- Piet Eeckhout, The Scales of Trade—Reflections on the Growth and Functions of the WTO Adjudicative Branch
- Bart De Meester, The Global Financial Crisis and Government Support for Banks: What Role for the Gats?
- Sonia E. Rolland, Redesigning the Negotiation Process at the WTO
- Won-Mog Choi, Defragmenting Fragmented Rules of Origin of RTAs: A Building Block to Global Free Trade
- Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, A Real Partnership for Development? Sustainable Development as Treaty Objective in European Economic Partnership Agreements and Beyond
- Arwel Davies, The DSU Article 3.8 Presumption that an Infringement Constitutes a Prima Facie Case of Nullification or Impairment: When Does it Operate and Why?
- Annual Statistical Analysis, Surveys, and Indexes
- Kara Leitner & Simon Lester, WTO Dispute Settlement 1995–2009 — A Statistical Analysis
- The WTO Appellate Body's Activities in 2009
- Marylin Johnson Raisch, Book Survey 2009
- Marylin Johnson Raisch, Website Survey 2009
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Paru pour la première fois en 1975, cet ouvrage s’efforce de présenter l’ensemble du droit international public d’une manière aussi simple et aussi complète que possible. Ses éditions successives ont tenu compte des évolutions rapides qu’a connues cette discipline au cours des dernières décennies et de son adaptation aux rapports géopolitiques. Des problèmes classiques connaissent une nouvelle actualité ; d’autres apparaissent ou se posent avec plus d’acuité ; certaines controverses idéologiques ou doctrinales ont affaiblies, d’autres s’affermissent. Cette huitième édition est entièrement mise à jour et certains chapitres ont été profondément remodelés, notamment ceux concernant le droit des relations économiques internationales ; un soin tout particulier a été porté aux jurisprudences spécialisées (cours régionales de droits de l’homme ; juridictions internationales pénales ; Organe de règlement des différends de l’O.M.C., CIRDI ou arbitrages similaires). Après une présentation d’ensemble de l’histoire et de la théorie du droit international, l’ouvrage décrit la formation de celui-ci, les règles applicables à la communauté internationale (États, organisations internationales, personnes privées) et aux rapports internationaux (relations diplomatiques, responsabilité, règlement des différends et recours à la force, relations économiques, régime international des espaces, protection de l’environnement).
- Francesco Salerno, Coordinamento e primato tra giurisdizioni civili nella prospettiva della revisione del Regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001
- José María Alcántara González, The Rotterdam rules. Prelude or premonition?
- Stephanie Brown, Bottom-up lawmaking and the regulation of private military and security companies
- Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca & Javier Carrascosa González, Críticas y contracríticas en torno a la Ley 54/2007 de 28 de diciembre, de adopción internacional: el ataque de los clones
- María del Pilar Diago Diago, La "Kafala" islámica en España
- Carlos Llorente Gómez de Segura, Las reglas de Rotterdam (I)
- Andrés Rodríguez Benot, El criterio de conexión para determinar la ley personal: un renovado debate en Derecho Internacional Privado
- José Ángel Rueda García, La aplicabilidad del Convenio de Nueva York al arbitraje de inversiones: efectos de las reservas al Convenio
- Mercedes Sabido Rodríguez, Algunas cuestiones que plantea en DIPr la tutela de los trabajadores afectados por reestructuraciones de empresas
- Hans Van Loon, The accommodation of religious laws in cross-border situations: the contribution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
- José Vida Fernández, La transformación de los mercados de servicios en Europa: el alcance de su impacto sobre el ordenamiento jurídico
- Juan José Zornoza & Andrés Báez, The 2003 revisions to the commentary to the OECD model on tax treaties and GAARs: a mistaken starting point
- Hilda Aguilar Grieder, La cooperación judicial internacional en materia civil en el Tratado de Lisboa
- Miguel Gómez Jene, Propuestas de inclusión del arbitraje en el Reglamento 44/2001
- Francisco Martínez Rivas, Notas de urgencia sobre el principio de justicia universal y la reforma del art. 23.4 de la LOPJ por la Ley Orgánica 1/2009, de 3 de noviembre
- María Dolores Ortiz Vidal, Espacio judicial europeo y Tratado de Lisboa: hacia un nuevo Derecho internacional privado
- Giulia Rossolillo, Forum necessitatis e flessibilità dei criteri di giurisdizione nel Diritto internazionale privato nazionale e dell’Unione Europea
- Miguel Teixeira de Sousa, A incompatibilidade das anti-suit injunctions com o Regulamento (CE) n.º 44/2001 – anotação ao acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça de 10/2/2009 (c-185/07, Allianz e Generali v. West Tankers)
