Chaumette: Les sujets du droit international pénal

Anne-Laure Vaurs Chaumette has published Les sujets du droit international pénal: Vers une nouvelle définition de la personnalité juridique internationale? (Pedone 2009). Here's the abstract:

Cette thèse porte sur la définition de la personnalité juridique internationale. L'étude des sujets du droit international pénal est le prétexte pour vérifier la validité de la définition donnée par la Cour internationale de Justice en 1949. La Cour définissait alors le sujet de droit comme le titulaire de droits et d'obligations et de la capacité à se prévaloir de ses droits et à répondre de ses obligations. L'analyse du sujet créancier et du sujet débiteur du droit international pénal force à admettre que la définition de 1949 n'est pas appropriée pour qualifier le sujet du droit international pénal. D'une part, le sujet créancier du droit international pénal, l'Etat, se caractérise avant tout par sa capacité à déclencher le procès international pénale et non par les droits subjectifs dont il serait le titulaire. D'autre part, le sujet débiteur du droit international pénal, l'individu, se définit par sa capacité à être sanctionné par les juridictions internationales pénales et non par les obligations primaires qu'il aurait violées. Il apparaît ainsi que la personnalité juridique internationale coïncide avec la capacité à agir, que celle-ci soit active ou passive. La personnalité juridique internationale retrouve finalement sa signification étymologique : elle est le rôle de l'acteur juridique, son masque sur la scène internationale.

Pattison: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

James Pattison (Univ. of Manchester - Politics) has published Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (Oxford Univ. Press 2010). Here's the abstract:

This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? This book answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice? The book then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.

Stephan: Treaties in the Supreme Court: 1946-2000

Paul B. Stephan III (Univ. of Virginia - Law) has posted Treaties in the Supreme Court: 1946-2000. Here's the abstract:

This paper, a chapter in a forthcoming book on International Law and the Supreme Court, examines the treaty decisions of the Court during the postwar era, up until the second Bush Administration. Three patterns stand in the many (roughly 130) decisions. First, the Court acted as if the immediately preceding period – the New Deal, then the War – created a sharp break with the past, freeing the Court to address many questions as novel rather than rooted in settled practice. Second, the Court largely resisted the invocation of treaties as authority contradicting congressional statutes and executive practice regarding matters of public law, but gave greater effect to treaties that addressed what the Court perceived as matters of private interest – disputes over property ownership, contract enforcement, and liability for torts. Third, the Court did invoke treaty-based rules in cases where it perceived the desire of Congress and the President to draw on international law to fill out the meaning of particular statutes.

Noll: Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law

Gregor Noll (Lund Univ. - Law) has posted Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law. Here's the abstract:

International humanitarian law (IHL) does not prohibit military action resulting in the loss of civilian life at large. As long as its rules on the protection of civilians and their property are followed, the incidental causation of civilian loss is legal. Why is this so? The not-so-naïve answer is that contemporary military operations would be made difficult, if they were to be carried out under legal norms leaving no room for civilian casualties whatsoever. Such severe constraints were as undesirable for states developing ius in bello through history as the total absence of constraints. That apart, incidental and lawful civilian losses within the framework of IHL could be seen as indispensable signs in a symbolic order fettering violent conflicts in communities. With this text, I would like to outline how this possibility might be researched in a future, more comprehensive project. In choosing targeting as an area, I believe that I am close to an archetypical norm on the fettering of violence in the laws of war. The present text features two distinct steps.

First, I explore central norms on targeting in contemporary IHL, as the ultimate point of a historically grown body of thought on the lawful killing of certain civilians. This reading of the law emphasises its central ambiguities, and tries to lay bare the chains of equivalence between military objective and civilian death it constructs. A central concern is the open question of civil-political objective to be pursued through IHL-abiding war. All this will be done in the consecutive Section 2.

Second, to argue that casualties are perceived as necessary preconditions for peace in an international community, I introduce a theory explaining how the causation of incidental death of civilians, rather than the willed death of enemy combatants, plays a pacifying role in the symbolic order of international law. I wish to explore targeting norms as part of a contemporary victimisation ritual, offering the civilian casualty in exchange for divine appeasement of an international community. This approach draws on the work of René Girard explaining how communal violence is contained through ritual acts of sacrificial killings. This projection of Girardian theory on IHL norms will be performed in Section 3. A brief conclusion will be drawn in Section 4.

Call for Submissions: Space Law and International Economic Law

The Indian Journal of International Economic Law has issued a call for submissions for a special issue on "Space Law and International Economic Law." Here's the call (courtesy of Res Communis):

IJIEL is a peer-reviewed journal produced by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore, funded by the Indian government sponsored chair on WTO law at NLSIU. The mandate of the journal encompasses all aspects of international economic law, especially from a developing country perspective. Our Editorial Board includes renowned and respected academics such as Prof. Andrew Guzman, Ms. Jayashree Watal and Prof. Yuji Iwasawa. Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati wrote the foreword for our first issue. We have just published our second issue in October 2009.

