Arbitration is a creature of contract. It is a mode of dispute resolution which is only available to parties who have agreed to resort to it. Yet, it is widely perceived as the most suitable and the dominant method for the settlement of international commercial disputes. Why is it, then, that parties must opt in for a solution which appears as the most natural one in the community? The Article explores whether arbitration could become a default solution and thus lose its contractual foundation. The core of the Article discusses the numerous objections that such a proposition raises. Most importantly, I argue that the legitimacy of arbitrators would not be significantly lower than the legitimacy of courts, and that recent developments in specialized fields of international arbitration have shown that arbitrators can serve the public functions of courts. At the end of the Article, a model of non-consensual arbitration is proposed.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Aujourd'hui, les organisations internationales sont amenées à s'engagées dans de nombreux conflits à travers le monde. Dans des situations toujours plus complexes, la préservation des droits de l'individu et le respect des cultures et des traditions locales constituent un véritable défi. Véronique Zanetti mène dans cet ouvrage une réflexion éthique et philosophique approfondie sur les droits de l'homme à l'échelle internationale et sur le droit d'intervention humanitaire. Elle explore notamment les conditions dans lesquelles une aide humanitaire ou une intervention armée se justifient; elle aborde les notions d'Etat mondial, de légitime défense et de justice distributive globale et montre que l'inégalité criante dans le partage des richesses ne fait que renforcer l'instabilité dans les pays émergents.
En confrontant les différentes approches existantes et en évitant les écueils de l'idéalisme, ou d'un moralisme outrancier, l'auteur démontre que les institutions internationales, les Etats et les individus partagent les responsabilités dans un monde qui n'est pas encore doté des moyens d'assurer une paix durable à ses citoyens.
This volume focuses, comparatively and dynamically, on the reception of the ECHR regime within the national legal orders of the Member States of the Council of Europe. The definition of "legal order" used is expansive, including the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and any public authority established through constitutional and public law that produces or applies legal norms. The central inquiry of the book is how, through what mechanisms, and to what extent, the national legal orders of the Member States are coordinated with, adapted to, or adjusted by the ECHR - emphasizing both the cooperative and conflictive aspects of reception.
The book brings together a series of structured-focused comparisons: each chapter undertaking a comparative case study which collects and analyzes basic data on the reception of the ECHR within national legal orders. These structured-focused comparisons, whose purpose is not so much to test theory, but to develop appropriate theoretical concepts and to generate hypotheses, work on the assumption that comparing two, relatively like cases offer a better opportunity to build more general theoretical frameworks.
Through an examination of a set of general questions about how national decision-makers - governments, legislators, and judges - have reacted to the evolution of European human rights law, the chapters enquire how various actors within national legal orders could take decisions to either hinder or to enhance the status of the ECHR. What interests or values, individual or corporate, are judges maximizing? How has this affected the evolution of the ECHR? How do national constitutions take into account treaty law (or international law generally)? Do separation of powers doctrines (or other explicit provisions of public law) permit or prohibit the judicial review of the legal validity of legislative and executive acts with reference to "higher" norms? To what extent should the federal or unitary nature of a Member State make a difference to reception? That is, should we expect the territorial distribution of powers and competences - judicial, legislative, administrative - to have an effect on the status or effectiveness of the ECHR, and if so, how?
International law seems to both require and fear institutional autonomy. The twentieth century’s “move to institutions” is often described in terms of the pursuit of an international rule of law to contain the seemingly uncontainable excesses of state sovereignty. Yet, particularly recently, the rule of law appears threatened by overly–autonomous, largely unaccountable global institutions. Whilst this paradox seems to be well recounted in the literature, particularly in terms of international institutional law, and within particular institutional contexts (e.g. EU or international trade law), the issues tend to be narrowly–focused. Either there has been an “internal” focus on particular institutions – e.g. the EU’s authority over its members, the centralisation of WTO Dispute Settlement, etc. – or a largely “external” perspective on organizations as autonomous (and thus “one–dimensional”) actors in international law, such as in relation to their exercise of sovereign powers.
This research project aims to engage with the idea of international organisations as autonomous entities, both in terms of control and influence over their membership and as independent actors in the international system. It attempts to bridge some of these gaps by considering the idea of autonomy in international governance in historical and theoretical context; by examining how particular themes of institutional law cannot be considered in isolation from this broader context; and how the independence of particular institutions within the international system may affect their internal influence over their membership; or, vice versa, how a particular member–institution relationship may shape and limit the institution’s authority and independence as an autonomous actor in international politics.
Symposium: The Normalizing of Adjudication in Complex International Governance Regimes: Patterns, Possibilities, and Problems
Thursday, October 23, 2008
This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of peace agreements from a legal perspective. It describes and evaluates the development of contemporary peace processes and the peace agreements that emerge. The book sets out what is in essence an anatomy of peace agreement practice and interrogates its relationship to law.
