- Global Insights
- Teresa Krafft & Andrea Tamagnini, Strategic Approaches to Reintegration: Lessons Learned from Liberia
- Barry Carin & Alan Mehlenbacher, Constituting Global Leadership: Which Countries Need to Be Around the Summit Table for Climate Change and Energy Security?
- Thomas G. Weiss, The John W. Holmes Lecture: Reinvigorating the International Civil Service
- Chadwick F. Alger, Expanding Governmental Diversity in Global Governance: Parliamentarians of States and Local Governments
- Magdalena Bexell, Jonas Tallberg, & Anders Uhlin, Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors
- Peter Stoett, Framing Bioinvasion: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Security, Trade, and Global Governance
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
- Current Events
- Thomas Weigend, Foreword
- The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Kicks Off
- Matthew Gillett & Matthias Schuster, The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Swiftly Adopts Its Rules of Procedure and Evidence
- Guénaël Mettraux, The Internationalization of Domestic Jurisdictions by International Tribunals: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Renders Its First Decisions
- Lukasz Korecki, Procedural Tools for Ensuring Cooperation of States with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
- Universal Jurisdiction Reloaded?
- Julia Geneuss, Fostering a Better Understanding of Universal Jurisdiction: A Comment on the AU–EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction
- Alison Bisset, Rethinking the Powers of Truth Commissions in Light of the ICC Statute
- Nora Karsten, Distinguishing Military and Non-military Superiors: Reflections on the Bemba Case at the ICC
- Kate Gibson & Daniella Rudy, A New Model of International Criminal Procedure?: The Progress of the Duch Trial at the ECCC
- Francesco Messineo ‘Extraordinary Renditions’ and State Obligations to Criminalize and Prosecute Torture in the Light of the Abu Omar Case in Italy
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Cases and Legislation
- Nehal C. Bhuta & Volker Nerlich, Foreword
- Mandiaye Niang, The Senegalese Legal Framework for the Prosecution of International Crimes
- Antonina Okuta, National Legislation for Prosecution of International Crimes in Kenya
- Bonolo Ramadi Dinokopila, The Prosecution and Punishment of International Crimes in Botswana
- Katherine Gallagher, Universal Jurisdiction in Practice: Efforts to Hold Donald Rumsfeld and Other High-level United States Officials Accountable for Torture
- Larissa van den Herik, A Quest for Jurisdiction and an Appropriate Definition of Crime: Mpambara before the Dutch Courts
- Nehal C. Bhuta, Conflicting International Obligations and the Risk of Torture and Unfair Trial: Critical Comments on R (Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi) v. Secretary of State for Defence and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom
- Sergey Sayapin, A Short Tribute to Professor Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959)
- Katharina Margetts & Patrick Hayden, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals
- Juan José Quintana, La impugnación de la Competencia en Asuntos Contenciosos ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia
- María Isabel Torres Cazorla, El derecho de veto en el Consejo de seguridad de Naciones Unidas: la historia de la válvula de seguridad que paralizó el sistema
- Victor Rodríguez Cedeño, De la interpretación y la revocación de los Actos Unilaterales en estricto sentido
- Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, El Derecho Internacional como fuente del Derecho Constitucional
- Rafael Nieto Navia, ¿Hay o no hay conflicto armado en Colombia?
- Nigel Blackaby & Andrea Camargo, Alternativas de reparación en el arbitraje internacional de inversiones - Un debate entre la teoría y la práctica
- Ilias Bantekas, The mutual agreement procedure and arbitration of double taxation disputes
This book tells the story of Kosovo’s independence, from the periodic bloodshed of the twentieth century to the diplomacy that led to a determination of Kosovo’s final status as a state in 2008. Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008, over the objection of Serbia and Russia. This culminated in more than a hundred years of, sometimes violent, resistance to what the majority Albanian population considered to be ‘occupation’ by foreign forces – first those of the Ottoman Empire, then those of Serbia, and finally by the United Nations. Kosovo’s independence was the product of careful diplomacy, orchestrated by the United States and leading members of the European Union, under a framework brokered by former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, who subsequently won the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Centre for International and Public Law (CIPL) was established by ANU in 1990 under the formal title "Centre for Advanced Legal Studies in International and Public Law". Its mission is to advance international and public law, focussing on the relationship between governments, and between governments and their citizens, from both a domestic and international perspective.
