- Marlies Glasius, ‘It Sends a Message’: Liberian Opinion Leaders’ Responses to the Trial of Charles Taylor
- Hemi Mistry, The Paradox of Dissent: Judicial Dissent and the Projects of International Criminal Justice
- Symposium: Proof in International Criminal Trials
- Yvonne McDermott & John D. Jackson, Foreword
- Paul Roberts, The Priority of Procedure and the Neglect of Evidence and Proof: Facing Facts in International Criminal Law
- Yvonne McDermott, Inferential Reasoning and Proof in International Criminal Trials: The Potentials of Wigmorean Analysis
- Mark Klamberg, The Alternative Hypothesis Approach, Robustness and International Criminal Justice: A Plea for a ‘Combined Approach’ to Evaluation of Evidence
- Michael Ramsden & Cecilia Chung, ‘Reasonable Grounds to Believe’: An Unreasonably Unclear Evidentiary Threshold in the ICC Statute
- Triestino Mariniello, Questioning the Standard of Proof: The Purpose of the ICC Confirmation of Charges Procedure
- John D. Jackson & Yassin M. Brunger, Witness Preparation in the ICC: An Opportunity for Principled Pragmatism
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Nerina Boschiero, The ICC Judicial Finding on Non-cooperation Against the DRC and No Immunity for Al-Bashir Based on UNSC Resolution 1593
Monday, August 3, 2015
- Cecily Rose, International Lawyers as Public Intellectuals and the Need for More Books
- John Dugard Lecture - 2015
- Kenneth J. Keith, The International Rule of Law
- International Legal Theory
- Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral, The Shifting Origins of International Law
- Yolanda Gamarra, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406): A Precursor of Intercivilizational Discourse
- International Law and Its Methodology
- Ino Augsberg, Some Realism About New Legal Realism: What's New, What's Legal, What's Real?
- Jan Klabbers, Whatever Happened to Gramsci? Some Reflections on New Legal Realism
- Gregory Shaffer, New Legal Realism's Rejoinder
- Jakob V.H. Holtermann & Mikael Rask Madsen, High Stakes and Persistent Challenges – A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg
- International Law and Practice
- Hugh Thirlway, Human Rights in Customary Law: An Attempt to Define Some of the Issues
- Rosa Freedman & Nicolas Lemay-Hebert, ‘Jistis ak Reparasyon pou Tout Viktim Kolera MINUSTAH’: The United Nations and the Right to Health in Haiti
- Mamadou Hébié, Was There Something Missing in the Decolonization Process in Africa?: The Territorial Dimension
- Friedrich Benjamin Schnedier, The International Convention on the Prevention of Odious Agreements: A Human Rights-Based Mechanism to Avoid Odious Debts
- Shen Wei, Expropriation in Transition: Evolving Chinese Investment Treaty Practices in Local and Global Contexts
- Hague International Tribunals: International Court of Justice
- Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, From Reluctance to Acquiescence: The Evolving Attitude of African States Towards Judicial and Arbitral Settlement of Disputes
- International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Marcus Joyce, Duress: From Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court, Finding the Balance Between Justification and Excuse
- Aldo Zammit Borda, Appraisal-Based and Flexible Approaches to External Precedent in International Criminal Law
- Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, Delegation and pooling in international organizations
- Asif Efrat, Do human rights violations hinder counterterrorism cooperation? Evidence from the FBI’s deployment abroad
- Bernd Schlipphak, Measuring attitudes toward regional organizations outside Europe
- Daniel J. Blake & Autumn Lockwood Payton, Balancing design objectives: Analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations
- Tom Coppen, Developing IAEA Safeguards: An Institutional Perspective on the State-level Concept
- Christian Schaller, Using Force Against Terrorists ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’—The Obama Approach and the Bin Laden Raid Revisited
- Ezequiel Heffes, Detentions by Armed Opposition Groups in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Towards a New Characterization of International Humanitarian Law
- Sean Butler, Separating Protection from Politics: The UN Security Council, the 2011 Ivorian Political Crisis and the Legality of Regime Change
- Marina Aksenova, Conceptualizing Terrorism: International Offence or Domestic Governance Tool?