As a young journal we try to focus on new, contemporary and interesting areas and issues. One such area is the interface between international economic law and space law, particularly topics such as the umbrella of common benefit and interest which covers international trade in space products and information, or the international financial implications of multilateral space operations.

Submissions are sought in three categories: long Articles of 10,000-12,000 words, short articles of 5,000-8,000 words and notes or comments of 2,000-4,000 words. The deadline for submissions is May 31, 2010. The issue will be published by the end of August, 2010. Citations should conform to the Bluebook system.

For further information regarding the journal, or to access the first two issues, please visit http://www.ijiel.com. Please direct queries concerning this special issue to ijiel@nls.ac.in, or directly to the Chief-Editor (Abhimanyu George Jain) at abhimanyugeorgejain@gmail.com.

Talmon: Security Council Treaty Action

Stefan A.G. Talmon (Univ. of Oxford - Law) has posted Security Council Treaty Action (Revue Hellénique de Droit International, Vol. 62, p. 65, 2009). Here's the abstract:

It is well established that the United Nations can conclude treaties and that the Security Council can instruct the Secretary-General to conclude treaties on the UN’s behalf with States and other international organizations. It is less clear whether and to what extent the Security Council has the power to take other treaty action, i.e. whether it may amend, alter, modify, rewrite or interpret existing treaties, or interfere in any other way in the ordinary treaty-making and treaty-reviewing processes. In recent years, several member States have expressed concern at the Council’s increasing tendency to take treaty action on behalf of the international community. This paper examines the way in which the Security Council has used its powers under the UN Charter to take certain treaty actions. In particular, it asks whether there are any legal limits to the Security Council adapting existing treaties to a particular situation, and whether it can prescribe pre-existing treaty provisions to non-State parties. It also examines the consequences if the Security Council formally endorses a certain treaty, and the role it plays in the enforcement and interpretation of treaties.

Knowles: 'Judgment of the Law': Justice Robert H. Jackson and the Foundations of the London Charter

Helen J. Knowles (State Univ. of New York, Oswego - Political Science) has posted 'Judgment of the Law': Justice Robert H. Jackson and the Foundations of the London Charter. Here's the abstract:

By the spring of 1945, when President Truman appointed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to be America’s chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the more contentious political objectives for the Allied pursuit of postwar justice had already been the subjects of considerable debate within policy-making circles in the Roosevelt Administration. When he traveled to London to negotiate the Charter for the tribunal, Jackson took with him more than his own conceptions of what should be included in the document. As Jackson himself said, the structure of principles that he designed “only recognized an evolution that already had been consummated.” In this article I examine the impact of this consummation on the crafting of the London Charter.

The Charter reflected Jackson’s personal devotion to the rule of law, but a more complete understanding of his contributions to the Charter can best be achieved by examining the work of three other individuals. Drawing on materials from various manuscript collections at the F.D.R. Library, I look at the work of Herbert C. Pell, Henry L. Stimson, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Jackson benefited from the domestic policymaking battles between these individuals because he was able to take with him to London the fruits of their labors and, through remaining purposefully detached from the baggage of the executive branch, meld them with principles that reflected his own beliefs.

Kapczynski: Harmonization and its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India's Pharmaceutical Sector

Amy Kapczynski (Univ. of California, Berkeley - Law) has posted Harmonization and its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India's Pharmaceutical Sector (California Law Review, Vol. 97, p. 1571, 2009). Here's the abstract:

In 2005, India amended its patent law to provide product patents on medicines, to comply with the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement. In order to mitigate the impact on access to medicines, India at the same time adopted an expansive menu of flexibilities in its patent law. Reviewing these important flexibilities, some of which are entirely novel, this article argues that at a formal level TRIPS leaves developing countries far more policy space than is commonly recognized. But while TRIPS as a formal matter cannot produce deep harmonization, it nonetheless channels a strong harmonizing force, because it inserts countries into a transnational circuit that fills in the gaps in the Agreement and that works against the use of TRIPS flexibilities. Limits on administrative resources, the influence of transnational legal networks, and the threat of unilateral retaliation from high-protection jurisdictions all make it difficult for countries like India to implement an autonomous vision of patent law.

The paper also identifies compensating strategies that may facilitate the effective use of TRIPS flexibilities, responding to the transnationalized pressures that TRIPS implementation sets up. I call these strategies fragmentation, mimicry, and counter-harmonization. As I demonstrate, counter-harmonization shows the most promise for developing countries, because it offers countries safety in numbers, can lower the administrative costs of implementing an alternative patent law, and can generate a transnational legal counterculture.