Setting up a Centre linking public law and international law proved a stroke of prescience. As the first review report of CIPL stated "the most remarkable developments of the past decade or so have been the "internationalisation" and "globalisation" of different dimensions of Australian society, the Australian economy and the Australian legal system." The review affirmed the Centre had sought to respond to these inexorable trends by adopting a "genuinely integrated approach to its work in various fields of both public and international law."
CIPL initiated a series of workshops bringing public and international lawyers and public and international policy makers together for interdisciplinary discussion on selected topics and themes, extending CIPL’s unique project emphasising the links between international and public law. A book series from the workshops, jointly edited by Professor Kim Rubenstein and Professor Thomas Pogge with the series title Connecting International law with Public law is an outcome of this initiative, published by Cambridge University Press. See further here.
The first workshop in July 2007 looked at the complexities of accountability and governance in a globalised world, using sanctions as a framework into the issues. The papers from that workshop are in the first book edited by Kim Rubenstein and Jeremy Farrall, Sanctions Accountability and Governance in a Globalised World.
In the second workshop in May 2008 CIPL joined with Professor Thomas Pogge and CAPPE (the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics) at ANU, to examine global health and access to essential medicines. The papers from this workshop are in the second book in the series, edited by Kim Rubenstein, Thomas Pogge and Matthew Rimmer, Incentives for Global Public Health: Patent Law and Access to Essential Medicines.
The third workshop was held in August 2009 and CIPL joined with the Australian Centre for Environmental Law (ACEL) from the ANU College of Law to examine the topic of Environmental discourses in international and public law. The book is now in press to be jointly edited by Kim Rubenstein and Brad Jessup.
Each of the themes of the 2nd,3rd,4th and final book in the series draws from the original 4 themes of the International Association of Research Universities (IARU) and this fourth workshop draws directly from the theme: Movement of People. This workshop also consciously seeks to draw in philosophers, psychologists and political scientists to engage with the issues with the public and international lawyers.
At each of the workshops participants address specific questions and issues regarding the theme so as to better develop each other’s understandings and knowledge about public and international law and policy and the links between the disciplines as they intersect with the chosen subject.
Each participant prepares a draft paper for debate and discussion during the workshop. Each paper is allocated an hour. Twenty minutes is for presentation and 40 minutes for discussion.
At the end of the workshop participants, with the benefit of discussion, finalise their papers for a refereed book that will become part of the CUP book series Connecting International law with Public law
Topic for 2010
Allegiance and Identity in a Globalised World
This fourth workshop focuses on the impact of the movement of people on the concepts of allegiance and identity within a globalised world and its impact on law and policy at the domestic and international levels. The intention of the workshop is to explore how law, philosophy, psychology and other disciplines engage with the concepts of allegiance and identity so that the engagement can enrich public and international law’s frameworks for categorising membership, in the context of the large-scale movement of people throughout the globe.
Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to:
- What is allegiance and has its meaning changed over time?
- How does domestic/public law recognize identity and how does this sit with concepts of allegiance and identity?
- How does international law conceive of identity and how well does it reflect and incorporate movements of people?
- How do understandings of geopolitical conflict and their presumed allegiances affect the legal or social treatment of asylum-seekers and immigrants?
- Has the rise of dual citizenship had an impact on allegiance and national identity?
- How does a person’s formal legal status impact on their sense of membership?
- Should citizenship policy and social policy develop to better incorporate multiple citizenship and multiple/layered identities?
