- Focus Section: "Typisch deutsch . . .": Is there a German Approach to International Law?
- Thomas Giegerich & Andreas Zimmermann, Introduction
- Anthony Carty, The Evolution of International Legal Scholarship in Germany during the Kaiserreich and the Weimarer Republik (1871-1933)
- Michael Stolleis, Against Universalism: German International Law under the Swastika: Some Contributions to the History of Jurisprudence 1933-1945
- Knut Ipsen, International Legal Scholarship in West Germany after World War II
- Walter Poeggel, The Development of Teaching and Research in the Field of Public International Law at the Universities of the Former German Democratic Republic
- Theodor Schweisfurth, The Science of Public International Law in the German Democratic Republic
- Robert Kolb, German Legal Scholarship as reflected in Hague Academy Courses on Public International Law
- Stephan Hobe & Karsten Nowrot, Whither the Sovereign State?
- Stefan Kadelbach & Thomas Kleinlein, International Law: a Constitution for Mankind? An Attempt at a Re-appraisal with an Analysis of Constitutional Principles
- Matthias Herdegen & Thilo Rensmann, Is There a Specific German Approach to the Prohibition of the Use of Force?
- Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Taking International Law Seriously: The German Approach to International Law
- Eyal Benvenisti, The Conception of International Law as a Legal System
- Andrea Gattini, Post 1945 German International Law and State Responsibility
- Luzius Wildhaber, A Sensible and Serious Approach to International Law?
- Władysław Czapliński, The German Doctrine of International Law and Polish-German Relations (Past and Future)
- Lauri Hannikainen, Juridically Solid, Politically . . . What? Personal Reflections on the German Approach to International Law
- Fred L. Morrison, German Scholars in the Invisible College of International Lawyers
- Stefan Oeter, The Dismemberment of Yugoslavia: An Update on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro
- Alexander Szodruch, Necessity and Beyond. The Legal Aftermath of the Argentine Financial Crisis before the German Federal Constitutional Court
- Tobias Thienel, The Burden and Standard of Proof in the European Court of Human Rights
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
- Armin von Bogdandy, The European Union as Situation, Executive, and Promoter of the International Law of Cultural Diversity - Elements of a Beautiful Friendship
- Symposium: International Economic Law
- Moshe Hirsch, The Sociology of International Economic Law: Sociological Analysis of the Regulation of Regional Agreements in the World Trading System
- Ole Kristian Fauchald, The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals - An Empirical Analysis
- Panagiotis Delimatsis, Determining the Necessity of Domestic Regulations in Services: The Best is Yet to Come
- Charlotte Streck & Jolene Lin, Making Markets Work: A Review of CDM Performance and the Need for Reform
ICJ: Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)
The Court,Judge Ranjeva appended a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Parra-Aranguren appended a separate opinion; Judges Simma and Abraham appended a joint dissenting opinion; Judge Bennouna appended a declaration; Judge ad hoc Dugard appended a dissenting opinion; and Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao appended a separate opinion. These declarations, separate opinions, and dissenting opinions can be found here.
(1) By twelve votes to four, Finds that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Republic of Singapore;
(2) By fifteen votes to one, Finds that sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia;
(3) By fifteen votes to one, Finds that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Legal scholarship on foreign affairs frequently focuses on the Constitution's text and original meaning, but generally does not fully engage debates about originalism as a method of modern constitutional interpretation. For its part, much of the scholarship defending originalism as a methodology has said little explicitly about foreign affairs. This short article describes three contemporary normative arguments in favor of originalism - those advanced by Randy Barnett, Keith Whittington, and John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport - and then considers their application to foreign affairs. It concludes that these arguments are at best underdeveloped and at worst weak when it comes to many of constitutional issues that arise in the foreign affairs area. Originalists could clarify and strengthen their normative arguments if they focused greater attention on foreign affairs, particularly non-judicial constitutional interpretation, the relationship between executive and congressional power, and consequentialist problems that arise in this context. For foreign relations scholars, particularly those focused on history, this contribution is meant to encourage greater engagement with the methodology of contemporary constitutional interpretation.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
- Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (Treaty Doc. 110-7); and
- Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (Treaty Doc. 110-10).
John C. Rood (Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, Department of State) was the sole witness. The link is to his written statement.