Lastly, the paper engages with the literature about the implications of the legalization of the global trading regime. The case study offered here suggests that legalization cannot simply be identified, as some prominent trade law scholars have argued, with the substitution of politics for principle, and with the leveling of power differences between states. It also suggests a new perspective on the debate over whether the WTO has a “constitutional” form, and if so, what this means. To date, those who claim a constitutional nature for the WTO have identified that nature with a move beyond politics. The analysis offered here suggests that if the WTO has a constitutional nature, it lies in its capacity to mobilize and channel, rather than to suppress or transcend, political disagreement.

Workshop: Clark, Hay

Jesse Clark (U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office) will give a talk today at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law Friday Lunchtime Lecture Series on "Negotiating the UN Arms Trade Treaty: Law and Policy."

Ellen Hay (Erasmus Univ. of Rotterdam - Law) will give a talk today at the University of Nottingham School of Law-International Law Association (British Branch) Regional Seminar on "The Millennium Development Goals, Human Rights and Functionalism in International Law."

New Issue: Mealey's International Arbitration Report

The latest issue of Mealey's International Arbitration Report (Vol. 25, no. 2, February 2010) is out.

Francioni & Lenzerini: Reflections on the Impact of Communism on Italian International Law Scholarship: 1945-1989

Francesco Francioni (European Univ. Institute - Law) & Federico Lenzerini (Univ. of Siena - Law) have posted Reflections on the Impact of Communism on Italian International Law Scholarship: 1945-1989. Here's the abstract:

What has been the impact of Communism on the European scholarship of international law in the post-World War II period ? What are lingering differences today in the attitudes of scholars from West and East Europe twenty years after the end of the cold war? This paper, which is part of a series of country studies, is aimed at contributing to a reflection on these questions by focusing on Italy and Italian international law scholarship in the period 1945-1989. The research has covered the responses of Italian scholars to some of the major international crises triggered by Soviet Communism during the Cold War, the influence of Communist theories of international law on Italian doctrine, Communism as an object of study by Italian international law scholars, and the influence of Communism on the active political engagement of Italian scholars. Surprisingly, the conclusion is that such influence has been extremely limited, in spite of the profound impact of Communism on post World-War II Italian political and social life.

Call for Papers: 2nd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2010

The National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Asian Society of International Law (AsianSIL) have issued a call for papers for the second NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2010, to take place September 30-October 1, in Singapore. The theme is: "Asian Approaches to International Law: Theory, Institutions, Processes, and Practices." Here's the call:

The National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Asian Society of International Law (AsianSIL) are pleased to invite applications to attend the 2nd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2010 – Asian Approaches to International Law: Theory, Institutions, Processes, and Practices.

The Workshop will be held at NUS in Singapore from Thursday, 30 September to Friday, 1 October 2010. The workshop builds on the success of the Inaugural NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop – Colonies, Development, Conflict, Rights, Money in 2008 and is intended to cultivate the next generation of international legal scholars. Younger academics, doctoral students, young legal professionals with an interest in scholarship are encouraged to apply. Exceptional Master’s students are also welcome to submit their abstracts. Paper-givers who are selected through a competitive process will have their reasonable expenses covered.

Theme for the 2010 Workshop

Asia has long been an outlier both in terms of its international institutions and its embrace of international law. Asia has not chosen to construct regional institutions comparable to those in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, preferring to adopt an approach of variable geometry and pragmatic alliances. The region’s commitment to what some call the “Asian way” has sometimes privileged consultation and consensus over clear and binding obligations. The 2nd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2010 – Asian Approaches to International Law: Theory, Institutions, Processes and Practices seeks to explore, from the perspective of younger scholars from Asia, how international law in the region has developed and what its prospects are in the decades to come.

The Workshop is intended to provide a platform for younger academics from the region to discuss ongoing research in international law with one another and more senior commentators. It also fosters the presence of “Asian voices” in international law through the post-Workshop publication of cutting edge research in the Asian Journal of International Law. (Please note that while all paper submissions shall be considered for publication, the Asian Journal of International Law’s offer to publish is subject to peer-review and editorial discretion.)

Proposals from young scholars and professionals across the region are encouraged on any topic linked to international law, but particularly focusing on Asian Approaches to International Law: Theory, Institutions, Processes and Practices. Subject areas might include (a) History and Theory of International Law, (b) Law of Armed Conflict (IHL), (c) International Organizations, (d) Dispute Settlement, (e) Law of the Sea, (f) Law of Environment, (g) Human Rights, (h) International Criminal Law, (i) Law of Development, (j) International Economic Law, (k) Private International Law (Conflict of Laws).

To submit a proposal, please complete the Online Abstract Submission Form by Friday, 2 April 2010.

Those selected to participate in the workshop will be notified by Friday, 16 April 2010. Participation will be contingent on producing a draft of the paper (in the order of 8,000 words) by Friday, 30 July 2010.

