Recent wars and conflicts, the 'blood diamond' wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as asset freezing and blocking in the so called war against terrorism have more than ever before raised questions about the status of private property and contract rights after the outbreak of war. Do invading and occupying powers have the right to destroy and confiscate private property and ignore contract rights? Are residents of a war-torn countries and foreign investors alike protected by international laws that uphold commercial freedom? Who, and on what legal authority, decides cases over contested resources during or after war? As globalization and armed conflicts continue to grow and co-exist, these questions are increasingly in the international spotlight.
War, Commerce, and International Law authoritatively explores these questions in the context of the relationship between war and commerce, on one hand, and international law, on the other. This book also places these questions in a historical context. Professor Gathii argues that there are continuities and discontinuities in the ways in which these rules were applied in colonial acquisitions of territory and in the protection of the rights of bond holders in the period before the twentieth century, and the manner in which private property and contract rights are being treated under occupation and during wartime in the contemporary period.
This book also offers an original and authoritative framework for appreciating relations between powerful and less powerful States and entities and between public and private power, as well as between peoples from vastly different cultural and racial backgrounds, in the context of war and commerce. It presents authoritative comparisons and contrasts between the protection of rights of foreign and domestic investors under international law in the context of war. In so doing, it debunks the story that commerce has prevailed over wartime deprivations and destructions of private property and contract rights. It shows how wartime effects on private property are a constitutive component of war rather than an aberration of it. Professor Gathii demonstrates that while international legal prohibitions against destruction and confiscation of private property during wartime are important, they have often been disregarded or sacrificed at the alter of claims of liberty and freedom historically as well as in the contemporary period.
Most importantly, War, Commerce, and International Law shows that although the doctrines and rules of international law relating to war and commerce guarantee fairness between all states, their application, interpretation, and adjudication in a variety of contexts nevertheless simultaneously carry forward within them the legacy of imperialism and colonial conquest. However, while international law carries within it this legacy, its guarantees of the equality of all states and of the human rights of all individuals, continue to offer hope for poor and weak states and individuals everywhere.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
This article, prepared as part of Loyola of Los Angeles Law School’s symposium “Litigating Genocide,” considers the power of U.S. states to provide remedies for international wrongs such as genocide. Its immediate subject is the recent decision in Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG (9th Cir. 2009); more broadly, it addresses the issue of conflict between state law remedies and policies of the U.S. executive branch. In Movsesian, the court concluded that presidential foreign policy preempts state law remedies when the two conflict. This article disagrees. Allowing otherwise valid state laws to be displaced by mere presidential policies is contrary to the Constitution’s designation of Congress, not the President, as the nation’s lawmaking body, and to the Constitution’s designation of treaties and statutes, but not presidential policies, as the “supreme Law of the Land.” It is also inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas. Though the Movsesian court gave Medellin only slight attention, Medellin involved the same issue: a claim that presidential foreign policy should preempt inconsistent state law. And Medellin held firmly against the President, even though it found the foreign policy implications invoked by the President to be “plainly compelling.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court sharply limited its prior decision in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, which the court in Movsesian (and the executive branch in Medellin) read broadly to endorse the idea of executive foreign policy preemption. Notwithstanding Garamendi, the Court said in Medellin, the simple and determinative constitutional rule is that the President is not a lawmaker. This article argues that the Court’s conclusion in Medellin is correct as a matter of fundamental constitutional text and structure, and should allow state law claims for international wrongs to go forward unless displaced by a federal treaty or statute.
In recent years International Economic Law (IEL) has emerged as the most important field of International Law due largely to its close association with the Washington Consensus. The rapid ascent of IEL and its link to the prevailing development paradigm raise an array of complex and highly contested theoretical and empirical questions. The purpose of this paper is to contribute towards the clarification of some of these questions. Its three main objectives are: (1) to explain IEL’s evolving approach to development during the past five decades; (2) to identify the impact that globalization has had on the foundations of IEL and reflect upon its likely impact on developing countries; and (3), to identify contemporary legal and political trends that may provide clues to discerning how the relationship between IEL and development is likely to evolve in the post-Washington Consensus period.
