Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sciences Po's School of Law is seeking to recruit a full professor in "international economic law" for a public‐sector teaching position.
The successful applicant will be required to teach in the School of Law and the Sciences Po undergraduate program. He/she will pursue his/her individual research activities as part of the School of Law's research team in the field of international economic law and the relations between globalization and law.
Applicants must provide proof of substantial research activity at an internationally recognized level of excellence in the field of international law and, more particularly, international economic law in a global environment and the theory of legal globalization phenomena. They must be open to multidisciplinary approaches to the law and will have demonstrated a capacity to coordinate research with academics in fields other than law. The originality and anticipated scope of the research project and the methods employed will be an important criterion of selection.
The successful candidate will be required to contribute to the development of the School of Law's international relations and to assume responsibilities in the teaching of economic law. He/she must have demonstrated a capacity to develop cooperation agreements with partners outside Sciences Po.
Applicants must have solid experience in teaching and will have demonstrated a capacity for innovative teaching methods. They must be able to teach in English.
This is a public‐sector position and civil‐service posting. The successful applicant will have the status of professor of public law (section 02 of the Conseil national des universités ‐ CNU).
The application must consist of:
- a cover letter explaining reasons for applying;
- a detailed CV with a complete list of the candidate's research work;
- a short CV;
- two examples of the candidate's main research work demonstrating his/her aptitude for fundamental and multidisciplinary research.
A selection committee will examine these documents in accordance with the provisions of French law no. 2007‐1199 of 10 August 2007 relating to public‐sector teaching positions.
For further information, please contact Edith Chabre : edith.chabre@sciences‐po.fr
Ruptures in International Law
A Workshop of the European Society of International Law Interest Group on Legal Theory
1 and 2 September 2010 - Cambridge
Call For Papers – Deadline Monday 15 February 2010
The Interest Group on International Law Theory would like to invite abstracts for papers and expressions of interest for a reading roundtable.
Ruptures in/of International LawRupture (n): 1. a. Breach of a covenant, intercourse, or the peace. b. A breach of harmony or friendly relations between two persons or parties. c. Breach of continuity; interruption. d. The act of breaking out into arms. … 3. a. A break in a surface or substance, such as the skin, flesh, etc. b. A break in the surface of the earth, etc.; a ravine, chasm, gorge, rift. 4. The act of breaking or bursting; the fact of being broken or burst. Rupture (v): 1. a. To break, burst … b. To cause a breach of; to sever….. 2. intr. To suffer a break or rupture. [From the Oxford English Dictionary]Has international legal theory experienced rupture during the period 1989-2010? If so, how have these ruptures been expressed, understood and/or taken account of theoretically? How (if at all) have significant ruptures documented in intellectual, institutional and political history affected theoretical discourses in and about international law? In particular, what, if any, ruptures were effected in international legal theory by or in connection with events of 1989? When and how (if at all), and with what implications, has theoretical inquiry or critique ruptured established trajectories of international legal thought during the past two decades? What are the implications of approaching and/or appraising international legal scholarship by reference to supposed watersheds or instances of rupture?
Abstracts should be around 500 words in length. Papers will be selected by the organising committee of the IGILT by a blind process based on the abstracts.
Please provide a one page CV with your abstract listing affiliation/position/enrolled course, (selected) publications or conference presentations. (Please include the title of your abstract in your CV document for identification).
Presenters may be asked to provide papers in advance of the workshop to allow for the chair to provide a substantive commentary on the papers.
Expressions of interest are sought for participants for a ‘reading roundtable’ to be held at the IGILT workshop. Roundtable participants should come having read the nominated book, and ready to discuss it, relating it to international law, to their own work and/or to the wider themes of the workshop. The chair will lead a discussion initially involving the participants, and then the wider audience.
Attendance at the roundtable will be open to everyone at the workshop. All those attending the workshop, and who would like to come to the roundtable are encouraged to read the book in advance.
Expressions of interest for the reading roundtable should include a short statement of research interests (around 500 words), current position/course and a list of publications. The committee particularly encourages EOI’s from graduate students and newer scholars.
The selected book is:
Claude Lefort, Complications: Communism and the Dilemmas of Democracy (Columbia University Press, 2007)
Abstracts and EOI’s should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org by Monday 15 February 2010.
You don’t need to be a member of the IGILT to participate in the workshop.
