Years of tremendous growth in response to complex emergencies have left a mark on the humanitarian sector. Various matters that once seemed settled are now subjects of intense debate. What is humanitarianism? Is it limited to the provision of relief to victims of conflict, or does it include broader objectives such as human rights, democracy promotion, development, and peacebuilding? For much of the last century, the principles of humanitarianism were guided by neutrality, impartiality, and independence. More recently, some humanitarian organizations have begun to relax these tenets. The recognition that humanitarian action can lead to negative consequences has forced humanitarian organizations to measure their effectiveness, to reflect on their ethical positions, and to consider not only the values that motivate their actions but also the consequences of those actions.
In the indispensable Humanitarianism in Question, Michael Barnett and Thomas G. Weiss bring together scholars from a variety of disciplines to address the humanitarian identity crisis, including humanitarianism's relationship to accountability, great powers, privatization and corporate philanthropy, warlords, and the ethical evaluations that inform life-and-death decision making during and after emergencies.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Bei der Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit handelt es sich um eine spezifisch völkerstrafrechtliche Zurechnungsfigur. Sie erfasst sowohl vorsätzliches wie auch lediglich pflichtwidriges Verhalten. Je nach Fallkonstellation lässt sich das Verhalten des Vorgesetzten als Beteiligung an der Begehung eines Völkerrechtsverbrechens, als Verstoß des Vorgesetzten gegen eine besondere völkerrechtliche Handlungspflicht oder als strafbares Nachtatverhalten begreifen. Dieser Befund hat grundsätzliche Vorbehalte gegen die Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit laut werden lassen. Die Rechtsfigur erscheint als Musterbeispiel einer rough justice, die in ihrer unterschiedslosen Zurechnung völkerstrafrechtlichen Unrechts möglicherweise gegen das Schuldprinzip verstößt, jedenfalls aber dem Gerechtigkeitsempfinden widerspricht.
Die vorliegende Untersuchung zeigt im Wege einer ausführlichen Analyse der Rechtsprechung der internationalen Strafgerichtshöfe für das ehemalige Jugoslawien und für Ruanda, dass diese Vorbehalte weitgehend unbegründet sind. In einem ersten Schritt werden die rezeptionsgeschichtlichen Missverständnisse aufgezeigt, die bislang einen unvoreingenommenen Blick auf die Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit erschwert haben. In einem zweiten Schritt wird die Rechtsfigur in das völkerrechtliche Straftatsystem eingeordnet. Erst diese Verortung ermöglicht eine Funktionsbestimmung der Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit im Völkerstrafrecht und damit ihre angemessene Beurteilung.
Im Mai 1993 setzte der UN-Sicherheitsrat den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien ein und im November 1994 folgte der für Ruanda zuständige. 1998 begannen in Rom die Verhandlungen über ein Statut für einen Strafgerichtshof, dessen Aufgabe in der weltweiten Ahndung schwerster Verbrechen bestehen sollte. Vier Jahre später, im Juli 2002, trat es in Kraft und begründete den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof mit Sitz in Den Haag.
Die Hoffnungen, ja die Euphorie, welche die Entwicklung der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit begleitet hatte und die ihre Kraft aus der Idee einer gewaltärmeren Welt bezog, war zu diesem Zeitpunkt jedoch bereits einer gewissen Ernüchterung gewichen. Die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 und die fortdauernde terroristische Bedrohung ließen die schon vorher nur begrenzte Neigung der USA, sich multilateral zu binden und entsprechend zu agieren, deutlich zutage treten. Statt die Option eines gemeinsamen Vorgehens zu wählen, setzten sie vor allem auf militärische Stärke, mit fataler Signalwirkung für andere Mächte.
Heute ist unübersehbar, dass die Welt nicht sicherer geworden ist. Die militärische Antwort auf den Terror zeitigte keinen Erfolg. Der staatlich geführte Krieg, nach gegenwärtigem Völkerrechtsverständnis Ultima Ratio zur Abwehr von Angriffen auf die internationale Sicherheit und Ordnung, erweist sich zunehmend als untaugliches Mittel im Kampf gegen einen Feind, der mit dem herkömmlichen Feind im Sinne des Kriegsvölkerrechts so gut wie nichts mehr gemein hat.
Die Situation scheint verfahren. Die militärische Gewalt ist machtlos und führt zur Erosion zivilisatorischer Werte, das Völkerstrafrecht ist noch zu schwach und sieht sich zudem einflussreichen Gegnern gegenüber. Einfache Lösungen gibt es nicht. Aber es gibt die Möglichkeit – und die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Bandes zeigen sie auf –, ausgehend von neueren Entwicklungslinien im Völkerrecht und Völkerstrafrecht den aktuellen Problemstand darzustellen und, darauf aufbauend, in stärkerem Maße konsensuelle und friedliche Perspektiven weiterzudenken.
In May 1993, the UN Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, followed in November 1994 by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Negotiations on a statute for a permanent international criminal court responsible for prosecuting worldwide the most serious crimes of international concern began in Rom in 1998. Four years later, in July 2002, the statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague entered into force.
