- Nele Matz-Lück, Planting the Flag in Arctic Waters: Russia’s Claim to the North Pole
- Bill Bowring, Russia and Human Rights: Incompatible Opposites?
- Lauri Mälksoo, International Law in Russian Textbooks: What’s in the Doctrinal Pluralism?
- Max Gutbrod, Steffen Hindelang, & Yun-I Kim, Protection against Indirect Expropriation under National and International Legal Systems
- Peter W. Schulze, Geopolitics at Work: the Georgian-Russian Conflict
- Angelika Nußberger, The War between Russia and Georgia – Consequences and Unresolved Questions
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks, with introductory note by David Stewart
- European Court of Justice: Metock and Others, with introductory note by Matthew James Elsmore and Peter Starup
- International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Tharcisse Muvunyi v. Prosecutor, with introductory note by Susana SáCouto and Katherine Cleary
- European Court of Justice: Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, with introductory Note by August Reinisch
- International Criminal Court: Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, with introductory note by Djurdja Lazić
- United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: International Guidelines on Deep Sea Fisheries, with introductory note by Rod Moore and Julie Roberts Furgerson
- International Court of Justice: Georgia v. Russia (Order on Provisional Measures), with introductory note by Cindy Galway Buys
- Poland and U.S. Agreement on the Deployment of Missile Defense System, with introductory note by David Fidler
- Carlos Espaliú Berdud, Spanish Law 53/2007 on Control of External Trade in Defence and Dual-use Material
- Patricia Orejudo Prieto de los Mozos, Procedural Treatment of Recognition of Foreign Judgments in the Practice of Spanish Authorities
This book brings together the law of armed conflict governing the use of weapons into a single volume. It interprets these rules and discusses the factors influencing future developments in weapons law. After relating the historical evolution of weapons law, the book discusses the important customary principles that are the foundation of the subject, and gives a condensed account of the law that exists on the use of weapons. Thereafter, the treaties and customary rules applying to particular categories of weapon are stated and explained article by article and rule by rule in a series of chapters.
The legal review of weapons is also discussed, both from the perspective of how such reviews should be undertaken and how such a system should be established. Having stated the law as it is, the book then discusses the way in which this dynamic field of international law develops in the light of various influences. In the final chapter, the prospects for future rule change are discussed.
The focus of this book is thus more specific and detailed than that of the more general texts on the law of armed conflict. Throughout this book, a conscious effort has been made to explain the law as it applies to all states. The book offers an accessible style of writing and a clear layout that promotes ease of reference.
- Giorgio Badiali, Dallo Ius Gentium allo Ius Inter Gentes: il ruolo di Alberico Gentili agli albori del diritto internazionale moderno
- Tito Ballarino, Dalla Convenzione di Roma del 1980 al regolamento Roma I
- Antonio Leandro, Il procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità
- Note e Commenti
- Deborah Russo, Diritti dei minori e diritti dei genitori nelle scelte relative all'istruzione
- Francesco Salerno, Quale "comunità di diritto" per il signor Kadi?
- Valeria Tonini, La rilevanza della Convenzione di Oviedo sulla biomedicina secondo la giurisprudenza italiana
- Pietro Franzina, Norme di conflitto comunitarie in materia di contratti con consumatori e corretto fu n zionamento del mercato interno
Thursday, April 30, 2009
- Hugues Kenfack, Le règlement (CE) n° 593/2008 du 17 juin 2008 sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (« Rome 1 »), navire stable aux instruments efficaces de navigation?
- Stéphanie Francq, Le règlement «Rome I » sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles. De quelques changements . . .
- Pierre Mayer, Contract claims et clauses juridictionnelles des traités relatifs á la protection des investissements (Lalive Lecture, 22 mai 2008)
- Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières & Anwar Frekini, Les nouveaux contrats internationaux d’exploration et de partage de production pétrolière en Libye. Problèmes choisis (2e partie)
- Hélène Péroz, Les autorités certificatrices de titre exécutoire européen (à propos du décret n° 2008-484 du 22 mai 2008)
What is the force of international law as a matter of U.S. law? Who determines that force? This Essay maintains that, for the United States, the U.S. Constitution is always supreme over international law. To the extent that the regime of international law yields determinate commands in conflict with the Constitution’s commands or assignments of power, international law is, precisely to that extent, unconstitutional. Further, the force of treaties (and executive agreements) to which the U.S. is a party is always subject to the constitutional powers of Congress and the President to supersede or override them as a matter of U.S. domestic law.
