herder on colonialism, indigenous peoples, and minority nations
China’s rise has aroused apprehension that it will revise the current rules of international order to pursue and reflect its power, and that, in its exercise of State sovereignty, it is unlikely to comply with international law. This book explores the extent to which China’s exercise of State sovereignty since the Opium War has shaped and contributed to the legitimacy and development of international law and the direction in which international legal order in its current form may proceed. It examines how international law within a normative–institutional framework has moderated China’s exercise of State sovereignty and helps mediate differences between China’s and other States’ approaches to State sovereignty, such that State sovereignty, and international law, may be better understood.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
The impact of the idea of “development” in international trade lawmaking is often reduced to the principle of “special and differential treatment”, which exempts developing countries from certain obligations imposed by the trading regime. The article shows that “development” has always presented a much wider challenge to the vision of the trade regime championed by the major trading nations. The development discourse has conceived the trade regime’s historical significance, the regime’s aims, and the relationships among its members in ways that were often fundamentally at odds with the conception preferred by most developed countries. The article explores how the development discourse has informed lawmaking initiatives by developing countries throughout the history of the trade regime. While not all of these initiatives were successful or necessarily fruitful, they show that the development discourse in trade lawmaking has always been more than an effort to seek exemption from trade rules.
- Bernard H. Oxman, In Honor of Hugo Caminos
- Jeannette Irigoin-Barrenne, The Contribution of Andrés Bello to the Law of the Sea in the Chilean Civil Code
- M.C.W. Pinto, Hugo Grotius and the Law of the Sea
- Tullio Scovazzi, The Origin of the Theory of Sovereignty of the Sea
- Harry N. Scheiber, Reflections on the “abstention doctrine” in the diplomatic history of modern ocean law
- Tullio Treves, International courts and tribunals and the development of the law of the sea in the age of codification
- Rüdiger Wolfrum, The Freedom of Navigation: Modern Challenges seen from a Historical Perspective
- Tommy Koh, UNCLOS at 30: some reflections
- Marcelo G. Kohen, Is the Internal Waters Regime Excluded from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
- Annick de Marffy-Mantuano, Le rôle du Secretariat des Nations Unies dans l’application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer
- Luis Valencia-Rodríguez, The Contributions of Latin America to the Implementation of the UNCLOS
- Lilian del Castillo, Some comments on the Whaling in the Antarctic Judgment
- Philippe Gautier, The exercise of jurisdiction over activities in Antarctica: a new challenge for the Antarctic System
- Ariel Mansi, The System of Inspection of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
- Janusz Symonides, Problems and controversies concerning freedom of navigation in the Arctic
- Pablo Ferrara, International subjectivity of corporations operating in the Area and universal jurisdiction for environmental damage
- Fernanda Millicay, The Common Heritage of Mankind: 21st Century challenges of a revolutionary concept
- Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, Archipelagic States and the new Law of the Sea
- Antonio Remiro- Brotons, About the Islands
- Agustín Blanco-Bazán, Coastal and flag States in situations of distress at sea giving rise to environmental damage
- Nilufer Oral, Law of the sea, naval blockades and freedom of navigation in the aftermath of Gaza Flotilla incident of 31 May 2010
- Roberto Virzo, Les compétences de l’Etat côtier en matière de sécurité de la navigation maritime
- Angela Del Vecchio, The fight against piracy and the Enrica Lexie Case
- Yoram Dinstein, Piracy vs. International Armed Conflict
- Edison González-Lapeyre, Un nouvel envisagement sur la piraterie maritime
- James L. Kateka, Combating piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast and the Gulf of Guinea
- Helmut Tuerk, Combating piracy: new approaches to an ancient issue
- D.H. Anderson, Recent Judicial Decisions concerning Maritime Delimitation
- Gudmumdur Eiriksson, The Bay of Bengal case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
- María Teresa Infante-Caffi, The Decision on the Maritime Boundary between Chile and Perú: International Law Revisited
- Rafael Nieto-Navia, Some Remarks on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute: Nicaragua v. Colombia Case
- Francisco Orrego-Vicuña, International Law Issues in the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Peru-Chile Maritime Dispute Case
- Jin-Hyun Paik, The Origin of the Principle of Natural Prolongation: North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Revisited
- Jean-Pierre Cot, Fraud on the Tribunal?