However you are welcome to join by emailing email@example.com. To join the IGILT, you need to be a member of ESIL-SEDI.
IGILT Organising Committee:
Aeyal Gross, Jörg Kammerhofer, Fleur Johns, Ignacio de la Rasilla, Sundhya Pahuja, Akbar Rasulov, Tim Sellers, Umut Özsu
The Interest Group on International Environmental Law is pleased to announce that its first workshop will take place during the Fourth Biennial Conference of the European Society of International Law in Cambridge (2-4 September 2010). The IGIEnvL convenors hereby invite the submission of abstracts on the theme of « Fairness in International Environmental Law ».
1. Theme Statement: Fairness in International Environmental Law
International Environmental Law (IEL) has always been a contested project. Ever since its emergence as an autonomous body of law, and perhaps more than any other branch of international law, IEL has had to face charges that it is a political move intended to ‘fix’ the mistakes of industrialized nations at the expense of developing countries. Today, the difficult road to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit provides a very visible and vivid reminder of the conflicting attitudes of the North and the South towards international environmental regimes. Although interdependence creates the incentive to cooperate, IEL continues to be riddled by controversies over the fair distribution of costs, resources, risks and responsibilities.
However, whilst IEL has long acknowledged the reality of these competing claims, fairness tends to remain a somewhat secondary concern, overtaken by what often seems to be more pressing issues of effectiveness and enforcement. The accepted disciplinary wisdom seems to be that IEL has reached a certain degree of normative maturity, and that what is now required is more obedience and better compliance. In other words, whilst IEL continues to be criticized for its ‘softness’, there is little suggestion that the normative blueprint itself needs rethinking and reforming. The objective of this workshop is to explore the role of fairness – actual or potential – in the evolution and development of IEL, and to consider ways in which existing norms, processes and institutions can be revisited to address issues of fairness on the global stage.
2. Structure of the Workshop
The theme of fairness will be explored in the context of two complementary panels, followed by a keynote address by an invited speaker.
Panel 1: Theory, Practice and Discourse of Fairness in International Environmental Law
Fairness – like related notions of equity, legitimacy and justice – is ambivalent and can mean all things to all people. The first panel will seek to disentangle and explore the various theoretical dimensions of fairness, as well as some concrete manifestations of fairness in existing international regimes. Papers are invited to address these issues along the following lines of inquiry:
Defining the Fairness Imperative
Why does fairness matter? What does it mean as a philosophical concept? Is it any different from equity, legitimacy or justice? Is fairness better understood as a principle of retributive justice (fairness as redress for the wrongs of the past) or as a principle of distributive justice (fairness as a need-based or capacity-based burden sharing principle)? Are there non-distributional ways of thinking about fairness? How does fairness relate to notions of compliance and effectiveness? Are proto-concepts like ‘sustainable development’ or ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ useful tools for understanding and addressing problems of fairness?
Faces and Spaces of Fairness
What are the different ways – substantive, procedural or otherwise – in which an environmental regime can be made to be fair? How can the fairness of environmental decision-making be improved? What does fairness mean in relation to the concrete implementation of environmental norms? The traditional focus is on the fairness of multilateral environmental regimes, but what can be done to achieve greater fairness in relation to unilateral environmental measures? Other than through differential treatment, how does/should international law recognize and accommodate the special needs and interests of developing countries? What are some of the proposals put forward by governments, civil society or other actors in this regard? How can they be implemented in practice?
Narratives of Fairness
How, historically, have problems of fairness been framed by developing countries? What strategies – narrative, normative, institutional or otherwise – has the Third World used to oppose and/or transform the (Western) environmental agenda? Is there such a thing as a ‘Third World Approach’ tofairness in IEL? Can IEL be an instrument of distributive justice when it continues to be built around legal categories (state, consent, sovereignty, territory etc.) which have historically been used to justify subordination of the Third World by the West? Rather that conceptualizing fairness in relation to States (developed v. developing), should we ask what international law can do to protect – or more importantly perhaps – to empower vulnerable communities? Is there a danger in antagonizing ‘the West v. the Rest’ when urgent measures are required to address environmental crises?