Important Deadlines

Submission of Abstract - Friday, 2 April 2010

Notification of Accepted Abstract - Friday, 16 April 2010

Submission of Paper - Friday, 30 July 2010

Submission of Registration Form - Friday, 30 July 2010

Conference - Thursday, 30 September to Friday, 1 October 2010

Conference: Junior International Law Scholars Association

Tomorrow, February 26, 2010, the Junior International Law Scholars Association will hold its annual conference at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Here's the program:

• Paper Panel 1: Uniformity and Diversity in International Legal Theory
• Evan Criddle, “Securing Human Rights in Emergencies: Insights from Fiduciary Theory” - Comment: Julian Davis Mortenson
• Omar Dajani, “Mandatory Rules of International Law?” - Comment: Jerry Vildostegui
• Lesley Wexler, “Disunified Theory of the Laws of War” - Comment: Harlan Cohen
• Paper Panel 2: Fragmented Regulation in a Transnational World
• Anthony Colangelo, “The Foreign Commerce Clause” - Comment: Michael Granne
• Molly Beutz Land, “Federalism, Localism, and International Law” - Comment: Trey Childress
• Anna Spain, “Global Legal Integration: The Emerging Architecture of Dispute Resolution in an Era of Climate Change” - Comment: Nienke Grossman
• Breakout Session: Early Stage Paper Ideas
• Group 1: Meg deGuzman, Moria Paz, Susan Benesch, Chimène Keitner - Moderator: Harlan Cohen
• Group 2: Shahram Dana, Nienke Grossman, Patricia Judd, Julian Davis Mortenson - Moderator: David Zaring
• Paper Panel 3: The Shape of International Justice
• Caroline Davidson, “Are Human Rights Not Compelling Enough? Bail at International Criminal Tribunals” - Comment: Meg deGuzman
• Sasha Greenawalt, “The Pluralism of International Criminal Law” - Comment: Susan Benesch
• Noah Novogrodsky, “Transnational Jurisdiction: The Power To Say What Can’t Be Said” - Comment: Paul Dubinsky
• Remarks by incoming ASIL President David Caron

Conference: Protection of Children and Families during Armed Conflict

The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem will host a conference on the "Protection of Children and Families during Armed Conflict," June 6-8, 2010, in Jerusalem. The program is not yet available. Here's the idea:

The importance of studying the impact of political conflict on children and families, and of preventing that impact arises from a number of empirically-based factors. First, armed conflicts are unfortunately a part of life in many parts of the world and are not likely to disappear soon. Second, children are among the most vulnerable people in any conflict, since they are not fully developed individuals. Third, families play a central role in the socialization of children so that damage to the structure and function of a family will add considerably to the suffering of the children. Fourth, developmental research shows that the risks and traumas experienced in childhood may be longlasting and lead to poor developmental outcomes. Finally, there is evidence that exposure to armed conflict may lead to a perpetuation of the trauma and conflict across generation.

Children are affected by political violence, not only in their experiencing of it but in the potential for this experience to affect the rest of their lives. While international legal safeguards for children exist, and there has been extensive research on the effects of exposure to political violence, the topic of protection of children in conflict has not received adequate research attention, and actual protection efforts have been weak and inconsistent. There is too little thinking about protecting children and families in one’s own society, and even less on protecting those on the “other side”.

Workshop: Uerpmann

Robert Uerpmann (Univ. of Regensburg - Law) will give a talk today at the Oxford Public International Law Discussion Group on "Principles of International Internet Law."

Burbano Herrera: Provisional Measures in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Clara Burbano Herrera (Ghent Univ. - Human Rights Centre) has published Provisional Measures in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Intersentia 2010). Here's the abstract:

Provisional measures are an instrument used by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Their purpose is to prevent irreparable harm to the rights and freedoms ensured under the American Convention on Human Rights of persons, who are in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. The measures, ordered ex officio or at the request of a party, result in protection offered by the respondent State to alleged victims. Those can include family members of alleged victims, witnesses, journalists, political candidates, human rights defenders, members of indigenous communities, prisoners who live in deplorable conditions, the seriously ill or those on hunger strikes, officials of the justice system, aliens under orders of deportation or extradition and those sentenced to capital punishment. This does not in any way result in prejudging the merits of the matter before the Inter-American Court.

Today, interim measures have a key role in many of the cases that are brought before the Inter-American Human Rights System. Surely, neither the judges, academia, nor the international community in general had imagined the dimensions that this institution would acquire in the jurisprudence over the years. This book analyses the complete case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with regard to provisional measures. It deals with the jurisdiction of the Court (ratione personae, materiae, temporis and loci) to order such measures and the admissibility questions respectively. This is followed by an analysis of the evidentiary issues, the processing of the request for provisional measures, the delay within which interim measures are usually adopted by the Court and the duration of the measures. Finally, the legal nature of the provisional measures and the legal consequences in case of incompliance by States are examined, as well as the compliance rate and the factors that may be considered the main obstacles to some measures being effective. This study attempts to exalt the work of the measures and explore responses so that they might better meet their function of protecting rights effectively. Beyond its academic value, this book hopes to have a practical utility, a social visibility. It is an invitation to each individual to get acquainted with the power that the case law of the Inter-American Court has given to the figure of interim measures measures. He or she may then use it, as a useful tool that has the virtue of avoiding the irreparable violation of rights in situations of extreme gravity and urgency.

