Milanović: Extradition and Life Imprisonment

Marko Milanović (Belgrade Centre for Human Rights) has posted Extradition and Life Imprisonment (Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 69, p. 248, 2009). Here's the abstract:

This brief case note examines the R (Wellington) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 72, [2009] 2 W.L.R. 48 case decided by the House of Lords, dealing with the question whether the extradition of person to a foreign state where he or she is accused of a crime for which a sentence of life imprisonment can be imposed can potentially violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is one of the latest of the non-refoulement line of cases initiated by the European Court of Human Rights famous judgment in Soering v. United Kingdom. The opinions of their Lordships raise several important questions of principle, ranging from the conceptualization of the purpose of criminal punishment, universalist as opposed to relativist notions of human rights, to the pressing need to facilitate extradition in a globalized world. The decision is thus well worth examining.

Chesterman: Intelligence Cooperation in International Operations

Simon Chesterman (New York Univ., Singapore Programme - Law) has posted Intelligence Cooperation in International Operations: Peacekeeping, Weapons Inspections, and the Apprehension and Prosecution of War Criminals (in Accountability of International Intelligence Cooperation, Hans Born and Ian Leigh, eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The prospect of the United Nations or any other international organisation developing an independent intelligence collection capacity is remote. This is due to the understandable wariness on the part of states about authorising a body to spy on them, though the United Nations itself has been reluctant to assume functions that might undermine its actual or perceived impartiality. At the same time, however, this position reflects a larger anomaly in the status of intelligence under international law as an activity commonly denounced but almost universally practised: empowering an international organisation to engage in espionage might give the lie to this example of diplomatic doublethink.

Efforts to address the threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction have led to a reconsideration of how intelligence can and should be used in bodies such as the United Nations. Understanding the threat posed and calibrating a response depends on access to national intelligence; if that response is to be multilateral, the legitimacy of any action taken may depend on sharing that intelligence. In the case of terrorist financing, this has led to legal challenges to the bases on which individuals’ assets are frozen, a topic addressed in this volume by Iain Cameron. Weapons inspections in Iraq through the 1990s and elsewhere have quietly drawn upon the assistance of “friendly” intelligence agencies, though the spectacular failure in Iraq severely undermined the credibility of this assistance. In a separate development, moves to pursue international criminal prosecutions through the 1990s in the Balkans and, to a lesser extent, Rwanda, required information that - in the absence of a meaningful investigative capacity - came from the intelligence services of governments.

This chapter will examine the use of intelligence in three areas - peacekeeping, weapons inspection, and international criminal prosecution - with a view to considering the accountability challenges posed by such cooperation.

Cole: Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists, and War

David Cole (Georgetown Univ. - Law) has posted Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists, and War (California Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article examines the appropriate and inappropriate role of "preventive detention" in responding to terrorist threats. It offers a constitutional jurisprudence of preventive detention, maintaining that absent a showing that dangerous behaviour cannot be addressed through criminal prosecution, preventive detention is unconstitutional. But criminal prosecution is not always a realistic option, and in those circumstances, preventive detention, carefully circumscribed and meticulously safeguarded by procedural protections, may be permissible. Familiar examples of accepted preventive detention regimes include civil commitment of dangerous persons who because of a mental disability cannot be held criminally responsible, and detention of enemy soldiers in a traditional war, whose hostile activities cannot be criminalized so long as they respect the laws of war.

The article argues that the contemporary debate over preventive detention often disregards the fact that US law already authorizes preventive detention in a variety of circumstances - as indeed do the laws of virtually every other nation. Thus, the proper question is not whether we should have preventive detention at all, but under what circumstances and pursuant to what protections. Unlike torture, preventive detention is not susceptible to an absolute prohibition.

