Dans la panoplie des moyens pour lutter contre le terrorisme, la lutte contre son financement est assurément l'un des aspects parmi les plus importants. Développée avant les attentats du 11 septembre, notamment à travers la convention de 1999 portant sur ce sujet, cette lutte est devenue depuis ces attentats une des préoccupations majeures des Etats et des organisations internationales. Néanmoins, le panorama des conceptions et des moyens utilisés démontre une variété qui pourrait mettre en cause son efficacité. C'est à un passage en revue de ces conceptions et moyens que nous convie le présent ouvrage. Partant de l'étude du rôle des organisations internationales telles que l'ONU, mais aussi des institutions financières internationales ou des organisations européennes, cet ouvrage n'omet pas de se pencher sur l'apport des Etats - en l'espèce dans une perspective transatlantique - qui, in fine, restent à l'avant-poste de cette lutte. A la variété des acteurs s'ajoutent des conceptions différentes où l'équilibre entre les impératifs sécuritaires et le respect des droits fondamentaux pose problème. De nouveau, un tour d'horizon des actions des organisations internationales, des juridictions et des priorités des Etats nous permet de percevoir ce fragile équilibre et la nécessité de sans cesse rappeler que l'objectif de la lutte contre le financement du terrorisme ne peut justifier l'emploi de tous les moyens.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
This is an edited version of a lecture on the use of local litigation as an instrument of global regulation. It asks whether the increasingly global aspect of business networks, and of the harms those networks can cause, demands a reexamination of the paradigm that we use to articulate the role of national courts in the global arena. In addressing this question, the lecture borrows the concept of scalar analysis from the literature on political geography. It uses that concept to analyze the ways in which global economic misconduct is situated before the courts of one particular country, and to illuminate the political space that U.S. domestic courts occupy when – through the exercise of judicial and legislative jurisdiction – they assert regulatory control over events and conduct that cross geographic areas. It draws on examples from the areas of competition, insolvency, and securities enforcement. The lecture does not conclude that the global nature of business networks requires a correspondingly global view of jurisdiction in domestic courts, but simply that it requires a more textured view of those courts’ sphere of engagement.
- J. Michael Finger, A Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agricultural Imports: what experience with other GATT/WTO safeguards tells us about what might work
- Antoine Bouet & David Laborde, Assessing the potential cost of a failed Doha Round
- Peter Debaere, Small fish–big issues: the effect of trade policy on the global shrimp market
The British Government’s nationalization of the shares of Northern Rock plc and Bradford & Bingley plc in 2008 raises important issues about the standard of protection owed to the banks’ non-UK investors and the manner in which compensation should be calculated. The United Kingdom is party to numerous bilateral investment treaties as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adopt an international standard of protection for foreign investors and require the payment of ‘market value’ compensation for the property taken. As the analysis in this article shows, the compensation scheme established by the British Government appears to fall short of these obligations.
La charte constitutive de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce lui donne pour objectif « l'accroissement de la production et du commerce de marchandises et de services », mais elle lui impose également de le faire dans le respect du «développement durable ». L'OMC soutient que ces deux injonctions sont compatibles et se « renforcent mutuellement ».
Elle a ainsi développé une stratégie de communication visant à montrer que, loin d'aggraver le changement climatique, elle peut participer à son atténuation. Mais ce discours résiste-t-il aux faits ? Une étude des mesures environnementales, comme la taxe carbone aux frontières ou les subventions aux énergies renouvelables, semble montrer qu'elles sont contraires au droit du commerce international. Le système juridique de l'OMO apparaîtrait alors comme un obstacle majeur à une lutte efficace contre le réchauffement climatique.
Cette analyse technique soulève le problème de la place des droits fondamentaux dans le système de l'OMC. Si certains avancent qu'il protégerait indirectement les droits de l'homme, cet ouvrage montre plutôt que le seul droit fondamental protégé vise à garantir l'accès aux marchés.