It has been three years since the longest and most prominent war crimes trial of the modern era was brought to an abrupt halt by the defendant's death - leaving the court, the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, and the world community without a definitive legal resolution. Precisely because the trial ended without final judgment, its meaning and value are especially contested: for some, the indictment and trial of a sitting head of state reaffirmed the importance of international criminal law as a robust response to state criminality; for others, the collapse of this sprawling case proved the insufficiency of judicial responses to complex mass violence.
The Indiana University Maurer School of Law, in cooperation with the Russian and East European Institute and the Center for West European Studies, propose to conduct an autopsy of the Milosevic trial - a clinical evaluation of the trial and its termination - and a biopsy of the institutional context in which the trial played out, as well as a prognosis for its legacy and impact.
It is an opportune time to consider both the full course of the Milosevic trial and its developing impact on global efforts to regulate mass violence and war. Serious scholarship on the trial is now beginning to appear, clarifying the lines of contestation about what the trial meant and what lessons we should draw from it. Looking forward, the ICTY is nearing completion of its work, and legacy issues involving the trial - including how to dispose of the enormous archive of evidence - are increasingly on the agenda. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and other ad hoc tribunals need to take the lessons of Milosevic into account in designing their own trials and institutions. A comprehensive, interdisciplinary examination of the Milosevic trial's impact is therefore well-positioned to make an important contribution to both academic study and policy consideration of international criminal law's role in post-conflict justice.
What the Conference Will Address
Key issues this conference will address include:
- determining the proper role of historical truth-telling in war crimes trials;
- measuring the impact of trials in affected communities;
- refining prosecutorial and judicial strategy in designing war crimes trials;
- devising case management and institutional design lessons for complex leadership trials;
- regulating access to trial archives by historians, victim communities and other courts; and
- considering the relationship between formal, legal processes and broader post-conflict transitional justice initiatives.
We envision an arc in the conference's deliberations from past to future: from initial panels evaluating the course and context of the trial itself, though a speculative investigation of how the trial might have ended, to the final panels considering its potential impact of the future development of post-conflict justice. Was the trial on track to conviction - and on what counts? What effect would judgment have had? Why was the trial so long - what strategic and design choices affected the process? Most importantly, what is its legacy - for the ICTY, ICC and international criminal law more broadly, and for our understanding of intervention in and after conflict? The conference will specifically address the ICTY's completion strategy and the disposition of its enormous archives.
Call for Papers and Participants
We are seeking a small number of additional papers directly addressing the themes of the conference from scholars of international criminal law, transitional justice, or the former Yugoslavia. If sufficient papers of high quality are received, we may add an additional panel. Papers must be closely related to the conference themes, meaning they either analyze aspects of the Milosevic trial or the trialÕs impact on the former Yugoslavia, international criminal law, or transitional justice and post-conflict reconciliation. Papers on general issues of international criminal law (without a specific focus on the Milosevic trial) are unlikely to be accepted. Abstracts (500 words maximum, plus 200 word bio) and CVs are due by 5 December 2009. For papers that are accepted, final drafts will be due in late January. Send proposals to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Alternatively, individuals with a strong background in the relevant fields may also indicate their interest in serving as discussants. At the conference, discussants will present authors' papers and give a short (five-page) review and critique. Individuals interested in being discussants should send a short (300 word maximum) note indicating the specific areas they are most competent to comment upon and their CV by 31 November 2009.
The conference will provide meals to invited participants, and make rooms available at a discounted conference rate. Should additional funding become available, the conference will provide partial or full support for lodging and travel.
Anthea E. Roberts (LSE - Law) will give a talk today at the University of Nottingham School of Law-International Law Association (British Branch) Regional Seminar on "Balancing Interpretive Power: Treaty Parties and Tribunals."
Ben Saul (Univ. of Sydney - Sydney Centre for International and Global Law) will give a talk today at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law Friday Lunchtime Lecture Series on "Is there now a Public International Law of Terrorism?"
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Bettauer: Germany Sues Italy at the International Court of Justice on Foreign Sovereign Immunity – Legal Underpinnings and Implications for U.S. Law
The law of international extradition in the United States rests on a series of myths that have hardened into doctrine. Perhaps the most significant is the frequent claim that by its nature, extradition is “an executive function, rather than a judicial one.” This claim, in turn, supports additional rules, such as the “rule of non-inquiry,” under which courts hearing extradition cases may not inquire into the procedures or treatment, including possible physical abuse, that await the extraditee in the requesting state. In its 2008 decision in Munaf v. Geren, for example, the Supreme Court applied this rule to the transfer of two U.S. citizens from U.S. military custody to Iraqi custody for trial in Iraqi courts. In response to their claim that they were likely to be tortured in Iraqi custody, the Court stated that “it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.”