Panel 2: Making Fairness a Reality in the International Regime on Climate Change
The second Panel will serve to illustrate the theoretical issues raised in PANEL 1 and update the debate on the role of fairness in IEL in the specific context of the climate change regime. In particular, we invite papers to study the configuration and outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held at Copenhagen (December 2009) around the following lines of thinking:
Competition of Objectives: Fairness vs. Effectiveness in the International Regime on Climate Change
Are the two notions of fairness and effectiveness mutually exclusive? Is it suitable to advocate in favour of a value such as the notion of fairness in an inherently heterogenic society as the international community? When put into practice, is there a danger that ‘soft’ considerations of fairness might lose out against the ‘hard’ reality of economics and efficiency? To what extend does the choice of making efficient market instruments at the heart of climate change negotiations support industrialised nations’ perspective? Can market-based international climate change policies integrate developing countries’ concerns?
Fairness in the Allocation of Climate Change Burdens (Mitigation Strategies)
Does the carbon market provide for a fair distribution of the burdens of climate change mitigation strategies? To what extend does the distribution of emissions rights reflect the perspective of nonAnnex I countries? Would the imposition of binding obligations on developing countries make the climate change regime fairer or will it lead to a more unbalanced regime? How might developing countries participate in it (e.g. reformed CDM, voluntary or regulatory REDD financial mechanism, nationally appropriate measures, etc.)?
Fairness in the Distribution of Climate Change Effects (Adaptation Mechanisms)
Taking into account that the impact of climate change across nations is independent of their emissions profile, are the existing mechanisms of adaptation, financing and transfer of technologies sufficient to handle the special vulnerability of developing countries? Do these tools help bring about intragenerational equity? What are the main challenges ahead? How should we strike the balance between the needs of the present generations and those of future generations in the context of adaptation? Does the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities adequately reflect developed countries’ historical responsibility for the problem (intergenerational equity)?
3. Application Process
Papers presented at the workshop will be selected through a competitive process. The selection process will be based exclusively on scholarly merit and priority will be given to unpublished papers and work in progress. We welcome proposals from professionals, academics and graduate students, and remain open to proposals which may challenge the importance given by this workshop to the notion of fairness as a central issue in the future development of IEL.
Each submission should include the following:
- An abstract of no more than 700 words in English or French, specifying the panel for which it is intended.
- A short CV in English or French.
Applications should be submitted to both firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com, in WORD (version 1999-2007) or PDF format. Please write “Proposals 2010 Cambridge Workshop” in the subject of the email.
The deadline for submission of proposals is Monday, 8 February 2010. The outcome of the selection process will be notified to all applicants by Monday, 1 March 2010. After selection, each presenter will be expected to produce a draft paper by Monday, 12 July 2010 for circulation among the other workshop participants.
Publishers have already expressed an interest in publishing the proceedings of the workshop in an edited volume. The organisation reserves itself the right to publish the selected papers. Before publication, all papers will be submitted to peer-review.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
International and domestic regulatory and trade law and policy governing GMO crops and foods produced through genetic engineering poses a variety of sharp challenges for developing countries. Many developing countries, including Argentina, Brazil, China, and South Africa, are making wide use of GMO plants for food and cotton. Highly restrictive environmental, health and safety regulation of GMO foods in Europe, Japan, Korea and other countries poses a serious threat to these countries’ agricultural exports and deters other developing countries from adopting GMO crops, notwithstanding their potential economic, environmental, and food security advantages. Yet other developing countries want to prohibit or restrict GM crops because of environmental, economic, and social concerns. This article examines the different policies adopted by different developing and developed countries regarding GMOs and the international trade conflicts that have resulted, including the “GM Cold War” between the pro-GMO US and the GM skeptic EU. It examines how international regulatory regimes, including the WTO, the Codex Alimentarius, and the Biosafety Protocol, have sought to manage these conflicts. It also considers the complex implications of international regulatory law for developing countries, including the implications of the WTO panel decision in EC Biotech, finding aspects of European GMO regulation contrary to WTO disciplines. The article argues that developing countries, including those that favor greater reliance on GM crops, should organize to exert a greater influence on global GM trade regulatory policies rather than being held hostage to US-EU conflicts.