- Miguel García García-Revillo, The juridical personality and nature of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
- Tafsir Malick Ndiaye, Les avis consultatifs du Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer
- Bing Bing Jia, The Terra Nullius Requirement in the Doctrine of Effective Occupation: A Case Study
- Kamal Hossain, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and provisional arrangements relating to activities in disputed maritime areas
- Djamchid Momtaz, La délimitation du plateau continental du Golfe Persique: une entreprise inachevée
- Jean-François Pulvenis, Regional fisheries bodies and regional fisheries management organizations and the settlement of disputes concerning marine living resources
- Susana Ruiz-Cerutti, The UNCLOS and the settlement of disputes: the ARA Libertad Case
This chapter explores how international humanitarian law (IHL) can prohibit morally arbitrary killing in armed conflict and thereby avoid substantive conflict with international human rights law (IHRL). The chapter distinguishes between different senses of moral permissibility (fact-relative, evidence-relative, and belief-relative; objective and subjective; direct and indirect) and shows how different IHL norms can be interpreted to guarantee that lawful killings are morally permissible in one or more of these senses. Finally, the chapter contests the view of Janina Dill and Henry Shue that IHL should seek not to prohibit human rights violations but rather to minimize human rights violations. Instead, IHL should aim to help combatants better conform to their moral obligations.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
- Special Issue: Regulating Private Maritime Security Providers
- Carolin Liss & Patricia Schneider, Regulating Private Maritime Security Providers
- Carolin Liss, (Re)Establishing Control? Flag State Regulation of Antipiracy PMSCs
- Birgit Feldtmann, What Happens After the Defense? Considering “Post Incident” Obligations of Masters from the Perspective of International and Danish Law
- Eugenio Cusumano & Stefano Ruzza, Contractors as a Second Best Option: The Italian Hybrid Approach to Maritime Security
- Annina Bürgin & Patricia Schneider, Regulation of Private Maritime Security Companies in Germany and Spain: A Comparative Study
- Joakim Berndtsson & Åse Gilje Østensen, The Scandinavian Approach to Private Maritime Security—A Regulatory Façade?
- Renée de Nevers, State Interests and the Problem of Piracy: Comparing U.S. and UK Approaches to Maritime PMSCs
A comprehensive overview of treaty implementation and compliance concerning transboundary environmental governance in Asia is provided in this timely book. Recent United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) membership by Asian states in the Caucasus and Central Asia has shifted focus on environmental governance away from its Euro-centric roots and placed Asia at the forefront of discussion. The focus of this book is centred on the five UNECE treaties: Public Participation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Industrial Accidents, Water and Air Pollution. Twelve related protocols are discussed including Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Civil Liability, Water and Health, and Air Pollutants.
Emissions Trading and WTO Law examines the global trade issues that arise as a result of the introduction of emissions trading frameworks. The book focusses specifically on the rules of the WTO, as a tool to demonstrate where the boundaries exist for acceptable interference with international trade. In doing so, Felicity Deane addresses the thorny issue of the potential global impact of emissions trading frameworks.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The law of treaty interpretation aspires to unity. All treaties are formally subject to the same rules of interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention. Yet time and again we hear that some kinds of treaties are entitled to special treatment. Most commonly the idea is that certain exceptional conventions are capable of evolving, with or without the continued consent of the parties — as with certain human rights conventions. Other times the claim is that certain kinds of agreements resist techniques of interpretation that establish treaty change over time. To date, explanations for such differential treatment remain unsatisfying. This Chapter seeks to better account for the practice of affording some treaties special status. I argue that differential treatment cannot be justified by appeal to a treaty’s object and purpose alone, but must be understood in light of the nature of the obligations that the parties established to achieve their goals.