This article uses the rule of non-inquiry to assess the current state of extradition law and the theories that support it. I focus first on the doctrinal status of the rule, with the goal of demonstrating that it is more flexible than courts often purport to believe and that a more explicitly functional approach would better serve the issues that the non-inquiry doctrine encompasses and implicates. Throughout my doctrinal discussion, I also consider the proper scope of habeas corpus review of extradition decisions.
This article also has broader ambitions. First, my discussion of non-inquiry and the scope of habeas review seeks to historicize these doctrines. Second, I argue for unfreezing extradition law and putting it back into the overall structure of federal law and the current of legal change. Third, my suggestions for the rule of non-inquiry also work within and seek to incorporate some of the many changes in international law that have taken place since the rule was first announced. Fourth, I contest the notion that foreign affairs concerns require courts to refuse to inquire into constitutional or human rights claims.
Finally, I explore the rule of non-inquiry’s reliance on a traditional notion of national, territorial sovereignty. Some writers have pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush as an example of changing conceptions of sovereignty. By contrast, the Munaf majority repeatedly stressed and relied upon Iraq’s “sovereign right” or “prerogative” to punish offenses “committed on its soil.” Thus, on the same day in June 2008, the Supreme Court declared both that sovereignty has changed, and that it remains the same. This article asks whether Munaf’s conception of sovereignty was already outdated or whether it gives the lie to claims that sovereignty has eroded. I also consider a third option, that both conceptions can exist and be consistent with each other in U.S. law, and the article ends by exploring what that coexistence might mean.
- Adelina Adinolfi, Riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato e della protezione sussidiaria: verso un sistema comune europeo?
- Paolo Bertoli, Choice of Law by the Parties in the Rome II Regulation
- Simone Vezzani, Questioni vecchie e nuove in tema di protezione degli organi
- Note e Commenti
- Deborah Russo, Nuove pronunce sull'applicazione extraterritoriale degli obblighi previsti nei trattati sui diritti umani
- Annalisa Ciampi, Quali ragioni e quale procedura per la ratifica italiana del Protocollo n. 14-bis alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo?
- Olivia Lopes Pegna, Riconoscimento automatico di sentenze straniere e immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione civile
- Francesca de Vittor, Soccorso in mare e rimpatri in Libia: tra diritto del mare e tutela internazionale dei diritti dell'uomo
- Claudia Nannini, Il controverso valore delle assicurazioni concernenti il rispetto del divieto di tortura
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
- Thomas H. Webster, Efficiency in Investment Arbitration: Recent Decisions on Preliminary and Costs Issues
- Jean-Claude Najar, Inside Out: A User’s Perspective on Challenges in International Arbitration
- Joe Matthews & Karen Stewart, Time to Evaluate the Standards for Issuance of Interim Measures of Protection in International Investment Arbitration
- Paul B. Klaas, Depositions: An Apologia
- Yongping Xiao & Weidi Long, Enforcement of International Arbitration Agreements in Chinese Courts
- Mark Mangan, The Court of Arbitration for Sport: Current Practice, Emerging Trends and Future Hurdles
- Simon Crookenden, Who Should Decide Arbitration Confidentiality Issues?
- Mona Pare, La convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées: quel impact sur le droit international?
- Habib Gherari, L'accord de partenariat économique CARIFORUM-CE: vers une nouvelle génération d'accords de libre-échange?
