- Barbara Koremenos (Michigan - Pol. Sci.), If Only Half of International Agreements Have Dispute Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining?, 36 Journal of Legal Studies 189 (2007)
- Michael P. Vandenbergh (Vanderbilt - Law), The New Wal-Mart Effect: The Role of Private Contracting in Global Governance, 54 UCLA Law Review 913 (2007)
- Melissa A. Waters (Wash. & Lee - Law), Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation of Human Rights Treaties, 107 Columbia Law Review 628 (2007)
Saturday, May 19, 2007
- T.C. Hartley (LSE - Law), The Modern Approach to Private International Law. International Litigation and Transactions from a Common-Law Perspective. General Course on Public International Law
- J. Crawford (Cambridge - Law), Multilateral Rights and Obligations in International Law
Friday, May 18, 2007
- John P. Gaffney & James L. Loftis, The "Effective Ordinary Meaning" of BITs and the Jurisdiction of Treaty-Based Tribunals to Hear Contract Claims
- Ursula Kriebaum, Partial Expropriation
- Rex J. Zedalis, Subcentral Governmental Investment Incentives - Assessing their Lawfulness under the Gatt and the SCM Agreement
- Kálmán Kalotay, The Rise of Russian Transnational Corporations
- Asoke Mukerji, Integrating the CIS Economies into the WTO - A Review
- Yves G. L. Wolters, The Meaning of "Investment" in Treaty Disputes: Substantive or Jurisdictional? - Lessons from Nagel v. Czech Republic and S.D. Myers v. Canada
This conference will discuss the role of the World Trade Organization - its laws, policies and institutions - in economic development. The conference addresses a groundbreaking work of U.S. international trade law scholarship, "Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System," by Robert E. Hudec, on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and revised publication. Participants will have occasion to comment on the revised and updated edition of the book, edited by Joel Trachtman, and will present original papers on the conference theme.
The standard normative account of international human rights law is that its overarching mission is to protect universal features of what it means to be a human being from the exercise of sovereign power. This article offers an alternative account of the field, one that locates its normative dimensions in its capacity to speak to distributive injustices produced by how international law brings legal order to international political reality. On this account, human rights possess international legal significance not because they correspond to abstract conceptions of what it means to be human but because they monitor the distributive justice of the structure and operation of the international legal order itself. This account both draws on and departs from cosmopolitan conceptions of distributive justice in contemporary international political theory. It sheds normative light on why some human rights merit international legal protection despite the fact that they might lack some of the properties required by a universal account of the field. It illustrates these claims by describing how indigenous rights, minority rights, and rights to international cooperation and assistance mitigate some of the adverse consequences of how international law distributes sovereign power among a variety of legal actors it recognizes as states.
- Interview with General Sir Rupert Smith
- Luc Reydams, A la guerre comme à la guerre: patterns of armed conflict, humanitarian law responses and new challenges
- Robin Geiß, Asymmetric conflict structures
- Enzo Cannizzaro, Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war
- Jean-François Quéguiner, Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities
- Wibke Kristin Timmermann, Incitement in international criminal law
- Daniel O'Donnell, International treaties against terrorism and the use of terrorism during armed conflict and by armed forces
- Louise Doswald-Beck, The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers?
The Seventh Annual WTO Conference will focus on the evolving jurisprudence of the WTO dispute settlement system addressing in particular issues such as the role of precedent in WTO rulings, the GMO dispute, and compliance and remedies: Articles 21.5 and 22 DSU (first day) as well as around a few major themes that the world trading system is facing such as institutional reforms and global regulatory legitimacy (second day).