- Yasuhito Fukui, The Arms Trade Treaty: Pursuit for the Effective Control of Arms Transfer
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
- Forum: Navigating Deterrence: Law, Strategy, and Security in the Twenty-First Century
- Zachary K. Goldman, Navigating Deterrence: Law, Strategy, and Security in the Twenty-First Century
- Paul K. Davis, Deterrence, Influence, Cyber Attack, and Cyberwar
- Austin Long, Deterrence: The State of the Field
- Jacqueline Ross, Anti-Terror Stings and Human Subjects Research: The Implications of the Analogy for Notions of Entrapment and for the Pursuit of Strategic Deterrence
- Janice Gross Stein & Ron Levi, The Social Psychology of Denial: Deterring Terrorism
- Alex Wilner, Contemporary Deterrence Theory and Counterterrorism: A Bridge Too Far?
Bartels: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Since the expiry of the ‘peace clause’ at the end of 2003, it has been unclear which obligations under the WTO SCM Agreement apply to subsidies granted to agricultural products. This is in particular important for export subsidies, which are prohibited under the SCM Agreement, but, to some degree, recognised in the Agriculture Agreement. The matter is regulated by Article 21.1 of the Agriculture Agreement, which has been interpreted by the WTO Appellate Body in different ways, including as an expression of the lex specialis principle. This paper analyses this provision, and considers how it affects different forms of agricultural subsidies. It concludes that it would take an extension of the Appellate Body’s current interpretive framework to save export subsidies from the disciplines of the SCM Agreement.
- Sandra Lynn Hodgkinson, The governing international law on maritime piracy
- Sandra Lynn Hodgkinson, The incorporation of international law to define piracy crimes, national laws, and the definition of piracy
- Ved P. Nanda, Exercising universal jurisdiction over piracy
- Milena Sterio, Incorporating international law to establish jurisdiction: a comparative examination of the laws of the Netherlands, South Korea, Tanzania, India, and Kenya
- Laurie R. Blank, The use of force against pirates
- Mark V. Vlasic & Jeffrey DeSousa, The use of force by private parties against suspected pirates
- Frederick Lorenz & Laura Eshbach, Transfer of suspected and convicted pirates
- Milena Sterio, Pirates' right to a speedy trial
- Frederick Lorenz & Kelly Paradis, Evidentiary issues in piracy prosecutions
- Michael A. Newton, Piracy and the problem of 'command responsibility'
- Jon Bellish, The issue of juvenile piracy
- Eugene Kontorovich, The problems of pirate punishment
- Yvonne M. Dutton, The potential for asylum seeking by convicted pirates
- Michael P. Scharf, Conclusion
International lawyers have looked at the study of their object by international relations scholars above all with suspicion. Whereas they have warmly welcomed the increasing recognition of international law’s power also in political sciences, some of them have turned wary about the ways in which international law is (mis-)treated in the move to interdisciplinarity. Their anxieties pertain to the fate of both international law as an object of study and, by implication, the future of the discipline of international law. We submit that these anxieties overall boil down to concerns about the autonomy of international law, both as a domain of international or world society and as an academic discipline.
While this argument is in itself not unheard of, we submit more specifically that international lawyers’ responses have been largely counterproductive, threatening to undo some of the insights gained into the politics of international law. Our contribution first takes a step back from present day anxieties to contextualize them against the background of attempts to establish international law and international relations as scientific disciplines (II). A quest for scientific inquiry has similarly informed international relations scholarship, yet these parallel missions paradoxically feed present anxieties about interdisciplinarity. We will support this argument with a brief genealogy of the mainstream interdisciplinary agenda as it has evolved over the past two or three decades (III). In a third and final step, we will sketch our view of international law as practice. We point to the promise of asking what makes for a valid legal argument by investigating these standards as the medium and outcome of practice itself. We finally highlight its purchase for moving past anxieties of interdisciplinarity towards a productive study of the politics of international law (IV).
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Ramzi Madi, Mash-Up Songs: Are There Any Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights in the Light of the Jordanian Copyright Protection and Related Rights Law?