- Duncan French, ‘From Seoul With Love’ - The Continuing Relevance of the 1986 Seoul ILA Declaration on Progressive Development of Principles of Public International Law Relating to A New International Economic Order
- Ebenezer Durojaye, Compulsory Licensing and Access to Medicines in Post Doha Era: What Hope for Africa?
- Anguel Anastassov, Can The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Be Implemented Before Entry Into Force?
- Anne Marie Whitesell, Independence in ICC Arbitration: ICC Court Practice concerning the Appointment, Confirmation, Challenge and Replacement of Arbitrators
- Ahmed S. El-Kosheri & Karim Y. Youssef, The Independence of International Arbitrators: An Arbitrator’s Perspective
- Louis Epstein, Arbitrator Independence and Bias: The View of a Corporate In-House Counsel
- Dominique Hascher, A Comparison between the Independence of State Justice and the Independence of Arbitration
- Lord Steyn, England: The Independence and/or Impartiality of Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration
- François Terré, Independence and Arbitrators
- Otto L.O. de Witt Wijnen, The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration Three Years On
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Fuß: Das Verantwortlichkeitsregime der nicht staatlichen Konfliktpartei für die Verletzung des humanitären Mindeststandards
Im Gegensatz zu früheren Auseinandersetzungen spielen sich bewaffnete Konflikte verstärkt innerhalb bestehender Staaten oder staatsähnlicher Gebilde ab. Diese vielfach lang andauernden Konflikte werden zumeist auf einem niedrigen waffentechnischen Niveau ausgetragen. Faktisch sind Zivilisten im gegenwärtigen Konfliktgeschehen oftmals ein strategisches Instrument der Konfliktaustragung. Anhand dieser Entwicklung stellt sich die Frage nach den völkerrechtlichen Konsequenzen solcher grausamen Vorgehensweisen. Aufällig ist insbesondere, dass nicht nur staatliche Stellen an diesen gegen die zumeist schutzlose Zivilbevölkerung gerichteten Verbrechen beteiligt sind, sondern in einem verstärkten Maße nicht staatliche Akteure. Welche rechtlichen Konsequenzen hat eine Verletzung des sogenannten humanitären Mindeststandards durch diese Konfliktparteien? Der Verfasser geht der Frage nach der völkerrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit der nicht staatlichen Konfliktpartei für Verletzungen des humanitären Mindeststandards in Form des Art. 3 der Genfer Abkommen nach. Das Buch beinhaltet damit die Schnittmenge zwischen den Rechtsmaterien der völkerrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit, dem humanitären Völkerrecht und dem Friedenssicherungsrecht.
- Nadine Wiedermann Ondrej, Tax Treatment of Revenue-Based Payments
- Martin J. Collins, Final Dual Consolidated Loss Regulations: The Dawning of the Separate Unit Combination Rule and Selected Other Items
- Marc J. Gerson & Rocco V Femia, Rangel Bill Proposes Sweeping Changes to Taxation of U.S.-Based Multinationals
This morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the following treaties:
- Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union (EU), together with 22 bilateral instruments that subsequently were signed between the United States and each EU Member State in order to implement the Agreement with the EU (Treaty Doc. 109-14);
- Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Latvia (Treaty Doc. 109-15);
- Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Estonia (Treaty Doc. 109-16);
- Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Malta (Treaty Doc. 109-17);
- Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Romania (Treaty Doc. 110-11);
- Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria (Treaty Doc. 110-12);
- Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden (Treaty Doc. 107-12);
- Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America and the European Union (EU), together with 25 bilateral instruments that subsequently were signed between the United States and each EU Member State in order to implement the Agreement with the EU (Treaty Doc. 109-13);
- Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States of America and Malaysia (Treaty Doc. 109-22);
- Treaty between the United States of America and Romania on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Doc. 110-11); and
- Agreement on Certain Aspects of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria (Treaty Doc. 110-12).
Witnesses included Susan Biniaz (Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State) and Bruce Swartz (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice). Links are to the witnesses' written statements.
The Conference, which is being organised under the auspices of the Centre for Legal Research, the research arm of Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK, will provide a unique opportunity to develop the body of knowledge relating to international law and armed conflict.
This symposium strives to bring together academics, practitioners, research students and others interested in this field. The aim is to review and examine the challenges facing international law relating to armed conflict and to identify gaps in knowledge, policy and practice. The symposium will provide an open forum where relevant issues and perspectives can be discussed and views candidly exchanged.
