Die Autorin untersucht die völkerrechtliche Umsetzung der Überzeugung der Staatengemeinschaft, dass Grundlage der kollektiven Sicherheit das Vertrauen auf die friedensbringende Kraft von Recht und Gerechtigkeit ist, die in der Gründung des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes seine konsequente Ausbildung erfährt. Dabei liegt ein Schwerpunkt der Arbeit in der Gegenüberstellung der weitreichenden Befugnisse des Exekutivorgans Sicherheitsrat der United Nations – des Systems Kollektiver Sicherheit heutiger Zeit – und der Unabhängigkeit des Strafgerichtshofes. Die Spannung zwischen beiden Institutionen, die sich aus dem Einfluss der Politik auf die Arbeit des Rechts ergibt, muss im Sinne der komplementären Ziele zwischen Frieden und Gerechtigkeit beider aufgelöst werden. Dies ist im Rom-Statut berücksichtigt worden. So liegt der Schwerpunkt der Arbeit auf den Art. 13 und 16 des Rom-Statuts und in den möglichen Einflüssen auf den Aggressionstatbestand, die analysiert und in den Kontext ihrer jeweiligen kurz- und langfristigen Ziele gesetzt werden.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
In recent years, the treaties and strategies promoting global investment have changed dramatically. The widespread liberalization of economic policy has effectively spurred an increase in foreign direct investment (FDI). By encouraging foreign investors to enter international markets, many countries are witnessing exponential growth within their economies and local industries. The surge of FDI not only brings capital for emerging or growing industries, but it is also capable of boosting the country's economy by creating greater access to financing, more job opportunities, and potential knowledge and technology spillovers. The basic purpose of concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and double taxation treaties (DTTs) is to signal to investors that investments will be legally protected under international law in case of political turmoil and to mitigate the possibility of double taxation of foreign entities. But the actual effect of BITs and DTTs on the flows of foreign direct investment is debatable. The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties, and Investment Flows is a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these treaties, and presents the most recent literature on BITs and DTTs and their impact on foreign investments.
- Mutaz Qafisheh, Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel. Palestinian Nationality during the Period 1917-1925
- Michelle Burgis, Faith in the State? Traditions of Territoriality, International Law and the Emergence of Modern Arab Statehood
- Brian Farrell, Habeas Corpus and the Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Toyoda Tetsuya, La doctrine vattelienne de l'égalité souveraine dans le contexte neuchâtelois
- Amnon Altman, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law. (4) The Near East in the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200 BCE)
Given the rise of globalization and the need for international governance of common problems, the delegation of binding domestic authority to international agents is likely to be an issue of growing importance. This essay considers the extent to which U.S. law imposes constraints on such delegations and the extent to which those constraints will influence the nature and structure of the international delegations themselves. It begins by showing that international delegations of domestic authority raise even more profound problems of agency costs and democratic deficit than purely domestic delegations. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Medellin v. Texas reflects these concerns. By rejecting the domestic effect of a decision of the International Court of Justice, in the absence of a clear statement in U.S. law that it should be given such effect, the Supreme Court raised the enactment costs of domestic delegations, assuring greater deliberation by the political branches prior to making such delegations. Because the Court did not find such a clear statement in the treaties at issue in Medellin, it left unaddressed the question of any other constitutional constraints on international exercises of domestic authority. The Essay considers the implications of four models-the administrative law model, the categorical constraint model, the categorical permission model, and the treaty model-for the policing of international delegations domestically and the improvement of such delegations internationally. It suggests that the treaty model-one by which the President and the Senate must authorize such delegations by treaty-may best reflect the original meaning of the Constitution. The Treaty Clause's requirement that such delegations be approved by a super majority ex ante may also help address their ex post agency costs and democratic deficit. That model is also compatible with the clear statement requirements of the administrative law model reflected in Medellin.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Lawson & Sloane: The Constitutionality of Decolonization: Puerto Rico's Domestic and International Legal Status
International law and constitutional law collide in the present relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. As a matter of international law, it is unclear that the current relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico in fact conforms to customary international law on decolonization, human rights, and self-determination, as well as explicit U.S. treaty obligations; and as a matter of domestic law, it is unclear that the Constitution permits an arrangement between Puerto Rico and the United States - short of separation (independence) or integration (statehood) - that could conform to these norms of contemporary international law. In particular, where, as in Puerto Rico, decolonization takes the form of associated statehood, the Appointments Clause and the Constitution's voting provisions may well be in tension with contemporary international law.