It follows from the Constitution’s allocation of power exclusively to U.S. constitutional actors that the power to interpret, apply, enforce – or disregard – international law, for the United States, is a U.S. constitutional power not properly subject to external direction and control. The power “to say what the law is,” including the power to determine the content and force of international law for the United States, is a power distributed and shared among the three branches of the U.S. government. It is not a power of international bodies or tribunals. This understanding of the relationship of international law to the U.S. Constitution’s allocation of powers in matters of war and foreign affairs has important implications for many contemporary issues the United States’s actions with respect to compliance with international treaties and other international law norms in the areas of criminal law enforcement, the conduct of war, war prisoner detention and interrogation practices, and the imposition of military punishment on unprivileged enemy combatants.
de Londras: Prosecuting Sexual Violence in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia
Security Council Resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004) provide that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) are to complete their proceedings by the end of 2010. These Tribunals, established by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, were the first international criminal tribunals since the Nuremberg Tribunal and International Military Tribunal for the Far East established at the end of World War II and ushered in a new phase in international criminal law in which such ad hoc tribunals are increasingly being seen as viable options for post-conflict societies. Thus, we now have ad hoc tribunals that are either hybrid or completely international for Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Timor Leste as well as the permanent International Criminal Court. The age of international criminal accountability has, it might be said, arrived. To what extent, however, are these tribunals making individuals accountable for the widespread sexual violence that often (if not always) occurs in times of armed conflict and genocide‘ This paper explores the extent to which these tribunals making individuals accountable for the widespread sexual violence against women and girls that often (if not always) occurs in times of armed conflict and genocide. In particular, the paper tries to asses the extent to which feminist hopes for justice for women victims of sexual violence have been met by the Tribunals.
In this task, the paper takes a distinctly critical approach and focuses not only on the doctrinal advances made by the Tribunals (which have been vast) but also on the operationalization of those advances (which has been less impressive). This commitment to look not only at positive law but also at law in practice and to critically appraise the dissonances that appear has long been an important part of feminist legal methodology. In the analysis that follows it becomes clear that many of the difficulties that have arisen in relation to the prosecution of sexual violence before these tribunals are familiar to feminist legal theorists as they tend to have also arisen in adversarial domestic criminal justice systems. This calls into question the extent to which we should be celebrating these tribunals when seen through a feminist lens. In particular, it ought to cause us to question the extent to which a healthy norm transfer is occurring between the domestic and the international: to what extent are feminist lessons learned domestically transferred to the international sphere, and what kinds of lessons about prosecuting sexual violence will be transferred from the international proceedings to the reconstituted justice systems in post-conflict jurisdictions.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
- Mireille Delmas-Marty, Violence and Massacres - Towards a Criminal Law of Inhumanity?
- John Jackson, Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for International Criminal Tribunals: Beyond the Adversarial–Inquisitorial Dichotomy
- Symposium: Hamdan - Is the Guantánamo Approach Falling Apart?