- H. Tigroudja, La Cour suprême israélienne et la protection des personnes en temps de coflit
- Hugues Hellio, L'Etat, un justiciable de second ordre?: a propos des demandes étatiques dans le contentieux arbitral transnational relatif aux investissements étrangers
- Jean-François Flauss, Le protocole nº14bis de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme
- Jean d'Aspremont, Hart et le positivisme postmoderne en droit international
- Alexia Zalaf & Jane Wood, A Comparison of Attitudes to the Police Between Greek Cypriots and Ethnic Minorities Living in Cyprus
- Olga B. Semukhina & K. Michael Reynolds, Plea Bargaining Implementation and Acceptance in Modern Russia: A Disconnect Between the Legal Institutions and the Citizens
- Mindy S. Bradley-Engen, Kelly R. Damphousse, & Brent L. Smith, Punishing Terrorists: A Re-Examination of U.S. Federal Sentencing in the Postguidelines Era
- Jennifer L. Schulenberg & Deirdre M. Warren, Content and Adequacy of Specialized Police Training to Handle Youth-Related Incidents: Perceptions of Trainers, Supervisors, and Frontline Officers
- Experiencias del Estado y de los Litigantes/Consultores de los Inversionistas. Futuro que Anticipan. Conclusiones
- Experiencias del CIADI y de los árbitros. Futuro que Anticipan. Conclusiones
- Punto de vista de la Unión Europea sobre el TLCAN. Futuro que Anticipan. Conclusiones
David Kennedy se livre dans ce recueil d'études - pour la première fois traduites en français - à une réflexion critique sur l'évolution du droit international et de la discipline internationaliste. L'ouvrage inclut certains des textes les plus représentatifs de sa pensée, relatifs à l'histoire de la discipline, l'expertise internationale, le droit humanitaire ou encore la gouvernance globale. L'auteur cherche surtout à montrer que la question aujourd'hui n'est plus seulement de se battre pour consolider les avancées du droit international mais d'en comprendre aussi les dérives et les effets pervers. Le problème n'est plus tant celui des objectifs à réaliser par le biais du droit international comme expertise professionnelle que celui de la possibilité de mettre en oeuvre les règles internationales en échappant aux illusions suscitées par le rôle des experts, les bonnes intentions humanitaires ou les faux consensus de tous ordres.
In a recent article on the interplay between international law and politics, Marti Koskenniemi wrote that "much about the search for political direction today takes the form of jurisdictional conflict, struggle between competing expert vocabularies, each equipped with a specific bias" and that "[p]olitical intervention is today often a politics of re-definition, that is to say, the strategic definition of a situation or a problem by reference to a technical idiom so as to open the door for applying the expertise related to that idiom, together with the attendant structural bias." The "war on terror" in the first decade of the Twenty First Century exemplifies such political struggles over the governing legal paradigm. Not only is the meaning of the term "terrorist" itself controversial; the legal framework governing the fight against terrorism is also highly contested, and features an intense struggle between a human rights centered "law enforcement" paradigm and a more aggressive humanitarian law based "armed conflict" paradigm. Describing the paradigm struggle in Koskenniemic terms not only reveals, once again, the potential for the strategic use of the law; it also exposes the meta-differences between human rights law and humanitarian law. The considerable political capital and legal efforts invested in jockeying between the two competing paradigms casts doubt on the increasingly common narrative of the growing merger between human rights law and humanitarian law and the irrelevance of distinguishing between the two. Moreover, it is now clearer than before that the ideological tensions between the two camps supporting the competing paradigms cannot be avoided even if a mixed paradigm were to be developed to govern the fight against terror (as is increasingly alleged). Such a development may simply lead to the channeling of the same ideological struggles that had been held over the choice of paradigm to disagreement on the contents and direction of the new mixed paradigm. In Part One of this Chapter, I describe the jurisdictional struggle between the two principal legal paradigms that purport to regulate the international fight against terror: The law enforcement and the armed conflict paradigms. Arguably, many disagreements concerning the lawfulness of specific counter-terrorism, such as targeted killings or detention without trial, are actually disagreements on the applicable legal framework and the stories on the nature of the threat of terrorism that is being offered. In Part Two, I consider the emergence of a mixed paradigm which borrows contents from both human rights law and humanitarian law. I argue that such normative cross-over illustrates the difficulty of maintaining rigid paradigmatic distinctions in light of the complexities of the fight against terror; but also that some key differences in emphasis between the two paradigms nonetheless remain. Most significantly, I argue that the development of a new mixed paradigm merely re-contextualizes preexisting jurisdictional struggles over the proper legal framework to govern the fight against terror. Part Three concludes.
- Post-ILC Debate on Fragmentation of International Law
- Gabrielle Marceau, Fragmentation in International Law: The Relationship between WTO Law and General International Law — a Few Comments from a WTO Perspective
- Isabelle Van Damme, Some Observations about the ILC Study Group Report on the Fragmentation of International Law: WTO Treaty Interpretation against the Background of Other International Law
- Nele Matz-Lück, Harmonization, Systemic Integration, and ‘Mutual-Supportiveness’ as Conflict-Solution Techniques: Different Modes of Interpretation as a Challenge to Negative Effects of Fragmentation?