- Ivan Bernier, La négociation de la convention de l'UNESCO sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles
- Joanna Harrington, The Role for Human Rights Obligations in Canadian Extradition Law
- Cameron Hutchison, Coming in from the Shadow of the Law: The Use of Law by States to Negotiate International Environmental Disputes in Good Faith
- Chile Eboe-Osuji, Murder as a Crime against Humanity at the Ad Hoc Tribunals: Reconciling Differing Languages
- Karen Hulme, Radiation Warfare: A Review of the Legality of Depleted Uranium Weaponry
- Iain Sandford, Determining the Existence of Countervailable Subsidies in the Context of the Canada-United States Softwood Lumber Dispute: 1982-2005
- Kevin R. Gray, Transboundary Environmental Disputes along the Canada-US Frontier: Revisiting the Efficacy of Applying the Rules of State Responsibility
- Ted L. Mcdorman, A Canadian Perspective on the Continued Non-Ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea by the United States
- Patrick Dumberry, Is a New State Responsible for Obligations Arising from Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before Its Independence in the Context of Secession?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
- Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée, & Ellen Hey, International environmental law: mapping the field
- Peter H. Sand, The evolution of international environmental law
- John S. Dryzek, Paradigms and discourses
- Benedict Kingsbury, Global environmental governance as administration: implications for international law
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Levels of environmental governance
- Stephen J. Toope, Formality and informality
- Alan Boyle, Relationship between international environmental law and other branches of international law
- Richard B. Stewart, Instrument choice
- Steinar Andresen & Jon Birger Skiaerseth, Science and technology: from agenda setting to implementation
- Kyle W. Danish, International relations theory
- Scott Barrett, An economic theory of international environmental law
- Karin Mickelson, Critical approaches
- Christopher D. Stone, Ethics and international environmental law
- Ian H. Rowlands, Atmosphere and outer space
- David Freestone & Salman M. A. Salman, Ocean and freshwater resources
- Rosemary Rayfuse, Biological resources
- David A. Wirth, Hazardous substances and activities
- Ulrich Beyirlin, Different types of norms in international environmental law: policies, principles, and rules
- Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Formation of customary international law and general principles
- Thomas Gehring, Treaty making and treaty evolution
- Jason Morrison & Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Private and quasi-private standard setting
- Gunther Handi, Transboundary impacts
- Jutta Brunnée, Common areas, common heritage, and common concern
- Dan Tarlock, Ecosystems
- Jonathan B. Wiener, Precaution
- Daniel Barstow Magraw & Lisa D. Hawke, Sustainable development
- Dinah Shelton, Equity
- John G. Merrills, Environmental rights
- Jonas Ebbesson, Public participation
- Daniel Bodansky, Legitimacy
- Thilo Marauhn, Changing role of the state
- Ellen Hey, International institutions
- Peter J. Spiro, Non-governmental organizations and civil society
- Peter Haas, Epistemic communities
- Steven R. Ratner, Business
- Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indigenous peoples
- Ludwig Kramer, Regional economic integration organizations: the European Union as an example
- Geir Ulfstein, Treaty bodies
- Ronald B. Mitchell, Compliance theory: compliance, effectiveness, and behaviour change in international environmental law
- Catherine Redgwell, National implementation
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Technical and financial assistance
- Jorgen Wettestad, Monitoring and verification
- Jan Klabbers, Compliance procedures
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, International responsibility and liability
- Cesare P.R. Romano, International dispute settlement
- Luzius Wildhaber, The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law
- Rilka Dragneva & Joop De Kort, The Legal Regime for Free Trade in the Commonwealth of Independent States
- Gus Van Harten, The Public-Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims Against the State
- Tom Lewis, What Not to Wear: Religious Rights, the European Court, and the Margin of Appreciation
- Greg Carne, Reconstituting ‘Human Security’ in a New Security Environment: One Australian, Two Canadians and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Camille Goodman, Acta Sunt Servanda? A Regime for Regulating the Unilateral Acts of States at International Law
- Daniel Lovric, A Constitution Friendly to International Law: Germany and its Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit
- Anthony M North & Joyce Chia, Towards Convergence in the Interpretation of the Refugee Convention: a Proposal for the Establishment of an International Judicial Commission for Refugees
- Anne O’Rourke & Chris Nyland, The Recent History of the Alien Tort Claims Act: Australia’s Role in its (attempted) Downfall
- Ben Saul, Defending ‘Terrorism’: Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism in International Criminal Law
- Tim Stephens, Multiple International Courts and the ‘Fragmentation’ of International Environmental Law
- Matthew T Stubbs, Arbitrary Detention in Australia: Detention of Unlawful Non-Citizens under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
- Tommy Koh & Jolene Lin, The Land Reclamation Case: Thoughts and Reflections
- Sir Franklin Berman, The UN Charter and the Use of Force
- M. Sornarajah, Power and Justice: Third World Resistance in International Law
- Simon Chesterman, Reforming The United Nations: Legitimacy, Effectiveness and Power After Iraq