- Are there particular forms of commitment (for example, religious or based on kinship) that might conflict with the national allegiances required by secular and democratic states?
- What does it mean in terms of identities and identifications to become a ‘member’ of a community?
- If the aim of policy is to promote social cohesion, how does allegiance and identity fit in developing that aim?
- Is a singular legal status of citizenship insensitive to the deeper conditions of active membership integral to a dynamic involvement in the identities, principles and values held out by a liberal democratic society?
- Does the concept of multiculturalism deal sufficiently with concepts of dual citizenship, and multiple national identities?
- Do international human rights frameworks incorporate well the rise of dual citizenship?
- Should a "national" be subject to an ever-increasing array of extra-territorial forms of legal regulation?
- Does the nation-state have a greater obligation to protect its nationals when their recognised rights under international law are infringed;
- Are there other legitimate categories of ‘membership’ for individuals within the international legal system, which should result in entitlements and also obligations.
- How should national Constitutions respond to movements of people and changes in the composition of society?
This workshop will be held at the ANU College of Law, The Australian National University, Canberra, at the proposed date of Monday 19th through Wednesday 21 July 2010.
Participants are expected to be at the whole conference as the aim is for all participants to engage fully with the other papers to ensure a coherent book is produced.
Accommodation and all meals will be provided throughout the workshop.
This workshop is open to anyone whose abstract is accepted and researchers, policy makers and practitioners from around the globe are encouraged to consider submitting an abstract. Due to the nature of the workshop there is a limit to the number of abstracts that can be accepted to fit within the 3 day timetable, allowing an hour for each paper as explained above.
Abstracts chosen from individuals who are at one of the International Association of Research Universities (IARU)* will be able to apply to their IARU secretariat to request assistance in providing travel costs to travel to the ANU and the ANU IARU Secretariat will cover the accommodation costs of those participants. Individuals not part of the IARU and needing assistance with travel costs to the ANU should also speak about this with the organizers.
We would be delighted if you would submit an abstract (of between 200-500 words maximum) for a paper addressing any of the issues raised by the topic of the workshop by Friday 12 March 2010.
Professor Kim Rubenstein
Centre for International and Public Law
ANU College of Law
Dr Mark Nolan
Director of Higher Education Degree Programs
ANU College of Law
Dr Fiona Jenkins
The School of Humanities
ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences
*The IARU universities are the ANU, ETH Zürich, National University of Singapore, Peking University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Cambridge, University of Copenhagen, University of Oxford, University of Tokyo and Yale University.
- Andrea Carska-Sheppard, Issues Relevant to the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties
- Régis Bismuth, Anatomy of the Law and Practice of Interim Protective Measures in International Investment Arbitration
- Ula Cartwright-Finch & Craig Tevendale, Privilege in International Arbitration: Is It Time to Recognize the Consensus?
- Alastair Henderson, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Indochina—Law, Practice, and Alternatives
- Nicholas Pengelley, Waiver of Sovereign Immunity from Execution: Arbitration is Not Enough
- Sigvard Jarvin, Swedish Court Decisions on Arbitration, 1999 to 2008
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Le droit interaméricain des droits de l'homme apparaît à bien des égards avant-gardiste, non-conformiste, voire même créatif, par rapport aux canons du positivisme juridique volontariste du droit international public, mais aussi si on le compare et l'évalue à la lumière du droit européen ou du droit international des droits de l'homme. Ce particularisme est forgé par les organes interaméricains de protection, la Commission et la Cour interaméricaines des droits de l'homme, à l'occasion de leur travail d'interprétation de la Convention américaine des droits de l'homme, et revendiqué au nom d'une philosophie juridique interaméricaine des droits de l'homme résolument universaliste. Saisissant l'occasion de la célébration du 40e anniversaire de la Convention américaine des droits de l'homme - adoptée en novembre 1969 - plusieurs auteurs livrent ici leurs réflexions et leur analyse critique de ce qui caractérise le droit interaméricain et qui contribue à former ce particularisme d'ensemble.