- Xue Hanqin, Fragmented Law or Fragmented Order?
- Christine Chinkin, Jus Cogens, Article 103 of the UN Charter and Other Hierarchical Techniques of Conflict Solution
- Alain Pellet, Comments in Response to Christine Chinkin and in Defense of Jus Cogens as the Best Bastion against the Excesses of Fragmentation
- Anne van Aaken, Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Law
- Mario Prost, All Shouting the Same Slogans: International Law’s Unities and the Politics of Fragmentation
- Robert Brückmann, Kindergarten? The Interaction between the German Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights
- Leena Heinämäki, The Protection of the Environmental Integrity of Indigenous Peoples in Human Rights Law
- Veijo Heiskanen, Architexture: An Outline of an Alternative Philosophy of Global Governance
- André Nollkaemper, The Independence of the Domestic Judiciary in International Law
- Thomas Skouteris, The New Tribunalism: Strategies of (De) Legitimation in the Era of International Adjudication
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Frank Upham, From Demsetz to Deng: Speculations on the Implications of Chinese Growth for Law and Development Theory
- Mathias Forteau, La Contribution au Développement du Droit International Général de la Jurisprudence Arbitrale Relative aux Investissements Etrangers
- Clifford M. Sobel, United States/Brazil Relations: A Shared Commitment to Global Leadership
- Carlos Alberto Rohrmann & Lyssandro Norton, Biodiversidade e Propriedade Industrial: Um Exame Jurídico do Conhecimento Tradicional
- Daniela Rodrigues Vieira & Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant, Os Desafios da Corte Internacional de Justiça na Atualidade
- Luciana Diniz Durães Pereira, Marinana Andrade e Barros, & Renata Mantovani de Lima, The Reception of Human Rights’ Treaties in Brazilian Law after the Constitutional Amendment: An Analysis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
- Claudia Lima Marques & Lucas Lixinski, Treaty Enforcement by Brazilian Courts: Reconciling Ambivalences and Myths?
- Daniela Muradas Reis, O Regime Especial de Reservas da Organização Internacional do Trabalho: a Reserva Implícita ao Retrocesso Jurídico e Social dos Trabalhadores
- Fausto Pocar, Violence on Civilians and Prisoners of War in the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals
- Maria de Lourdes Albertini Quaglia, How the Judges of the Appellate Body Form Their Opinion and its is Reflection on the Implementation of the Reports of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body
- Xavier Aurey, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Armed Conflicts: from Fragmentation to Complexity
- Giorgio Sacerdoti, Competition Issues in the Global Economy and the WTO Regulation of World Trade
- Paulo Borba Casella, The Hague Choice of Court Convention (2005) - A Critical Assessment
- Alexandre Atheniense, Jurisdição no Ciberespaço
- Pedro Ivo Ribeiro Diniz, A Problematização do Sistema Internacional de Proteção à Propriedade Intelectual frente às Novas Tecnologias de Transferência de Informação
- Victor Coutinho Lage, A Cisão dos “Internacionalistas” e o Recurso às Normas e às Regras como Desafio às Fronteiras Disciplinares: Ciência Política, Direito Internacional e Relações Internacionais
- Roger O’Keefe, The Doctrine of Incorporation Revisited
- Yogesh Tyagi, The Denunciation of Human Rights Treaties
- Yaël Ronen, Status of Settlers Implanted by Illegal Territorial Regimes
- Martins Paparinskis, Investment Arbitration and the Law of Countermeasures
- Martti Koskenniemi, The Function of Law in the International Community: 75 Years After
Law not only regulates competition, it is both the result of competition and creates opportunities for competition. States compete to have their legal system models become the norm on a regional and global basis. Thus there is value in considering the manner in which this competition is carried out. This has occurred both within the European Union, where member states also competed with Community institutions for competence over the area of private international law. The EU and the United States are now major competitors on the global front in the process of multilateralization of rules of private international law. This was evident in the negotiation of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Such multilateralization of rules also creates new opportunities for competition of courts in becoming magnets for commercial dispute resolution. This chapter discusses all of these levels of competition.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Volkmann: Die Strafverfolgung des Völkermordes nach dem Weltrechtsprinzip im internationalen Strafrecht und im Völkerstrafrecht
Obwohl der Völkermord als so genannter «core crime» des Völkerstrafrechts bezeichnet wird, sieht die Völkermordkonvention in Art. VI nicht die universelle Zuständigkeit der Vertragsstaaten zur Strafverfolgung vor. Die Untersuchung, ob universelle Strafverfolgung des Völkermordes im Völkerrecht anerkannt ist, bewegt sich im Schnittfeld zwischen internationalem Strafrecht und Völkerstrafrecht. Die Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den dogmatischen Grundlagen des Weltrechtsprinzips und analysiert die Staatenpraxis sowie die Rechtsprechung internationaler Gerichte. Bedeutung erlangt das Weltrechtsprinzip auch im Zusammenhang mit dem Ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Auf dieser Ebene versucht die Arbeit, die umstrittene und im Statut von Rom im Sinne der Komplementarität gelöste Zuständigkeit zwischen Ständigem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und den Mitgliedstaaten abzugrenzen.