Simmons: Civil Rights in International Law: Compliance with Aspects of the ‘International Bill of Rights’
International law has developed what many might consider a constitutional understanding of individual civil rights that individuals can claim vis-a-vis their own governments. This paper discusses the development of aspects of international law relating to civil rights, and argues that if this body of law is meaningful we should see evidence of links between acceptance of international legal obligation and domestic practices. Recognizing that external forms of enforcement of civil rights is unlikely (because not generally in the interest of potential "enforcers"), I argue that international civil rights treaties will have their greatest effect where stakeholders - local citizens - have the motive and the means to demand treaty compliance. This is most likely to be the case not in stable autocracies, where such demands are likely to be crushed, nor in stable democracies, where the motive to mobilize is attenuated due to rights saturation, but in transitional countries where the expected value of mobilization is maximized. Thus, I test the hypothesis that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is likely to have its greatest positive effects in transitional countries - those that have had some fleeting experience with democratic governance. This proposition is tested quantitatively with indicators for freedom of religious practice and fair trials. The proposition is weakly supported by extremely stringent statistical models that control for the endogeneity of the treaty commitments, country and year fixed effects, and other obvious influences on civil rights practices. I conclude that the International Bill of Rights has the power to influence the direction of rights practices in fluid political situations, but cannot magically transform autocracies into liberal guarantors of civil liberties. Still, these effects are important, and the most we can expect from scraps of paper which the international community has been reluctant to enforce.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
A review conference to be convened in May, 2010, will consider an amendment to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court that would define the crime of aggression and make that crime prosecutable before the Court. The proposed definition would, this article argues, constitute a crime in blank prose, one that would, in its disregard of the international principle of legality and related constitutional prohibitions against vague and retroactive criminal punishment, run afoul of basic international human rights norms and U.S. domestic guarantees of due process. Repeated efforts to define aggression foundered throughout the 20th century for good reason: no consensus existed then or now as to what the term means, at least not at the level of specificity needed to impose individual criminal liability. Prosecution under the ambiguous definition that is proposed would turn upon factors that the law does not delineate, rendering criminal liability unpredictable and undermining the law’s integrity. The definition is, moreover, so broad in its potential reach that, had it been effect for the last several decades, every U.S. president since John F. Kennedy, hundreds of American legislators and military leaders, as well as innumerable foreign military and political leaders could have been subjected to prosecution. These difficulties would be magnified by including the roulette wheel that is the United Nations Security Council in the decision to prosecute, as some have urged. Excluding the Council, on the other hand, would create an irresolvable conflict with the Charter. That the United States is not a party to the treaty does not render all this academic: it is possible that U.S. military and political leaders could still be prosecuted for the crime of aggression even if the United States continues to refuse to join.
Cooke: Bringing the Spies in from the Cold: Legal Cosmopolitanism and Intelligence under the Laws of War
Recently, as never before, intelligence operations have come under international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court has handed down the Hamdan and Boumediene decisions; President Obama has required the CIA and other interrogators to abide by Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 standards for all interrogations; district courts have declared stringent law of war criteria for overseas detentions; the Executive has applied the laws of war to terrorist targeting; and the private groups which have initiated this litigation, and pressed for these changes, continue to work for even more reform. This paper addresses the roots and effects of such changes. It begins by defining its key term - legal cosmopolitanism - with reference to a wide variety of legal materials, from Eric Posner, the European Court of Human Rights, and others. The paper attempts to illuminate that term’s core parts: a belief in an expanded United States demos, and preference for judicial over political power. The paper then continues with a survey of intelligence law. It illuminates the assumptions of a limited demos and unfettered executive that have until recently underlay intelligence law domestically, and goes on to establish that, in the long history of intelligence, no international law standard has heretofore been successfully applied to these operations. Thus legal cosmopolitanism and intelligence seem opposed, one attempting to expand the demos, with the other depending to some extent on limiting the demos. Nevertheless, recent executive and judicial actions affecting intelligence law have displayed strong and recognizable cosmopolitan underpinnings. The aforementioned executive orders, district court decisions, and policy positions reinforce this point, as a thorough survey of them reveals. Moreover, the history of similar legal initiatives in the uniformed military and elsewhere indicates that United States intelligence agencies will likely instantiate changes beyond even what the executive and courts require. Finally, the paper will conclude by suggesting that we view these changes - and the legal revolution they promise - skeptically. Intelligence has always operated apart from the law. If we bring intelligence operations within the law, they may no longer be able to protect us from what lurks without.