I address the use and abuse of preventive detention since 9/11, and suggest a variety of reforms to forestall abuses in the future, particularly in the aftermath of another terrorist attack. I advocate reform of immigration law, the material witness law, and the “enemy combatant” detention authority. With respect to the latter, I find unsatisfactory the proposals of both those who call for a new preventive detention statute addressed to "suspected terrorists," such as Profs. Neal Katyal and Jack Goldsmith, and those who insist that the United States must either "try or release" everyone at Guantanamo (and presumably Bagram Air Force Base), as have several human rights organizations.

Instead, I suggest that a detention regime carefully restricted to persons engaged against us in the armed conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be consistent with the Constitution and international law, provided it included meticulous procedures designed to afford detainees a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, and regular review of their status to ensure that they are detained no longer than necessary. The parameters of such a regime should be set forth by Congress, not improvised by the Executive. And the predicate for detention should be involvement in an ongoing armed conflict, not terrorism. Involvement in an armed conflict has long been a recognized justification for preventive detention, here and around the world. Terrorism, by contrast, is a crime, not different in kind from many other serious crimes, and can and should be addressed through the criminal justice system. However, where an act of terrorism leads to an armed conflict - as has happened only once in the 200-year history of the United States - the laws of war and the Constitution should permit carefully circumscribed preventive detention for the duration of the conflict.

Worster: Immunities of United Nations Peacekeepers in the Absence of a Status of Forces Agreement

William Thomas Worster (The Hague University) has posted Immunities of United Nations Peacekeepers in the Absence of a Status of Forces Agreement (Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, Vol. 47, pp. 3-4, 2008). Here's the abstract:

Whether due to a need to act quickly or a lack of a functioning government with whom to negotiate, the UN often needs to authorize the deployment of peacekeepers and other peace support personnel without the benefit of a Status-of-Forces Agreement (“SOFA”). Unless or until this initial failure to have a SOFA is later cured by the conclusion of a SOFA, the problem arises what immunities UN-mandated peacekeeping forces may enjoy in the absence of a SOFA. UN-mandated peacekeeping operations have traditionally been present in host States with the consent of the State involved. However, the UN Security Council has taken the dramatic step of authorizing the constitution of peacekeeping forces without the consent of the host State. If there is no consent, then State immunity does not apply and we must look to other sources of immunity or comparable protection. These sources can include international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, the UN Immunities Convention, the UN Safety Convention, and customary international law. This paper attempts to assess all of these potential sources of immunities and determine the protections available for UN peacekeepers in the absence of a SOFA.

Sadat: The Nuremberg Paradox

Leila N. Sadat (Washington Univ., St. Louis - Law) has posted The Nuremberg Paradox (Hastings Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The United States is generally proud of its leadership role at the Nuremberg trials, making America’s current rejection of the precedent they established seem paradoxical. This article approaches the “Nuremberg Paradox” by examining the French experience with the Nuremberg trials, and comparing France’s adoption and internalization of international criminal law to that of its American cousin. The Article concludes that an important reason that the Nuremberg principles never took root in the United States stems from the different legal cultures and traditions of the two countries, particularly as regards the field of international criminal law. Examining the inter-war, post war and modern application of international criminal law in France and the United States, one is struck by the long-standing legal, philosophical and political differences exhibited by the two countries’ approaches, and perhaps most starkly, the differences that appeared during the negotiation, adoption and ratification of the International Criminal Court Statute in 1998. Indeed, although the French Parliament was willing to ratify the ICC Statute and at the same time adopt a constitutional amendment abrogating the immunities and future amnesties granted to its own members and the President of the French Republic, U.S. opposition to the treaty has been consistent and, at times, overwhelming. In exploring these questions, the article surveys the interwar scholarship, the post-world war II prosecutions of Vichy collaborators and former Nazis in the Touvier, Barbie, and Papon cases, and France’s more recent exercises of universal jurisdiction in the modern period of international criminal law. The implications of the French experience are analyzed in light of Harold Koh’s transnational legal process theory, which captures the process by which France internalized the Nuremberg principles, but does not explain why that process took hold in France but not in the United States. The Article’s central claim is that deeper historical, cultural and social factors that influenced French legal culture explain the differences between the two countries approaches. Indeed, an examination of the French precedent illuminates our understanding of how and why international criminal law remains only superficially and sporadically enforceable in the United States.