- Alexis Mourre & Alexandre Vagenheim, The Arbitration Exclusion in Regulation 44/2001 after West Tankers
- Gabriël Moens & Sam Luttrell, The Appointment and Challenge of Arbitrators Under the Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
- Daniel E. González & María Eugenia Ramírez, International Commercial Arbitration: Hurdles when Confirming a Foreign Arbitral Award in the United States
- Jane Player & Claire Morel de Westgaver, Lawyer-Client Privilege in International Arbitration-A Blurred Area Prone to Unpredictability or Useful Flexibility?
- Norbert Horn, Arbitration and Electronic Communications: public policy
- Olivier Delgrange & Pauline Le More, Frankreich – Auswirkungen des neuen französischen Verjährungsrechts auf den kaufmännischen Rechtsverkehr
- Felix Hartmann, Ersatzherausgabe und Gewinnhaftung beim internationalen Warenkauf
- Thierry Bourgoignie & Julie St-Pierre, Le statut de la politique de protection du consommateur dans les systèmes régionaux économiquement intégrés. Une première évaluation comparative
- Rory Stephen Brown, Shooting Down Civilian Aircraft: Illegal, Immoral and Just Plane Stupid
- Irène Couzigou, Le Conseil de Sécurité doit-il respecter les droits de l'homme dans son action coercitive de maintien de la paix?
- Philippe Currat, L'interprétation du Statut de Rome
- Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral, Apuntes críticos para una teoría neoconservadora del derecho international
- Fabienne Quilleré-Majzoub, À qui appartiennent les icebergs? Discussion autour du statut des icebergs en droit international public
- Hans Smit, Class Actions in International Arbitration: Applicable Rules and Law
- Randy D. Gordon, A Question of Fairness: Should Noerr-Penningtom Immunity Extend to Conduct in International Commercial Arbitration?
- Nicholas Song, Between Scylla and Charybdis: Can a Plea of Necessity Offer Safe Passage to States in Responding to an Economic Crisis Without Incurring Liability to Foreign Investors?
- Eric Gillman, The End of Investor-State Arbitration in Ecuador? An Analysis of Article 422 of the Constitution of 2008
- James A. Goldston, Achievements and Challenges—Insights from the Strasbourg Experience for Other International Courts
- Nigel Rodley, The Extraterritorial Reach and Applicability in Armed Conflict of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: A Rejoinder to Dennis and Surena
- Mashood A. Baderin, Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?
- Peter W. Edge, Sentencing the Religious Defendant
- Achilles C. Emilianides, Do Minimum Age Requirements Violate the Right to Stand for Election under the European Convention on Human Rights?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Scholars studying interactions among multiple communities have often used the term legal pluralism to describe the inevitable intermingling of normative systems that results from these interactions. In recent years, a new application of pluralist insights has emerged in the international and transnational realm. This review aims to survey and help deﬁne this emerging ﬁeld of global legal pluralism. I begin by brieﬂy describing sites for pluralism research, both old and new. Then I discuss how pluralism has come to be seen as an attractive analytical framework for those interested in studying law on the world stage. Finally, I identify advantages of a pluralist approach and respond to criticisms, and I suggest ways in which pluralism can help both in reframing old conceptual debates and in generating useful normative insights for designing procedural mechanisms, institutions, and discursive practices for managing hybrid legal/cultural spaces.