By the time the ICC took up its work, however, the hopes, indeed euphoria, which accompanied the process leading up to the institutionalization of courts with international jurisdiction and which drew on the idea of a less violent world, had already given way to a certain degree of disenchantment. In the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 and the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, the already limited willingness of the United States to enter into multilateral agreements and adjust its political activities accordingly became considerably more pronounced. Rather than prioritizing cooperative strategies in responding to terrorism, the government of the USA elected to rely on the country’s military strength and thus sent out an inauspicious signal to other powers.
Today, it is obvious that the world has not become a safer place. The strategy of responding to terror with military means has failed. Increasingly, wars waged by states — according to current understandings of international law, the ultima ratio for confronting threats to international security and order — have proved to be inadequate as a means of combating adversaries who have little in common with the classic concept of the enemy that underlies the international laws and customs of war.
The situation seems as convoluted as it is challenging: military force is ineffective and leads to the erosion of civil values; international criminal law is, so far, too weak and must deal with influential opponents. There are no easy solutions to the dilemma of legal responses to these kinds of crimes. But a feasible option — and the authors in this collection have seized this opportunity — is to carefully assess the current situation and issues on the backdrop of more recent developments in international law and employ this evaluation for conceptualizing more consensual, peaceful alternatives to today’s practices.
Daniela Stagel widmet sich dem rechtlichen und politischen Kernthema der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit schlechthin: Der "Gewaltenteilung" zwischen dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof als Judikative der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft und dem Sicherheitsrat als Exekutive. Mit hinein spielt auch die Rolle der Legislative der Weltorganisationen UNO. Beleuchtet wird insbesondere die Doppelrolle der Vereinigten Staaten, welche sich von der treibenden Kraft zum Hemmschuh der Etablierung des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs entwickelte.
Das erste Kapitel behandelt die Frage, ob es nicht auch möglich gewesen wäre, ein permanentes Strafgericht nicht durch völkerrechtlichen Vertrag, sondern durch eine Resolution des Sicherheitsrates, der Generalversammlung oder aber eine Ergänzung der Charta der Vereinten Nationen zu errichten. Hierbei wird auch das Tadic-Urteil des Kriegsverbrechertribunals für das ehemalige Jugoslawien besprochen, in dem eingehend die Kompetenzen des Sicherheitsrats skizziert werden.
Im zweiten Kapitel erörtert die Verfasserin die im Römischen Statut in Artikel 13 lit. b normierte Überweisungsbefugnis des Sicherheitsrats. Hierbei werden Fragen nach der Notwendigkeit einer solchen Befugnis aufgeworfen und konkret beantwortet. Auch werden die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Verweisungskompetenz des Sicherheitsrats anhand von exemplarischen Fällen aufgezeigt. Zuletzt setzt sich die Verfasserin damit auseinander, ob dem Strafgerichtshof eine Verwerfungskompetenz zugebilligt werden kann.
Im dritten Kapitel wird die Historie des Verbrechens der Aggression dargestellt. Alsdann wird auf die Bedingungen der Anwendbarkeit dieses Verbrechens eingegangen, wobei Lösungsvorschläge für den Fall des Fehlens einer Feststellung des Sicherheitsrats über das Vorliegen einer Aggression angeboten werden.
Artikel 16 des Römischen Statuts, welcher dem Sicherheitsrat die Möglichkeit an die Hand gibt, die Tätigkeit des Strafgerichtshofs für den Zeitraum von einem Jahr zu sperren, ist Gegenstand des vierten Kapitels. In diesem Zusammenhang werden die jüngsten Aktionen des Sicherheitsrats wie die Resolutionen 1422 und 1593 thematisiert, mit welchen das Ziel verfolgt wurde, die Glaubwürdigkeit des Strafgerichtshofs zu untergraben.
Friday, May 9, 2008
- Gerhard Thallinger, Sense and Sensibility of the Human Rights Obligations of the United Nations Security Council
- Jochen von Bernstorff, Menschenrechte und Betroffenenrepräsentation: Entstehung und Inhalt eines UN-Antidiskriminierungsübereinkommens über die Rechte von behinderten Menschen
- Kerstin A. Wirth, Kosovo am Vorabend der Statusentscheidung: Überlegungen zur rechtlichen Begründung und Durchsetzung der Unabhängigkeit
- Christoph Schönberger, Der Rahmenbeschluss. Unionssekundärrecht zwischen Völkerrecht und Gemeinschaftsrecht
- Franz C. Mayer, Die Rückkehr der Europäischen Verfassung? Ein Leitfaden zum Vertrag von Lissabon
- Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Timo Tohidipur, Europäisches Grenzkontrollregime. Rechtsrahmen der europäischen Grenzschutzagentur FRONTEX
- Thomas Kleinlein & David Rabenschlag, Auslandsschutz und Staatsangehörigkeit
- Mathias Hartwig, Völkerrechtliche Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahre 2005
The proliferation of international institutions and their impact has become a central issue in international relations. Why do countries comply with international agreements and how do international institutions influence national policies? Most theories focus on the extent to which international institutions can wield 'carrots and sticks' directly in their relations with states. Xinyuan Dai presents an alternative framework in which they influence national policies indirectly by utilizing non-state actors (NGOs, social movements) and empowering domestic constituencies. In this way, even weak international institutions that lack 'carrots and sticks' may have powerful effects on states. Supported by empirical studies of environmental politics, human rights and economic and security issues, this book sheds fresh light on how and why international institutions matter. It will be of interest to students, scholars and policymakers in both international relations and international law.