In this article, a collaborative effort by scholars focused on constitutional and international law, respectively, we seek to clarify formerly unacknowledged tensions in the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States and to explore potential means by which they might be resolved. One of us adopts a formalist, plain-meaning originalist view of the Constitution, which throws into sharp relief the arguable constitutional defects in the present U.S.-Puerto Rican relationship established more than fifty years ago. The other does not embrace this kind of rigid originalism and therefore would not be as quick to exclude a potential resolution of the tensions between international and constitutional law by means of constitutional interpretation. The authors agree, however, that those tensions can no longer be neglected in a State committed to the rule of law. The authors also agree (and aspire to be living proof) that several of the most troubling of the arguable obstacles to constitutional self-governance for Puerto Rico as a State freely associated with the United States can be resolved - with a modest amount of political will and creativity - in a manner that, in effect, elides the oft-intractable debates that afflict modern constitutional theory: substantive, even if not formal, international legal compliance can be established in a fashion that avoids perennially debated issues of constitutional law and theory. Above all, we seek to facilitate a long-overdue discussion about how, concretely, to reconcile U.S. international obligations toward Puerto Rico with the Constitution.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (SLS) welcomes applications for its Eleventh Summer Session.
The Eleventh Summer Session of Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (SLS) will take place Sunday 9 to Friday 21 August 2009 under the title “Facing the First Review Conference right ahead - in Kampala in the second quarter of 2010”.
The First Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be held in Kampala, Uganda, in the first half of 2010 will be an important opportunity for the international community to assess and advance the role of international criminal law. Against this background, the Eleventh Summer Session of Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law will focus on the law of the Rome Statute and potential amendments thereto. Furthermore, it will take a closer view on the development of international criminal law and its enforcement mechanisms since the 1998 Rome Conference, its current state under customary law and possible "amendments" for the future.
For further information visit the website.
- David Collins, Efficient Breach, Reliance and Contract Remedies at the WTO
- Parashar Kulkarni, Impact of the GATS on Basic Social Services Redux
- José Anson, Marc Bacchetta, & Matthias Helble, Using Preferences to Promote LDC Exports: A Canadian Success Story?
- Boyan Konstantinov, Human Rights and the WTO: Are They Really Oil and Water?
- Melaku Geboye Desta, Accession for What? An Examination of Ethiopia’s Decision to Join the WTO
- Rafael Leite Pinto de Andrade, The Positive Consequences of Non–tariff Barriers
- Anuj J. Mathew & Santiago Fernández de Córdoba, The Green Dilemma about Liberalization of Trade in Environmental Goods
- In Yeung J. Cho, Japan’s First CVDs Determination: With Particular Emphasis on the Issue of Direction and Entrustment
- Tai-Heng Cheng (New York Law School), International Law as Paradigm
- Comment: Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law)
- Timothy Meyer (U.S. Department of State), Power, Exit Costs, and Renegotiation in International Law
- Comment: Larry Helfer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law)
- Leslie Wexler (Florida State Univ. - Law), Regulating Resource Curses: Assessing the Design and Evolution of the Kimberley Process
- Comment: Joanna Harrington (Univ. of Alberta - Law)
- Florencia Guerzovich (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science), Regulating Conflicts of Interests: International Strategies, Constitutional Structures and Accountability Politics
- Comment: Patrick Macklem (Univ. of Toronto - Law)
- Jeffrey Staton (Florida State Univ. - Political Science), Courting Conflict: A Logic of Risky Judicial Decisions in Latin America
- Comment: Chris Brummer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law)
- Karen Alter (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science) & Larry Helfer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law), Nature or Nurture: Judicial Lawmaking in the European Court of Justice and the Andean Tribunal of Justice
- Comment: Cesare Romano (Loyola Law School Los Angeles)
- Chris Brummer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law), The Political Economy of International Financial Regulation
- Comment: Dan Drezner (Tufts Univ. - Fletcher School)
- Rachel Cichowski (Univ. of Washington - Political Science), International Courts and Democracy: Rights Adjudication Beyond the State
- Comment: Angela Banks (William & Mary - Law)
- Alvaro Santos (Georgetown Univ. - Law), Labor Flexibility, Legal Reform and Economic Development
- Comment: Molly Beutz (New York Law School)
International Affairs at Brown University is proud to announce the launch of an exciting new faculty development initiative, the Brown International Advanced Research Institutes (BIARI). The objective of the program is to provide a platform for promising young faculty from the Global South and emerging economies to engage in a high level and sustained intellectual and policy dialogue with leading scholars in their fields, and to foster scholarly networks among young faculty, while providing them with an opportunity to develop their scholarship agendas. This ambitious new program is designed to provide needed professional development opportunities for young scholars embarking on lives in research and teaching. The Brown International Advanced Research Institutes, under the guidance of International Affairs aims to make a significant contribution to global research through transnational academic collaboration, promoting Brown University's vision of the global university.