- Salvatore Zappalà, Foreword
- Richard V. Meyer, Following Historical Precedent: An Argument for the Continued Use of Military Professionals as Triers of Fact in Some Humanitarian Law Tribunals
- John C. Dehn, The Hamdan Case and the Application of a Municipal Offence: The Common Law Origins of ‘Murder in Violation of the Law of War’
- Workshop: The Media and International Criminal Justice
- Marlise Simons, International Criminal Tribunals and the Media
- Mirko Klarin, The Impact of the ICTY Trials on Public Opinion in the Former Yugoslavia
- Antonio Cassese, Foreword
- Roman Serbyn, Lemkin on Genocide of Nations
- Modes of Participation in Crimes Against Humanity: The Hechingen and Haigerloch Case
- Notes and Comments
- Orna Ben-Naftali & Noam Zamir, Whose ‘Conduct Unbecoming’?: The Shooting of a Handcuffed, Blindfolded Palestinian Demonstrator
- Nathan Rasiah, The Court-martial of Corporal Payne and Others and the Future Landscape of International Criminal Justice
- W. Cory Wanless, Corporate Liability for International Crimes under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act
The concern in this article is with the role that domestic courts and judges can play in enforcing the rule of international law in dualist states. The underlying purpose of the article is to consider whether there is something inherently anti-internationalist about dualist legal systems: do domestic courts and judges in dualist systems shun international law in favour of domestic law and, if so, is that a product of the dualist legal system? The paper argues that in fact there is nothing about dualism per se that precludes reference to and reliance on international legal norms and undertakes a short cross-jurisdictional survey in an attempt to sketch out an emerging spectrum of internationalism across dualist states. The purpose is not to present a conclusive picture of the position of international law in every dualist state but rather to argue that dualism alone can not explain the varying degrees of internationalism we see among superior courts in dualist jurisdictions. Rather, as I argue in the final part of the paper, degrees of internationalism should be understood as matters of legal culture. I attempt, in the final section, to unpack some elements of legal culture that are likely to impact on internationalism and, by so doing, to identify areas of possible development for the purpose of increased internationalism.
The United States’ relationship with international law, although oft-discussed, is poorly understood. Depictions of the relationship are often little more than caricatures. Depending on when the caricature is drawn, the United States may be a longstanding “champion” of international law, an “exceptionalist” defender of American values, or a hypocritical opponent of international governance. Many traditional histories do little to complicate these views. Focused primarily on foreign affairs law and constitutional war powers, these histories highlight moments of tension between the United States and international law. Missing from these histories of American diplomacy and warcraft, foreign affairs caselaw and doctrinal development is the rich cultural and intellectual history of American engagement with international law and justice.
This short essay, an expanded version of a panel introduction at International Law Weekend 2008, highlights the work of a number of scholars who are beginning to fill this gap. It argues that a new focus on the cultural and intellectual history of American approaches to international law can, among other things, (1) enrich our historical picture of American relations to international law, (2) complicate the common stereotypes of that relationship that dominate current debates, and (3) facilitate study of various theories of international law, particularly constructivist ones.
Despite considerable judicial consideration in recent years, the relationship between international law and domestic law in Canada remains uncertain. While Canadian courts frequently invoke the presumption of conformity to claim that domestic law must be read in light of international law, their interpretations of domestic law often fail to respect the full extent of Canada’s international legal obligations. Moreover, Canadian courts rely on an overly restrictive understanding of what it means to implement a treaty in Canada’s domestic law, and as a result they tend to give short shrift to the role international treaties can and should play in Canada’s legal order.
The authors argue in favour of a number of measures that seek to portray international and domestic law as a unity, held together by an overarching commitment to the rule of law. They argue for a more generous understanding of treaty implementation according to which a ratified treaty would be considered “implemented” if, at the time of ratification, there exists sufficient legislative and regulatory authority capable of enabling Canadian officials to comply with Canada’s treaty obligations. They also suggest a variety of means through which federal and provincial legislators could play a more constructive role in the treaty-making process. One option is the development of a Canada Treaties Act that would provide guidance with respect to the specific requirements of treaty negotiation, authorization, and implementation. A less ambitious alternative is the recognition of international law as equal in status to common law. Finally, the authors contend that even in the absence of such steps, Canadian judges and administrative decision makers ought to combine a generous understanding of implementation with a thoroughgoing commitment to the presumption of conformity.
- Dan Sarooshi, The Role of Domestic Public Law Analogies in the Law of International Organizations
- Armin von Bogdandy & Matthias Goldmann, The Exercise of International Public Authority through National Policy Assessment: The OECD's PISA Policy as a Paradigm for a New International Standard Instrument
- Martina Spernbauer, Musical Chairs Revisited: Status and Terms of Participation of the European Union in the UN Peacebuilding Commission
- Ramses A. Wessel, The Kadi Case: Towards a More Substantive Hierarchy in International Law?