Bradley: The United States, Israel, and Unlawful Combatants

Curtis A. Bradley (Duke Univ. - Law) has posted The United States, Israel, and Unlawful Combatants. Here's the abstract:

This essay considers how members of a terrorist organization should be categorized under international law when the organization is engaged in an armed conflict with a nation. The proper categorization can have significant implications for the nation’s authority under both international and domestic law to subject members of a terrorist organization to military targeting and detention. As a result of judicial decisions, Israel ostensibly follows a two category approach, pursuant to which anyone who is not a lawful combatant, including a member of a terrorist organization, is a civilian. The United States, by contrast, currently follows a three category approach, whereby members of a terrorist organization can be considered “unlawful combatants” and thus treated as legally distinct from civilians. Although the two category approach may seem at first glance to be the most protective for civil liberties, it is not clear that this is the case. If a conflict with a terrorist organization is pushed into the civilian category, it is very likely that this category will be stretched in order to accommodate the security needs of the nation. The net result may be a reduction in protection for true non-combatants. While the three category approach is less anchored in existing treaties than the two category approach, it allows for a more realistic description of how members of a terrorist organization operate. Moreover, depending on how it is defined, the third category could contain significant substantive and procedural protections that are similar to those available under the two category approach.

Job Opening: Maastricht (Lecturer)

The University of Maastricht is seeking to hire a Lecturer in International Economic Law. Here's the advertisement:

University lecturer in International Economic Law f/m as from August 15th, 2009

Maastricht, 6200 MD, (Limburg), 38 hours per week

Maastricht University

Job description

AT2009.99. University lecturer in International Economic Law f/m

Teach in English on international trade law and international financial and investment law. Supervise theses and essays and contribute to the development of teaching materials. He/she will be expected to compete for research grants and contract research.

Requirements

University Graduate

The lecturer shall be a specialist in international economic law, in particular in financial and investment law. He/she shall hold a PhD in law and shall have a proven interest in economic development issues and in the economic relations between the European Union and India.

Additional information about the job

Forty percent of the lecturer’s time shall be dedicated to research, the rest to teaching and managerial duties. The lecturer will participate in the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation (www.igir.org). The post is based in Maastricht but he/she will be expected to make a significant contribution to the activities of Maastricht University’s India Institute in Bangalore.

Organization

Maastricht University

Maastricht University is renowned for its unique, innovative, problem-based learning system, which is characterized by a small-scale and student-oriented approach. Research at UM is characterized by a multidisciplinary and thematic approach, and is concentrated in research institutes and schools. Maastricht University has around 13,500 students and 3,500 employees. Reflecting the university's strong international profile, a fair amount of both students and staff are from abroad. The university hosts 6 faculties: Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience.

Conditions of employment

Estimated maximum salary per month: eur 4500 - 5000

Salaryscale 12.

Maximum salary amount in Euro's a month 4605

Employment basis: Temporary for specified period

Duration of the contract: 4 years

Maximum hours per week: 38

Additional conditions of employment:

After 4 years and pos. evaluation of the India Institute, an appointment for an indefinite period of time (tenure) is possible. Scale 10-12 depending on academic qualification and experience.

Additional Information

Additional information about the vacancy can be obtained from:

Prof. P. Van den Bossche

Telephone number: +31 43 3882541

E-mail address: p.vandenbossche@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Prof. A. Kamperman Sanders

Telephone number: +31 43 3883216

E-mail address: a.kampermansanders@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Or additional information can be obtained through one of the following links.