The global financial crisis was a challenge to three of the most promising, and seemingly effective, institutions of international law - the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the international network of regulatory agencies - and it was a challenge they failed to meet. This Article reviews the performance of these three institutions in the aftermath of the financial shocks of 2007–08 and finds that they had little to say in response. Those responses that were forthcoming were either ineffective or counterproductive, and only the IMF has emerged from the crisis with its potential burnished. The record appears to vindicate the critics of these international institutions and illustrate the primacy of politics in international crisis response. That primacy has been exemplified by the importance of the G20 in coordinating an international response to the crisis. The G20 is neither law-based nor governance-focused, but can best be characterized as a modern-day Concert of Europe, which appears to be quite unconstrained by law, and is not a regulatory network.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
In this paper, I examine the dilemmas of over a decade of efforts by feminist peace and human rights advocates to engage with the UN Security Council. These efforts have born fruit in the Council’s adoption of four thematic resolutions on women, peace and security – SCRs 1325 (2000), 1820 (2008), 1888(2009) and 1889(2009). While marvelling at the productivity of this feminist engagement with power and the new possibilities that have been opened for feminist peace activism, the paper also highlights the ‘dangerousness’ of this strategy. In particular I am concerned about the concessions that have been made in order to be ‘taken seriously’ by Council members, the further erosion of feminist ideas as they are deployed to serve the Council’s own agenda, the protective stereotypes of women that have remained dominant, and the legitimacy that the strategy ascribes to the Security Council as a protector of women and as a (hegemonic) creator of general international law. My goal is not to counsel against such dangerous liaisons because, after all, ‘everything is dangerous’ as Foucault has said, but rather to promote a deeper understanding of how feminist ideas can become the tools of powerful actors and new thinking about how this can be contested.
Call for Papers
American Society of International Law
International Economic Law Interest Group (IEcLIG)
2010 Biennial Interest Group Conference:
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW IN A TIME OF CHANGE:
REASSESSING LEGAL THEORY, DOCTRINE, METHODOLOGY AND POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS
University of Minnesota Law School
Minneapolis, MN, USA
November 18-20, 2010
I. Conference Theme
The ASIL International Economic Law Interest Group will hold its next biennial conference on November 18-20, 2010 at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The title of the conference is International Economic Law in a Time of Change: Reassessing Legal Theory, Doctrine, Methodology and Policy Prescriptions.
The start of the second decade of the twenty-first century is witnessing a confluence of events affecting international economic law that calls for re-evaluation. The international context has radically changed. Most analysts contend that we are shifting toward a multi-polar world in light of economic transformations in China, India, Brazil, and other developing and transitional countries, coupled with economic stagnation in the United States and Europe which are beset by a financial crisis and embroiled in foreign wars and security concerns. These developments have arguably complicated international economic governance, yet other factors–such as the current financial crisis–press consideration of new forms of international economic governance, such as the G-20. Global economic interdependence, exemplified by global production and supply chains, calls for sustained attention to international economic law and institutions.
II. Possible Topics for Papers and Panels
With this backdrop, the November conference will organize sessions that address the full range of international and transnational economic law. We encourage scholars to submit papers or panel proposals related to trade, investment, international financial regulation, transnational private law, and development law, as well as their intersection with social regulation such as over global warming, labor rights and consumer safety. This call for papers welcomes submissions that provide new analytic frameworks, reassess legal theory, evaluate developments in legal doctrine, engage in empirical analysis of the way international economic law operates, and provide guidance for policymakers, regulators and adjudicators in this time of international economic change.
The range of possible topics is wide—the list below is provided as a thought-starter of possible topics identified by the conference committee. We welcome however quality proposals on any international economic law topic.