At its heart the book grapples with the role of law in ending violent conflict and the broader questions this raises for the relationship of law to social change. Law potentially plays two key roles with respect to peace agreements: first, to the extent that peace agreements themselves form legal documents, law plays a role in the 'enforcement' or implementation of the peace agreement; second, international law has a relationship to peace agreement negotiation and content, in its regulatory guise. International Law regulates self-determination, transitional justice, and the role of third parties. The book documents and analyses these two roles of law.
In doing so, the book reveals a complex dynamic relationship between the peace agreement as a legal document and the role of international law in which international law and concepts of domestic constitutionalism are being re-shaped. The practice of negotiating peace agreements is argued to be producing a new law of the peacemaker-or lex pacificatoria that connects developments in international law with new forms of domestic constitutional law in a set of hybrid relationships. This law of the peacemaker potentially forms part of a broader 'law of peace' that moves beyond the traditional concept of law of peace as merely 'the rest of international law' once the laws of war are subtracted.
The new lex pacificatoria stands as an account of the way in which international law shapes and is shaped by peace agreements. The book proposes an ambivalent response to 'this new law' which connects to contemporary debates about the force of international law and its appropriate relationship with domestic constitutonalism.
Nils Melzer (International Committee of the Red Cross) will give a talk today at the LSE International Humanitarian Law Project Public Lecture Series on "The ICRC's Clarification Process on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under IHL."
Judith Resnik (Yale Univ. - Law) will give a talk today at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Constitutional Roundtable on "Ratifying Kyoto at the Local Level: Sovereigntism, Federalism, and Translocal Organizations of Government Actors."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Les ONG, personnes morales de droit privé, sont aujourd’hui considérées comme des actrices expérimentées de la vie internationale. Le fil directeur de la réflexion n’a pas été recherché dans leur volonté de concilier leur enveloppe nationale avec leur réalité internationale. C’est plutôt en observant la gravité des raisons qui poussent les ONG à souhaiter accéder aux juridictions internationales que l’importance de l’enjeu s’est dévoilée. Les ONG poursuivent, en effet, des objectifs aussi divers qu’essentiels : la protection juridique des personnes les plus démunies, l’aide apportée au juge dans la résolution du litige, la protection de l’environnement . . .
N’ayant que rarement la qualité de parties à un litige international, elles ne renoncent pas pour autant et tentent de s’approprier d’autres types d’accès leur offrant la possibilité d’être entendus par les juges internationaux. L’étude de ces diverses adaptations, souvent insatisfaisantes, a alors fait émerger une dualité des modes d’accès : l’invitation des ONG au procès international ou l’attribution de la qualité de partie. L’observation de cette dualité a alors imposé la proposition de différents types d’actions qui, adaptées aux spécificités et aux buts des ONG, leur offriraient une ébauche de légitimité procédurale devant les juridictions internationales.
Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Univ. - Law) will give a talk today at the New York University School of Law Hauser Globalization Colloquium on Global Governance and Legal Theory on "Law for States: International Law, Constitutional Law, Public Law" (paper co-authored with Daryl Levinson).
David M. Ong (Univ. of Essex - Law) will give a talk today at the University of Nottingham School of Law-International Law Association (British Branch) Regional Seminar Series on "From International to Transnational (Environmental) Law?"
Robert Wai (York Univ. - Osgoode Hall Law) will give a talk today at the International Law Association (British Branch)-University College London Faculty of Laws International Law Seminar on "The Idea of Transnational Private Law."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
- Marco Roscini, Something Old, Something New: The 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia
- Cedric Ryngaert, Extraterritorial Export Controls (Secondary Boycotts)
- Cai Congyan, International Investment Treaties and the Formation, Application and Transformation of Customary International Law Rules
- Ling Yan, Comments on the Chinese Space Regulations
Drawing on a classic essay by Hans Kelsen, this Article addresses the status of indigenous peoples in international law. It argues that the criteria for determining the legal existence of indigenous peoples in international law are a function of the nature and purpose of international indigenous rights. The twentieth century legal history of international indigenous rights, from their origins in international protection of indigenous workers in colonies to their contemporary expression in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, demonstrates that their purpose is to mitigate injustices produced by how the international legal order treats sovereignty as a legal entitlement that it distributes among collectivities it recognizes as states. The criteria by which indigenous peoples can be said to exist in international law relate to their historic exclusion from the distribution of sovereignty initiated by colonization that lies at the heart of the international legal order.
- Georg Cavallar, Vitoria, Grotius, Pufendorf, Wolff and Vattel: Accomplices of European Colonialism and Exploitation or True Cosmopolitans?