- Bing Bing Jia, China and the International Criminal Court: Current Situation
- Christopher Harding, Vingt Ans Après: Rainbow Warrior, Legal Ordering, and Legal Complexity
- Won-Mog Choi, Diplomatic and Consular Law in the Internet Age
- M. Fitzmaurice, On the Protection of Human Rights, the Rome Statute and Reservations to Multilateral Treaties
- Kawser Ahmed, The Domestic Jurisdiction Clause in the United Nations Charter: A Historical View
- Suzannah Linton, Accounting for Atrocities in Indonesia
- Michael Trebilcock & Michael Fishbein, International Trade: Barriers to Trade
- Alan O. Sykes, International Trade: Trade Remedies
- Bernard Hoekman & Aaditya Mattoo, International Trade: Trade in Services
- Joel P. Trachtman, International Trade: Regionalism
- Henrick Horn & Petros C. Mavroidis, International Trade: Dispute Settlement
- Americo Beviglia Zampetti & Pierre Sauvé, International Investment
- Robert K. Rasmussen, International Commercial Law
- Julie A. Roin, The Economic Underpinnings of International Taxation
- Hal S. Scott, International Finance: Rule Choices for Global Financial Markets
- Andrew T. Guzman, International Competition Law
- Frederick M. Abbott, Intellectual Property Rights in World Trade
- Richard H. Steinberg, Power and Cooperation in International Environmental Law
- Rohan Kariyawasam, International Telecommunications
- Diane P. Wood, Private Dispute Resolution in International Economic Law
- Elizabeth Snodgrass, Protecting Investors' Legitimate Expectations - Recognizing and Delimiting a General Principle
- Colloquium on Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration, Geneva, April 22, 2006 - Selected Papers
- Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Victor Bonnin & Makane Moïse Mbengue, Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration: How Can Multiple Proceedings Arising from the Same or Related Situations Be Handled Efficiently
- Antonio R. Parra, Desirability and Feasibility of Consolidation: Introductory Remarks
- Yuval Shany, Consolidation and Tests for Application: Is International Law Relevant?
While the law of occupation establishes a number of mechanisms to oversee the conduct of the occupying power and ensure it respects the law, practice demonstrates time and again that legal tools and institutions have only a limited ability to effectively regulate the actions of an occupying power. The 40th anniversary of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip presents a unique opportunity to take stock and critically assess the impact of law in situations of occupation from a broad theoretical perspective, using the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a principal case study.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
- Elizabeth Snodgrass, Fiona Trust v Privalov: The Arbitration Act 1996 comes of age
- Sarah E. Hilmer, Has arbitration failed India or has India failed arbitration?
- Poupak Anjomshoaa, Costs awards in international arbitration and the use of "Sealed Offers" to limit liability for costs
- Peter Chow, "Manifest Disregard of Law" as a ground for refusing enforcement of award in Asia?
In 1907, forty-six of the world’s leading nations assembled at The Hague to adopt a dozen seminal conventions, declarations and regulations defining the rules of conduct in modern warfare. These rules have since ripened into customary international law, binding on all states. They formed the basis for the later adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols, as well as the Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons Conventions.
The “Martens Clause” of the 1907 Hague Convention IV served as a foundation for the concept of crimes against humanity, recognized in the Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments, the Genocide Convention, and the Statutes of the contemporary international criminal tribunals. The Hague Conference of 1907 also served as a model for the League of Nations and United Nations, and it considered for the first time a proposal to establish a World Court, leading ultimately to the creation of the International Court of Justice.
The 8th Hague Joint Conference honors the centennial anniversary of the Hague Conference of 1907 with a line up of panels focusing on salient issues in international humanitarian law and criminal jurisdiction.
This article argues that the doctrine of Odious Debt, which has enjoyed a revival since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, frames the problem of odious debt in a way that excludes most of the problematic obligations incurred by twentieth-century despots. Advocacy and academic literature traditionally describe the odious debt problem as one of government contracts with private creditors. Most theories of sovereign debt key off the same relationship. But in the latest crop of cases, including Iraq, Liberia, and Nigeria, private creditors represent a small fraction of the old regime's debts. Most of the creditors are other governments and public institutions. Private and official sovereign debt share formal similarities (such as the promise to repay), but are far apart in substance. Unlike private debt, official debt is never extended at arm's length or for direct economic gain; the usual goal is policy influence over the borrower. Governments often lend in dire economic circumstances where no arm's length money is available and repayment prospects are dim. The article suggests that these transfers are not really debt, but rejects the popular view that they are disguised grants. It uses the case of official debt as a starting point to explore the significance of debt form in sovereign finance. It focuses on the apparent disconnect between the form of official transfers and the substance of the economic and political relationship it represents to draw out implications for debates about odious debt and beyond.