- Methodological approaches for studying international economic law and their implications;
- Interpretive approaches to international economic law: theory vs. practice;
- Reform of international economic governance institutions, such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, the G-8/G-20; international standards organizations;
- The interaction of institutions in a fragmented international economic law system;
- The role of hard and soft law in international economic governance, such as financial regulation;
- The interaction of private transnational economic governance regimes with public law;
- The interaction of international economic law and domestic law and politics;
- Theoretical and empirical studies on how international economic law institutions work;
- Theoretical and empirical studies on the handling of trade and investment disputes;
- Accountability and legitimacy of international economic governance;
- Climate change and its implications for international economic governance;
- Handling food and consumer safety risks in international trade;
- International economic law and the reassessment of development policies;
- New governance techniques in international economic law: their prospects and limits;
- Teaching international economic law: using new technologies;
- The future of international economic law after the financial crisis;
- The rise of China and a new international economic order?;
- Proliferating regional trade and investment agreements: complementing or supplanting multilateralism?; and
- The implications of the Doha Round for international economic law governance
III. Proposal Submission, Selection and Paper Publication
We encourage proposals for papers from both young and established scholars and practitioners so that they may engage with each other. Paper proposals and all other program-related proposals must be submitted electronically by July 30 2010 to 2010IELconference@gmail.com. Proposals should include the author's name and full contact information, and an abstract of no more than 300 words.
A Conference Committee will review and select proposals. Committee Members are:
ASIL International Economic Interest Group Co-Chairs:
Susan D. Franck, Washington & Lee University School of Law, and
Gregory Shaffer, University of Minnesota Law School
Robert Ahdieh, Emory Law School
Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Chris Brummer, Georgetown University Law Center
Hannah Buxbaum, Indiana University, Maurer School of Law
Sungjoon Cho, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Carolyn Deere, Oxford Centre for International Studies
Jeff Dunoff, Temple University Beardsley School of Law
Susan Karamanian, George Washington University School of Law
Claire Kelly, Brooklyn Law School
Petros Mavroidis, Columbia University Law School
Ruth Okediji, University of Minnesota Law School
Margrete Stevens, King & Spalding LLP
Joel Trachtman, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Markus Wagner, University of Miami Law School
Jarrod Wong, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
Jason Yackee, University of Wisconsin Law School
Decisions regarding inclusion in the conference program will be sent by September 1, 2010. Paper contributors will be expected to provide full paper drafts by November 1, 2010.
This conference is being co-sponsored by the University of Minnesota Law School and the Minnesota Journal of International Law. The Journal welcomes the opportunity to publish papers prepared for the conference as part of a special symposium issue.
The results of previous three biennial IEcLIG conferences have been published as THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW, Tomer Broude, Amy Porges and Marc L. Busch eds., Cambridge University Press (forthcoming 2010); INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: THE STATE AND FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Colin B. Picker, Isabella D. Bunn and Douglas W. Arner eds., Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008; and TRADE AS THE GUARANTOR OF PEACE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY? CRITICAL HISTORICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVES, Padideh Ala'i, Tomer Broude, & Colin Picker eds., ASIL Press, 2006.
IV. Conference Details
The conference will take place at University of Minnesota Law School at Walter F. Mondale Hall, 229-19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota on November 18-20, 2010. The conference site is centrally located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For ASIL members, the registration fee is expected to be approximately $95 (which will cover some meals). The organizers will provide contact information for a range of hotel accommodations at various price ranges conveniently located in the Minneapolis area, including the Holiday Inn Metrodome across the street from the Minnesota Law School. We will also be applying for CLE credit for attendance in multiple jurisdictions.
V. About the Interest Group
The International Economic Law Interest Group promotes academic interest, discussion, research and publication on subjects broadly related to the transnational movement and regulation of goods, services, persons and capital. International law topics include trade law, investment law, economic integration law, private law, business regulation, financial law, tax law, intellectual property law and the role of law in development. The group provides a forum for interdisciplinary explorations of public and private international and municipal law, and is particularly interested in promoting the work and interests of new practitioners and scholars in the field. Its activities also include sponsoring panels at the ASIL Meeting and co-sponsoring conferences with allied organizations.
The Group’s major focus of activity is to hold a biennial conference, framed by an open Call for Papers publicized to group members, the ASIL and the public. The group’s conferences address the array of issues in international economic law, including the role and development of the multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization, foreign investment, bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements, international development law, and international financial regulation. The research papers generated by these conferences have regularly been published in prestigious venues and are widely cited in international economic law scholarship.
Climate change and justice are so closely associated that many people take it for granted that a global climate treaty should--indeed, must--directly address both issues together. But, in fact, this would be a serious mistake, one that, by dooming effective international limits on greenhouse gases, would actually make the world's poor and developing nations far worse off. This is the provocative and original argument of Climate Change Justice. Eric Posner and David Weisbach strongly favor both a climate change agreement and efforts to improve economic justice. But they make a powerful case that the best--and possibly only--way to get an effective climate treaty is to exclude measures designed to redistribute wealth or address historical wrongs against underdeveloped countries.