- Chris Griggs, A New Military Justice System for New Zealand Commander
- François van As, African Peacekeeping: Past Practices, Future Prospects and its Contribution to International Law
- Sten Verhoeven, Missed Opportunity to Clarify the Modern Ius ad Bellum: Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
- Arne Willy Dahl & Magnus Sandbu, The Threshold of Armed Conflict
- Jean Paul Pierini, The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Respect of Conduct of a Foreign State or an International Organization in the Territory of a Contracting State and the Extraterritorial Effect of Foreign Acts
The protection and promotion of human rights is an integral part of contemporary international peacekeeping operations. It is also a controversial aspect of peace operations at both an institutional and operational level. By bringing together a wide range of practitioners and academic scholars, this special issue addresses key contemporary legal, political and operational challenges to human rights protection.
Environmental rights are diagonal if they are held by individuals or groups against the governments of states other than their own. The potential importance of such rights is obvious: governments' actions often affect the environment beyond their jurisdiction, and those who live in and rely upon the environment affected would like to be able to exercise rights against the governments causing them harm. Although international law has not adopted a comprehensive, uniform approach to such rights, human rights law and international environmental law have begun to develop some possible bases for diagonal environmental rights.
Human rights law operates primarily along a vertical axis, setting out individuals' rights against their governments and the corresponding duties owed by the governments, but it may also be diagonal, giving rise to duties on the part of states that extend beyond their own territory. The scope and extent of diagonal human rights are often controversial, and environmental rights face additional difficulties, because the environmental protection required by human rights is clarifying only gradually, on a case-by-case basis. To the extent that human rights require such protection when aligned vertically, it would be logical to conclude that they require the same degree of protection whenever they may be aligned diagonally. Human rights law provides few precedents to support that conclusion, however.
Compared to human rights law, international environmental law (IEL) provides a clearer and more specific set of duties with respect to environmental protection. Moreover, most IEL is extraterritorial, in that it requires states to regulate actions within their control that could harm the environment beyond their territory. The problem with grounding diagonal environmental rights in IEL is that, in contrast to human rights law, most IEL operates along a horizontal axis: its duties are owed by states to other states, not to private actors. If the challenge for human rights law is to extend rights from the vertical axis to the diagonal, the challenge for IEL is to derive diagonal rights from horizontal ones.
Marten Zwanenburg (Ministry of Defense, The Netherlands) will give a talk today at the Hague Initiative on Law and Armed Conflict Lecture Series on "Occupation under International Humanitarian Law."
Monday, May 19, 2008
- George P. Politakis, From Tankers to Trawlers: The International Labour Organization's New Work in Fishing Convention
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, Reflections on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Genetic Resources in the Deep Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction
- Yann-Huei Song, The Potential Marine Pollution Threat from Oil and Gas Development Activities in the Disputed South China Sea/Spratly Area: A Role that Taiwan Can Play
- Mark J. Kaiser, A Review of Ship Breaking and Rig Scrapping in the Gulf of Mexico
- Peter H. Dutton & Dale Squires, Reconciling Biodiversity with Fishing: A Holistic Strategy for Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery
- Ron Macnab, Submarine Elevations and Ridges: Wild Cards in the Poker Game of UNCLOS Article 76
Call for Papers: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights through International Investment Agreements - Only a Romance or True Love?
We hereby announced a forthcoming TDM special issue on "The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights through International Investment Agreements". This special issue will analyse the level of protection granted by International Investment Agreements (IIAs) in regard to Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).
IPRs are today recognized as one of the most valuable assets within the international economy. Due to their intangible nature, they require worldwide protection against illegal copying or other forms of unjust exploitation. IPR-holders regularly complain that foreign governments refuse adequately to protect their rights or themselves engage in infringement. Such infringements might appear as acts, e.g., through the granting of compulsory licenses, or as omissions, e.g. in the form of denial of justice against infringements by private parties.
IIAs provide foreign investors with protection against certain forms of interference with investments by the host state. Many IIAs explicitly mention IPRs as one form of protected investment. Unlike other IPR-related international treaties, IIAs typically grant the investor the right to have an alleged breach of the treaty adjudicated through investor-state-arbitration. During the last decade, the number of investor-state-arbitrations has skyrocketed and reshaped the landscape of international investment law.