The jus ad bellum is generally viewed as a static field of law. The standard account is that when the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, it enshrined a complete prohibition on the use of force in inter-state relations, except when action is being taken in self-defense against an armed attack or under authorization of the UN Security Council. Yet it seems likely that in the years to come, many states and non-state actors will increasingly insist upon a different vision of the jus ad bellum, one that conceives of it as more protean in nature.
Protean jus ad bellum acknowledges that, as of 1945, the static view was correct, but that over time-as we approach the 70th anniversary of the United Nations-the jus ad bellum is changing, buffeted in particular by several significant developments: (1) the emergence of weapons of mass destruction of various types potentially controllable by states and non-state actors; (2) the rise of global terrorism as a mechanism for projecting violence against states by non-state actors; (3) the elevation of the person to a central place in the realm of international law, both in terms of being protected and in terms of being accountable for misconduct; (4) the inability of the Security Council to be accepted by all states as a disinterested arbiter willing and capable of acting to address all threats to international peace and security as they arise; and (5) the continuing erosion of the sanctity of the sovereign state, resulting from exposure to myriad effects of globalization, including intrusive transnational rule of law programs, election monitoring, incessant and extensive media coverage, powerful transnational corporations and non-governmental organization, and relatively unrestricted transborder movement of capital, goods, and persons across borders.
This essay suggests that the failure to either formally accept or reject the idea of protean jus ad bellum is likely, over time, to diminish the jus ad bellum's effectiveness as a normative regime. Too often transnational uses of military force are occurring in circumstances that are inconsistent with the idea of a static jus ad bellum: states and non-state actors are, at least in some situations, tolerating certain types of force in response to the overarching developments noted above. As the International Criminal Court moves closer to including aggression within its mandate for indicting and prosecuting persons, government leaders may see greater value in clarifying what uses of force are permissible. Things could continue as they are. But in the long-term, if the jus ad bellum is not to break down, then a more formal way should be found either to reject the notion of protean jus ad bellum or to accept it, and if the latter, then to try to identify the contemporary rules in this area, either through formal amendment of the UN Charter, through authoritative interpretations by the principal organs of the United Nations or regional organizations, or through other means.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Germany's declaration reads as follows:
After obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, the Federal Foreign Office will tomorrow (1 May) deposit a declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in accordance with Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute.
Germany will be the 66th state to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. From now on, if Germany is involved in any international dispute over which the Court has jurisdiction, Germany may bring an action against or be sued by any other state that has made an equivalent declaration. This was previously only possible in the event of disputes based on international treaties that expressly named the ICJ as the competent court, or disputes that the parties thereto had especially agreed to submit to the ICJ. Germany has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court for disputes relating to military operations abroad or the use of German territory for military purposes.
By accepting the Court's jurisdiction in this way, the German Government is strengthening international law and the international courts.
Prior to Germany's action last week, the most recent action under Article 36(2) was Japan's substitution of a new declaration last July for the one it had deposited in 1958. Japan's new declaration restricted the Court's jurisdiction to cases that arose after September 15, 1958 (the date Japan submitted its original declaration) and precludes the Court's jurisdiction over "any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other party to the dispute was deposited or notified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court." It would appear that Japan may have taken this action to preempt as clearly as possible any attempt by the Republic of Korea to bring a dispute relating to Korean "comfort women" during World War II.
With reference to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice I have the honour to formulate on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the following declaration:
1. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations withdrawing the declaration and with effect as from the moment of such notification, over all disputes arising after the present declaration, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to this date other than:
(i) any dispute which the Parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement or which is subject to another method of peaceful settlement chosen by all the Parties.
(ii) any dispute which
(a) relates to, arises from or is connected with the deployment of armed forces abroad, involvement in such deployments or decisions thereon, or
(b) relates to, arises from or is connected with the use for military purposes of the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, including its airspace, as well as maritime areas subject to German sovereign rights and jurisdiction;
(iii) any dispute in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other Party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court.
2. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany also reserves the right at any time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such notification, either to add to, amend or withdraw any of the foregoing reservations, or any that may hereafter be added.
The ICC is the first and only standing international court capable of prosecuting humanity’s worst crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It faces huge obstacles. It has no police force; it pursues investigations in areas of tremendous turmoil, conflict, and death; it is charged both with trying suspects and with aiding their victims; and it seeks to combine divergent legal traditions in an entirely new international legal mechanism.