- Petros C. Mavroidis & André Sapir, Dial PTAs for Peace: The Influence of Preferential Trade Agreements on Litigation between Trading Partners
- Cezary Sowinski, WCO Immediate Release Guidelines: State of Application in the Eve of the ATF Adoption
- Valerie Demedts, Which Future for Competition in the Global Trade System: Competition Chapters in FTAs
- William A. Kerr & Jill E. Hobbs, A Protectionist Bargain?: Agriculture in the European Union—Canada Trade Agreement
- Umut Turksen & Ruth Holder, Contemporary Problems with the GATS and Internet Gambling
- Brigid Gavin, Sustainable Development of China’s Rare Earth Industry within and without the WTO
- Garima Shahani, The Sequencing Dilemma: Will the European Union Succeed against Indonesia?
As the social impact and role of international arbitration receives increasing attention, one central theme in this conundrum gains prominence: how do arbitrators decide cases? What influences arbitral decision-making? With the progressive opening of scholarship in the field to interdisciplinary approaches and studies going beyond doctrinal work, the question often takes the following form: do arbitrators apply the law, or do they make decisions based on something else – personal preferences, political biases, etc? When empirical studies fail to find significant statistical evidence of the role of extra-legal factors in their decision-making, the conclusion is drawn that arbitrators do indeed nothing else than apply the law. This article argues that the question so posed is an argumentative fallacy. Using the epistemology of legal realism and a simple methodology of law & economics, this article maintains that arbitrators, like every dispute resolver, are likely to always rely on both legal and extra-legal factors. It focuses on identifying, in the abstract, possible extra-legal factors which may amount to incentives and constraints placed by the current ecosystem of arbitration on arbitral decision-making.
Monday, May 18, 2015
- David Sindres, Le tourisme procréatif et le droit international privé
- Gérard Anou, Les conflits entre le droit de l’Union européenne et le droit international des investissements dans l’arbitrage CIRDI
- Arnaud Poitevin, Des « prérequis » pour la levée de fonds sur les marchés internationaux : les normes environnementales et sociales des institutions financières internationales et leurs sanctions
- Christian Byk, La Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur le trafic d’organes humains
CALL FOR PAPERS: DEADLINE 15 JULY 2015
The New Zealand Centre for Public Law
The International Law Association (New Zealand Branch)
are pleased to announce a workshop on:
International Organisations and the Rule of Law:
Perils and Promise
7-8 December 2015
to be held at Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law
Wellington, New Zealand
Keynote speaker and workshop commentator:
Professor José E. Alvarez
Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law
New York University School of Law
International organisations have represented some of humanity’s highest hopes for a more just and peaceful world order. In recent years, however, they have also been beset by serious problems and criticisms. Internationalists once believed that apolitical, technical international agencies would bring about ‘peace by pieces’, but some organisations such as the World Bank and IMF now face the contrary charge of advancing a particular brand of neoliberal economics and in the process undermining public goods and political legitimacy in their member states. Observers have noted the irony that the United Nations promulgates a “rule of law” paradigm to its member states, while it is not at all clear that the organization itself meets the requirements of that ideal. The Security Council is regarded alternately as a tool of ‘hegemonic international law’ and lamentably ineffectual where the interests of its permanent members are directly or indirectly concerned. And whereas the international community once saw the blue helmets of UN peacekeepers as symbols of international peace and security, that hopeful promise has been undercut by the tragedies in Rwanda and Srebrenica, allegations of sexual misconduct and, more recently, the catastrophic cholera outbreak in Haiti.