- Larissa van den Herik & Nico Schrijver, Eroding the Primacy of the UN System of Collective Security: The Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Cases of Kadi and Al Barakaat
- Luis M. Hinojosa Martínez, Bad Law for Good Reasons: The Contradictions of the Kadi Judgment
- Erika de Wet, The Role of European Courts in Reviewing Conflicting Obligations under International Law
- Deirdre Curtin & Christina Eckes, The Kadi Case: Mapping the Boundaries between the Executive and the Judiciary in Europe
- Jean d'Aspremont & Frédéric Dopagne, Kadi: The ECJ's Reminder of the Elementary Divide between Legal Orders
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
- Erich Vranes, Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz
Herleitungsalternativen, Rechtsstatus und Funktionen
- Norman Paech, Staatenimmunität und Kriegsverbrechen
- Sebastian Heselhaus, Biokraftstoffe und das Recht auf Nahrung
University Lecturer Public International Law (1,0 fte)
(Groningen), 38 hours per week University of Groningen
University Lecturer Public International Law
The prospective university lecturer will have the following primary responsibilities: - teaching in the field of public international law generally and the international protection of human rights in particular, or alternatively in international economic law or the law of international organizations - supervise LL.M. theses - coordination of teaching - conduct research within the field of public international law generally, or any of the abovementioned fields - engage in the development of research projects.
The following requirements apply to the post:
- demonstrable knowledge about and experience in public international law
- knowledge and experience in the international protection of human rights in particular; candidates with knowledge about and experience in international economic law or the law of international organizations are invited to respond as well
- a PhD degree based on a thesis in international law
- experience in teaching courses at Master level
- demonstrable organizational and communicative skills
- fluency in English
- working knowledge of Dutch will be an advantage
- experience with the development of research projects will be an advantage.
University of Groningen
Founded in 1614. One of the best universities in Europe and the world. A wide variety of disciplines. Internationally oriented. Rooted in the North of the Netherlands. Socially active. Our researchers and lecturers are inspired academics. Ambitious students. We respect the differences in talent, ambitions and performance of the 25,000 students and members of staff.
The university provides a career advisory service for partners of new staff who move to Groningen.
The university is an equal opportunities employer. Because women are still underrepresented in a number of fields, they are particularly encouraged to apply.
Faculty of Law
The Department of International Law and Constitutional Law offers a variety of courses within the field of international law as part of various bachelor and master programmes. Within the LL.M.-programme of International Law and the Law of International Organizations, a separate specialization exists for the field of human rights. To strengthen our teaching and research capacity, the Department has a vacancy for a university lecturer in Public International Law as of 15 August 2009.
Conditions of employment
Maximum salary amount in Euro's a month 4970
Employment basis: Temporary for specified period
Duration of the contract: Two years, with the prospect of extension
Maximum hours per week: 38
Additional conditions of employment:
The University of Groningen offers depending on qualifications and experience a maximum salary of € 4970 gross per month on a full-time basis (salary scales 11 and 12 of the Collective Labour Agreement Dutch Universities 2007-2010, available, in English, for download here. The post will initially be established for a fixed term period of two years, with the prospect of extension.
Interviews for the position will take place in the week of 25 to 29 May 2009.
Additional information about the vacancy can be obtained from:
Prof.dr. M.M.T.A. Brus, +31 50 3635706 /Telephone number: +31 50 3635667 secr.E-mail address: M.M.T.A.Brus@rug.nl
Or additional information can be obtained through one of the following links.
You can apply for this job before 08-05-2009 by sending your application to:
University of Groningen
Personnel and Organization Office
P.O. Box 72
9700 AB Groningen
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org
When applying for this job always mention the vacancy number AT209160.
The short URL code for this job opening is: 00347-1027.