International law advocates sought to establish a standing international criminal court for more than 150 years. Other, temporary, single-purpose criminal tribunals, truth commissions, and special courts have come and gone, but the ICC is the only permanent inheritor of the Nuremberg legacy.
In Building the International Criminal Court, Oberlin College Professor of Politics Ben Schiff analyzes the ICC, melding historical perspective, international relations theories, and observers’ insights to explain the Court’s origins, creation, innovations, dynamics, and operational challenges.
Panel submission guidelines are here. Proposals should be submitted by Monday, June 16, 2008. Through a separate process, the program committee is also accepting proposals from "new voices" - students and new professionals (academic or non-academic). Guidelines are available here. New voices submissions should be made by Monday, June 30, 2008.
While 2008 is destined to be a year shaped by political and foreign policy debates, the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law presents a time for us to step back and renew our focus on International Law as Law.
The international legal system is unique. Like domestic law, international law is created, implemented and enforced - but in a manner that is distinct, varied, and constantly evolving. Understanding how international law functions as law today requires an examination of the nature of the actors in the international legal system and the changing ways in which they interact with one another. These developments are challenging and transforming traditional visions of international law, sparking new and renewed theoretical and practical debates.
The 2009 Annual Meeting will present a broad range of perspectives on the creation, implementation, enforcement, and critique of international law today. We will examine the changing character of fundamental aspects of the international legal system, including the sources of international law, the role of states and their constituent branches of government in generating and implementing international obligations (including the role of domestic courts in enforcing treaty obligations), the law-making and law-executing functions of international organizations, and the role of non-state actors (including civil society, individuals and businesses) as creators, enforcers and subjects of international law. We will also examine developments in substantive law and innovations in techniques for achieving compliance.
The American Society of International Law, with its membership of leading scholars and practitioners of international law from around the world, is uniquely situated to provide an unparalleled exploration of these fundamental issues. We invite you to be a part of the 2009 Annual Meeting.
Acharya & Johnston: Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective
- Amitav Acharya & Alastair Iain Johnston, Comparing regional institutions: an introduction
- Yuen Foong Khong & Helen E.S. Nesadurai, Hanging together, institutional design and cooperation in Southeast Asia: AFTA and the ARF
- Jorge I. Dominguez, International cooperation in Latin America: the design of regional institutions by slow accretion
- Jeffrey Herbst, Crafting regional cooperation in Africa
- Frank Schimmelfennig, Functional form, identity-driven cooperation: institutional designs and effects in post-Cold War NATO
- Michael Barnett & Etel Solingen, Designed to fail or failure of design? The origins and legacy of the Arab League
- Jeffrey T. Checkel, Social mechanisms and regional cooperation: are Europe and the EU really all that different?
- Amitav Acharya & Alastair Iain Johnston, Conclusion: institutional features, cooperation effects and the agenda for further research on comparative regionalism
- Günther J. Horvath, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Austrian Foundations - Thoughts on Arbitration
- Hubertus Schumacher, Current Questions on the Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals
- Christian Koller, Contemplations on Set-off and Counterclaim in International Commercial Arbitration
- Crenguta Leaua, The Appointing Authorities in International Commercial Arbitration
- Franz Schwarz & Helmut Ortner, Procedural Ordre Public and the Internationalization of Public Policy in Arbitration
- Irene Welser & Susanne Wurzer, Formality in International Commercial Arbitration - For Better or for Worse?
- Rudolf Fiebinger & Christian Gregorich, Arbitration on Acid - Fast Track Arbitration in Austria from a Practical Perspective
- Barbara Steindl, The Development of Due Process Under the New York Convention
- Lawrence S. Schaner & Brian S. Scarbrough, U.S. Discovery in Aid of International Arbitration and Litigation: The Expanded Role of 28 U.S.C. s. 1782
- Christoph Stippl & Veit Öhlberger, Rendering of the Award by Multipartite Arbitral Tribunals - How to Overcome Lack of Unanimity?
- Jenny W.T. Power & Christian W. Konrad, Costs in International Arbitration - A Comparative Overview of Civil and Common Law Doctrines
Angelo Gnaedinger (International Committee of the Red Cross) will deliver the annual lecture today at the School of Oriental and African Studies Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy. The topic is "International Humanitarian Law: Its Relevance in Contemporary Conflict."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
- the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, signed by the United States on September 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 110-4);
- the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted on July 8, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 110-6);
- the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed by the United States on February 17, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 110-8); and
- the Protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, signed by the United States on February 17, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 110-8).
Witnesses included: John Demers (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice); Patricia McNerney (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State); and Richard Douglas (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Counter-Narcotics, Counter-Proliferation and Global Threats, Department of Defense). Links are to the witnesses' written statements.
