- Olivier Delgrange, Beendigung einer vertraglichen Beziehung mit einem französischen Geschäftspartner
- Gerald Mäsch, Wilhelm Busch und die Holzkohlebriketts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
- Gordon Blanke, Whether arbitrators can be called as witnesses: the position under English Law
- Michael Cover & Emanuala Lecchi, Mediating Competition Law Cases
- Peter Gillies & Niloufer Selvadurai, Reasoned awards: how extensive must the reasoning be?
- Christopher Mainwaring-Taylor & Jeffrey Sullivan, Litigating in the shadow of the New York Convention
- Jonathan Woods, Protection against adverse costs awards in international arbitration
- Michael McHugh, Expert determination
- Gregor Van der Burght, Mediation in the Balkans
- Shahid Jamil, Pakistan’s implementation of the New York Convention
The Bretton Woods Institutions are, together with the WTO, the preeminent international institutions devoted to managing international economic relations. This mandate puts them squarely in the center of the debate concerning development, inequality and global justice. While the normative analysis of the WTO is gaining momentum, the systematic normative evaluation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is comparatively less developed. This essay aims to contribute to that nascent inquiry. How might global justice criteria apply to the ideology and operations of the Bank and Fund? Political theory offers an abundance of perspectives from which to conduct such an analysis; this essay will focus on Rawls' theory of Justice as Fairness adapted to international institutions by the author in connection with the WTO, and extend it to the remaining "legs" of the Bretton Woods "stool." This essay will ask what difference it would make for the Bank and Fund if an explicit global justice framework informed their international lending activities.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Increasing international investment has encouraged the rapid development of a new field of international law to define the obligations between host States and foreign investors and to create procedures to resolve related investment disputes. In recent years, there has been widespread recourse to arbitration between investors and host States as a means of resolving these disputes. These investor-State disputes often involve significant amounts of capital and raise challenging legal issues, while implicating shifting objectives at the juncture of public and private national and international law. Even while the network of investment agreements continues to expand and the number of investor-State arbitrations increases, there has been an emerging call to take stock and re-evaluate the current system, with several countries moving to denounce their obligations to participate in investor-State arbitration for some or all categories of disputes. This symposium will examine the investor-State arbitration system – with the challenge to panelists to discuss its strengths and weaknesses, both in terms of systemic and practice-related issues, and to identify where potential improvements may be made or areas that need further study.
On 6 June 2008, Trial Chamber I denied the Prosecution’s request to transfer the case of Gaspard Kanyarukiga to Rwanda. Born in 1945, he was a businessman in the Kigali and Kibuye prefectures in 1994.
The Chamber found that the Republic of Rwanda has made notable progress in improving its judicial system. Its legal framework contains satisfactory provisions concerning jurisdiction and criminalises Kanyarukiga’s alleged conduct. The death penalty has been abolished.
However, the Chamber was not satisfied that Kanyarukiga will receive a fair trial if transferred. First, it was concerned that he will not be able to call witnesses residing outside Rwanda to the extent and in a manner which will ensure a fair trial. Second, it accepted that the Defence will face problems in obtaining witnesses residing in Rwanda because they will be afraid to testify. Third, there is a risk that Kanyarukiga, if convicted to life imprisonment there, may risk solitary confinement due to unclear legal provisions in Rwanda.
The Trial Chamber was composed of Judges Erik Møse, presiding, Sergei Alekseevich Egorov and Florence Rita Arrey. In addition to submissions by the Prosecution and the Defence it considered briefs from the Republic of Rwanda, the Kigali Bar Association, Human Rights Watch and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, which had been given amicus curiae status.
Gaspard Kanyarukiga was arrested in South-Africa in July 2004. On the basis of acts allegedly committed in 1994 in Kivumu commune, Kibuye prefecture, the indictment charges him with genocide, or in the alternative complicity in genocide, and extermination as a crime against humanity. Kanyarukiga has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
UPDATE: Bellinger's written statement is here.