- Saradindu Bhaduri, Deep Jyoti Francis, Dwarkeshwar Dutt, Vineet Kumar & Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh, Politico-Historical Contingencies, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Performance Across Countries: A Simultaneous Equation System Perspective
- Amit Basole, Authenticity, Innovation, and the Geographical Indication in an Artisanal Industry: The Case of the Banarasi Sari
- Narayan Prasad & Pravesh Aggarwal, Facilitating Educational Needs in Digital Era: Adequacy of Fair Dealing Provisions of Indian Copyright Act in Question
- Michael Wood, International Organizations and Customary International Law
- Lisa R. Avalos, Female Genital Mutilation and Designer Vaginas in Britain: Crafting an Effective Legal and Policy Framework
- Robert W. Emerson, Judges as Guardian Angels: The German Practice of Hints and Feedback
- Yoon Jin Shin, Human Trafficking and Labor Migration: The Dichotomous Law and Complex Realities of Filipina Entertainers in South Korea and Suggestions for Integrated and Contextualized Legal Responses
- S.I. Strong, Religious Rights in Historical, Theoretical, and International Context: Hobby Lobby as a Jurisprudential Anomaly?
At the turn of the millennium, a new phenomenon emerged: conservatives, who just decades before had rejected the expanding human rights culture, began to embrace human rights in order to advance their political goals. In this book, Nicola Perugini and Neve Gordon account for how human rights — generally conceived as a counter-hegemonic instrument for righting historical injustices — are being deployed to further subjugate the weak and legitimize domination. Using Israel/Palestine as its main case study, The Human Right to Dominate describes the establishment of settler NGOs that appropriate human rights to dispossess indigenous Palestinians and military think-tanks that rationalize lethal violence by invoking human rights. The book underscores the increasing convergences between human rights NGOs, security agencies, settler organizations, and extreme right nationalists, showing how political actors of different stripes champion the dissemination of human rights and mirror each other's political strategies. Indeed, Perugini and Gordon demonstrate the multifaceted role that this discourse is currently playing in the international arena: on the one hand, human rights have become the lingua franca of global moral speak, while on the other, they have become reconstrued as a tool for enhancing domination.
- Davide Rovetta & Maurizio Gambardella, Intra-EU BITs and EU Law: What to Learn from the Micula Battle
- Reagan Walker, Judicial Review of CITT Preliminary Determinations of Injury: Is It Possible?
- Thomas Cantens, Mirror Analysis: Customs Risk Analysis and Fraud Detection
- Carolina Palma, WTO Implications of China’s Food Security Policy
- Carsten Weerth, AEO Programmes Worldwide: From MRAs to a General AEO Agreement?!
- Volume 373
- O. Cachard, Le transport international aérien de passagers
- M. Audit, Bioéthique et droit international privé
- Volume 374
- A.V.M. Struycken, Arbitration and State Contract
- O. Corten, La rébellion et le droit international: le principe de neutralité en tension
- A. Parra, The Convention and Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Call for Submissions: Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international
The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international – edited by Anne Peters (Editor-in-Chief), Randall Lesaffer and Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet – is an interdisciplinary journal on the history of international law with a broad outreach. It is placed among the top international law journals which are regularly consulted by all international lawyers with a general interest in the history of their field. It provides a forum for the emerging and expanding scholarship that takes a historical approach to exploring a wide range of issues in international law. It accommodates the growth in interest in the histories of international law from scholars working in related fields (global history, imperial history, intellectual history and international relations). It creates a venue for ground-breaking work in this field by combining tradition with innovation and to provide the opportunity to develop sustained critical engagement with work on the history of international law.
The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international encourages critical reflection on the classical grand narrative of international law as the purveyor of peace and civilization to the whole world. It specifically invites articles on extra-European experiences and forms of legal relations between autonomous communities which were discontinued as a result of domination and colonization by European Powers. It is open to all possibilities of telling the history of international law, while respecting the necessary rigour in the use of records and sources. It is a forum for a plurality of visions of the history of international law, but also for debate on such plurality itself, on the methods, topics, and usages, as well as the bounds and dead-ends of this discipline. Moreover, it devotes space to examining in greater depth specific themes.