- Alexander Breitegger, Preventing Human Suffering During and After Conflict? The Complementary Case for a Specific Convention on Cluster Munitions
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Canons of Treaty Interpretation: Selected Case Studies from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement
- Axel Weissenfels, Independent BIT Standard or Mere Affirmative Commitment? The Umbrella Clause Interpreted
- Marcus Klamert, Military Subcontractors under International Humanitarian Law - A Contribution to the Distinction between Combatants and Civilians
- Catherine Quidenus, The Continued Presence of the Multinational Force on Iraqi Request
Hensel: The Legitimate Use of Military Force: The Just War Tradition and the Customary Law of Armed Conflict
- Howard M. Hensel, Introduction
- Howard M. Hensel, Theocentric natural law and just war doctrine
- Howard M. Hensel, Anthropocentric natural law and its implications for international relations and armed conflict
- Howard M. Hensel, The rejection of natural law and its implications for international relations and armed conflict
- Gregory A. Raymond & Charles W. Kegley Jr, Preemption and preventive war
- Jean-Marie Henckaerts, The development of international humanitarian law and the continued relevance of custom
- Mika Nishimura Hayashi, The Martens clause and military necessity
- Jean-François Quéguiner, The principle of distinction: beyond an obligation of customary international humanitarian law
- A.P.V. Rogers, The principle of proportionality
- Avril McDonald, Hors de combat: post-September 11 challenges to the rules
- Charles Garraway, Occupation responsibilities and constraints
- Howard M. Hensel, Conclusion
What role do human rights play in the development of regional organizations? What human rights obligations do states assume upon joining regional bodies?
This work is the first text of its kind devoted to the European, Inter-American and African systems for the protection of human rights. It illustrates how international human rights law is interpreted and implemented across international organizations and offers examples of political, economic, social problems and legal issues to emphasize the significant impact of international human rights law institutions on the constitutions, law, policies, and societies of different regions. Regional Protection of Human Rights contains the basic documents of each legal system and their inter-relationships, enabling readers to apply those documents to ever-changing global situations, and alerting them to the dynamic nature of regional human rights law and institutions. The Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts and decisions of the Inter-American and African Commissions are emphasized, including decisions on the interpretation and application of various human rights, procedural requirements and remedies. Prospects for regional systems in the Middle East and Asia are also discussed. The relevant basic texts are reproduced in a documentary supplement.
- Karl P. Sauvant, The Rise of International Investment, Investment Agreements and Investment Disputes
- Rainer Geiger, The Multifaceted Nature of International Investment Law
- José E. Alvarez, Implications for the Future of International Investment Law
- M. Sornarajah, A Coming Crisis: Expansionary Trends in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Patrick Juillard, Variation in the Substantive Provisions and Interpretation of International Investment Agreements
- Jeswald W. Salacuse, Explaining the Increased Recourse to Treaty-Based Investment Dispute Settlement
- Giorgio Sacerdoti, The Proliferation of BITs: Conflicts of Treaties, Proceedings and Awards
- Anna Joubin-Bret, The Growing Diversity and Inconsistency in the IIA System
- Susan D. Franck, Challenges Facing Investment Disputes: Reconsidering Dispute Resolution in International Investment Agreements
- Hugo Perezcano Díaz, Transparency in International Dispute Settlement Proceedings on Trade and Investment
- Michael K. Tracton, Provisions in the New Generation of U.S. Investment Agreements to Achieve Transparency and Coherence in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
- Christoph Schreuer, Preliminary Rulings in Investment Arbitration
- Howard Mann, Transparency and Consistency in International Investment Law: Can the Problems Be Fixed by Tinkering?
- Katia Yannaca-Smal, Improving the System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The OECD Governments’ Perspective
- Barton Legum, Options to Establish an Appellate Mechanism for Investment Disputes
- Jan Paulsson, Is an Investment Dispute Appellate Mechanism Desirable?
- Asif H. Qureshi & Shandana Gulzar Khan, Implications of an Appellate Body for Investment Disputes from a Developing Country Point of View
- Christopher Brummer, Examining the Institutional Design of International Investment Law
- Christina Voigt, State Responsibility for Climate Change Damages
- Gauthier de Beco, Human Rights Indicators for Assessing State Compliance with International Human Rights
- Camilla G. Culdahl, The Role of Persistent Objection in International Humanitarian Law
- Javaid Rehman & Saptarshi Ghosh, International Law, US Foreign Policy and Post-9/11 Islamic Fundamentalism: The Legal Status of the 'War on Terror'
- Julia Werzer, The UN Human Rights Obligations and Immunity: An Oxymoron Casting a Shadow on the Transitional Administrations in Kosovo and East Timor
A comprehensive analysis into the lawfulness of state-sponsored targeted killings under international human rights and humanitarian law, this book examines treaties, custom and general principles of law to determine the normative paradigms which govern the intentional use of lethal force against selected individuals in law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities. It also addresses the relevance of the law of interstate force to targeted killings, and the interrelation of the various normative frameworks which may simultaneously apply to operations involving the use of lethal force.