Voigt: Are International Merchants Stupid? - Their Choice of Law Sheds Doubt on the Legal Origin Theory
In economics, there is currently an important discussion on the role of legal origins or legal families. Some economists claim that legal origins play a crucial role even today. Usually, they distinguish between Common Law, French, Scandinavian and German legal origin. When these legal origins are compared, countries belonging to the Common Law tradition regularly come out best (with regard to many different dimensions) and countries belonging to the French legal origin worst.
In international transactions, contracting parties can choose the substantive law according to which they want to structure their transactions. In this paper, this choice is interpreted as revealed preference for a specific legal regime. It is argued that the superiority-of-common-law view can be translated into the hypothesis that sophisticated and utility-maximizing actors would rationally choose a substantive law based on the Common Law tradition such as English or US American law. Although exact statistics are not readily available, the evidence from cases that end up with international arbitration courts (such as the International Court of Arbitration run by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris) demonstrates that this is not the case. This evidence sheds, hence, some doubt on the superiority-of-the-common-law view.
The Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime represents a major step forward in the internationally co-operative fight against transnational organized crime. This book offers a comprehensive, article by article legal commentary on the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its two Protocols on Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants. The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 2001, and came into force in 2003 with over 75 State Parties. The Convention defines offences, and lays down rules as to the co-operation of State Parties in various procedures aimed at preventing and detecting those offences, such as mutual legal assistance, extradition, law-enforcement cooperation, technical assistance and training, and the seizure of assets obtained by their commission.
The conference will provide an outstanding opportunity for private international law academics and practitioners from around the world to interact with one another. The conference programme includes papers by leading private international lawyers from around the world. It covers a diverse range of important and topical subjects.
Monday, May 14, 2007
- James Cockayne, The global reorganization of legitimate violence: military entrepreneurs and the private face of international humanitarian law
- Andrew Clapham, Human rights obligations of non-state actors in conflict situations
- Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, Business goes to war: private military/security companies and international humanitarian law
- Lindsey Cameron, Private military companies: their status under international humanitarian law and its impact on their regulation
- Katherine Fallah, Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict
- Benjamin Perrin, Promoting compliance of private security and military companies with international humanitarian law
- Michael Cottier, Elements for contracting and regulating private security and military companies
- Eric Mongelard, Corporate civil liability for violations of international humanitarian law
Every society perceives the need to differentiate between its legal norms and other norms controlling social, economic and political behavior. But unlike domestic legal systems where this distinction is typically determined by constitutional provisions, the decentralized nature of the international legal system makes this a complex and contested issue. Moreover, contemporary international law is often the product of a subtle and evolving interplay of law-making instruments, both binding and non-binding, and of customary law and general principles. Only in this broader context can the significance of so-called 'soft law' and multilateral treaties be fully appreciated. This volume analyzes the principal negotiating processes and law-making tools through which contemporary international law is made, and identifies the processes, participants and instruments employed. It accordingly examines some of the mechanisms and procedures whereby new rules of law are created or old rules are amended or abrogated, and concentrates on the UN, other international organizations, diplomatic conferences, codification bodies, NGOs, and courts.
- Geoff Nicholas, LCIA Court Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators: A Proposal to Publish
- Richard H. Kreindler, Perspectives on State Party Arbitration: The Future of BITs – The Practitioner’s Perspective
- Phillip Landolt, Limits on Court Review of International Arbitration Awards Assessed in light of States? Interests and in particular in light of EU Law Requirements
- Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Enterprise v. State: The New David and Goliath?
- Pieter Sanders, UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation
- Derek Roebuck, Bricks Without Straw: Arbitration in Roman Britain
Larry May argues that the best way to understand war crimes is as crimes against humanness rather than as violations of justice. He shows that in a deeply pluralistic world, we need to understand the rules of war as the collective responsibility of states that send their citizens into harm's way, as the embodiment of humanity, and as the chief way for soldiers to retain a sense of honour on the battlefield. Throughout, May demonstrates that the principle of humanness is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, and is itself the basis of the traditional principles of discrimination, necessity, and proportionality. He draws extensively on the older Just War tradition to assess recent cases from the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia as well as examples of atrocities from the archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
- Benedetto Conforti, Unité et fragmentation du droit international: "Glissez, mortels, n'appuyez pas!"