The article section of the Journal is open to submissions from the entire academic community. The Journal uses double-blind peer review. All manuscripts received are evaluated by the editors and after pre-screening submitted to one or two anonymous external referees. Articles submitted to the Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international should be original contributions – in English or French. All work submitted will be scrutinized based on its intellectual quality, originality and advancement of academic discourse. The editors have thus decided to issue a general call for papers, inviting interested persons to submit contributions for consideration for publication in the forthcoming issues of the Journal. For a scholarly research manuscript, the length should not be more than 14000 words, including footnotes. Articles must be accompanied by a 150-word (maximum) abstract needed for identifying reviewers (in a separate file). Authors must provide – in a separate file – current institutional affiliation with email address, full postal address and telephone number where they can be reached, and brief biographical data if they wish.
Manuscripts (accompanied by files with abstract and affiliation) and any correspondence should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org (to the attention of the Journal’s managing editor, Dr Mieke van der Linden). More information can be found via the website of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg: www.mpil.de.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
This article, part of a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems on subsidiarity in international law and governance (edited by Markus Jachtenfuchs and Nico Krisch), examines from positive and descriptive perspectives the actual extent of subsidiarity-like provisions and processes in the WTO; and in so doing explores the nature and distribution of their operation. In a nutshell, the critical argument is that the (surprisingly abundant) expressions of subsidiarity (or deference) in the WTO are selective and strategic, not systemic; and that they more often than not serve to counteract the anxieties of the multilateral decision-making machinery, providing it with sources of enhanced legitimacy in its give-and-take with other actors, the Membership (writ large) in particular, over influence and governance. Simultaneously, this selective subsidiarity does not clearly work to either empower, or disempower, national (or regional) systems, and it is in this respect that the deference becomes dialectical. This is how subsidiarity in action, in the WTO, should be understood – not as a technical authority allocation rule, but as range of instruments and vocabularies through which the apportionment of authority is negotiated and adjusted.
China is becoming one of the key stakeholders in the international investment regime. It is the third largest source country for outward foreign investments and concluded nearly 140 investment treaties. Despite these impressive numbers, it is still unclear what role China can play – and in fact wants to play – in the ongoing reform of the international investment regime. Starting from this overall focus, this article analyses the most recent period of China’s international investment policy-making. Mapping the contents of investment treaties signed since 2008 it argues that China undertook a ‘partial NAFTA-ization’: Whilst China has adopted a number of clauses invented by the member states of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it introduced these clauses in an incoherent fashion. Looking at the drivers of this peculiar policy, this article argues that China’s practice of investment treaty-making is largely inspired by its partner countries, which helps us to understand the incoherent contents of its post-2008 treaties. Against this background, it is difficult to argue that there is a unified Chinese approach to international investment rule-making. This belies the argument that China can make a significant contribution to reforming the international investment regime.
This paper uses the history and function of the jus cogens concept in international law to demonstrate that its meaning and implication have varied in respond to particular sets of interests of significant international actors. The history reveals three incarnations of the concept: A claim about limits on the ability of sovereign states to enter into treaties that negate the essence of state sovereignty; a claim about limits on the formation of international law based on the fundamental interests of the states engaged in Cold War competition; and a claim about the existence of strong protection of human interests that exists independent of state consent. The principal argument of the paper is that the present, human-rights oriented conception of jus cogens is itself contingent and a reflection of the interests of persons who participate in the international legal system, especially non-state actors. The paper speculates about changes in the configuration of state interests that might produce new adaptions of the jus cogens concept, including doctrines and applications that would be fundamentally at odds with the current conception.
The WTO Dispute Settlement System aimed to curb unilateralism by establishing a multilateral process operating under the aegis of the WTO as the exclusive forum for WTO adjudication. Intuitively, one would expect that those negatively affected by the curtailing of their power to unilaterally do justice for themselves, would agree to multilateral resolution of disputes if the established regime could guarantee enforcement of obligations in comparable terms (to unilateral enforcement). In this perspective, respect and guarantee of reciprocal commitments is the key ingredient. Reciprocal commitments entered should not be unilaterally undone through the commission of illegalities. There are good reasons to doubt whether the WTO regime as it now stands guarantees reciprocity following the commitment of illegalities. It is probably more accurate to argue that the WTO regime serves ‘diffuse’ as opposed to ‘specific’ reciprocity. Still, WTO Members continue to routinely submit their disputes to the WTO adjudicating fora, lending support to the argument that the regime after all, was meant to curb punishment, and not to punish.