These problems raise a series of important theoretical and practical policy questions that demand attention from international lawyers. On the one hand, classical international organisations law, such as the doctrine of implied powers, has legitimised the continuous ‘mission creep’ of organisations well beyond what their founders originally intended, while failing to develop an adequate and enforceable doctrine of ultra vires. On the other hand, international organisations’ immunities are interpreted in an exceedingly broad, functionalist manner, making their officials and experts, as well as the organisations themselves, effectively unaccountable for a wide range of civil and criminal wrongs. Efforts to extend the international law of responsibility to international organisations have been roundly criticised on both doctrinal and practical grounds, and are unlikely to provide recourse to individuals and groups most negatively impacted by IO activities. The internal accountability mechanisms of international organisations, such as the World Bank’s Inspection Panel, may not address the root of the problems.
This workshop will take a fresh look at the resources that international law possesses to ensure that international organisations are held accountable for their errors and excesses, while remaining relevant and effective in the face of ever growing global challenges. How can international law develop in a way that preserves and enhances the dynamic possibilities of international organisations and their ability to contribute to the development of international law while making sure that the organisations themselves comply with the rule of law? Can international law offer solutions, or is it part of the problem? The workshop organisers welcome papers that present original legal or empirical research; theoretical reflections; case studies from practice; and critical and historical perspectives.
The workshop will be held in a roundtable format, focused on the discussion of draft papers. To enable all participants to benefit from the workshop, all will be expected to have read, and be prepared to comment on, each other’s papers.
Deadline for proposals: 15 July 2015
Proposals must include a one-page abstract of new writing and a one-page curriculum vitae, and should be emailed to Law-Events@vuw.ac.nz. Due to space limitations, early submission of proposals is highly encouraged. All participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.
Successful applicants will be notified by 15 August 2015.
Draft papers, no more than 8,000 words long, including footnotes, will due for circulation to all workshop participants no later than 15 November 2015.
Campbell McLachlan and Guy Fiti Sinclair
Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law
L’équilibre a été gardé entre un regard rétrospectif sur le passé à la lumière du présent et une analyse en général lucide du droit tel qu’il va. Que l’on soit convaincu ou non par l’idée d’un « droit de la reconnaissance » (E. Tourme Jouannet), que l’on adhère ou non à l’idée d’une « gouvernance globale du développement » (M. Salah ; v. aussi les contributions de B. Gueye et G. Aïvo), que l’on estime la doctrine du security development nexus féconde ou non (M. Dubuy ; v. aussi la contribution d’E. Serrurier sur la gestion du dévelop-pement en situation conflictuelle), ces tentatives de renouvellements conceptuels montrent d’abord que l’on ne peut s’en tenir à l’approche marxisante, essentiellement économiciste, qui inspirait les zélateurs du droit international du développement dont, à sa modeste place, faisait partie le signataire de ces lignes [ndr Alain Pellet] (qui n’en a pas de regret – à l’époque, c’était le bon combat).
Elles montrent aussi que, si l’on peut enrichir la notion, l’objectif d’atténuation des inégalités poursuivi par ce que j’avais appelé jadis le « droit social des nations » demeure incontournable. Le concept de développement durable centré sur l’humain, ce qui en fait un « droit de l’humanité » (C. Le Bris), si central dans les débats de Lyon (v. not., parmi d’autres, les contributions de V. Barral, M. Bennouna, E. Decaux, E. Gaillard, R. Khérad, M-P. Lanfranchi ou I. Michallet), en témoigne de manière éclatante : le développement est l’objectif, mais il est pensé maintenant sur le long terme dans une perspective intergénérationnelle et indissociable de la préservation de l’environnement. Comme celui de maintien de la paix, le concept de développement est devenu de plus en plus « englobant » (H. Hamant) grâce, notamment, à la « fonction unificatrice » du droit au développement (K. Neri), qui ne doit pas, au demeurant, dissimuler l’« irréductible hétérogénéité des approches développementalistes » régionales (L. Burgorgue-Larsen).