- Symeon C. Symeonides, A New Conflicts Restatement: Why Not?
- Ardavan Arzandeh & Jonathan Hill, Ascertaining the Proper Law of an Arbitration Clause under English Law
- Michael Hellner, Third Country Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Rome I Regulation: Old Wine in New Bottles?
- Richard Garnett & Megan Richardson, Libel Tourism or Just Redress? Reconciling the (English) Right to Reputation with the (American) Right to Free Speech in Cross-border Libel Cases
- Craig Forrest, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The Maritime Exceptions
- Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, The Choice of Courts Convention: How Will it Work in Relation to the Internet and E-Commerce?
- Petr Bříza, Choice-of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation Be the Way Out of the Gasser-Owusu Disillusion?
- Jennifer Hillman, Conflicts Between Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO - What Should the WTO Do?
- David Unterhalter, Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings
- Robert Howse, Moving the WTO Forward - One Case at a Time
- John H. Jackson, Process and Procedure in WTO Dispute Settlement
The O’Brien Fellowship was established in 2005 through a very generous gift from David O’Brien for outstanding Masters or Doctoral students studying in the area of human rights and legal pluralism in the Faculty of Law, McGill University. The O’Brien Fellows become members of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, an interdisciplinary research group dedicated to studying legal and cultural issues related to human rights. The Fellows will find a stimulating and supportive environment in the McGill Faculty of Law, whose scholars possess a unique perspective on multiple legal traditions, and whose students learn a rich mix of common, civil and international law, in both French and English.
The O’Brien Fellowships are awarded annually, upon recommendation by the Faculty of Law to the Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Office. They are valued at $25,000 per annum, renewable once for Masters (LL.M.) students and twice for Doctoral (D.C.L.) students (subject to maintaining good standing and providing a satisfactory progress report.) O’Brien Fellows also benefit from a differential fee waiver, meaning that they pay fees at the level of Quebec residents, and one travel grant per year to present their research results at an academic conference.
Successful applicants will have an outstanding academic record and a strong research proposal in the field of human rights and legal pluralism.
The deadline for O’Brien Fellowship applications is January 15th, 2010.
Application forms are available on the web in PDF fillable format here.
Applicants who are not currently enrolled in the LL.M. or D.C.L. program at McGill must also file an application for admission to one of these programs by March 1st, 2010. For further information about admission to the graduate law program, see the description here.
For further information about the O’Brien Fellowship, please see this site.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School have established an International Junior Faculty Forum. The idea behind this is to stimulate exchange of ideas and research, among younger scholars in the academy, from all parts of the world; and to encourage younger scholars in their work. We live today in a global community ‐‐ especially a global legal community ‐‐ and it is important to develop legal scholarship on a transnational basis. Scholars in different countries are often divided by barriers of time and space, as well as barriers of different legal traditions and cultures. We hope that the forum will be a step in the direction of surmounting these barriers.
The papers at the 2009 Forum were on a very wide range of subjects, from the WTO to issues of Muslim marriage in South Africa to the role of lawyers in the financial crisis. The young scholars came from many different countries, and, so too, did the senior scholars. Together, six continents and a wide range of points of view were represented.
The sponsors, Harvard and Stanford law schools, are pleased to announce plans for the third International Junior Faculty Forum. The Forum will be held in October 2010 at the Stanford Law School, Stanford, California with the precise dates to be determined later.