University Lecturer in International Economic Law, (28 kb)

Application

You can apply for this job before 08-06-2009 by sending your application to:

Maastricht University

Faculty of Law, HRM department

P.O.Box 6166200 MD Maastricht

The Netherlands

E-mail address: pzfdrvacatures@maastrichtuniversity.nl

More information on this vacancy can be obtained from Prof. Peter van den Bossche, (p.vandenbossche@maastrichtuniversity.nl, phone: +3143 3882541), or from Prof. Anselm Kamperman Sanders (a.kampermansanders@maastrichtuniversity.nl, phone: +3143 388 3216).

When applying for this job always mention the vacancy number AT2009.99.

The short URL code for this job opening is: 00349-1510.You can use this as a direct link to the job by adding the code to the URL www.academictransfer.org/

Conference: The Great Lakes Pact - Two Years On: Issues of Implementaton and Enforcement

The International Humanitarian Law Project at the Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, will host a conference on "The Great Lakes Pact - Two Years On: Issues of Implementation and Enforcement," May 29-30, 2009, in London. (I previously noted the call for papers here.) The conference flyer and registration form are available here.

The 11 member states of the Pact include Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The Pact represents the most comprehensive effort yet by the member states to address the root causes of the conflicts in the Great Lakes region and to lay the foundations for sustainable peace and development.

The focus of the conference will be on issues surrounding implementation and enforcement of the Pact. Confirmed speakers include:Moses Wetang'ula, Kenyan Foreign Minister & ICGLR RIMC Chair; Ambassador Liberata Mulamula, Executive Secretary of ICGLR; Hamuli Baudouin, DRC National Coordinator for ICGLR; Lieutenant Colonel Michael Gibson, Former Military Criminal Law Advisor, MONUC; Stephen Singo, Co-ordinator for the Peace and Security cluster, Great Lakes Secretariat; Pascal Turlan, Office of the Prosecutor, ICC; Isabell Kempt, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights; Anneke Van Woudenburg, Human Rights Watch, Chaloka Beyani, LSE/Legal Adviser to the ICGLR.

Waxman: United States Detention Operations in Afghanistan and the Law of Armed Conflict

Matthew C. Waxman (Columbia Univ. - Law) has posted United States Detention Operations in Afghanistan and the Law of Armed Conflict (Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Looking back on US and coalition detention operations in Afghanistan to date, three key issues stand out: one substantive, one procedural and one policy. The substantive matter - what are the minimum baseline treatment standards required as a matter of international law? - has clarified significantly during the course of operations there, largely as a result of the US Supreme Court’s holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The procedural matter - what adjudicative processes does international law require for determining who may be detained? - eludes consensus and has become more controversial the longer the Afghan conflict continues. And the policy matter - in waging counterinsurgency warfare, how do foreign military forces transition military detention operations to effective civilian institutions? - has emerged as a critical strategic priority for which the law of armed conflict provides little instructive guidance. After briefly outlining the basis of US and coalition detention operations, this article addresses each of these issues in turn. It concludes with some general observations about the convergence of law and strategy.

d'Aspremont: Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts

Jean d'Aspremont (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has posted Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts: Domestic Judges as Architects of the Consistency of the International Legal Order. Here's the abstract:

The paper aims at appraising whether domestic courts, because of different legal and institutional constraints, construe the systemic character of the international legal order differently from international courts and international legal scholars. After recalling the extent to which international law is applied and interpreted by domestic judges (I), this paper examines whether the principle of systemic integration of international law applies to domestic judges (II). It then turns to the consequences of the tendency of domestic judges to construe international law as a systemic and consistent order, and in particular, the elevation of domestic judges into architects of a consistent international legal order (III).