Through a comprehensive analysis of treaties, custom and general principles of law in light of jurisprudence, doctrine and travaux preparatoires the author demonstrates that contemporary international law provides two distinct normative paradigms which govern targeted killings in situations of law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities. Based on the resulting normative paradigms, the author shows in what circumstances targeted killings may be considered as internationally lawful. The practical relevance of the various conditions and modalities are illustrated by reference to concrete examples of targeted killing from recent state practice.
The book argues that any targeted killing not directed against a legitimate military target remains subject to the law enforcement paradigm, which imposes extensive restraints on the practice. Even under the paradigm of hostilities, no person can be lawfully liquidated without further considerations. As a form of individualized or surgical warfare, the method of targeted killing requires a "microscopic" interpretation of the law regulating the conduct of hostilities which leads to nuanced results reflecting the fundamental principles underlying international humanitarian law.
The author concludes by highlighting and comparing the main areas of concern arising with regard to state-sponsored targeted killing under each normative paradigm and by placing the results of the analysis in the greater context of the rule of law.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Volume I of the International Criminal Law Practitioner Library series focuses on the law of individual criminal responsibility applied in international criminal law, providing a thorough review of the forms of criminal responsibility. The authors present a critical analysis of the elements of individual criminal responsibility as set out in the statutory instruments of the international and hybrid criminal courts and tribunals and their jurisprudence. All elements are discussed, demystifying and untangling some of the confusion in the jurisprudence and literature on the forms of responsibility. The jurisprudence of the ICTY and the ICTR is the main focus of the book. Every trial and appeal judgement, as well as relevant interlocutory jurisprudence, up to 1 December 2006, has been surveyed, as has the relevant jurisprudence of other tribunals and the provisions in the legal instruments of the ICC, making this a highly relevant and timely work.
The general narrative of international criminal law (ICL) declares that the system adheres in an exemplary manner to the fundamental principles of a liberal criminal justice system. These fundamental principles distinguish a liberal system of criminal justice from an authoritarian system. However, recent scholarship has increasingly questioned the adherence of various ICL doctrines to such principles.
The object of inquiry in this article is the discourse in ICL: the assumptions and forms of argumentation that are regarded as sound reasoning with appropriate liberal aims, and how these forms of reasoning in fact engender contradictions with the liberal values proclaimed by the system. This article argues that, in drawing (as it necessarily did) on national criminal law as well as international human rights and humanitarian law, ICL absorbed contradictory assumptions and methods of reasoning. These contradictions in reasoning lead to contradictions in doctrine and departures from the stated principles of the system.
The article explores three modes by which the assumptions of human rights liberalism subtly undermine the criminal law liberalism to which the system aspires. These modes include: interpretive approaches, substantive and structural conflation and ideological assumptions. The identity crisis theory helps explain how a liberal system of criminal justice - one that strives to serve as a model for liberal systems - has come to embrace illiberal doctrines.
The article argues that we need to critically examine not only what we think, but how we think, in order to advance ICL as a coherent discipline.
Addressing an increasingly important and greatly understudied phenomenon in international affairs, this groundbreaking volume analyzes the formation, actions, and efficacy of groups of states created to support UN peacemaking and peace operations. While these groups - Friends of the Secretary-General and related mechanisms - may represent just one small component of the United Nations’ increased involvement in conflict management, they have fast become a critical element in today’s system of global-security governance.
Bringing to the study a rare combination of both a scholarly eye and an insider’s perspective of the United Nations, Teresa Whitfield provides an overview of the types of groups and coalitions that have been actively engaged in issues of peace and security within the UN sphere and identifies five core factors for their success. She also offers case studies of El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Georgia, Western Sahara, and East Timor, illustrating in a comparative manner the utility and limitations of groups of Friends under widely different conditions. She ultimately arrives at conclusions and presents recommendations that will no doubt prove vital to policymakers when deciding whether to form a group of Friends or another more informal coalition. Indeed, the study provides compelling evidence for the impact - both positive and negative - that external political intervention can have on peace processes.
An original, important, and timely study, Friends Indeed? adds substantially to the literature on international conflict resolution and the role of international organizations in resolving crisis. Perhaps more significant, it greatly furthers understanding of how and in what circumstances the United Nations secretary-general and secretariat can work productively with groups of states in the resolution of conflict.
Since the end of the Cold War, European and East Asian states have enhanced a series of distinct regional and trans-boundary structures and agreements. The European Union has grown into a remarkable model of peaceful supranational cooperation, and countries in Southeast and Northeast Asia are gradually developing the ASEAN+3 process into an East Asian community. Through bilateral, multilateral and especially interregional relationships, both Europe and East Asia are now actively engaging with other regions and the global community.
This book examines the opportunity to sustain peace and prosperity through dynamic, multi-level governance in which individual states better engage in global processes and institutions via broad and hyperlinked regional regimes.