In clear language, Climate Change Justice proposes four basic principles for designing the only kind of climate treaty that will work--a forward-looking agreement that requires every country to make greenhouse--gas reductions but still makes every country better off in its own view. This kind of treaty has the best chance of actually controlling climate change and improving the welfare of people around the world.
- James Pattison, Outsourcing the responsibility to protect: humanitarian intervention and private military and security companies
- Johannes Urpelainen, Enforcement and capacity building in international cooperation
- Hans-Martin Jaeger, UN reform, biopolitics, and global governmentality
- Thomas E. Doyle, Kantian nonideal theory and nuclear proliferation
- Correspondence: Is Liberal IR Theory Ideological?
- Andrew Moravcsik, 'Wahn, Wahn, Überall Wahn': A reply to Jahn's critique of liberal internationalism
- Beate Jahn, Universal languages?: A reply to Moravcsik
- Andrew Moravcsik, Titling at windmills: a final reply to Jahn
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
When U.S. corporations cause harm abroad, should foreign plaintiffs be allowed to sue in the United States? Federal courts are increasingly saying no. The courts have expanded the doctrines of forum non conveniens and prudential standing to dismiss a growing number of transnational cases. This restriction of court access has sparked considerable tension in international relations, as a number of other nations view such dismissals as an attempt to insulate U.S. corporations from liability. A growing number of countries have responded by enacting retaliatory legislation that may ultimately harm U.S. interests. This article argues that the judiciary’s restriction of access to federal courts ignores important foreign relations, trade, and regulatory considerations. The article applies institutional choice theory to recommend a process by which the three branches of government can work together to establish a more coherent court-access policy for transnational cases.
Exactly why the nations of the world have had difficulty in reaching agreement on reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change is something of a puzzle. Although the future generations that will suffer the greater costs from climate change will probably be wealthier, the non-trivial risks that climate change will be catastrophic would seem to merit the collective purchase of some insurance in the form of greenhouse gas mitigation. Political economy, collective action, and psychological explanations all play a part in accounting for the international impasse, but all are incomplete. This article presents a simple game-theoretic model that illustrates the strategic interdependencies between countries, and how they affect prospects for international cooperation in reducing greenhouse gases. The model is a game of perfect information involving two players and three periods – the first two in which the players may undertake mitigation to reduce greenhouse gases, and a third in which the players will suffer the costs of climate change if mitigation is unsuccessful. The analysis of the dynamics of international climate negotiations is undertaken by relaxing various assumptions of the model and examining the outcomes.
The insights obtained from analysis of this model include: (i) early mitigation measures play an important role in affecting the decision environment for other countries; (ii) strategic behavior in attempting to extract side payments may lead to suboptimal failures to cooperate in mitigation; and (iii) adaptation and geo-engineering pose alternatives to mitigation that may render cooperation less likely.
Human rights tribunals facing claims of violations stemming from environmental degradation are increasingly incorporating and applying national and international environmental standards to assess whether or not the government in question has complied with its legal obligations. The government is required to comply with whatever environmental laws it has enacted as well as treaties to which it is a party. Furthermore the tribunals will assess, albeit with considerable deference, whether or not the environmental laws set the level of protection too low to allow the enjoyment of guaranteed human rights, in some instances drawing on the precautionary principle and other concepts from environmental law.
- Michael M. Du, Reducing Product Standards Heterogeneity through International Standards in the WTO: How Far across the River?
- Donald Feaver, Will McGoldrick, & Victoria Boyd-Wells, The Climate Institute, Melbourne, Australia.Victoria Boyd-WellsIs Australia’s EAP a Prohibited Export Subsidy?
- Dominic Coppens, WTO Disciplines on Export Credit Support for Agricultural Products in the Wake of the US – Upland Cotton Case and the Doha Round Negotiations
- Nellie Munin, The Evolution of Dispute Settlement Provisions in Israel’s PTAs: Is There a Global Lesson?
- Kyriaki Noussia, The EU-China Agreement on Maritime Transport
- Syed Tariq Anwar, CFIUS, Chinese MNCs’ Outward FDI, and Globalization of Business
- Martina Piewitt, Participatory Governance in the WTO: How Inclusive Is Global Civil Society?