However, the protection of IPRs through IIAs remains relatively unexplored territory: cases are few and commentaries limited. This special issue of TDM will shed light on the interaction between IPR law and international investment law.
Possible topics might include:
- An introduction to IPRs and the political risks associated with them
- The international law framework for protection of IPRs, e.g., TRIPS and the WIPO conventions
- A survey of the coverage of IPRs as protected "investments" in IIAs
- Protection of IPRs in the context of Free Trade Agreements versus in Bilateral Investment Treaties
- What do the concepts of "national treatment" and "non-discrimination" mean in the context of protection of IPR?
- Indirect expropriation of IPRs: compulsory licenses and revocations of patents
- Denial of justice through a lack of enforcement of national IPR laws?
- Is investor-state arbitration an effective way to protect IPRs?
- Impact of offering IPR protection on foreign direct investment flows
- Public welfare exceptions in IIAs: How could these impact on controversial issues like GMOs and access to HIV drugs?
- Are IPR-related protections in BITs undermining the level playing field offered by TRIPS, the WIPO conventions and other multilateral IPR treaties?
- Remedies available under IIAs for breach of IPRs.
We hereby invite all those with an interest in the subject to contribute articles or notes on one of the above topics or any other relevant issue. Publication is expected in the fourth quarter of 2008. Proposals for papers should be submitted to the editors - James Hosking (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Markus Perkams (email@example.com), of Clifford Chance New York and Frankfurt, respectively.
Academic literature within law and elsewhere is replete with works addressing various aspects of globalisation, and within this literature there are copious attempts of taking one theoretical perspective or another on the subject matter treated. Nevertheless, there is a recognised paucity of theoretical underpinning for the development of law as an academic discipline into the broader territory that current global trends now present, and this lack is recognised even among those whose own work is at the forefront of theoretical inquiry in the area. Part of the explanation for this state of affairs is that in confronting the novel extensions to the concerns of academic law, new perspectives have been borrowed from other disciplines rather than working through the consequences for a distinctively legal approach (no matter how much resonance with other disciplines such an approach might ultimately enjoy). Another contributory factor is that the explosion of new types of legal phenomena in the global arena has multiplied issues to address faster than any developing theory can keep up with them. And a related factor is that where theory has succeeded in developing to a significant extent it has tended to be confined to dealing with a particular aspect of the subject matter or to expounding a particular theoretical perspective, without fully addressing the implications for or from other aspects, nor fully engaging with other perspectives.
The rationale for the conference lies in seeking to bring together a number of disparate and often inchoate concerns about theorising law in the global context – concerns that may focus on constitutionalist frameworks or on culturalist forces, that may be inspired by traditional insights of the peculiarly institutional nature of law or be captivated by the potential for law to be transformed by extra-legal impulses – and by providing a venue for debate, engagement, and exploration of ideas, to broaden the understanding of academic lawyers of the issues and openings for further work in what amounts to a critical area of legal research and scholarship.
WTO Compliance Panel Report: European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (U.S. Recourse to DSU Article 21.5)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
- Michael C. Davis, Establishing a Workable Autonomy in Tibet
- Benjamin Mason Meier & Ashley M. Fox, Development as Health: Employing the Collective Right to Development to Achieve the Goals of the Individual Right to Health
- Tom Farer, Un-Just War Against Terrorism and the Struggle to Appropriate Human Rights
- Phuong N. Pham, Patrick Vinck, & Eric Stover, The Lord's Resistance Army and Forced Conscription in Northern Uganda
- Patrice C. McMahon & David P. Forsythe, The ICTY's Impact on Serbia: Judicial Romanticism Meets Network Politics
- Suzannah Linton, ASEAN States, Their Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Proposed ASEAN Commission on Women and Children
- Frédéric Mégret, The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities or Disability Rights?
- Gail Lugten & Neil Andrew, Maximum Sustainable Yield of Marine Capture Fisheries in Developing Archipelagic States - Balancing Law, Science, Politics and Practice
- Gao Jianjun, Joint Development in the East China Sea: Not an Easier Challenge than Delimitation
- Charles Claypoole, Access to International Justice: A Review of the Trust Funds Available for Law of the Sea-Related Disputes
- Rachel Baird, Australia's Response to Illegal Foreign Fishing: A Case of Winning the Battle but Losing the Law?