Call for Papers: Proportionality in Armed Conflicts

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied and Territories have issued a call for papers for an international conference on "Proportionality in Armed Conflicts," November 21-23, 2010, in Jerusalem. Here's the call:

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Minerva Center for Human Rights

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

and

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories

PROPORTIONALITY IN ARMED CONFLICTS

An International Conference

Jerusalem, 21-23 November 2010

INTRODUCTION:

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories are organizing an international conference that seeks to examine recent developments relating to the scope, meaning and application of the principle of proportionality in armed conflicts. The conference, the fifth in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on international humanitarian law (IHL), is scheduled for 21-23 November 2010, and will take place in Jerusalem.

Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of the selected proposals will be offered flight expenses to Israel and accommodations for the duration of the conference.

BACKGROUND:

It has become a truism that the "application of the principle of proportionality is more easily stated than applied in practice", both under jus ad bellum and jus in bello. While virtually all states and scholars remain committed, in principle, to proportionality as a lex lata constraint on the use of military force and other security measures, the list of factors to be weighed under a proportionality analysis, the relative weight assigned to each factor and the desirable ends against which the proportionality of the military force employed is examined all remain highly controversial. The application of the principle of proportionality to asymmetric conflicts raises an additional set of theoretical and practical problems.

Determining the scope, meaning and application of the principle of proportionality in armed conflicts has always generated controversy. In particular, recent events have sharpened questions of jus ad bellum proportionality relating to the permissibility of using massive force as a deterrent against future attacks (including numerous low-level attacks), or as a means of attaining the unconditional surrender of the adversary, and the relevance of comparisons drawn between the military capabilities and the numbers of victims on both side for proportionality analysis.

In IHL (jus in bello) the principle of proportionality in the conduct of hostilities is also increasingly becoming the focus of attention. During recent armed conflicts such as in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, or Gaza, for instance, there was fierce legal debate over the degree in which force-protection measures can justify extensive collateral damage, the obligation to employ accurate but expensive weaponry, the impact of using voluntary and non-voluntary human shields, and the extent of the precautionary obligations imposed on the warring parties.

Applying the principle of proportionality in armed conflicts also gives rise to procedural and institutional challenges: To what extent is the concept of proportionality amenable to legal analysis and monitoring by national and international institutions? Who has the authority to determine the proportionality of specific or general measures? The application of criminal law concepts such as actus reus, mens rea and command responsibility to possible violations of the principle of proportionality raises another series of questions.

Ultimately, we are confronted with the question whether proportionality is a meaningful restraint on the belligerent parties (or occupying powers), or an open-ended vocabulary that can be equally used to challenge or justify politically controversial forms of violence.

PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE:

The conference aims to critically examine the scope, meaning and application of the principle of proportionality in times of armed conflict under existing law and practice. It seeks both to improve our understanding of existing norms and identify areas of future normative development (and, if possible, institutional development).

By studying the contents of the principle of proportionality under both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the conference hopes to contribute to the development of law and scholarship in this crucial field of international law.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:

Researchers interested in addressing these questions, or other questions related to the topic of the conference, are invited to respond to this call for papers with a one or two-page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted no later than 10 April 2010, by email, to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

Email: mchr@savion.huji.ac.il

Applicants will receive notification of the committee's decision, by 10 May 2010. Short written contributions (of approx. 8-10 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2010. The organizers intend to publish in the Israel Law Review full-length papers based on selected presentations made at the conference.

CONFERENCE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE:

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Prof. Alon Harel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Prof. Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Dr. Tomer Broude, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Mr. Charles Shamas, Mattin Group, Ramallah

Dr. Cordula Droege., ICRC, Israel, the Occupied Territories

Adv. Eitan Diamond, ICRC, Israel, the Occupied Territories

Dr. Yael Ronen, Israel Law Review

Biermann, Pattberg, & Zelli: Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation

Frank Biermann (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), Philipp Pattberg (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam) & Fariborz Zelli (Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik) have published Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation (Cambridge Univ. Presss 2010). Here's the abstract:

A cutting-edge assessment of policy options for future global climate governance, written by a team of leading experts from the European Union and developing countries. Global climate governance is at a crossroads. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was merely a first step, and its core commitments expire in 2012. This book addresses three questions which will be central to any new climate agreement. What is the most effective overall legal and institutional architecture for successful and equitable climate politics? What role should non-state actors play, including multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, public-private partnerships and market mechanisms in general? How can we deal with the growing challenge of adapting our existing institutions to a substantially warmer world? This important resource offers policy practitioners in-depth qualitative and quantitative assessments of the costs and benefits of various policy options, and also offers academics from wide-ranging disciplines insight into innovative interdisciplinary approaches towards international climate negotiations.