Junior scholars whose home institution is outside the United States and who have held an academic position for less than seven years, as of 2010, or whose last degree was earned less than ten years earlier than 2010 and are not U.S. citizens, are invited to apply for the 2010 session. The first step in applying is to submit an abstract of the proposed paper. We would like these to be no more than 4 pages. Tell us what you plan to do; lay out the major argument of the paper, say something about the methodology, and what you think will be the paperʹs contribution to scholarship. We ask you to submit the abstract in English. The due date for the abstracts is January 20, 2010, although earlier submissions are welcomed. Please submit the abstract electronically to both schools ‐‐ at Harvard, to Juliet Bowler (firstname.lastname@example.org), and at Stanford to Stephanie Basso (email@example.com). The subject line should be: International Junior Faculty Forum. The abstract should contain the authorʹs name, home institution, and the title of the proposed paper.
After the abstracts have been reviewed, we will in February invite a number of junior scholars to submit full papers, electronically (in English) by May 31, 2010. Papers may be on any legally elevant subject. We especially welcome work that is interdisciplinary. The papers can make use of any relevant approach; they can be quantitative or qualitative, sociological, anthropological, historical, or economic. The sponsoring schools would like to emphasize that they welcome papers from junior scholars from all parts of the world. No country or group of countries has a monopoly of talent. Please note that already published papers are not eligible to be considered.
An international committee of legal scholars, who themselves come from across the globe, and represent many different styles and approaches, will review the papers. In the end, about ten of the papers will be chosen for presentation at the conference. And, as before, at the conference itself, two senior scholars, will comment on each paper. After the commentators give their remarks, all of the participants, juniors and seniors alike, will have a chance to join in the discussion. Meeting junior and senior colleagues, and talking about your work and theirs, may be one of the most valuable ‐‐ and enjoyable ‐‐ aspects of the forum.
The sponsoring schools will cover expenses of travel, including airfare, lodging, and food, for each participant. Questions should be directed to Juliet Bowler (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Stephanie Basso (email@example.com).
In recent years, aggrieved groups around the world have routinely portrayed themselves as victims of human rights abuses. Physically and mentally disabled people, indigenous peoples, AIDS patients, and many others have attempted to protect and promote their interests by advancing new human rights norms before the United Nations and other international bodies. Often, these claims have met strong resistance from governments and corporations. More surprisingly, even apparent allies, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other nongovernmental organizations, have voiced misgivings, arguing that rights "proliferation" will weaken efforts to protect their traditional concerns: civil and political rights.
Why are certain global problems recognized as human rights issues while others are not? How do local activists transform long-standing problems into universal rights claims? When and why do human rights groups, governments, and international organizations endorse new rights? The International Struggle for New Human Rights is the first book to address these issues.
Focusing on activists who advance new rights, the book introduces a framework for understanding critical strategies and conflicts involved in the struggle to persuade the human rights movement to move beyond traditional problems and embrace pressing new ones.
Essays in the volume consider rights activism by such groups as the South Asian Dalits, sexual minorities, and children of wartime rape victims, while others explore new rights issues such as health rights, economic rights, and the right to water. Examining both the successes and failures of such campaigns, The International Struggle for New Human Rights will be a key resource not only for scholars but also for those on the front lines of human rights work.
When President George W. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, he did so without the explicit approval of the Security Council. His father's administration, by contrast, carefully funneled statecraft through the United Nations and achieved Council authorization for the U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991. The history of American policy toward Iraq displays considerable variation in the extent to which policies were conducted through the UN and other international organizations.
In Channels of Power, Alexander Thompson surveys U.S. policy toward Iraq, starting with the Gulf War, continuing through the interwar years of sanctions and coercive disarmament, and concluding with the 2003 invasion and its long aftermath. He offers a framework for understanding why powerful states often work through international organizations when conducting coercive policies-and why they sometimes choose instead to work alone or with ad hoc coalitions. The conventional wisdom holds that because having legitimacy for their actions is important for normative reasons, states seek multilateral approval. Channels of Power offers a rationalist alternative to these standard legitimation arguments, one based on the notion of strategic information transmission: When state actions are endorsed by an independent organization, this sends politically crucial information to the world community, both leaders and their publics, and results in greater international support.