La multiplication des acteurs du développement (« mal-développement » ? J-M Thouvenin), leur institutionnalisation (L. Boisson de Chazournes, A. Louwette), la recherche d’une « plurijuridicité » assurant « la participation de tous les acteurs concernés, dans leur pluralité et leur diversité » à l’élaboration des normes pour le développement (A. Geslin), confirment la fin du monopole étatique en ce domaine (mais a-t-il jamais été une réalité ?). Peut-on en déduire la mort de la souveraineté ? Certes, dans les années 1960 et 1970, les pays du Tiers Monde étaient obsédés par la nécessité d’affirmer la leur, minée par les inégalités de développement ; la prégnance dans leurs préoccupations de la « souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles et les activités économiques » est le signe de cette (à l’époque) légitime obsession. Selon la formule célèbre de Louis Henquin, il est assurément prématuré d’envoyer les faire-part de décès ; mais la prise de conscience des indispensables solidarités transfrontières, autant que le fait brut (et parfois brutal) de la globalisation conduisent tout esprit raisonnable à avoir de la souveraineté une conception bien tempérée et à y voir la source de devoirs autant que de droits – mais, des droits et des devoirs qui incombent à l’Etat et, parfois, à lui seul– et d’une « responsabilité partagée » (D. Gnamou).
C’est toute la dialectique – peut-être suffit-il de dire que c’est tout l’équilibre à réaliser ? mais ce qui est trop simple indiffère ! – entre le droit au développement et la responsabilité de protéger, équilibre dont l’aboutissement normatif est encore incertain (v. les contributions de J. d’Aspremont ou d’Y. Nouvel, qui décrit l’effacement – peut-être moins marqué qu’il l’écrit – de la question du développement dans le droit de l’investissement) même si l’on est à la recherche de nouveaux instruments de développement, dont les accords ou les contrats de partenariat économique (M. Cardon et J.-F. Sestier) sont un bon exemple, et de nouvelles techniques contractuelles (notamment en matière de « part locale » – M. Audit) ou conventionnelles (vers une OMC à la carte ? – H. Ghérari).
Les quelques lignes qui précèdent n’ont nullement l’ambition de rendre compte de la richesse des contributions au colloque 2014 de la SFDI. Elles suffisent cependant peut-être à confirmer et les propos introductifs de S. Doumbé-Billé : le développement continue de « hanter » le droit international ; et la conclusion de P.-M. Dupuy : il fallait venir à Lyon ! Mais, si ce n’était pas votre cas, il est encore possible de vous « rattraper » en vous plongeant dans ce volume qui en restitue les Actes.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
This chapter argues that the interpretation of international law by domestic courts is situated between a universal aspiration of international law — which is connected with claims for a need for uniform interpretation — and the requirements that international law is applied with a view to the local realities. The contribution argues that although domestic courts are not technically under an obligation to make use of the international rules of interpretation, a normative preference on the part of the international legal system exists which militates for a common approach to (treaty) interpretation. Articles 31–33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties supply the necessary toolbox in this regard. In and of themselves, these international rules of interpretation do not demand very much of domestic judges. It is convergence at a very high level of abstraction which is called for in the interest of a basic systemic unity of international law.
Friday, May 15, 2015
International Law and the Changing Economic & Political Landscape in Asia
Call for Papers
The Asian Society of International Law was established in 2007. Following four successful biennial conferences, the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law will be held in Bangkok, Thailand on Thursday and Friday, 26 and 27 November 2015.
Theme of the Conference
Nowadays governments, scholars and civil society in Asia are engaged enthusiastically in the development of international law in the region. Asian countries today witness more regional cooperation and economic integration, for instance, through the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), etc. The conference will confront the changes that will ensue from these developments in the region, and provide a forum to share perspectives on legal issues from around Asia and from beyond.