New Issue: Harvard International Law Journal

The latest issue of the Harvard International Law Journal (Vol. 51, no. 1, Winter 2010) is out. Contents include:

• Gráinne de Búrca, The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order After Kadi
• Andrew K. Woods, A Behavioral Approach to Human Rights
• Tom Dannenbaum, Translating the Standard of Effective Control into a System of Effective Accountability
• Jens David Ohlin, The Torture Lawyers
• Julian Davis Mortenson, The Meaning of "Investment": ICSID's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law

Giegerich & Proelß: Bewahrung des ökologischen Gleichgewichts durch Völker- und Europarecht

Thomas Giegerich & Alexander Proelß have published Bewahrung des ökologischen Gleichgewichts durch Völker- und Europarecht (Duncker & Humblot 2010). Contents include:

• A. Proelß, Einführung
• T. Marauhn, Menschenrecht auf eine gesunde Umwelt: Trugbild oder Wirklichkeit?
• G. Winter, Die institutionelle und instrumentelle Entstaatlichung im Klimaschutzregime: Gestalt, Problemlösungskapazität und Rechtsstaatlichkeit
• R. Dolzer & C. Kreuter-Kirchhof, Das Umweltvölkerrecht als Wegweiser neuer Entwicklungen des allgemeinen Völkerrechts?
• H. Horn & P. C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environmental Policies and the Role of Jurisdiction in the WTO
• P.-T. Stoll, Gerechte Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen zwischen Bewahrung der Artenvielfalt, Schutz indigenen Wissens und Wirtschaftsfreiheit
• A. Epiney, Abfalltourismus aus rechtlicher Sicht; ausgewählte europarechtliche Aspekte
• U. Beyerlin, Wege zur Verbesserung der Nord-Süd-Kooperation in globalen Umweltfragen
• K. Hakapää, Protection of the Marine Environment in the Light of New Uses and Old Dangers

Workshops: Bartels, Palombella

Lorand Bartels (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) will give a talk today at the UCL Faculty of Laws and International Law Association (British Branch) International Law Seminar on "Applicable Law in International Law."

Gianluigi Palombella (Univ. of Parma - Law) will give a talk today at the New York University School of Law Institute for International Law and Justice International Legal Theory Colloquium on "Rule of Law in Extra-National Governance."

Voon & Mitchell: Open for Business? China's Telecommunications Service Market and the WTO

Tania S. Voon (Univ. of Melbourne - Law) & Andrew D. Mitchell (Univ. of Melbourne - Law) have posted Open for Business? China's Telecommunications Service Market and the WTO. Here's the abstract:

China joined the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’) in 2001 after almost 15 years of negotiations, making extensive commitments to open its markets to foreign investment and liberalise trade in goods and services. China represents a huge potential market for foreign telecommunications service providers; yet, in practice, foreign involvement in this market is extremely limited. This article identifies key commercial and legal barriers to foreign entry into China’s telecommunications service market, exploring areas of apparent non-compliance with WTO rules and China’s justifications for its current approach. This research provides a valuable case study of China’s WTO compliance, the significance of obligations contained in China’s Accession Protocol, and the meaning of Members’ WTO commitments more generally under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (‘GATS’). The article raises important considerations for China as it finalises its telecommunications law, which has been in the drafting stages for many years.

New Issue: International Criminal Law Review

The latest issue of the International Criminal Law Review (Vol. 10, no. 1, 2010) is out. Contents include:

• Rebecca Young, How Do We Know Them When We See Them? The Subjective Evolution in the Identification of Victim Groups for the Purpose of Genocide
• Michele Caianiello, Disclosure before the ICC: The Emergence of a New Form of Policies Implementation System in International Criminal Justice?
• Daniel Sheppard, The International Criminal Court and "Internationally Recognized Human Rights": Understanding Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute
• Nidal Nabil Jurdi, The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?
• Dawn L. Rothe & Christopher W. Mullins, Beyond the Juristic Orientation of International Criminal Justice: The Relevance of Criminological Insight to International Criminal Law and its Control A Commentary
• Zia Akhtar, Canadian Genocide and Official Culpability

Conference: Government Lawyering and International Law (Update)

As noted previously, the Yale Journal of International Law's 35th anniversary conference, on "Government Lawyering and International Law," will take place this Friday, February 26, 2010, in New Haven. The program is now available here.