- Francesco Francioni, Au-delà des traités: l'émergence d'un nouveau droit coutumier pour la protection du patrimoine culturel
- Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Jeux dans la fragmentation: la Convention sur la promotion et la protection de la diversité des expressions culturelles
- Serena Forlati, Protection diplomatique, droits de l'homme et réclamations "directes" devant la Cour internationale de justice - Quelques réflexions en marge de l'arrêt Congo/Ouganda
- Nicolas Haupais, Les obligations de la puissance occupante au regard de la jurisprudence et de la pratique récente
International human rights pressure has been applied to numerous states with varying results. In Conflict and Compliance, Sonia Cardenas examines responses to such pressure and challenges conventional views of the reasons states do - or do not - comply with international law. Data from disparate bodies of research suggest that more pressure to comply with human rights standards is not necessarily more effective and that international policies are more efficient when they target the root causes of state oppression.
Cardenas surveys a broad array of evidence to support these conclusions, including Latin American cases that incorporate recent important declassified materials, a statistical analysis of all the countries in the world, and a set of secondary cases from Eastern Europe, South Africa, China, and Cuba. The views of human rights skeptics and optimists are surveyed to illustrate how state rhetoric and behavior can be interpreted differently depending on one's perspective.
Theoretically and methodologically sophisticated, Conflict and Compliance paints a new picture of the complex dynamics at work when states face competing pressures to comply with and violate international human rights norms.
The latest issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (Vol. 96, no. 1, janv./mars 2007) is out. Contents include:
- Dominique Turpin, La loi no. 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l'immigration et à l’intégration: choisir pour ne plus subir
- Arnaud Nuyts, Le règlement communautaire sur l'obtention des preuves: un instrument exclusif
The Article proceeds in three parts. First, I summarize the literature on legal pluralism and suggest ways in which this literature helps us understand the global legal environment. Second, drawing on pluralist insights, I offer an analytical framework for addressing normative conflicts, one that provides an alternative both to territorially-based sovereigntism and to universalism, and instead opens space for the recognition and accommodation of multiple normative commitments. This framework generates a series of values and principles that can be used to evaluate the efficacy of procedural mechanisms, institutional designs, and discursive practices for managing hybridity. Third, I survey a series of such mechanisms, institutions, and practices already in use in a wide variety of doctrinal contexts, and I discuss how they work (or sometimes fail to work) in actual practice. And though all of these mechanisms, institutions, and practices have been discussed individually in the scholarly literature, they have not generally been considered together through a pluralist lens, nor have they been evaluated based on their ability to manage and preserve hybridity. Thus, my analysis offers a significantly different approach, one that injects a distinct set of concerns into debates about global legal interactions. Indeed, although many of these mechanisms, institutions, and practices are often viewed as "second-best" accommodations between hardline sovereigntist and universalist positions, I argue that they might at least sometimes be preferable to either. In the conclusion, I suggest implications of this approach for more general thinking about the potential role of law in identifying and negotiating social and cultural difference.
This Article grapples with the complexities of law in a world of hybrid legal spaces, where a single act or actor is potentially regulated by multiple legal or quasi-legal regimes. In order to conceptualize this world, I introduce literature on legal pluralism, and I suggest that, following its insights, we need to realize that normative conflict among multiple, overlapping legal systems is unavoidable and might even sometimes be desirable, both as a source of alternative ideas and as a site for discourse among multiple community affiliations. Thus, instead of trying to stifle conflict either through an imposition of sovereigntist, territorially-based, prerogative or through universalist harmonization schemes, communities might sometimes seek (and increasingly are creating) a wide variety of procedural mechanisms, institutions, and practices for managing, without eliminating, hybridity. Such mechanisms, institutions, and practices can help mediate conflicts by recognizing that multiple communities may legitimately wish to assert their norms over a given act or actor, by seeking ways of reconciling competing norms, and by deferring to other approaches if possible. Moreover, when deference is impossible (because some instances of legal pluralism are repressive, violent, and/or profoundly illiberal), procedures for managing hybridity can at least require an explanation of why a decisionmaker cannot defer. In sum, pluralism offers not only a more comprehensive descriptive account of the world we live in, but also suggests a potentially useful alternative approach to the design of procedural mechanisms, institutions, and practices.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The annual conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will take place May 18, 2007. The theme is The Rule of Law and Post Conflict States. Why attend?