Topics of PapersTo this end, proposals for papers are now being invited on the following topics:
- Changing approaches to international law Changing approaches to international law as a discipline, including studies on the teaching, research and practice of international law in Asian contexts; Third World approaches to international law; the contribution of civil society to international law; the turn to “global constitutionalism”;and the UN Charter and the development of international law;
- Emerging issues in human rights Issues in the international protection of human rights, including the evolving position on the responsibility to protect (“R2P”); the empowerment of women in Asian societies; and the impact of labor migration;
- Conflict of laws relating to marriage, adoption, surrogacy and custody of children;
- Energy and natural resources law, including their joint and sustainable development; comparative regulatory and fiscal regimes (e.g. concession v. production-sharing v. service contracts, etc.) and cross-border pollution;
- International environmental law: Climate change and disaster management
- Food security, health and sanitary cooperation;
- International cooperation against organized crime and its punishment: terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, anti-corruption; and the illicit trade in cultural artifacts, especially in conflict situations;
- International Humanitarian Law
- Law of the Sea, including piracy and maritime security and safety in the Asian region
- Legal aspects of regional integration in its political and social dimensions, including ASEAN Integration, free trade agreements, and security arrangements;
- Peaceful resolution of political and territorial disputes in Asia, including legal frameworks for cooperation
- Resolution of international trade and business disputes in Asia, including the enforcement of arbitration awards and foreign judgments
- International Investment Law
- Trade- and business-related issues, including the regulation of cyber matters Issues relating inter alia to competition law; anti-dumping safeguards; intellectual property rights; transfer pricing; WTO obligations of Asian countries; trade sanctions to prevent breaches of International Humanitarian Law; micro-finance and small- and medium-sized enterprises; and finance and investment including SMEs and micro-finance.
The Organizers seek to encourage the participation in the Conference of all persons interested in international law all over the world, whether established or junior scholars, academics or practitioners, government officials and NGO officers, by inviting applications for positions as panelists. Papers may provide an Asian perspective on these topics, and/or international/comparative approaches to the listed topics.
You will be required to provide in the online submission form:
- A 500-word abstract/summary of the proposed paper. Please clearly identify the title of your paper and the panel category in the online form.
- Affiliation details and brief biography This would include details of professional status, educational background, institutional affiliation, office address, contact telephone number, and e-mail address. Please also provide, in the section titled `brief biography’ any information about representative presentations given, publications, and any other relevant information about your research or experience.
- Your affiliation to the Asian Society of International Law Preference will be given to existing members of the Asian Society of International Law in the selection process. To sign up for membership, please click Here.
In addition to paper proposals, proposals for panels will also be considered. A panel should address a topical issue of international law and consist of 4-5 speakers from a range of countries and stages of career development. Please complete the online submission forms by Friday, 10 July 2015, 2300 hrs (Singapore Time).Click HERE for online abstract submission for individual papers
Any enquiries about the paper selection process and Bangkok Conference may be addressed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Successful applicants will be informed by August 2015 and are required to submit their completed papers and registration to the Conference Organizers by Monday, 6 November 2015. The paper should be between 6000 and 8000 words.
All papers accepted by the Organizers for the Conference may be featured on the Conference website, a document sharing portal or as part of the AsianSIL Working Paper Series. Paper presenters are encouraged to submit finalized papers to the Society’s Asian Journal of International Law. Publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review and editorial discretion. Details may be found on the Journal’s Website www.AsianJIL.org.
Das Werk befasst sich mit dem Zweck und der Legitimation der Strafe im Völkerstrafrecht und begegnet damit einem zentralen in der Literatur angemahnten Theoriedefizit der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit. Wie ist es zu begründen, dass nicht nur staatlich verfasste Gemeinwesen, sondern auch die allenfalls sektoral verfasste internationale Gemeinschaft von dem Instrument der Kriminalstrafe Gebrauch macht? Zu dieser grundlegenden Frage entwickelt der Autor nach einer detaillierten Analyse der retributiven, präventiven und expressiven Straftheorien eine eigenständige, in der Menschenwürde fundierte Konzeption. Deren Ziel ist es, im Umgang mit Völkerrechtsverbrechen zu einer rationalen und individualisierten Reaktion zu gelangen. In den Legitimationsdiskurs werden nicht nur Strafbegründungs- sondern auch Strafbegrenzungsprinzipien integriert und damit Wege der strafrechtlichen Kommunikation aufgezeigt, die ein exkludierendes, internationales „Feindstrafrecht“ vermeiden.