In June 2009 BIARI will convene the following four Institutes:
(1) Towards a Global Humanities: Critical Traditions from the Global South
This Institute will focus on critical intellectual traditions from the Global South. Discussion and debate will be configured around four main thematic clusters:
- Theories from the Global South: sub-altern, post-colonial and black radical thought.
- Theorizing Violence
- Opening Up Epistemes
- Trauma, History, Memory, and Democracy
(2) Law, Social Thought and Global Governance
This institute will examine specific areas of law (international economic law; labor; property and land reform; human rights; etc.) from a critical perspective, as well as exploring new approaches to institutional and regulatory structures at the global level.
(3) Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management
This Institute will focus on the scholarly field of entrepreneurship and its potential application to business and academic context in the developing world, focusing on technology entrepreneurship and its intersection with both technology innovation and development economics.
(4) Development and Inequality in the Global South
This Institute will focus on cutting-edge research and innovative methodologies used to explore, quantify and account for inequality, and promote new thinking about development.
The Institutes will be held at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Each Institute is designed as a residential, intensive two-week long workshop, organized as mix of lectures, round tables, group work, field trips and social interactions. Each will be led by a team of recognized scholars in the field, who have invited world renowned lecturers and speakers to join and participate in the Institute's formal and informal activities. During the Institute participants will be given the opportunity to share and present their work and will have access to Brown University's world class research facilities. (Details of the faculty leaders and the specific program for each Institute are available on the BIARI website.)
The Brown International Advanced Research Institutes program has been generously funded by Brown University and Santander Universities. Successful applicants will be hosted in University residential housing and all meals will be catered. The program may also be able to provide successful applicants with travel assistance.
The application process for participation in the June 2009 BIARIs is now open through the BIARI website. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis beginning on March 15th, 2009. We are seeking your assistance in identifying promising young scholars who you believe would most benefit from this innovative new program. While there are no specific qualifications required, BIARI will give particular consideration to the applicant's track record in terms of scholarship and teaching. Given the objective of the program, we are particularly interested in your help in identifying promising scholars from the Global South and emerging economies who are in the early stages of their academic careers. In special cases we may also consider mid-career academics whose work is poised to make a significant contribution to the field.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
- Markus Burgstaller, European Law and Investment Treaties
- Prabhash Ranjan, Definition of Investment in Bilateral Investment Treaties of South Asian Countries and Regulatory Discretion
- Lanfang Fei, Setting Aside Foreign-Related Arbitral Awards under Chinese Law: A Study in Perspective of Judicial Practice
- Günther J. Horvath, What Weight Should be given to the Annulment of an Award under the Lex Arbitri? The Austrian and German Perspectives
- Christopher Koch, The Enforcement of Awards Annulled in their Place of Origin: The French and U.S. Experience
- Beatrice Castellane, Arbitration in Employment Relationships in France
- Yuliya Chernykh, International Commercial Arbitration in Ukraine: Details Do Matter
This essay offers a review (4000 words) of "NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations," Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl, eds. (London: Earthscan 2006); following AJIL permission, it is given in unedited form and is available in final form in 103 AJIL 1 (January 2009).