The application of the international rule of law in the aftermath of civil and international conflicts - while vitally important in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierre Leone, East Timor, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo - is by no means clear. Speakers will consider the obligations of occupying powers, economic reconstruction and trade, access of foreign investors to natural resource exploitation, war crimes trials, the relationship between human rights and the 1949 Geneva 'Red Cross' Conventions and the role of non state actors, particularly the United Nations, World Bank and the EU. A core question is whether treaty-based and customary international law provides an adequate response to the contemporary problems faced by States post-conflict where the objectives of key players may range from conserving prior rights to regime change.
Claims of inequity, partiality, and unfairness are central to contemporary philosophical treatments of international law as not meeting a certain vision of a just world order. In particular, criticism from political and moral philosophers of international organizations is based on the observation that they do not treat all actors or situations the same way and so therefore are morally suspect. This paper considers whether international organizations act impartially in the sense of not playing favorites in the way they treat certain actors and situations. It views organizations and the states in them as having various rights and duties toward other actors and asks whether rights possessed by or duties owed to only some actors – special rights and duties – can be justified. It focusses on three aspects of international organizations: membership, decisionmaking processes, and choices of targets for action, and concludes that certain institutional characteristics can be justified as impartial while others fall short. Although impartiality with respect to these three aspects does not equate with a just international organization, an appraisal of their impartiality is a prerequisite to understanding the institutions that we have and proposing ideas to reconstruct them.
This paper challenges the conventional wisdom concerning the US's commitment to legalized resolution of trade disputes by examining shifts in US attitudes to legalized dispute settlement over time. This historical review suggests that US government support for judicialized dispute settlement in international trade is based less on an abstract commitment to the rule of law in international relations than on pragmatic, short-term and highly contextual calculations that this mechanism serves US interests better than alternative arrangements. This history also reveals that the level of US commitment to, and participation in, legalized trade dispute resolution mechanisms reflects a two-level game where US officials mediate conflicting pressures generated by their foreign counterparts and domestic political actors. The history of ebbs and flows in US enthusiasm for legalized dispute settlement suggests that in contexts where judicialized dispute settlement is not perceived to serve US political or economic interests, continued US support for the system will not be forthcoming.
International Law in Domestic Courts (ILDC) brings you the most important international law issues being decided in domestic courts around the world today. With legal experts in the field reporting on cases from over sixty-five jurisdictions, this online service highlights the full range of jurisprudence around the globe in a format that makes it easy to pinpoint specific legal issues and to compare how these issues have been dealt with in different jurisdictions. A vital resource for both lawyers in practice and legal scholars in a rapidly evolving field, ILDC tracks the changes in the law as they occur, offering bi-monthly updates on cases soon after they appear.
Throughout the year, our world-wide team of legal scholars monitors local courts in their assigned jurisdictions and selects the most relevant cases that examine issues of international law. Their expert commentary highlights the most salient points of the case and provides legal context to understand the implications of how national courts have interpreted International Law in reaching their decisions. English translations of key passages, along with full judgments in the original language, make this a valuable tool for lawyers and legal scholars in all practice settings.
A rigorous selection process seeks to include both those cases that are relevant for the identification and interpretation of principles and rules of general international law (principles of jurisdiction, immunities, state succession, responsibility, general principles) as well as cases relevant for the identification and interpretation of principles and rules of international law in certain functional fields, such as human rights law, international criminal law, and many more.
This book argues that accountability for extraordinary atrocity crimes should not uncritically adopt the methods and assumptions of ordinary liberal criminal law. Criminal punishment designed for common criminals is a response to mass atrocity and a device to promote justice in its aftermath. This book comes to this conclusion after reviewing the sentencing practices of international, national, and local courts and tribunals that punish atrocity perpetrators. Sentencing practices of these institutions fail to attain the goals that international criminal law ascribes to punishment, in particular retribution and deterrence. Fresh thinking is necessary to confront the collective nature of mass atrocity and the disturbing reality that individual membership in group-based killings is often not maladaptive or deviant behavior but, rather, adaptive or conformist behavior. This book turns to a modern, and adventurously pluralist, application of classical notions of cosmopolitanism to advance the frame of international criminal law to a broader construction of atrocity law and towards an interdisciplinary, contextual, and multicultural conception of justice.