Enfin, au-delà du droit et des discours qui le fondent, c'est un problème politique que pointe cet ouvrage. Pour être légitimes et contribuer à la justice, les règles de droit doivent procéder d'une volonté publique. Or si, l'OMO accorde aux acteurs privés un grand rôle dans la définition des préférences collectives, cette tendance à la privatisation du politique n'annonce-t-elle pas son abandon ?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Mateos & Gorina-Ysern: Climate Change and Guidelines for Argo Profiling Float Deployment on the High Seas
The absence of effective government, one of the most important issues in current international law, became prominent with the“failed state” concept at the beginning of the 1990s. Public international law, however, lacked sufficient legal means to deal with the phenomenon. Neither attempts at state reconstruction in countries such as Afghanistan and Somalia on the legal basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter nor economic liberalisation have addressed fundamental social and economic problems. This work investigates the weaknesses of the “failed state” paradigm as a long-term solution for international peace and security, arguing that the solution to the absence of effective government can be found only in an economic and social approach and a true universalisation of international law.
Science has recently become increasingly salient in various fields of international law. In particular, the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement stipulates that a regulating state must provide scientific justification for its food safety measures. Paradoxically, however, this ostensibly neutral reference to science tends to complicate treaty interpretation. It tends to take treaty interpretation beyond a conventional methodology under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is primarily concerned with clarifying and articulating the treaty text. The two decades old transatlantic trade dispute over hormone-treated beef is a case in point. This article demonstrates that beneath the controversy between the United States and the European Union on the safety of hormone-treated beef lurks a critical hermeneutical divergence on the scope and meaning of relevant risk science, which a conventional model of international adjudication cannot fully fathom. The article is a philosophical retelling of what has been regarded largely as a legal-regulatory controversy. Informed by the philosophical hermeneutics, the article concludes that only a continuing dialogue or communication between disputing parties concerned can narrow down the hermeneutical discrepancy on risk science.
- Hendrik L.E. Verhagen & Sanne van Dongen, Cross-Border Assignments under Rome I
- María Mercedes Albornoz, Choice of Law in International Contracts in Latin American Legal Systems
- Giesela Rühl, The Problem of International Transactions: Conflict of Laws Revisited
- Csongor István Nagy, The Rome II Regulation and Traffic Accidents: Uniform Conflict Rules with Some Room for Forum Shopping - How So?
- Jie Huang, Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments: Lessons for China from US and EU Laws
- Toni Marzal Yetano, The Constitutionalisation of Party Autonomy in European Family Law
- David Alexander Hughes, The Insolubility of Renvoi and its Consequences
- Zheng Sophia Tang, Private International Law in Consumer Contracts: A European Perspective
United Nations peacekeepers currently play a crucial role in international responses to threats to peace and security across the globe. Since 1948 the UN has been involved in over 60 peacekeeping operations. However in the current environment of complex and rapidly changing threats to peace, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of UN peacekeepers to deal with situations of instability. In 2009 alone over 100,000 individuals are deployed on such missions. This situation has resulted in a range of new and pressing challenges to the legal framework applicable during such collective international action. This book provides, for the first time, a comprehensive account of the legal framework regulating this area of collective international action.
The book contains key documents in the areas of privileges and immunities, human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. Types of documents featured include foundational treaties, international rules and regulations, memoranda, judgments of the International Court of Justice, and some mission specific documents. Before each document a prefatory note is included, outlining the historical development of the document as well as its relevance to UN peace operations. To further assist scholars and practitioners in their work, the work concludes with a guide on undertaking further legal research on the laws relevant to peace operations, a list of all UN peace operations and relevant enabling resolutions, and a suggested approach to interpreting Security Council mandates.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
“If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at one, I will.” This statement, uttered by Mother Teresa, captures a powerful and deeply unsettling insight into human nature: Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue “the one” whose needy plight comes to their attention. But these same people often become numbly indifferent to the plight of “the one” who is part of a much greater problem. Why does this occur? The answer to this question will help us answer a related question: Why do good people and their governments ignore mass murder and genocide?