You can use this as a direct link to the job by adding the code to the URL www.academictransfer.org/
A.J. Bellia and Brad Clark have performed a valuable service for other scholars interested in foreign relations law and federal jurisdiction by collecting and illuminating—with their usual care and insight—the historical practice of both English and early American courts with respect to the law of nations. Their recent Article, The Federal Common Law of Nations, demonstrates that, while American courts have not generally treated customary international law (CIL) as supreme federal law, they have applied such law where necessary to vindicate the "perfect rights" of foreign nations. In so doing, American courts have protected the prerogatives of the political branches to "recognize foreign nations, conduct foreign relations, and decide momentous questions of war and peace." Although Professors Bellia and Clark disavow any attempt "to settle all questions of how customary international law interacts with the federal system," they do suggest that their approach represents a middle ground between proponents of the "modern position" that CIL simply is federal common law and critics of that position, who insist that CIL may be applied by American courts only where it is incorporated into the domestic legal system through an affirmative act by the political branches.
This response makes three points. First, I quibble with the historical account offered by Professors Bellia and Clark on two minor, yet at least somewhat significant, grounds: The debate over reception of the common law at the federal Constitutional Convention shows greater early skepticism about judge-made common law than Bellia and Clark suggest; also, the jurisdictional provisions of Article III covering cases implicating foreign affairs were not intended fully to centralize power over such cases in federal courts because they left concurrent jurisdiction in the state courts. Second, I question the extent to which the Founding Era history is directly relevant to contemporary debates about how to treat CIL. Finally, I contend that what does the real work in the Bellia and Clark approach is simply constitutionally-grounded concerns about the separation of powers in foreign affairs cases, not anything about CIL per se. Their position thus reduces to the largely uncontroversial claim that federal courts may make federal common law to protect these constitutionally-grounded federal interests, and they may sometimes draw the content of federal common law from international law.
With contributions from some of the leading experts in international trade, law, and economics, Joel P. Trachtman and Chantal Thomas have compiled a comprehensive volume that looks at the positioning of developing countries within the WTO system. These chapters address some of the most pressing issues facing these countries, while reflecting on Robert E. Hudec's groundbreaking book, Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System. In his landmark contribution, Hudec argued against preferential and non-reciprocal treatment for developing countries. He did so on the basis of a combination of economic, political and legal insights that persuasively demonstrated that non-reciprocal treatment would not benefit developing countries. It is a testament to Hudec's legacy that his analysis is still the object of scholarly discussion more than 20 years later.
The first part of this book evaluates the general situation of developing countries within the WTO. The second part examines market access and competition law within these countries. Lastly, it discusses the special arrangements these countries have with international financial institutions, the developing country's capacity to litigate, and an analysis of the country's level of participation in WTO dispute settlements.
Monday, April 27, 2009
WTO Compliance Panel Report: United States - Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (Recourse to DSU Article 21.5 by Japan)
Kolb & Vité: Le droit de l’occupation militaire: Perspectives historiques et enjeux juridiques actuels
Le droit de l’occupation militaire Perspectives historiques et enjeux juridiques actuels Le phénomène de l’occupation militaire a connu récemment un fort regain d’intérêt de la part des internationalistes. Le régime juridique applicable aux populations contrôlées par des forces armées étrangères a été examiné avec un soin particulier depuis la fin des années 1990 en raison des nombreuses questions suscitées par les opérations menées au Kosovo, au Timor oriental, en Afghanistan et en Irak. Ces interventions jetèrent un éclairage nouveau sur le droit de l’occupation. Depuis la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale, ce régime juridique n’avait en effet été observé pour l’essentiel qu’à la lumière de la situation des territoires palestiniens.