- Johannes Urpelainen, Political-economic problems in trade capacity building
- Peter Bernholz, Are international organizations like the Bank for International Settlements unable to die?
- Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Boards of directors in international organizations: A framework for understanding the dilemmas of institutional design
- Mona M. Lyne, Daniel L. Nielson, & Michael J. Tierney, Controlling coalitions: Social lending at the multilateral development banks
The advent of the nuclear age in 1945 fundamentally altered the course of human events. The oceans are not the focus of the nuclear age, but the affairs of the oceans are deeply woven into the history of that age. Knowledge of what the nuclear age has meant for the oceans, however, is highly fragmented and there exists a surprising gap in research on the impact of the nuclear age on the oceans and on ocean law and policy. Ranging from dumped wastes to transportation to security, this study frames the complex multidimensional set of relationships between the oceans and the nuclear age and illuminates patterns of impact and response in ocean law.
- Kottmann & Wohlfahrt, Der gespaltene Wächter? - Demokratie, Verfassungsidentität und Integrationsverantwortung im Lissabon-Urteil
- Lambert Abdelgawad, The Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Towards a Non-coercive and Participatory Model of Accountability
- New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region: Papers from the International Conference at the German Federal Foreign Office in cooperation with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and Norway, 11-13 March 2009, Berlin
Monday, December 7, 2009
Today there are more than 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) around the world. Most of these investment protection treaties offer foreign investors a direct cause of action to claim damages against host-states before international arbitral tribunals. This procedure, together with the requirement of compensation in indirect expropriations and the fair and equitable treatment standard, have transformed the way we think about state liability in international law.
We live in the BIT generation, a world where BITs define the scope and conditions according to which states are economically accountable for the consequences of regulatory change and administrative action. Investment arbitration in the BIT generation carries new functions which pose unprecedented normative challenges, such as the arbitral bodies established to resolve investor/state disputes defining the relationship between property rights and the public interest. They also review state action for arbitrariness, and define the proper tests under which that review should proceed.
State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration is an interdisciplinary work, aimed at academics and practitioners, which focuses on five key dimensions of BIT arbitration. First, it analyses the past practice of state responsibility for injuries to aliens, placing the BIT generation in historical perspective. Second, it develops a descriptive law-and-economics model that explains the proliferation of BITs, and why they are all worded so similarly. Third, it addresses the legitimacy deficits of this new form of dispute settlement, weighing its potential advantages and democratic shortfalls. Fourth, it gives a comparative overview of the universal tension between property rights and the public interest, and the problems and challenges associated with liability grounded in illegal and arbitrary state action. Finally, it presents a detailed legal study of the current state of BIT jurisprudence regarding indirect expropriations and the fair and equitable treatment clause.
Creating Human Rights offers the first systematic study of a pioneering women's refugee movement and its challenge, as an international trigger case, to more conventional paths toward human rights policy development. Lisa S. Alfredson argues that such cases, which unfold in the context of a specific country and have profound impacts on international human rights efforts, have been neglected in research and pose a challenge to recent theorizing on human rights change.
In the early 1990s, Canada witnessed the emergence of the world's first comprehensive refugee policy for women who were seeking protection from female-specific forms of violence—rape, domestic abuse, public stoning of adulterers, genital mutilation—while challenging a gender-biased system. Close examination of this novel movement, Alfredson contends, provides crucial insights into why and how states may articulate new human rights that set international precedents.
Analyzing original empirical data and sociopolitical historical trends, the book documents the decisive global impacts of the movement while shedding light on the paradox of noncitizen politics and asylum seekers' little recognized political strength. Contrary to expectation, findings suggest transnational networks and pressures are not required for some forms of change. Rather, international trigger cases illuminate a range of other key actors and advocacy strategies leading, subsequently, to a more comprehensive understanding of human rights acceptance.
In the case of the women's refugee movement, the convergence of human rights and noncitizen politics points toward a new dimension for human rights scholarship that, in the current age of globalization, is becoming critically important.