Lowe, et al.: The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945
This is the first major exploration of the United Nations Security Council's part in addressing the problem of war, both civil and international, since 1945. Both during and after the Cold War the Council has acted in a limited and selective manner, and its work has sometimes resulted in failure. It has not been - and was never equipped to be - the centre of a comprehensive system of collective security. However, it remains the body charged with primary responsibility for international peace and security. It offers unique opportunities for international consultation and military collaboration, and for developing legal and normative frameworks. It has played a part in the reduction in the incidence of international war in the period since1945.
This study examines the extent to which the work of the UN Security Council, as it has evolved, has or has not replaced older systems of power politics and practices regarding the use of force. Its starting point is the failure to implement the UN Charter scheme of having combat forces under direct UN command. Instead, the Council has advanced the use of international peacekeeping forces; it has authorized coalitions of states to take military action; and it has developed some unanticipated roles such as the establishment of post-conflict transitional administrations, international criminal tribunals, and anti-terrorism committees.
The book, bringing together distinguished scholars and practitioners, draws on the methods of the lawyer, the historian, the student of international relations, and the practitioner. It begins with an introductory overview of the Council's evolving roles and responsibilities. It then discusses specific thematic issues, and through a wide range of case studies examines the scope and limitations of the Council's involvement in war. It offers frank accounts of how belligerents viewed the UN, and how the Council acted and sometimes failed to act. The appendices provide comprehensive information - much of it not previously brought together in this form - of the extraordinary range of the Council's activities.
Monday, June 9, 2008
- Sonia Tascn & Jim Ife, Human Rights and Critical Whiteness: Whose Humanity?
- Christos Kassimeris & Lina Tsoumpanou, The Impact of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on Turkey's EU Candidacy
- Nayeefa Chowdhury, The Quest for Universal Human Rights: A Brief Comparative Study of Universal Declarations of Human Rights by the UN and the Islamic Council of Europe
- Ridvan Peshkopia & Arben Imami, Between Elite Compliance and State Socialisation: The Abolition of the Death Penalty in Eastern Europe
- Cenap Cakmak, Transnational Activism in World Politics and Effectiveness of a Loosely Organised Principled Global Network: The Case of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court
- James Pattison, Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who Should Intervene?
- Costas Paraskeva, Returning the Protection of Human Rights to Where They Belong, At Home
- Elizabeth Mottershaw, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Armed Conflict: International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law
- Stephanie Carvin, In Times of War the Law is not so Silent
- Talal Al-Emadi, Qatar Arbitration Law: Some Central Issues
- Paul Hobeck, Volker Mahnken, & Max Koebke, Time for Woolf Reforms in International Construction Arbitration
- Kyriaki Noussia, Reinsurance Arbitrations in New South Wales: Where Next?
- David Foster, C v D—The English Court of Appeal Upholds an Anti-Suit Injunction in Support of Arbitration Proceedings
Sunday, June 8, 2008
For the world at large, the rule of law is a law of rules. Most states understand international law in this way. When the United States seemingly departs from those rules, the world criticizes us. Cynics say that we are just another superpower that does not want to be bound by rules. Might the explanation lie elsewhere: not in cynicism, but in different conceptions of law and of its application? When Americans look at international law, they look at it from a common law perspective. When American courts apply international law to facts, they do so as common law courts. Might this explain why Americans sometimes come to different conclusions about what international law requires than do their foreign counterparts?
Papers are to be presented on January 9, 2009 at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego, and are to be published in a special volume of IUS GENTIUM, a scholarly series published by Springer, one of the world's largest academic publishers, and available on WestLaw and Lexis.
PAPER SUBMISSION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE: No later than August 15, 2008 interested speakers should submit proposals by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. They may submit either a three-to-five page summary or a draft paper. Draft papers, unless the submitter requests otherwise, will also be considered by the editors of IUS GENTIUM for publication in the volume mentioned above.
Members of the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law will select two or more presenters from among the responses to this Call for Papers. The Committee encourages junior scholars and scholars of diverse backgrounds from the United States and from foreign countries to submit proposals. The Section may have available limited funds to support one foreign scholar to travel to the United States to speak at the program.
For further information contact:
James R. Maxeiner, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director, Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, 1420 N. Charles St., Baltimore MD 21201