This article explores whether a multilateral investment treaty is necessary and possible in the framework of foreign direct investment (FDI) law or whether the current multifaceted and multilayered system of bilateral and regional investment agreements should be retained. This article aims to study existing investment regimes with a view toward creating a multilateral investment framework. This goal, however, does not suggest that current bilateral and regional investment regimes should be replaced or that the existing regimes are inadequate. The article analyzes foreign direct investment from an economic, development, and political perspective. The article then reviews the chronological evolution of FDI regulation, followed by an overview of the current principles and rules of FDI. As a necessary next step, the article examines the support for a multilateral investment framework. The main reasons behind such a framework are twofold: the current fragmented international investment regime may encourage regulatory competition among the various models of international investment agreements; and investor-state arbitration is causing issues of inconsistency of arbitral awards as well as forum shopping in dispute resolution. Finally, the article identifies policy considerations for a future multilateral investment framework. The article concludes that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has the opportunity here to incorporate years of experience of bilateral and regional investment agreements and develop a multilateral agreement for investment. Such an agreement in the WTO context would not replace current investment regulatory regimes, but could clarify the relationship among the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, and bilateral investment treaties.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
- Marcelo D. Varella, The effectiveness of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization
- Mohammad Masudur Rahman & Laila Arjuman Ara, Trade in financial services in developing countries: a case of the Bangladesh financial sector
- Muhammad Abu Sadah, Philosophical basis of the legal theory underlying international commercial arbitration in the Middle East region
- Teshager Dagne, Building on the Canadian approach to resolve the stalemate on the trade and environment agenda in the World Trade Organization
- Ayse Evrensel, Effectiveness of economic cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a novel and ambitious human rights treaty which entered into force in 2008. Amongst its many interesting features are two of particular relevance to the European Union. The first is its strikingly ‘experimentalist’ architecture, to use the term coined by Charles Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin in describing EU governance, and the second is the fact that this was the first occasion on which the European Community, as it then was, participated in the drafting and signing of an international human rights treaty. This article examines the role played by the EC in the process of negotiating the CRPD and considers whether or not the EU significantly influenced the experimentalist character of the Convention. It concludes that while the EU was, on the whole, an active and supportive participant in the drafting process, the Convention’s experimentalist character was driven by other factors, in particular by the central role of NGOs and other non-state actors in the negotiation process. The EU, on the other hand, strove mainly to promote the adoption of its own internal model of disability discrimination at the international level.
Monday, December 21, 2009
- Ursula Kriebaum, Human Rights of the Population of the Host State in International Investment Arbitration
- M. Rafiqul Islam & Md. Rizwanul Islam, The Global Food Crisis and Lacklustre Agricultural Trade Liberalisation: Demystifying their Nexus Underpinning Reform
- Jan Schokkaert & Yvon Heckscher, Protected Investors Nationality
- Mary B. Ayad, International Commercial Arbitration Award Enforcement at the Crossroads of Sharia Law and Orden Public in the MENA: Paving the Golden Path towards Harmonisation
- Paolo Vargiu, Beyond Hallmarks and Formal Requirements: a "Jurisprudence Constante" on the Notion of Investment in the ICSID Convention
- The 14th Geneva Global Arbitration Forum
- Jacques Werner, Foreword
- Charles C. Adams, Will State Emergency Measures Trigger WTO Disputes
- Stuart Harbinson, Gary Horlick, & Jayashree Watel, What Prospects Exist for Reforming the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO - Professional Panellists, Retroactive, Remedies, Monetary Compensation?
Prognosticators of the international scene have focused on two claims on which there is broad agreement: First, globalization is producing deep integration among nations, moving in the direction of quasi-constitutional global governance; and, second, Asia will significantly influence the world in decades to come. These two claims are in tension with each other. Asian countries have hardly been leaders in deep integration of the constitutionalist variety, though they have been effective participants in globalized markets. Projecting forward, one expects an Asia-dominated international law to emphasize traditional concerns of sovereignty, non-interference, and mutual cooperation rather than the constitutionalist vision of supranational institutions reaching deep into the way states govern themselves and treat their own populations. Eastphalia may be Westphalia without the universalism—a kinder, gentler Westphalia.
- Stephen M. Schwebel, A BIT about ICSID
- Ben Juratowitch, The Relationship between Diplomatic Protection and Investment Treaties
- Ucheora Onwuamaegbu, Using Treaties to Define Rules of Procedure in Investor-State Arbitration: The CAFTA Example
- Anthony C. Sinclair, ICSID's Nationality Requirements
- Gaëtan Verhoosel, Annulment and Enforcement Review of Treaty Awards: To ICSID or Not to ICSID