- Letter from John B. Bellinger, III
- Mario Silva, Somalia: State Failure, Piracy, and the Challenge to International Law
- Christopher M. Bruner, Power and Purpose in the “Anglo-American” Corporation
- John F. Coyle, Incorporative Statutes and the Borrowed Treaty Rule
- Robert C. Bird & Peggy E. Chaudhry, Pharmaceuticals and the European Union: Managing Gray Markets in an Uncertain Legal Environment
The use of indicators is a prominent feature of contemporary global governance. Indicators are produced by organizations ranging from public actors such as the World Bank or the US State Department, to NGOs such as Freedom House, to hybrid entities such as the Global Fund, to private sector political risk rating agencies. They are used to compare and rank states for purposes as varied as deciding how to allocate foreign aid or investment and whether states have complied with their treaty obligations. This article defines the concept of an “indicator,” describes how indicators have recently been used in global governance, and identifies various ways in which the use of indicators has the potential to alter the nature of global governance. Particular attention is paid to how reliance on indicators affects the authority and contestability of decisions. The United Nations Human Development Index and the World Bank Doing Business indicators are analyzed as case studies.
- Certificate of Merit for a preeminent contribution to creative scholarship: Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press 2009).
- Certificate of Merit in a specialized area of international law: Mark Osiel, The End of Reciprocity: Terror, Torture, and the Law of War (Cambridge Univ. Press 2009).
- Certificate of Merit for high technical craftsmanship and utility to practicing lawyers and scholars: Chester Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication (Oxford Univ. Press 2007).
- Francis Deák Prize: Jacob Katz Cogan, Representation and Power in International Organization: The Operational Constitution and Its Critics, 103 AJIL 209 (2009), and Galit A. Sarfaty, Why Culture Matters in International Institutions: The Marginality of Human Rights at the World Bank, 103 AJIL 647 (2009).
- Lieber Prize: (book) James A. Green, The International Court of Justice and Self-Defense in International Law (Hart Publishing 2009), and (article) Robert Sloane, The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello in the Contemporary Law of War, 34 Yale Journal of International Law 47 (2009).
- Lieber Society Military Prize: Sean Watts, Combatant Status and Computer Network Attack, 50 Virginia Journal of International Law 391 (2010).
- Private International Law Prize: Alex Mills, "Subsidiarity and the Conflict of Laws in the European Union and United States."
Also noteworthy is the election or re-election of four individuals to the American Journal of International Law's Board of Editors. They include: Christine M. Chinkin; John R. Crook (re-elected); Laurence R. Helfer; and Ruth Wedgwood.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The arbitral world is at a crucial point in its historical development, poised between two conflicting conceptions of its nature, purpose, and political legitimacy. Formally, the arbitrator is an agent of the contracting parties in dispute, a creature of a discrete contract gone wrong. Yet, increasingly, arbitrators are treated as agents of a larger global community, and arbitration houses concern themselves with the general and prospective impact of important awards. In this paper, I address these questions, first, from the standpoint of delegation theory. In Part I, I introduce the basic “Principal-Agent” framework [P-A] used by social scientists to explain why actors create new institutions, and then briefly discuss how P-A has been applied to the study of courts. Part II uses delegation theory to frame discussion of arbitration as a mode of governance for transnational business and investment. In Part III, I argue that the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is presently in the throes of judicialization, indicators of which include the enhanced use of precedent-based argumentation and justification, the acceptance of third-party briefs, and a flirtation with proportionality balancing. Part IV focuses on the first wave of awards rendered by ICSID tribunals pursuant to Argentina’s response to the crushing economic crisis of 2000-02, wherein proportionality emerged, adapted from the jurisprudence of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization.