Conference: La Refondation du Système Monétaire et Financier International: Évolutions réglementaires et institutionnelles

The Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN) will host a conference on "La Refondation du Système Monétaire et Financier International: Évolutions réglementaires et institutionnelles," March 16-17, 2010, in Paris. The program is here. Here's the idea:

La crise financière que nous connaissons depuis 2008 est à l’origine de la plus grave récession depuis les années 30. Elle a conduit à une profonde remise en cause du système monétaire et financier international. Cela a incité les Etats et les organisations internationales à caractère économique et financier à rechercher ensemble des solutions pour sortir de la crise et corriger les failles d’un système menacé de s’écrouler. L’objet de ce colloque international est de contribuer aux réflexions relatives aux réformes majeures de nature monétaire, financière et institutionnelle envisagées pour renforcer – ou reconstruire ? – le système monétaire et financier international. Il est l’occasion de s’interroger sur les formes que pourrait prendre un nouvel ordre monétaire et financier international. Se trouve ainsi posée la question d‘une réelle mutation du système mis en place en 1944 et qui conduirait à l’émergence d’un « nouveau Bretton Woods » ou à tout le moins à un profond réaménagement du système existant.

Call for Papers: International Law in the Second Decade of the 21st Century: Back to the Future or Business as Usual?

The 18th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law will be held June 24-26, 2010, in Canberra. The conference theme is "International Law in the Second Decade of the 21st Century: Back to the Future or Business as Usual?" There are two calls for papers. The general call is below. A second call - specific for a postgraduate research students workshop preceding the Annual Conference - is noted at the end of the general call. Here's the call:

INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE SECOND DECADE OF THE 21st CENTURY: BACK TO THE FUTURE OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

18th ANNUAL CONFERENCE

CANBERRA, 24-26 June 2010

CALL FOR PAPERS: Deadline: 4 March 2010

The 18th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (‘ANZSIL’) will take place from Thursday, 24 June 2010 to Saturday, 26 June 2010 at University House, The Australian National University, Canberra, hosted by the Centre for International and Public Law, ANU College of Law.

Recent years have seen important developments in international politics and international law: the settling into office of the Obama Administration in the United States, the Global Financial Crisis, and the challenges of reaching global agreement on how to respond to climate change. While some of these developments underline that international law often reflects rather than drives important political and social developments, others represent a return to a more positive and optimistic view towards the possibilities of international law and its importance as a guide for political action. There has been a tendency in recent years to see international law and its institutions as in crisis, or to despair at the disregard for international law displayed by leading nations, rather than focusing on the role it plays in providing frameworks for important political and economic developments and for the everyday interactions of States and their citizens.

The Conference Organising Committee now invites proposals for papers to be presented at ANZSIL’s 18th Annual Conference. Special consideration will be given to proposals which seek to explore these perspectives either generally or in one of the following areas:

• International environmental law, in particular international law concerning climate change, post-Copenhagen
• International law perspectives on the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath
• Constitutionalisation of international law
• The rule of law in relation to efforts to combat terrorism
• Private international law (including areas such as child abduction)
• International law of the sea
• International economic law (including trade law, investment law and intellectual property law).

Paper proposals on other areas of international law – including but not limited to international human rights law, humanitarian law, criminal law, state-building and international administration, developments in international institutions, and international relations and international law – are also welcome.

Those proposing papers for presentation at the Conference should submit a one- page abstract and brief one- page curriculum vitae by email to the Conference Organising Committee (anzsil@law.anu.edu.au) by no later than Thursday, 4 March 2010. Please include the heading on your email message ‘ANZSIL Conference 2010 Paper Proposal: [Your Name]’. The Conference Organising Committee will inform applicants of the outcome of their proposals no later than the end of March 2010.

Postgraduate students and those wishing to present their postgraduate thesis work are encouraged to submit their proposals (marked ‘PG Workshop’) for presentation at the Postgraduate Workshop (to be held on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 – for further details and call for papers, see the ANZSIL website). The closing date for applications to the Postgraduate Workshop is 2 March 2010.

BIICL: International Law Before UK Courts: Current Trends and Future Challenges

Phil Shiner (Public Interest Lawyers), Khawar Qureshi (Serle Court Chambers), and Anthea Roberts (LSE - Law) will speak today at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on "International Law Before UK Courts: Current Trends and Future Challenges."

New Volume: Austrian Review of International and European Law

The latest volume of the Austrian Review of International and European Law (Vol. 11, 2006) is out. Contents include:

• Georg Cavallar, Immigration and Soveregnity: Normative Approaches in the History of International Legal Theory (Pufendorf- Vattel- Bluntschli- Verdross)
• Peter Hilpold, The Right to Self-determination: Approaching an Elusive Concept through a Historic Iconography
• Biørn Kunoy, A Geometric Variable Scope of Delimitation: The Impact of Geological and Geomorphologic Title to the Outer Continental Shelf

Fentiman: International Commercial Litigation

Richard Fentiman (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) has published International Commercial Litigation (Oxford Univ. Press 2010). Here's the abstract:

The legal framework of cross-border commercial disputes is important and complex in practice, but it is increasingly difficult to discern the subject's structure and assumptions. This book is a definitive account of the law and practice of international commercial disputes in the English courts, which summarises the present state of the law, and articulates its underlying principles. It is intended to be accessible to non-specialist practitioners.