The doctrine of separability in international contracts often leads to requests for a court or arbitral tribunal to consider challenges to both the existence and validity of a choice of forum clause prior to hearing party positions on the existence and validity of the remainder of the contract. What is not always clear, however, is what law governs the consideration of choice of forum issues. This inquiry contains at least two important parts: whose law is to govern the determination, and which law (general contract law, procedural law, law on dispute resolution, etc.) is to be applied. This chapter considers the provisions of each the New York Arbitration Convention, the Brussels I Regulation, and the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements that are applicable to the questions of consent to and validity of choice of forum agreements. Each has different language, without clear distinction to why the language differences exist. The doctrines of separability and competence-competence usually are involved in the determination of what law governs the existence and validity of choice of forum agreements. The existence of a choice of forum agreement and its validity are distinctly different questions, and require consideration beyond the law of jurisdiction or arbitration in order insure that a party to a dispute is not subjected to a forum that would not otherwise have jurisdiction over that party and to whose jurisdiction that party has not consented.
In Advocating Dignity, Jean H. Quataert explores the emergence, development, and impact of the human rights revolution following World War II. Intertwining popular local and national mobilizations for rights with ongoing developments of a formal international system of rights monitoring in the United Nations, Quataert argues that human rights advocacy networks have been a vital dimension of international political developments since 1945. Recalling the popular slogan "Think globally, act locally," Quataert contends that postwar human rights have been significantly shaped by the efforts of people at the grassroots. She shows that human rights politics are constituted by local agencies, actions, and contingencies and reinforced by transnational linkages in international society. The U.N. system is continuously reinvigorated and strengthened by its ties to local individuals, organizations, and groups engaged in day-to-day rights advocacy. This daily work, in turn, is supported by the ongoing activities from above.
Quataert establishes the global contexts for the historical unfolding of human rights advocacy through thorough investigations of graphic case studies such as the Soviet dissident movement, the mothers' demonstrations in Argentina, the transnational antiapartheid campaign, and coalitions for gender and economic justice. Drawing widely from many fields of inquiry, including legal studies, philosophy, international relations theory, political science, and gender history, Advocating Dignity is an innovative study that narrates the hopes and bitter struggles that have altered the course of international and domestic relations over the past sixty years.
Climate finance is fundamental to curbing anthropogenic climate change. Compared, however, to the negotiations over emissions reduction timetables, commitments, and architectures, climate finance issues have received only limited and belated attention. Assuring delivery and appropriate use of the financial resources needed to achieve emissions reductions and secure adaptation to climate change, particularly in developing countries, is as vital as agreement on emission caps. Yet, a comprehensive framework on financing for mitigation and adaptation is not in sight. Developed and developing countries cannot agree on even the fundamentals of what should be included (e.g. should private finance through carbon markets be included?), let alone the level and terms of financing commitments, regulatory and other mechanisms, or governance structures.
This impasse, which reflects a lack of trust between developed and developing countries, has manifested itself in basic disagreements over three main issues relating primarily to mitigation finance: first, the necessity of credible and substantial developed country commitments on public funding; second, the role of private finance; and third, the institutions and governance structures to ensure equity and environmental effectiveness.