- Sang Wook Daniel Han, The Dispute over the Legal Status of Gando. A Reflection of Distorted Development of International Law in Northeast Asia
- Andrea Weindl, The Asiento de Negros and International Law
- Ebrahim Afsah, Contested Universalities of International Law. Islam's Struggle with Modernity
- W.E. Butler, On the Fiftieth Anniversary of Grabar's History of International Law in Russia
This paper examines the impact of international law on the ability of states to mitigate the effects of financial crises. It focuses on the invocation of investment treaty disciplines in the aftermath of the 2001-2 Argentine financial crisis and the adjudication of Argentina’s defence of a state of necessity, under both subject treaties and at customary international law. The paper uncovers three interpretative methods in the jurisprudence on the relationship between the treaty exception and customary plea of necessity: methodologies I (confluence), II (lex specialis) and III (primary-secondary applications). Method I is the dominant approach in the jurisprudence and the most restrictive of the three readings. The paper argues that method I is mistaken both on a careful interpretation of the two legal standards and on a broader historical analysis of the emergence of investment treaty norms. Given these substantive flaws, the paper isolates the motivations to account for the popularity of this method through a close reading of the awards. These reveal continuing tensions in the field, not least the problematic suggestion that a single value of protection should exclusively inform our understanding of the purpose of investment treaties. These sociological features of investor-state arbitration should, it is suggested, inform our choice on other interpretative methods. This comes down to an election between methods II (lex specialis) and III (primary-secondary applications). Method III is the most convincing and coherent reading of the relationship between the two legal standards. The paper concludes by offering a framework to address the key interpretative questions implicated in that method: (i) the identification and scope of the notion of “public order” and a state’s “essential security interests”; and (ii) the appropriate test of “necessity” or means-end scrutiny.
- Michael N. Schmitt, "Change Direction” 2006: Israeli Operations in Lebanon and the International Law of Self-Defense
- Robert L. Howse & Jared M. Genser, Are EU Trade Sanctions on Burma Compatible with WTO Law?
- James D. Fry, Dionysian Disarmament: Security Council WMD Coercive Disarmament Measures and Their Legal Implications
Monday, October 20, 2008
- James C. Hathaway, The Human Rights Quagmire of "Human Trafficking"
- Roger P. Alford, The Nobel Effect: Nobel Peace Prize Laureates as International Norm Entrepreneurs
- Diane M. Ring, What's at Stake in the Sovereignty Debate?: International Tax and the Nation-State
- Daniel Abebe, Not Just Doctrine: The True Motivation for Federal Incorporation and International Human Rights Litigation
- Ruti Teitel, Militating Democracy: Comparative Constitutional Perspectives
- Tullio Treves, European Community and the European Union and the Law of the Sea: Recent Developments
- Guiguo Wang, Globalising the Rule of Law
- Amit Singh, International Legal Aspects of Eco-Labelling in the Context of North-South Division on International Trade Rules
- Panayotis M. Protopsaltis, The Application of the Doctrine of forum non conveniens in the Anglo-American Case Law: Could Fears of Relocation of MNEs Entities Matter?
- Aftab Alam, Extradition and Human Rights
- Anwar Sadat, Some Legal Aspects of the Bali Summit on Climate Change
Roberto Gargarella (Universidad de Buenos Aires) will give a talk today at the University of Texas School of Law Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice Human Rights Speaker Series on "Human Rights, International Courts and Deliberative Democracy."
Sunday, October 19, 2008
- Guy Goodwin-Gill, International Law Association (Australian Branch) Annual General Meeting Address
- Ann Kent, Compliance v Cooperation: China and International Law
- Donald Keever, The Regulatory Coherence of Multilateral Regulation
- Jo En Low, Engaging with the United Nations Treaty Bodies: A Fruitful Dialogue?
- Allison Corkery, The Contribution of the UNHCR Executive Committee to the Development of International Refugee Law
- Meryll Dean, Implementing Treaty Obligations to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings: The Japanese Law Reforms of 2005
- Angus Francis, Examining the Role of Legislators in the Protection of Refugee Rights: Toward a Better Understanding of Australia's Interaction with International Law
- Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto & James Duncan Stratford, Gaming for 'Good Governance' and the Democratic Ideal: From Universalist Rhetoric to Pacific Realities Seen through a Fijian Microscope
- Tristan Garcia, Amnesties and the Rome Statute: A Legitimate Bar to Prosecution?
- Noel Cox, The Continuing Question of Sovereignty and the Sovereign Military Order of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta
- Paul Harpur, Regulating Multi-national Corporations through State-based Laws: Problems with Enforcing Human Rights Torts under the US Alien Tort Statute