- Régis Bismuth, Financial Sector Regulation and Financial Services Liberalization at the Crossroads: The Relevance of International Financial Standards in WTO Law
Lecture: Raustiala on "Is Bagram the New Guantanamo? Obama, Bush, and the Extraterritorial Constitution"
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
International human rights law prohibits discrimination against women in their enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. While non-discrimination is an essential component to the realisation of women’s rights, its comparative approach measures women’s equality against men’s enjoyment of rights, reinforcing the masculinity of the universal subject of human rights law, whose rights are fully promoted and explicitly protected. To the extent that violations experienced exclusively or primarily by women are expressly recognised in the founding human rights instruments, they are treated as a sub-category of the universal and formulated as ‘protective’ measures rather than as human rights. There have been many efforts to address the resulting marginalisation of women’s rights, including the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the mainstreaming of women’s human rights. While these efforts have been successful in many respects, there are continuing conceptual and practical problems including, not only the limitations of anti-discrimination law, but the danger that specific recognition of women’s rights violations may simply reproduce women’s secondary status.
- D. Vagts, The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality
- R. Thorn & J. Doucleff, Disregarding the Corporate Veil and Denial of Benefits Clauses: Testing Treaty Language and the Concept of “ Investor”
- S. Schill, Private Enforcement of International Investment Law: Why We Need Investor Standing in BIT Dispute Settlement
- A. Turyn & F. Perez Aznar, Drawing the Limits of Free Transfer Provisions
- S. Jagusch & J. Sullivan, A Comparison of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration. Areas of Divergence and Concern
- A. Reinisch, The Issues Raised by Parallel Proceedings and Possible Solutions
- R. Kreindler, Parallel Proceedings: A Practitioner’s Perspective
- C. Knahr, Annulment and its Role in the Context of Conflicting Awards
- K. Khamsi, Compensation for Non-expropriatory Investment Treaty Breaches in the Argentine Gas Sector Cases: Issues and Implications
- W. Park, Arbitrator Integrity
- N. Blackaby & C. Richards, Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?
- A. Kawahru, Participation of Non-governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae
- G. Bottini, Legality of Investments under ICSID Jurisprudence
- A. Martinez, Invoking State Defenses in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- L. Wells, Backlash to Investment Arbitration: Three Causes
- B. Simmons, A.T. Guzman, & Z. Elkins, Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration
- C. Schreuer, Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960-2000
- W. Burke-White, The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System
- G. Van Harten, Perceived Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration?
- M. Burgstaller, European Law Challenges to Investment Arbitration
- L.E. Peterson, Out of Order
- T.R. Braun, Globalization: The Driving Force in International Investment Law
- I.M. Penusliski, A Dispute Systems Design Diagnosis of ICSID
- A. van Aaken, The International Investment Protection Regime through the Lens of Economic Theory
- T. Nelson, History Ain’t Changed’: Why Investor-State Arbitration Will Survive the ‘New Revolution’
- M. Toral & T. Schultz, The State, a Perpetual Respondent in Investment Arbitration? Some Unorthodox Considerations
The last few years have seen numerous cases in various jurisdictions seeking to hold foreign States and their agents accountable for serious human rights violations. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Adsani v UK cannot be said to have settled the controversy, and the issue has returned to the Court in Jones v UK, as well as being put before the International Court of Justice in by Germany against Italy for failing to respect its jurisdictional immunities as a sovereign State.
The conference will provide an overview of how different national courts in Europe have approached questions of the immunities of States and their agents for human rights violations and the conflicts that have arisen, culminating in Germany’s recent application to the ICJ. Panels will examine key theoretical and conceptual issues, current developments and proposals for reform of the law.
Frieder Roessler (Advisory Centre on WTO Law) will give a talk today at Sydney Law School on "Developing Countries in WTO Dispute Settlement."