- Mahdev Mohan, The Paradox of Victim-Centrism: Victim Participation at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal
- Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral, The Swan Song of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain
- Ralph Henham, Towards Restorative Sentencing in International Criminal Trials
- James Farrant, Is the Extra-territorial Application of the Human Rights Act Really Justified?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
- Jacques Werner & Arif Hyder Ali, Foreword
- Charlotte Wälde, Search Engines, Copyright and Innovative Business Models: How Google Sought to Monopolize/Free [Delete as Appropriate] the Printed Word
- Melaku G. Desta, Legal Issues of Opec Production Management Practices and the Law: An Overview
- Hew R. Dundas, Dispute Prevention and Dispute Settlement: Reflections on Discussions With Thomas Wälde
- William F. Fox, The Wisdom of International Commercial Mediation and Conciliation
- John P. Gaffney, Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart: Wälde's Defence of 'Specialisation' in the Interpretation of Investment Treaties
- Walid Ben Hamida, Investment Treaties and Domestic Courts: A Transactional Mosaic Reviving Thomas Wälde's Legacy
- Mirian Kene Kachikwu, The Changing Face of Political Risk in the Energy Industry
- Abba Kolo, Fat Cats and 'Windfall' Taxes in the Natural Resources Industry: Legal and Political Analysis in the light of Modern Investment Treaties,
- Andrey Konoplyanik, Professor Thomas Wälde: In Memoriam of the Friend
- Andrey Konoplyanik, Global Financial Crisis to Put The PSA Regime in Russia Back on the Agenda
- Ian Laird, Interpretation in International Investment Arbitration - Through the Looking Glass
- Michael McIlwrath, Thomas on the Formation of International Arbitral Tribunals: 'The Conversation'
- A. Timothy Martin, Bifurcation of Title in International Oil & Gas Agreements
- William Park, Investment Claims and Arbitrator Comportment
- Chitra Radhakishun, A United Nations' Liaison Hub and Ombudsoffice in International Economic Relations: A Proposal
- Klaus Reichert, Courts and Arbitration: Forming Choices for Young Lawyers
- Noah Rubins & Azizjon Nazarov, Investment Treaties and the Russian Bear: Baiting the Bear?
- Borzu Sabahi, Moral Damages in International Investment Law: Some Preliminary Thoughts in the Aftermath of Desert Line v Yemen
- Christoph Schreuer & Ursula Kriebaum, At What Time Must Legitimate Expectations Exist?
- Abby Cohen Smutny & Petr Polášek, Unlawful or Bad Faith Conduct as a Bar to Claims in Investment Arbitration
- D.J. Harris, Collective Complaints Under the European Social Charter Encouraging Progress?
- Jacques Hartmann, The European Convention on Human Rights and Extradition
- Stephen C. Neff, In Search of Clarity: Non Liquet and International Law
- Michael Wood, ‘Constitutionalization’ of International Law: A Sceptical Voice
- Holly Cullen, The Nature of State Obligations in Relation to Child Labour: Choosing Prosecution over Protection
- Vaughan Lowe, Shadows in the Cave: The Nature of International Law When it Appears before English Courts
- Robert McCorquodale, International Organisations and International Human Rights Law: One Giant Leap for Humankind
- Hazel Fox, Imputability and Immunity as Separate Concepts: The Removal of Immunity from Civil Proceedings Relating to the Commission of an International Crime
- Robert Cryer, Neither Here Nor There? The Status of International Criminal Jurisprudence in the International and UK Legal Orders
- Michael Bohlander, Killing Many to Save a Few? Preliminary Thoughts about Avoiding Collateral Civilian Damage by Assassination of Regime Elites
- G.R. Sullivan, Conduct and Proof of Conduct - Two Fundamental Conditions for the Imposition of Criminal Liability
- Dominic McGoldrick, State Identity and Genocide: The Bosnian Genocide Case
- Harry H.G. Post, Explosive Remnants of the War between Eritrea and Ethiopia
- Dino Kritsiotis, International Law and the Violence of Non-State Actors
- David Anderson, The ‘Disordered Medley’ of International Tribunals And the Coherence of International Law
- Elena Katselli, Countermeasures: Concept and Substance in the Protection of Collective Interests
- J.G. Merrills, Does the Optional Clause Still Matter?
- Sarah Williams, Internationalized Tribunals: A Search for Their Legal Bases
- Nigel D. White, The Road to Kandahar: British Military Interventions and International Law
- K.H. Kaikobad, Non Consensual Aerial Surveillance in the Airspace over the Exclusive Economic Zone for Military and Defence Purposes