Malgré ce renouveau de la pensée juridique dans un domaine quelque peu négligé du droit des conflits armés, nombre de questions n’ont toujours pas été résolues. À bien des égards, la notion même d’occupation, et par conséquent la portée des règles applicables, est encore incertaine. Quelles différences y a-t-il entre l’invasion d’un territoire et son occupation? La présence physique des troupes étrangères est-elle une condition sine qua nonou un contrôle à distance suffit-il pour qu’il y ait occupation? Quelle ligne faut-il tracer entre l’occupation pacifique et belligérante ? Selon quels critères la volonté du souverain légitime doit-elle ici être évaluée ? Quand est-ce que l’occupation se termine ? Par ailleurs, les occupations modernes se déploient le plus souvent sous un mandat de la communauté internationale organisée, en l’occurrence du Conseil de sécurité. Leur mission est d’accomplir, dans un territoire en butte à de graves crises, une mission de reconstruction de l’État et de consolidation de la paix à long terme par la transformation des structures politiques et sociales locales. Or il est difficile de réconcilier cet objectif avec le caractère conservateur du droit de l’occupation, qui interdit aux forces étrangères de modifier la législation et les institutions locales. Enfin, le contenu même de la protection juridique accordée aux populations civiles sous occupation suscite lui aussi des interrogations. L’analyse des règles issues du droit des conflits armés ne suffit plus à un examen complet de cette question. Elle s’enrichit désormais de l’apport complémentaire du droit des droits de l’homme dont l’applicabilité est reconnue autant en temps de paix que de conflit armé. Se pose dès lors la question de l’articulation de ces deux régimes juridiques. Cet ouvrage tente ainsi de brosser un tableau moderne du droit de l’occupation de guerre, matière riche et complexe.
Investment arbitration is at the cutting edge of international law and dispute resolution, and is predicted to be a major factor in the development of the global economic system in years to come. This one-volume monograph contains contributions from leading experts on a wide range of topics of both theoretical importance and practical implication that will affect the future of investment arbitration. The highly innovative chapters combine to form a constructive and valuable discussion for all in the arbitration field. The contributors, chosen to represent the full spectrum of perspectives, are leading arbitration experts from all over the world, including ICSID insiders, US government officials, UNCTAD research personnel, seasoned investment arbitrators and counsel, and renowned legal scholars.
The book is divided into three themes, with the first centering on the adequacy of UNCITRAL and ICSID arbitration rules, with particular attention to recent and proposed changes. The second theme focuses on the future of bilateral investment treaties, discussing trends in the interpretation of treaty provisions and the debate concerning the efficacy of the treaties in benefiting developing countries. The third theme revolves around the public function of investment arbitration decisions, including the use of arbitration to resolve disputes between sovereigns and the arbitrators' role as a guardian of international public policy.
The Future of Investment Arbitration is unique in its outstanding range of topics and the expertise of the contributors. It previews and guides future directions in the field, as well as discussing the larger policy implications of specific rules. It includes cutting-edge analysis of empirical research regarding BITS that is essential to evaluating many assumptions about investment law and arbitration. Finally, the book takes a broad perspective, examining the rules discussed within the larger structural context of investment arbitration, and drawing investment arbitration into the wider setting of international law and corporate governance.
- Amy J. Sepinwall, Failures to Punish: Command Responsibility in Domestic and International Law
- Jennifer Trahan, A Critical Guide to the Iraqi High Tribunal's Anfal Judgment: Genocide Against the Kurds
- Shani King, Challenging Monohumanism: An Argument for Changing the Way We Think About Intercountry Adoption
Sunday, April 26, 2009
- Marko Milanović & Tatjana Papić, As Bad as It Gets: The European Court of Human Rights's Behrami and Saramati Decision and General International Law
- Hanno Wehland, Intra-EU Investment Agreements and Arbitration: Is European Community Law an Obstacle?
- Michelle Q. Zang, The WTO Contingent Trade Instruments Against China: What Does Accession Bring?
- Hermann Pünder, Democratic Legitimation of Delegated Legislation - A Comparative View on the American, British and German Law
- Duncan Fairgrieve & Geraint Howells, Collective Redress Procedures - European Debates
- Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Current Approaches Towards Harmonization of Consumer Private International Law in the Americas
- Jean d'Aspremont, Rebellion and State Responsibility: Wrongdoing by Democratically Elected Insurgents
- Oliver Jones, Customary Non-Refoulement of Refugees and Automatic Incorporation into the Common Law: A Hong Kong Perspective