De Prado presents four case studies of political, advisory, economic and social multi-level governance centred in Europe and East Asia. These cases examine government actors advancing traditional agendas through formal regional institutions and flexible intergovernmental processes; Track-2 processes that link governments with economic and civil society actors; dynamic economic cooperation through the information and telecommunications sectors; and broader social advancement through regionally and globally educated human resources.
The author concludes that the convergence of European and East Asian political, economic and social agendas could spur the United States and other powers and regions to better engage in global multi-level governance, and reinvigorate multilateral organisations such as the United Nations through effective engagement with these dynamic regional and interregional regimes.
Hoffmann & van der Vleuten: Closing or Widening the Gap?: Legitimacy and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations
- Anna van der Vleuten & Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann, Legitimacy, democracy and RIOs: where is the gap?
- Berry Tholen, RIOs, legitimacy and democracy: A conceptual clarification
- Juliana Erthal, Discussing regional democracy
- Bob Reinalda, The question of input, control and output legitimacy in economic RIOs
- Andrés Malamud & Luís de Sousa, Regional parliaments in Europe and Latin America: between empowerment and irrelevance
- Marcelo A. Medeiros, Subnational state actors and their role in regional governance
- Michelle Ratton Sanchez, Is there any room for input and control legitimacy by civil society in Mercosur?
- Gerda van Roozendaal, The contribution of non-state actors to the legitimacy of the Caricom
- Anna van der Vleuten, Contrasting cases: explaining interventions by SADC and ASEAN
- Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann, Political conditionality and democratic clauses in the EU and Mercosur
- Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann & Anna van der Vleuten, Legitimacy and democracy in Regional Integration Organizations: closing or widening the gap?
Monday, May 5, 2008
Als Tagungsband zu der DIS-Vortragsveranstaltung am 19. April 2007 in Dresden zur Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen enthält diese Veröffentlichung die Beiträge der Redner zum Thema der Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen im Kontext der Europäischen Union. Insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der fortschreitenden Zusammenarbeit der EU-Mitgliedsstaaten auf dem Gebiet Justiz und Inneres ist die Vollstreckung von Gerichtsurteilen innerhalb der Europäischen Union in den letzten Jahren erheblich verbessert worden. Dies führt dazu, dass jedenfalls innerhalb der EU nicht mehr grundsätzlich von einer leichteren Vollstreckbarkeit von Schiedssprüchen gegenüber Gerichtsentscheidungen ausgegangen werden kann. Ob auch die Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen innerhalb der EU erleichtert werden kann, war daher eine der zentralen Frage der Veranstaltung und dieser Publikation. Die Beiträge befassen sich mit praktischen Fragen der Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen, insbesondere der Rechtsnatur der Vollstreckbarerklärung von Schiedssprüchen, der Vollstreckbarerklärung von Schiedssprüchen zu besonderen Zwecken, den Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen für das Vollstreckbarerklärungsverfahren im europäischen Vergleich und der Möglichkeiten der Erstreckung von Brüssel I auf Schiedsgerichtsverfahren und Perspektiven für eine einheitliche Vollstreckbarerklärung in allen EU-Staaten.
WTO Arbitrator's Decision: Japan - Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea
The dramatic declaration by U.S. President George W. Bush that, in light of the attacks on 9/11, the United States would henceforth be engaging in "preemption" against such enemies as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction forced a wide-open debate about justifiable uses of military force. Opponents saw the declaration as a direct challenge to the consensus, which has formed since the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations, that armed force may be used only in defense. Supporters responded that in an age of terrorism defense could only mean "preemption." This volume of all-new chapters provides the historical, legal, political, and philosophical perspective necessary to intelligent participation in the on-going debate, which is likely to last long beyond the war in Iraq. Thorough defenses and critiques of the Bush doctrine are provided by the most authoritative writers on the subject from both sides of the Atlantic.
Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? Does the possibility of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction force us to change our traditional views about what counts as defense? This book provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action. Its engaging debate, accompanied by an analytic Introduction, focuses probing criticism against the most persuasive proponents of preemptive attack or preventive war, who then respond to these challenges and modify or extend their justifications.
Authors of recent pivotal analyses, including historian Marc Trachtenberg, international relations professor Neta Crawford, law professor David Luban, and political philosopher Allen Buchanan, are confronted by other authoritative writers on the nature and justification of war more broadly, including historian Hew Strachan, international normative theorist Henry Shue, and philosophers David Rodin, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Suzanne Uniacke. The resulting lively and many-sided exchanges shed historical, legal, political, and philosophical light on a key policy question of our time. Going beyond the simple dichotomies of popular discussion the authors reflect on the nature of all warfare, the arguments for and against it, and the possibilities for the moral to constrain the military and the political in the face of grave threat.