International and transnational NGOs have been under criticism for alleged lack of accountability since they emerged into prominence in the 1990s. In recent years, the debate over NGOs has shifted from legitimacy and "representativeness" to accountability in the narrower senses of internal governance, fiduciary responsibility, relationships with national governmental authorities, and similar issues. The volume under review seeks to cover both aspects of the debate, with emphasis on the latter, narrower issues. The review essay argues that the debate over representativeness and legitimacy - accountability in the large sense - cannot be left aside, but continues to be present, if only because the incentives that led NGOs to claim to represent the 'peoples of the world' in the first place have not gone away but have instead merely been submerged under critical pressure. The review essay argues that the question of NGO accountability as a matter of claims to governance remain salient, because global civil society still seeks a role in global governance in a way that relies upon claims of representativeness and that is not satisfied by narrower mechanisms by which NGOs make themselves accountable for other, narrower purposes, such as internal corporate governance or fiduciary accountability for charitable assets.
In the essay, I contend that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) regulates the substantive grounds for detention in non-international armed conflicts and that LOAC prohibits long-term detention for the purpose of gathering intelligence.
- Thomas E. Carbonneau, "Arbitracide": The Story of Anti-Arbitration Sentiment in the U.S. Congress
- Alexis Mourre & Janice Feigher, Can the Statutory Grounds for Review of Arbitral Awards Be Changed by the Parties? A French Law Perspective
- Bernardo M. Cremades & Alicia M. Blanco, Modification by Agreement of the Statutory Grounds to Set Aside International Arbitral Awards in Spain
- Hans Smit, Annulment and Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards: A Practical Perspective
- Hans Smit, Postscript: The Cour de Cassation's Decision in Putrabali
- Fuyong Chen, Striving for Independence, Competence, and Fairness: A Case Study of the Beijing Arbitration Commission
- Mauricio Gomm-Santos & Quinn Smith, On Dangerous Footing: The Non-Statutory Standards For Reviewing an Arbitral Award
Alexander Somek (Univ. of Iowa - Law) will give a talk today at the New York University School of Law Institute for International Law and Justice International Legal Theory Colloquium on "Democracy-Enhancing International Law: The Argument for Transnational Effect."
Matthew Waxman (Columbia Univ. - Law) will give a talk today at the Temple University School of Law International Law Colloquium on "The Use of Force Against States that Might Have WMD."
Monday, April 6, 2009
- Sergey Ripinsky, Assessing Damages in Investment Disputes: Practice in Search of Perfect
- Dominque D'Allaire, The Nationality Rules under the Energy Charter Treaty: Practical Considerations
- Ugliješa Grušić, The Evolving Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
- Tarcisio Gazzini, General Principles of Law in the Field of Foreign Investment
- M. Shabir Korotana, US-Gambling: Test of Limits of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process
- Francisco Aguayo Ayala & Kevin P. Gallagher, Subsidizing Sustainable Development under the WTO
- Jarrod Hepburn, The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement: First Among Equals
This Article examines how courts should interpret statutes that, by their terms, incorporate treaty provisions into the domestic law of the United States. The Article looks to a number of sources - including the structure of these "incorporative" statutes, common law canons of construction, separation of powers principles, and the case law of the United States Supreme Court - to develop an interpretive framework for reading such statutes. Under the proposed framework, courts should presume that a statute that incorporates language or concepts from a treaty should generally be read to conform to the treaty, regardless of whether the statute is ambiguous. This presumption may be rebutted only by compelling evidence that Congress intended a different result. The Article labels this approach "the borrowed treaty rule."
The Article then goes on to distinguish the borrowed treaty rule from the Charming Betsy canon of interpretation, which provides that courts should, whenever possible, construe domestic statutes so as not to violate international law. A number of legal scholars have argued that U.S. courts should, per the Charming Betsy canon, construe all ambiguous statutes (not just statutes that are incorporative) to conform to international law. Such an approach is misguided, the Article suggests, because none of the rationales underlying the borrowed treaty rule support using that same approach to interpret statutes that are not incorporative. It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the borrowed treaty rule and the Charming Betsy canon. The former rule should be used to ensure that incorporative statutes are read to conform to international law. The latter canon, however, should be used merely to ensure that ambiguous statutes that are not incorporative do not conflict with it.
Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Southern Methodist Univ. - Law) will give a talk today at the Northwestern University School of Law International Law Colloquium.
Eric D. Weitz (Univ. of Minnesota - History) will give a talk today at the University of Miami School of Law Faculty Speaker Series on "From the Vienna to the Paris System, or: What Human Rights has to do with Imperial Politics, Minority Protection, Forced Deportations, and German Genocides."