- Arnoud Willems & David Leys, Changes in the Treatment of Trademark Royalties in EU Customs Law: The Example of 3D Printing
- Bernard O’Connor, Much Ado About ‘Nothing’: 2016, China and Market Economy Status
- Yiwu Sun, Customs Agency Enforcement of IPRs in an FTZ
- Bashar H. Malkawi, Notification of the GCC to the WTO as a Customs Union: The Whys and Hows
The observation that states can only act through individuals begins, but does not end, discussions about the implications of state sovereignty for foreign official immunity. Bright-line immunity rules might be alluring, but they do not always best reflect the realities of inter-state relations or serve the needs of the international community. This Essay challenges the prevailing tendency among many courts and jurists dealing with questions of official immunity to treat civil and criminal consequences as categorically distinct, and to ignore immigration consequences altogether. It argues that we should instead view criminal, civil, and immigration consequences (detention, damages, and deportation) as manifestations of the same underlying principle: that individual officials may bear personal responsibility for their acts under international law, and that the domestic institutions of one state may in certain circumstances attach consequences to that responsibility without violating the sovereignty of foreign states. The integrated approach proposed here has at least three important implications. First, it supports the view that just because individual and state responsibility may be concurrent, does not mean that an individual’s and a state’s immunity must be congruent. Second, it suggests that we should treat states’ decisions (and foreign states’ reactions) regarding detention, damages, and deportation as relevant to determining the evolving parameters of conduct-based immunity under international law. Third, it highlights that, although we tend to think of state sovereignty in absolute terms, our understandings of sovereignty — as manifested in state practice — are actually varied and context-dependent. Our ultimate goal should be to tailor horizontal enforcement regimes that respect the core of state sovereignty while promoting individual accountability consistent with due process.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The law of armed conflict prohibits attacks ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.' The importance of this legal prohibition, commonly referred to as the principle of jus in bello proportionality, is difficult to overstate. While the precautionary principles regulate how armed forces may pursue particular military advantages, the proportionality principle regulates whether a particular military advantage may be pursued or must be abandoned. Even if attacking forces select weapons, tactics, and targets that best avoid or most reduce harm to civilians, even at their own risk, they must forego one path to victory if the expected civilian losses are too great. Rather than inflict excessive harm on civilians, attacking forces must find another way to win.
An account of jus in bello proportionality must satisfy two apparently conflicting demands. First, such an account must explain how we can rationally compare civilian losses with military advantages. At the same time, such an account must apply symmetrically to all parties to every conflict and independently of the jus ad bellum legality or morality of any party’s overall war effort. Existing accounts of jus in bello proportionality satisfy either one demand or the other. In this chapter, I offer a new account that satisfies both demands. Along the way I hope to answer a number of additional questions that any serious account of jus in bello proportionality must address.
I argue that an attack that inflicts harm on civilians is jus in bello proportionate only if it prevents substantially greater harm to the attacking force or its civilians over the remainder of the conflict. This account of jus in bello proportionality does not compare incommensurable and imprecisely comparable values, only immediate losses to civilians and future losses to civilians and to attacking forces. In addition, this account applies symmetrically to all parties to an armed conflict, independently of the jus ad bellum morality and legality of their use of military force. Attacks that are disproportionate under this account are morally impermissible when carried out by just combatants, and disproportionate attacks carried out by unjust combatants are morally worse than proportionate attacks carried out by unjust combatants. It follows that both just and unjust combatants have decisive moral reasons to avoid attacks that are disproportionate under this account, and the law would guide soldiers well by prohibiting such attacks.