Call for Proposals: 2010 ASIL Annual Meeting - New Voices

The American Society of International Law has issued a call for "new voices" proposals for its 2010 Annual Meeting. Here's the call:

2010 Annual Meeting: International Law in a Time of Change

New Voices Proposals

Annual Meeting Theme

Today’s substantive issues – from armed conflict to climate change to the financial crisis to terrorism – have generated much new thinking about international legal rules and structures; at the same time, efforts to create new law implicate the interests of, and require the cooperation of, new and existing actors and institutions at many levels of governance. Our traditional models of international law are seeking to adapt to changing norms, approaches to governance, and governmental and nongovernmental actors – a process that some welcome but others view as posing problematic challenges to the existing international legal order. The 2010 American Society of International Law Annual Meeting will grapple with these issues. Meeting sessions will present a broad range of perspectives on the remaking of international law through new modes of lawmaking, new methods of global governance, new actors engaging international and transnational problems, and new substantive rules to address evolving and complex problems in this time of change.

Read the complete theme statement.

New Voices Proposals Guidelines and Process

ASIL will continue its long-standing goal of promoting the scholarship of students and new professionals (academic or non-academic) by soliciting papers relating to this year’s theme, "International Law in a Time of Change." We will select from submitted abstracts for papers to be presented at the Annual Meeting as part of a panel of new voices, or for possible inclusion in other panels. The abstracts may be based upon ongoing work. Preference will be given to papers not already published or accepted for publication. Eligibility is restricted to applicants working in the field of international law for seven years or less. Applicants should be members of the Society at the time of their presentation.

New Voices Submission Guidelines

Applicants must submit: (1) a 500-700 word abstract of their paper; (2) a 100-200 word progress statement explaining its current stage (e.g., whether the paper has been drafted, accepted for publication, or published); (3) a brief statement addressing the eligibility requirements set out above; and (4) a curriculum vitae. The submission deadline is June 19, 2009. The completed paper must be submitted by February 15, 2010.

Call for Proposals: 2010 ASIL Annual Meeting

The American Society of International Law has issued a call for proposals for its 2010 Annual Meeting. Here's the call:

2010 Annual Meeting: International Law in a Time of Change

Program Proposals

Annual Meeting Theme

Today’s substantive issues – from armed conflict to climate change to the financial crisis to terrorism – have generated much new thinking about international legal rules and structures; at the same time, efforts to create new law implicate the interests of, and require the cooperation of, new and existing actors and institutions at many levels of governance. Our traditional models of international law are seeking to adapt to changing norms, approaches to governance, and governmental and nongovernmental actors – a process that some welcome but others view as posing problematic challenges to the existing international legal order. The 2010 American Society of International Law Annual Meeting will grapple with these issues. Meeting sessions will present a broad range of perspectives on the remaking of international law through new modes of lawmaking, new methods of global governance, new actors engaging international and transnational problems, and new substantive rules to address evolving and complex problems in this time of change.

Read the complete theme statement.

Panel Submission Guidelines and Process

The Annual Meeting program committee welcomes suggestions from ASIL members for Annual Meeting sessions and other content. To submit such suggestions, please send contact information, a 500-700 word description of the topic, the suggested format (ie., panel, lecture, roundtable, debate, etc.) and possible participants. Proposals should be submitted by Friday, June 19, 2009 to ensure maximum consideration.

We particularly welcome suggestions for alternative formats to traditional panels, including round table discussions, lectures, debates, moots, interviews, book reviews, and other innovative formats. We take very seriously ASIL's commitment to ensuring that the programs and their participants reflect the breadth of the Society's membership in viewpoint, national origin, gender, professional focus, and experience. An effort is made to reflect emerging approaches and methodologies as well as established views.

The ASIL Annual Meeting program committee works differently than many other conference planning committees. It assembles the program in consultation with those who have suggested selected session ideas, but the committee often amends those proposals or combines them with others to develop the final agenda. ASIL also has a policy that persons are ineligible to be on the program if they were on the program at the previous Annual Meeting.

Workshop: Verdirame

Guglielmo Verdirame (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) will give a talk today at the Oxford Public International Law Discussion Group on "International Organisations and Human Rights."