Galit Sarfaty (Univ. of Pennsylvania - Wharton School) will give a talk today at the Temple University School of Law International Law Colloquium on "Why Culture Matters in International Institutions: The Marginality of Human Rights at the World Bank."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Judicial decisionmaking consists of two sets of choices – (1) how to resolve the issues in a case and (2) how to decide the order in which those issues will be resolved. Much legal scholarship focuses on the first question; too little focuses on the second. This Article aims to fill that gap. Drawing across disciplines – philosophy, economics and political science – this Article articulates a theory of “decisional sequencing.” Decisional sequencing concerns the extent to which legal rules constrain – and do not constrain – the order in which judges and other quasi-judicial actors (like arbitrators) decide matters before them. To what extent do the decisionmakers enjoy unfettered discretion? To what extent can the parties manipulate the decisional sequence? The Article first considers a simple model of sequencing rules that classifies decisional sequences into three forms – horizontal sequencing rules that govern the decisional order for a single decisionmaker, vertical sequencing rules that govern when a decisionmaker’s rulings can be appealed to a reviewing body such as an appellate court and transjurisdictional sequencing rules that govern the extent to which decisionmakers will defer to each other in parallel proceedings. It draws on examples from both civil litigation and arbitration to demonstrate how sequencing rules vary across these two “forms” of dispute resolution. After flushing out the contours of the simple model, the Article then considers the extent to which sequencing rules operate as mandatory rules (from which parties cannot derogate) and the extent to which they operate as default rules (around which the parties can contract). The Article concludes by considering how the model developed herein can be used to help solve several decisional sequencing dilemmas currently bedeviling courts and arbitrators.
Conference: The International Law Commission in the 21st Century: What Should It Be Doing to Make a Contemporary Difference?
The International Law Commission in the 21st Century:
What Should It Be Doing to Make a Contemporary Difference?
A Conference at George Washington University Law School
2000 H Street, NW
Co-Sponsored by the Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser
Monday, March 29, 2010
Dean Fred Lawrence, George Washington University Law School
Harold Hongju Koh, U.S. Department of State Legal Adviser
Panel # 1: The Process for Selecting ILC Projects - How Does It Work and Can It Be Improved?
Chair:Hon. Stephen Schwebel, former ICJ President and former ILC Member (United States)
Professor Lori Damrosch, Columbia University Law School
Professor Donald McRae, ILC Member (Canada); University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
Professor Michael Matheson, George Washington University Law School, former ILC Member (United States)
Panel # 2: The Role for Governments in ILC Projects - How Can the ILC Best Reflect the Needs and Views of States?
Chair:Professor Sean Murphy, George Washington University Law School
Alfonso Ascencio, Director for International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Professor Jacob Katz Cogan, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Hon. Marie G. Jacobsson, ILC Member (Sweden), Principal Legal Adviser on International Law, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden
Susan N. and Augustus DiZerega Lecture: The Relevance of the ILC in the 21st Century – What Should It Be Doing to Make a Contemporary Difference?
Professor George Nolte, ILC Member (Germany); Humboldt University of Berlin
Panel # 3: The Role for Non-Governmental Actors (Academics, Practitioners, NGOs, Corporations) – What Role Can They Play in the ILC Projects?
Chair:Professor Ruth Wedgwood, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Professor Steve Charnovitz, George Washington University Law School
Hon. Hussein Hassouna, ILC Member (Egypt), Chief Representative of the League of Arab States to the United States
Professor John Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center
Aisling Reidy, Senior Legal Advisor, Human Rights Watch
Panel # 4: What Should be the Outcome of the ILC’s Work: Draft Treaties, Draft Articles, Reports?
Chair:Professor Dinah Shelton, George Washington University Law School
Professor David Caron, University of California, Berkeley, President-Elect, American Society of International Law
Professor James Crawford, University of Cambridge, former ILC Member (Australia)
Hon. Mahmoud D. Hmoud, ILC Member (Jordan), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jordan
Harold Hongju Koh, U.S. Department of State Legal Adviser
- Giacomo Gattinara, The Relevance of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions in the US Legal Order
- Chris Koedooder & Niki de Lang, Anti-terrorist Blacklisting in the European Union: The Influence of National Procedures on the Judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
- Derek O'Brien, Accessing the Original Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice
- Karen Hulme, Environmental Security: Implications for International Law
- Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, International Law and Resource Plunder: The Protection of Natural Resources during Armed Conflict
- Carl Bruch, David Jensen, Mikiyasu Nakayama, Jon Unruh, Rebecca Gruby, & Ross Wolfarth, Post-Conflict Peace Building and Natural Resources
- Patricia Wouters, Sergei Vinogradov, & Bjorn-Oliver Magsig, Water Security, Hydrosolidarity, and International Law: A River Runs Through It
- Werner Scholtz, Collective (Environmental) Security: The Yeast for the Refinement of International Law
- Christina Voigt, Sustainable Security
Sunday, March 21, 2010
- Laura A. Dickinson, Military Lawyers on the Battlefield: An Empirical Account of International Law Compliance
- Willem van Genugten, Protection of Indigenous Peoples on the African Continent: Concepts, Position Seeking, and the Interaction of Legal Systems