- Paul Kirby, Ending sexual violence in conflict: the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and its critics
- William M. LeoGrande, Normalizing US–Cuba relations: escaping the shackles of the past
- Andrew Jillions, When a gamekeeper turns poacher: torture, diplomatic assurances and the politics of trust
- David S. Yost, The Budapest Memorandum and Russia's intervention in Ukraine
- Sten Rynning, The false promise of continental concert: Russia, the West and the necessary balance of power
- Richard Sakwa, The death of Europe? Continental fates after Ukraine
- Bill Park, Turkey's isolated stance: an ally no more, or just the usual turbulence?
- Tracey German, Heading west? Georgia's Euro-Atlantic path
- On the relationship between IHL and IHRL ‘where it matters’ once more: Assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights after Hassan and Jaloud
- Introduced by Marco Pertile and Chiara Vitucci
- Ziv Bohrer, Human Rights vs Humanitarian Law or rights vs obligations: Reflections following the rulings in Hassan and Jaloud
- Silvia Borelli, Jaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: Time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroad
- Does the ‘living instrument’ doctrine always lead to ‘evolutive interpretation’? Some remarks after Hassan v the United Kingdom
- Introduced by Francesca de Vittor and Cesare Pitea
- Luigi Crema, Subsequent practice in Hassan v United Kingdom: When things seem to go wrong in the life of a living instrument
- Eirik Bjorge, What is living and what is dead in the European Convention on Human Rights? A Comment on Hassan v United Kingdom
- For all or for some? Functional immunity of State officials before the International Law Commission
- Introduced by Beatrice Bonafé, Micaela Frulli and Paolo Palchetti
- Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, The functional immunity of State officials from foreign jurisdiction: A critique of the traditional theories
- Gionata Buzzini, The enduring validity of immunity ratione materiae: A reply to Professor Pisillo Mazzeschi
- Philippa Webb, Comment on ‘The functional immunity of State officials from foreign jurisdiction: A critique of the traditional theories’
La gouvernance mondiale est-elle justiciable d’une définition opératoire pour la recherche en droit international ? Telle qu’elle se déploie dans les institutions internationales traditionnelles ce phénomène de gouvernance envisagé dans le contexte du monde globalisé s’accommode-t-il du respect des prescriptions éthiques de la bonne gouvernance exigées par ailleurs des États?
Le présent ouvrage s’efforce de donner des réponses argumentées suivant l’orthodoxie des canons de la recherche académiques à ces questions. Mais, il montre aussi que les institutions internationales informelles regroupant des fameux « G », les puissances qui veulent régir le monde globalisé se constituent en concurrentes des institutions internationales classiques et tendent à attirer dans ces nouveaux fora des questions qui relèvent traditionnellement de la compétence de ces dernières. Cette gouvernance mondiale est par ailleurs confrontée aux nombreux défis nouveaux que l’avènement du cyberespace et plus précisément le monde de l’internet lance au droit international et en particulier à la protection des droits de l’homme.
L’ouvrage ouvre incontestablement à un nouveau champ de recherche en droit international et des organisations internationales dont la nouveauté ne manquera pas de susciter certains questionnements. Mais, il y a là une mise en perspective d’une problématique nouvelle qui viendra assurément enrichir ces matières classiques.
- Jean-Michel Jacquet, Les lois de l'arbitrage
- Thomas Clay & Philippe Pinsolle, De l'autonomie de la convention d'arbitrage à l'autonomie de la sentence arbitrale. - Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française en matière d'arbitrage international de 1963 à 2007
- Catharine Titi, Le « droit de réglementer » et les nouveaux accords de l'Union européenne sur l'investissement
- Camille Chaserant, Sophie Harnay, & Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, La prestation de services internationale, objet du droit et de l'économie ? Le cas des professions juridiques
- Marie Lemey, L'affaire Julian Assange : controverses juridiques relatives à l'asile diplomatique