Cho: Is the WTO Passe?: Exploring the Meaning of the Doha Debacle

Sungjoon Cho (Chicago-Kent College of Law) has posted Is the WTO Passe?: Exploring the Meaning of the Doha Debacle. Here's the abstract:

Confronting two formidable crises, one internal (the Doha debacle) and the other external (the global financial crisis), this Article explores the fundamental question: has the WTO become irrelevant or even passé? After sketching a recidivistic pattern of collapses and resumptions, the Article locates the root cause of the current Doha deadlock in the stark philosophical divergence between developed (North) and developing (South) countries on the nature of the Doha “Development” Round. Development has become a “liability” to the North, while it still remains a "goal" to the South. Given this situation, the Doha Round may be relegated to inconvenience, irrelevance or incorrectness as far as politicians of both Worlds are concerned. Nonetheless, the current dire situation of the global economy adds fresh exigency in delivering a successful trade round.

The focus of the Article's proposal in tackling this structural challenge is long-term. The Article argues that WTO members should shift their main paradigm in establishing trade policies from an "external" dimension (the WTO itself) to an "internal" dimension (internal politics). It views that unless WTO Members radically change the way in which they formulate trade policies domestically, from a top-down to a bottom-up approach which fully reflects the general welfare of citizens and the whole economy, the Doha round (and future WTO rounds) will still be at the mercy of contingencies and vicissitudes which special interests provide. Only through a vibrant democratic discourse on the genuine merits of free trade in the domestic arena, which comprises education, social marketing and transparent deliberations, can WTO members break away from the myopia of parochial mercantilism and establish trade policies from a mature standpoint of openness and competition.

Somek: From the Rule of Law to the Constitutionalist Makeover: Changing European Conceptions of Public International Law

Alexander Somek (Univ. of Iowa - Law) has posted From the Rule of Law to the Constitutionalist Makeover: Changing European Conceptions of Public International Law. Here's the abstract:

The article identifies major characteristics of how public international law has been endorsed by European legal scholars. Prominent among these is the repeated effort to pinpoint the deficiency of public international law as it stands and to suggest improvements. The article tries to identify a chain of substitutions with regard to what is taken to be the core problem. It can be shown how attempts to overcome one reveal another. The chain of substitution, reconstructed in this article, begins with decentralization and results in the realization that public international law is inadequate from a constitutional point of view. Not surprisingly, the constitutionalization of public international law becomes an issue. However, it turns out that some current ideas regarding the constitutionalization of public international law, rather than taking constitution-making seriously, appear to be idealistic refractions of the real absorption of legality by administrative processes. Rather than offering a solution, they may very well be part of the constitutional deficiency that they claim to resolve.

New Issue: International Community Law Review

The latest issue of the International Community Law Review (Vol. 11, no. 1, March 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Leena Heinamaki, Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Promoting the Sustainability of the Global Environment?
• Anna Stammler-Gossmann, Who is Indigenous? Construction of 'Indigenousness' in Russian Legislation
• Rene Kuppe, The Three Dimensions of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Matthew Saul, From Haiti to Somalia: The Assistance Model and the Paradox of State Reconstruction in International Law

Voeten: Borrowing and Non-Borrowing among International Courts

Erik Voeten (Georgetown Univ. - School of Foreign Service) has posted Borrowing and Non-Borrowing among International Courts. Here's the abstract:

Why do some international courts and judges extensively cite decisions from other courts whereas others do not? I argue that judges anticipate what external citations communicate to third parties. Depending on their institutional environments, judges expect more or less scrutiny for engaging sources of law other than the primary treaties that they are delegated to interpret. A global analysis of cross-citation patterns and an in-depth analysis of citations to and from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are consistent with the implications of this argument. Contrary to its transnationalist reputation, the ECtHR is cautious in citing other courts although ECtHR judges regularly refer to external decisions in separate opinions. The propensity of ECtHR judges to cite external sources is correlated with judicial ideology. The findings have implications for debates on transjudicial communication, the diffusion of international legal norms, the fragmentation of international law, and international judicial behavior.