It is sometimes observed that in our complex, technologically-dynamic world, legal institutions attempt to import science into law and export law’s problems to science. This essay assesses the relation of risk, science and law in the World Trade Organization (WTO). It responds to the question what ought a WTO panel to do in light of the texts of the WTO agreements. Although it focuses on the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, it provides a general framework of analysis. At a first order of analysis, the essay notes how we can view WTO dispute settlement as involving a double delegation of authority to two non-majoritarian institutions for resolving disputes over risk regulation that affects trade: (i) step 1: a quasi-judicial body; (ii) step 2: independent scientific experts who cognitively shape the way the judicial body views the issues. From a second order of analysis, however, WTO panels and the Appellate Body face interpretive choices of how to weigh science and the application of a risk assessment that will have institutional implications. The essay views the interpretive choices as implicating different allocations of institutional authority, which are categorized into five ideal types. The essay contends that the choice of process-based review is typically the best one, since it is one where judicial panels have relative experience and capacity. Yet it also maintains that WTO panels have good reason to maintain the option of engaging in more than purely procedural review, while remaining aware of the limitations of scientific methods. The arguments were presented at the ASIL annual meeting in 2010.
In international commercial transactions, it is not always clear which state’s law will apply to govern a particular contract. Historically, states have sought to address this problem by means of two types of treaties. The first aims to solve the problem by bringing about the substantive unification of commercial law across multiple jurisdictions; once the law is everywhere the same, then it no longer matters which state’s law applies to govern the contract. The second aims to solve the problem in part by empowering the transacting parties to choose the law that will govern their contract; once these parties know that their choice of law will be respected by national courts, then the uncertainty as to the governing law goes away.
The conventional wisdom has long been that substantive unification represents the better approach to solving the problem of legal uncertainty. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom to argue that, in fact, a choice-of-law approach may be superior. It does so, first, by identifying weaknesses in the two rationales that have most frequently been advanced in favor of substantive commercial law treaties – that they are uniquely able to reduce transaction costs and that they offer law uniquely suited to the needs of international commercial transactions. The Article then explains how a choice-of-law treaty could lead to the development of better commercial law that more accurately captures the preferences of parties engaged in international commerce by facilitating the development of an international market for commercial law.
Monday, April 5, 2010
- Isabelle Delpla, Introduction. La réception du TPIY : héritage philosophique, contingence historique, universalité morale
- Stéphanie Maupas, Bref historique. Le TPIY et la politique pénale du Bureau du procureur
- Joseph Krulic, Les procès Mihailović et Stepinac de 1946 au regard des critères du procès equitable
- Yann Jurovics, Sur les catégories juridiques de crime contre l'humanité et de genocide
- Xavier Bougarel, Du code pénal au mémorandum. Les usages du terme génocide dans la Yougoslavie communiste
- Petar Novoselec, Conception de la peine dans la philosophie et le droit pénal d'ex-Yougoslavie
- Ivan Vuković, La philosophie pénale en ex-Yougoslavie. Un episode
- Jan Christoph Nemitz, La pratique en matières de peines du TPIY
- Vladimir Petrovic, Les historiens comme témoins experts au TPIY
- John B. Allcock, Le praticien des sciences sociales en qualité d'expert et de témoin
- Romana Schweiger, Entre recherche de la vérité et pragmatisme le plea bargaining au TPIY et en Bosnie-Herzégovine
- Wolfgang Schomburg, Sur le rôle des procédures dans l'établissement de la vérité
- Magali Bessone, Apories de la transparence au TPIY
- Samuel Tanner, Crimes de masse et justice en ex-Yougoslavie. Une ethnographie de quatre exécuteurs serbes
- Klaus Buchenau, Les Églises et le TPIY. Perspectives serbe orthodoxe et croate catholique
- Christian Moe, La justification du statut de victime. La réception du TPIY par les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine
- Elissa Helms, Justice et genre. Mobiliser les survivantes de guerre bosniaques
- Isabelle Delpla, Catégories juridiques et cartographie des jugements moraux. Le TPIY évalué par victimes, témoins et condamnés
This essay discusses the many overlapping and important aspects of the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals, and particularly their constitutional function in the international legal order. It canvasses the jurisdictional provisions of 8 current and former war crimes tribunals and the permanent International Criminal Court to distill the fundamental jurisdictional provisions of each one as to temporal, geographic, subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The principles of complementarity and primacy are also discussed and evaluated as principles of international criminal law policy and practice.