The book offers an account of the subject which is comprehensive, yet also concise and highly focused, designed to reflect the perceptions and concerns of practitioners. A feature of the book is its emphasis on evolving areas of practice, and issues of difficulty. Such topics as the developing law of cross-border injunctions, and the relationship between national and community law are extensively explored. Where the law is uncertain or controversial, the rival arguments are examined and assessed. The emphasis is on the solution of current (or future) problems, in addition to explaining contested issues. It is as much concerned with the impact of litigation on cross-border transactions - including prospective planning and risk-avoidance - as it is with dispute resolution. It examines the scope of party choice, and the legal risks associated with cross-border business. Consideration is given as to how these risks might be avoided or reduced by planning or agreement, by adopting particular business structures, or by opting for alternative forms of dispute resolution.

New Issue: Human Rights Quarterly

The latest issue of the Human Rights Quarterly (Vol. 32, no. 1, February 2010) is out. Contents include:

• Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, What Are Human Rights? Four Schools of Thought
• Alexandra Xanthaki, Multiculturalism and International Law: Discussing Universal Standards
• Amanda Murdie & David R. Davis, Problematic Potential: The Human Rights Consequences of Peacekeeping Interventions in Civil Wars
• Anne Gallagher & Elaine Pearson, The High Cost of Freedom: A Legal and Policy Analysis of Shelter Detention for Victims of Trafficking
• Judy Scales-Trent, Women Lawyers, Women's Rights in Senegal: The Association of Senegalese Women Lawyers
• Catarina de Albuquerque, Chronicle of an Announced Birth: The Coming into Life of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—The Missing Piece of the International Bill of Human Rights
• Fons Coomans, Fred Grünfeld, & Menno T. Kamminga, Methods of Human Rights Research: A Primer
• Amitai Etzioni, The Normativity of Human Rights Is Self-Evident

Chalamish: Protectionism and Sovereign Investment Post Global Recession

Efraim Chalamish (New York Univ. - Law) has posted Protectionism and Sovereign Investment Post Global Recession. Here's the abstract:

Sovereign Wealth Funds (“SWFs”) have attracted significant attention over the past few years, as a result of their increasing role in global economy and their controversial minority investments in distressed financial and infrastructure companies in Western economies. Although SWFs provide important benefits to home, host, and global markets, they have been perceived by the Western mind as a growing threat to economic supremacy and national security. These mixed feelings, frequently driven by national protectionism, have prompted various Western attempts to block SWF cross-border investments through legislative reforms or ad-hoc protectionism of the executive branch. These governmental policies frequently violate international commitments in the international economic law arena and call for a closer look at the nature of such commitments and their respective implementation in the SWF environment. The paper will look at recent practices in Western countries that aim to block SWF investments in the context of the recent global recession and growing protectionism in trade and investment activity. It will propose ways to confront this protectionism by joint efforts of the funds, governments, the media, and the legal community.

New Issue: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law

The latest issue of the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (Vol. 48, no. 1, 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Daphne Barak-Erez & Matthew C. Waxman, Secret Evidence and the Due Process of Terrorist Detentions
• Sabine Michalowski & Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Ius Cogens, Transnational Justice and Other Trends of the Debate on Odious Debts: A Response to the World Bank Discussion Paper on Odious Debts

Workshops: Alter, Kwakwa, Robinson

Karen Alter (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science) will give a talk today at the Duke University School of Law Global Law Workshop on "The New Terrain of International Law: International Courts in International Politics."

Edward Kwakwa (Legal Counsel, World Intellectual Property Organization) will give a talk today at the University of Michigan Law School International Law Workshop on "International Intellectual Property: A View from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)."

Peter Robinson will give a talk today at the Oxford Transitional Justice Research Seminar Series on "Defending the Damned: The Role of Defence Counsel in International Criminal Cases."

Reydams: The Rise and Fall of Universal Jurisdiction

Luc Reydams (Univ. of Notre Dame) has posted The Rise and Fall of Universal Jurisdiction (in Handbook of International Criminal Law, W. Schabas & N. Bernaz, eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The article considers the rise and fall of universal jurisdiction. I begin by revisiting the unique Zeitgeist of the 1990s and by broaching the actors behind the campaign for universal jurisdiction. Then I discuss how these actors, mainly non-governmental organizations, framed the issue and how policy-oriented international lawyers constructed the legal argument. Thereafter I review the (alleged) historical sources of universal jurisdiction and their contemporary (distorted) interpretation. My subsequent examination of post-World War II multilateral treaty practice finds little enthusiasm among states for universal jurisdiction. After that I assess cases of the last fifteen or so years, distinguishing between “hard” cases (in courts) and “virtual” cases (in the media). Next I show in a brief post mortem how a backlash in Africa, the United States, Israel, and China against virtual trials in Europe caused the premature end of universal jurisdiction. In the final section I draw some lessons and ponder its future.