Conference: BIICL Ninth Annual WTO Conference

Today and tomorrow, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will host its ninth annual WTO conference. The program is available here.

Wouters: International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement

Kees Wouters has published International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement (Intersentia 2009). Here's the abstract:

Every year, millions of people are seeking protection from countries other than their own for fear of being tortured, persecuted or killed. Finding protection is not easy. States are closely guarding their borders, making it difficult for aliens to seek and enjoy protection from serious harm. No matter where they are or why they flee, people seeking international protection are vulnerable and insecure; in dire need of knowing, understanding and receiving their rights. This book explores the basic right of every forcibly displaced person to be protected from refoulement. The prohibition of refoulement is the cornerstone of international refugee and asylum law and aims to provide protection to people at risk of persecution, torture, inhuman treatment or other human rights violations upon return to their own country. This book provides a comprehensive legal analysis of prohibitions of refoulement contained in four human rights treaties: the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. The emphasis of the analysis is on the international meaning of the prohibitions of refoulement and on the responsibilities of States deriving from these prohibitions. The four treaties are analysed in separate chapters. The final chapter compares the prohibitions of refoulement contained in the four investigated treaties. This book will be an important resource for legal scholars, students and practitioners working with asylum seekers and refugees throughout the world. It is also a reminder for States, which have obliged themselves to protect people from becoming victims of unspeakable atrocities.

Workshop: Sassòli

Marco Sassòli (Univ. of Geneva - Law) will give a talk today at the Hague Initiative on Law and Armed Conflict Law and Armed Conflict Lecture Series on "Non-State Actors in International Humanitarian Law."

New Issue: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

The latest issue of The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (Vol. 8, no. 1, 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Lucy Reed & Ilmi Granoff, Treaties in US Domestic Law: Medellin v. Texas in Context
• Nathan D. O'Malley, The Procedural Rules Governing the Production of Documentary Evidence in International Arbitration As Applied in Practice
• Frank Spoorenberg & Jorge E. Vinuales, Conflicting Decisions in International Arbitration
• Gauthier Vannieuwenhuyse, Bringing a Dispute Concerning ICSID Cases and the ICSID Convention Before the International Court of Justice
• William Lawton Kirtley, Bringing Claims and Enforcing International Arbitration Awards Against Sub-Saharan African States and Parties

New Issue: Nordic Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Nordic Journal of International Law (Vol. 78, no. 2, 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Dan Dubois, The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law?
• Jaanika Erne, Conferral of Powers by States as a Basis of Obligation of International Organisations
• Tor-Inge Harbo, The European Economic Area Agreement: A Case of Legal Pluralism
• Yenkong Ngangjoh Hodu, Regionalism in the WTO and the Legal Status of a Development Agenda in the EU/ACP Economic Partnership Agreement
• Michael Bogdan, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations

Workshops: Caplan, Gaja

Richard Caplan (Univ. of Oxford - Politics and International Relations) will give a talk today at the Oxford Human Rights Discussion Group on "Who Guards the Guardians? International Organisations and Accountability in Territorial Administration."

Giorgio Gaja (Univ. of Florence - Law; Member, International Law Commission) will give a talk today at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies on "Issues Concerning the International Responsibility of the United Nations."

WTO Appellate Body Report: United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Recourse to DSU Article 21.5 by the EC)

On Thursday, the Appellate Body released its report on the case United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (DS294). The full Report can be found here. An excerpt containing just the AB's findings conclusions can be found here. A summary of the case can be found here.