- Symposium: Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda
- Benedict Kingsbury & J.H.H. Weiler, Studying the Armed Activities Decision
- Simone Halink, All Things Considered: How the International Court of Justice Delegated its Fact-Assessment to the United Nations in the Armed Activities Case
- Stephanie A. Barbour & Zoe A. Salzman, "The Tangled Web": The Right of Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors in the Armed Activities Case
- Andrej Lang, "Modus Operandi" and the ICJ's Appraisal of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement in the Armed Activities Case: The Role of Peace Agreements in International Conflict Resolution
- Robert Dufresne, Reflections and Extrapolation on the ICJ's Approach to Illegal Resource Exploitation in the Armed Activities Case
Development efforts will remain frustrated so long as corrupt leaders continue to steal their countries' wealth and dispose of these ill-gotten gains in foreign jurisdictions. The prevention of such looting, and the recovery of the stolen assets are thus critical development issues and a cornerstone of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003) (UNCAC). However, to date experience with asset recovery is limited, and a number of legal and other obstacles continue to impede progress.
This is the first comprehensive work on asset recovery, written by renowned practitioners and academics representing different legal systems and countries, all of whom have extensive experience in the asset recovery field. The authors notably discuss the 'success stories' of the past (the recovery of the assets of Sani Abacha, Ferdinand Marcos and Vladimiro Montesinos) and the concrete challenges for the future with regard to search, seizure, confiscation and repatriation of stolen assets. The book also provides perspectives on the role of technical assistance and donors in asset recovery and the likely impact of the UNCAC.
Barnidge: Non-State Actors and Terrorism: Applying the Law of State Responsibility and the Due Diligence Principle
In our post-11 September world, challenges to international peace and security emanate from non-State actors as never before. Under international law States have an obligation to act with due diligence in confronting non-State actors that engage in terrorism. The author of this book examines the grounds and mechanisms through which a State can bear responsibility for breaching its due diligence obligations in this regard. He explores the question whether a comprehensive definition of terrorism exists and reviews the development of the due diligence principle during the last century. After doing so, the author examines how the due diligence principle operates in the counter-terrorism context by analysing international and regional treaties and Security Council Resolutions. Theoretical issues that arise when interpreting the due diligence principle are also studied. The author concludes by critically engaging with the question whether national security should trump human rights in the fight against terrorism. This book fills a significant gap in the literature. It is principally designed for policy makers, academics, and students of international law.
- Symposium: Intelligence and Criminal Activities
- Steven W. Becker, Confronting the non-confrontational: Reassessing the use of criminal evidence obtained extraterritorially in an age of Global Law Enforcement and Intelligence cooperation
- Els De Busser, The architecture of data exchange
- Michael A. DeFeo, What international law controls exist or should exist on intelligence operations and their intersections with criminal justice systems?
- Davor Derencinovic & Anna-Maria Getos, Cooperation of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in prevention and suppression of terrorism - European perspective
- Michele Nino, The Abu Omar case in Italy and the effects of CIA extraordinary renditions in Europe on law enforcement and intelligence activities
- Alfredo Nunzi, Exchange of information and intelligence among law enforcement authorities: A European Union perspective
- Özlem Ulgen, The UK's New Serious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA): Combining intelligence and law enforcement
- Pipina Th. Katsaris, The domestic side of the ICTY completion strategy: Focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Satzger: Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht: Strafanwendungsrecht, Europäisches Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht, Völkerstrafrecht
Eine der größten Herausforderungen des modernen Strafrechts liegt in seiner Internationalisierung. Das Lehrbuch will durch eine übersichtliche und bewusst auf das Wesentliche beschränkte Darstellung der drei Kernbereiche Strafanwendungsrecht, Europäisches Strafrecht und Völkerstrafrecht den hieraus folgenden neuen Anforderungen in Lehre und Praxis gerecht werden. Die 2. Auflage bringt das Werk durchweg auf den neuesten Stand. Im Bereich des EU-Rechts sind die aktuellen Entwicklungen, insbesondere auch der Erlass zahlreicher wichtiger Rahmenbeschlüsse im Bereich der justitiellen Zusammenarbeit (z. B. Europäischer Haftbefehl) berücksichtigt. Den strafrechtlich relevanten Garantien der EMRK ist nunmehr in einem ausführlichen Kapitel deutlich mehr Platz eingeräumt. Die Darstellung des Völkerstrafrechts trägt u. a. neuen Urteilen der internationalen Strafgerichtshöfe sowie den ersten Entscheidungen des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs Rechnung.
- Ole Kristian Fauchald, International Investment Law and Environmental Protection
- Marcos A. Orellana, The Role of Science in Investment Arbitrations Concerning Public Health and the Environment
- Benjamin J. Richardson, Financing Sustainability: The New Transnational Governance of Socially Responsible Investment
- Lorenzo Cotula, Stabilization Clauses and the Evolution of Environmental Standards in Foreign Investment Contracts
- Kyla Tienhaara, Unilateral Commitments to Investment Protection: Does the Promise of Stability Restrict Environmental Policy Development?
- David M. Ong, The Contribution of State-Multinational Corporation 'Transnational' Investment Agreements to International Environmental Law
- Yuhong Zhao, Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Protection: A Review of the Legal Regime in China