This contribution analyses the relationship between international law and Community law in the light of two recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases on Article 307 EC, that is, the Kadi and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) judgments. The analysis discusses two concepts: (1) the concept of the ‘very foundations of the Community legal order’ and (2) the concept of ‘hypothetical incompatibility’. The main argument that is advanced in this contribution is that with these two concepts, the ECJ has identifi ed a constitutional dimension of Article 307 EC that hitherto has not been generally recognized. More specifically, it is argued that the main aim and result of this new line of jurisprudence is to protect the autonomy of European law from international law interferences by excluding as much as possible any confl icts between European and international law.
In this sense, Article 307 EC is a tool for the ECJ to act as a gatekeeper by regulating the relationship between international law and Community law. Moreover, it is argued that the concept of the ‘very foundations of the Community legal order’ very much resembles the approach of the Federal German Constitutional Court, which in turn illustrates that the ECJ is performing the function of a true constitutional court of Europe. Accordingly, this article links up the external relations aspects of Article 307 EC with the closely connected internal constitutional aspects.
This book deals with non-judicial mechanisms for the implementation of human rights in European states. Human rights have been recognised through various human rights instruments. However, achieving compliance with human rights requires more than just creating, clarifying or expanding human rights standards. Human rights treaties also need concrete responses within domestic systems to allow these treaties to function. This requires that states create non-judicial mechanisms for the implementation of human rights. Four such mechanisms are studied in the book: national human rights institutions (NHRIs), human rights indicators, human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) and national human rights action plans (NHRAPs). These non-judicial mechanisms have recently been developed by European states, but they have not been much discussed. Their creation requires a different approach to human rights than those approaches that focus on their judicial application by human rights bodies. The book aims to provide an in-depth insight into the non-judicial mechanisms and includes discussions of both their theoretical and practical aspects.
In the introduction, the author argues that human rights should be implemented principally at the national level. In view of this, states should endeavour to achieve compliance with both civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights. This requires that they establish non-judicial mechanisms that strengthen their national human rights systems. Doing so is a procedural requirement that defines the way in which states should implement human rights. Non-judicial mechanisms can simultaneously prevent human rights violations, monitor human rights implementation and create a human rights dialogue. The four non-judicial mechanisms for the implementation of human rights studied in this book help states achieve these objectives. They all do this in their own respect, addressing the problem from a specific angle. First, NHRIs are the institutional instrument. While interacting with both state and non-state actors, they both monitor governmental action and provide advice to government, and promote and provide education on human rights. Second, human rights indicators are the measuring instrument. They allow the extent to which a state complies with human rights to be measured, thereby evaluating its progress in the realisation of human rights. Third, HRIAs are the policy instrument.
They evaluate the impact on human rights of both past and future policies. Fourth, NHRAPs are the holistic instrument. They establish a full programme that aims to realise human rights. The four non-judicial mechanisms described are both complementary and interdependent, and therefore constitute instruments that should be collectively established by European states in order to implement human rights. In the conclusion, the author examines the possibility of the use of non-judicial mechanisms for actors other than states as well as the mutual exchange of experiences regarding these non-judicial mechanisms.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Benzing: Das Beweisrecht vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten in zwischenstaatlichen Streitigkeiten
Vor dem Hintergrund einer immer größer werdenden Zahl zwischenstaatlicher Gerichtsverfahren, in denen verstärkt auch Tatsachenfragen streitig sind, untersucht die Dissertation die Grundsätze der Tatsachenfeststellung und -würdigung vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten. Sie bietet eine systematische Darstellung und kritische Betrachtung des geltenden völkerrechtlichen Beweisrechts und unterbreitet Vorschläge für seine Fortentwicklung. Dabei trägt die Arbeit besonders den Umständen Rechnung, dass die internationale Gerichtsbarkeit kein kohärentes, in sich geschlossenes System darstellt und dass prozessrechtliche und gerade beweisrechtliche Fragen oft nur rudimentär in den gerichtseinsetzenden Verträgen geregelt sind.