New Issue: Journal of International Arbitration

The latest issue of the Journal of International Arbitration (Vol. 26, no. 3, June 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Kyriaki Noussia, Antisuit Injunctions and Arbitration Proceedings: What Does the Future Hold?
• Jennifer Kirby, With Arbitrators, Less Can be More: Why the Conventional Wisdom on the Benefits of having Three Arbitrators may be Overrated
• Raghav Sharma, Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.: Ambushing International Commercial Arbitration Outside India?
• Adewale A. Olawoyin, Charting New Waters with Familiar Landmarks: The Changing Face of Arbitration Law and Practice in Nigeria
• Benjamin Hayward, New Dog, Old Tricks: Solving a Conflict of Laws Problem in CISG Arbitrations
• Jason Clapham, Finality of Investor-State Arbitral Awards: Has the Tide Turned and is there a Need for Reform?
• Jacob Grierson & Mireille Taok, Comment on Dallah v. Pakistan
• Victor Bonnin Reynes, The New Rules of Arbitration of the Court of Arbitration of the Official Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Madrid: An Overview

Strauss: The Leasing of Guantanamo Bay

Michael J. Strauss (Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques) has published The Leasing of Guantanamo Bay (Praeger Security International 2009). Here's the abstract:

Post-2002 events at the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay have generated a spate of books on its use as a detention center in the U.S. fight against terrorism. Yet the crucial enabling factor-the lease that gave the U.S. control over the territory in Cuba-has till now escaped any but cursory consideration. The Leasing of Guantanamo Bay explains just how Guantanamo Bay came to be a leased territory where the U.S. has no sovereignty and Cuba has no jurisdiction. This is the first definitive account of the details and workings of the unusual and problematic state-to-state leasing arrangement that is the essential but murky foundation for all the ongoing controversies about Guantanamo Bay's role in U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, charges of U.S. human rights violations, and U.S.-Cuban relations.

The Leasing of Guantanamo Bay provides an overview of territorial leasing between states and shows how it challenges, compromises, and complicates established notions of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Strauss unfolds the history of the Guantanamo Bay, recounting how the U.S. has deviated widely from the original terms of the lease yet never been legally challenged by Cuba, owing to the strong state-weak state dynamics. The lease is a hodge-podge of three U.S.-Cuba agreements full of discrepancies and uncorrected errors. Cuba's failure to cash the annual rent checks of the U.S. has legal implications not only for the future of Guantanamo Bay but of the Westphalian system of states. Compiled for the first time in one place are the verbatim texts of all the key documents relevant to the Guantanamo Bay lease-including treaties and other agreements, a previously unpublished U.N. legal assessment, and once-classified government correspondence.

New Issue: Review of International Organizations

The latest issue of the Review of International Organizations (Vol. 4, no. 2, June 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Wade Jacoby, Gabriel Lataianu, & Camelia Manuela Lataianu, Success in slow motion: The Europeanization of Romanian child protection policy
• Ozlem Arpac, Graham Bird, Turkey and the IMF: A case study in the political economy of policy implementation
• Ralph A. Luken, Greening an international organization: UNIDO’s strategic responses
• Martin S. Edwards, Public support for the international economic organizations: Evidence from developing countries

Workshop: O'Keefe

Roger O'Keefe (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) give a talk today at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict Trinity Term Seminar Series on "The 'Cultural Heritage of All Mankind': Metaphysics, Ethics and the Positive Laws of War."

New Issue: Virginia Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Virginia Journal of International Law (Vol. 49, no. 4, Summer 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Anne T. Gallagher, Human Rights and Human Trafficking: Quagmire or Firm Ground? A Response to James Hathaway
• CarrieLyn Donigan Guymon, The Best Tool for the Job: The U.S. Campaign to Freeze Assets of Proliferators and their Supporters
• Lisa J. Laplante, Outlawing Amnesty: The Return of Criminal Justice in Transitional Justice Schemes
• Mark Tushnet, The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law
• Nigel Purvis, The Case for Climate Protection Authority