Saturday, June 12, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
As a response to widespread structural or endemic human rights violations, in 2004 the European Court began to issue pilot judgments, the aim of which was not only to exert further pressure on national authorities to tackle systemic problems, but also to stop the European Court itself being inundated with the same types of cases. Fashioned out of its own case law, and underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity, the Court has broken new ground with its pilot judgment procedure, both in terms of its diagnosis of the causes of systemic human rights violations, and the extent to which it is prepared to direct states to legislate, or take other steps, to resolve them.
This study (supported by the Leverhulme Trust) analyses the principal characteristics of the pilot judgment procedure and its application in key cases to date. With case studies on Poland, Slovenia and Italy, a particular focus of the work is the adequacy of the response of national authorities to pilot judgments. It draws conclusions about the effectiveness of the procedure as a means of tackling systemic violations, and makes recommendations for its further development.
This Article examines the effects of incremental domestic legislation on international negotiations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigating the effects of climate change is a global public good, which, ultimately, only an international agreement can provide. The common presumption (justified or not) is that national legislation is a step forward to an international agreement. This Article analyzes how national legislation can create a demand for international action but can also preempt or frustrate international efforts. The crucial issue, which has been largely ignored thus far, is how incremental steps at the domestic level alter international negotiations. This paper identifies four mechanisms that support the intuitive idea that national legislation will have positive effects: (1) allocating economic resources, (2) providing leadership in international negotiations, (3) creating a demand for a uniform standard, and (4) cultivating public opinion. This Article demonstrates that, on closer examination, each of these mechanisms could hinder international efforts to create a comprehensive agreement. This is by no means an argument against all efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions at the national level. Instead, this Article calls for a more careful analysis the dynamic political impact of domestic proposals.
- Gus Van Harten, Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion
- Stephan W. Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law - Emergence of a Multilateral System of Investment Protection on Bilateral Grounds
- Dolores Bentolila, Shareholders’ Action to claim for Indirect Damages in ICSID Arbitration
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The article examines five justifications for the investment treaty system. These include the justifications: (1) that investment treaties are a means to encourage foreign direct investment; (2) that investment treaties respond to the bias and unreliability of domestic courts; (3) that investment treaty arbitration advances the rule of law in the resolution of investor-state disputes; (4) that investment treaties affirm the sovereignty and bargaining strategies of states; and (5) that investment treaties were endorsed by the democratic processes of states. The discussion concludes with recommendations that states exercise greater care when considering entry into the system or, more likely, the maintenance or renewal of existing treaties, and that states consider options for reform of the arbitration mechanism.
The purpose of the conference is to examine the challenge to international law posed by the changing character of war. The objectives of the conference are to catalogue the extent to which existing international law governs these changing aspects of warfare and to assess whether these developments warrant revision of existing international law.
Helfer, Hafner-Burton, & Fariss: Emergency and Escape: Explaining Why States Derogate from Human Rights Treaties During National Emergencies
Many international agreements include flexibility devices and risk-management tools that enable states to tailor treaties to an uncertain and changing world. One area where escape clauses have received insufficient scholarly attention is human rights. Several prominent human rights agreements allow states to derogate during periods of crisis. Why do states formally and publicly derogate from human rights agreements? We argue that derogations are a rational response to domestic political uncertainty; they enable governments facing threats at home to buy time and legal breathing space to confront crises while, at the same time, signaling to concerned audiences that deviations from rights protections are temporary. Our conclusions are based on comprehensive new datasets of derogations and states of emergency around the world from 1976 to 2007.
The prohibition on the use of reprisals is widely regarded as one of the most sacrosanct statements of the jus in bello applicable to the conduct of modern hostilities. The textual formulations are stark and subject to no derogations. Supporters of the bright line ban describe it as a vital “bulwark against barbarity.” In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the prohibition is “absolute”, despite the fact that the declarations of key states indicate residual ambiguity over the scope of permissible reprisals, particularly in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Reprisals are a recurring feature of state practice, though conducted under varying legal rubrics and shifting rationales. Reasonable reprisals grounded on an empirical assessment of their deterrent value or framed as appropriate punishment for prior acts of terror may be the most morally acceptable and humane strategy for serving a strategic imperative of civilized society. Limited reprisals may in practice be essential to counteract the growing threat of transnational terrorists. Reasonable reprisals may represent the best long term way to erode support for those who would mobilize terrorist actors to willfully ignore the rules protecting innocent civilians thereby violating the most basic human rights of their victims. This is especially true if nations create clear lines of agreed legal authorities supported by independent adjudication of the motives and methods employed in such reprisals. Peace-loving states should seek common ground to enhance efforts to protect innocent citizens from the effects of terrorist violence. Thoughtful and multilateral reassessment of the lawful scope and rationale for reasonable reprisals is overdue.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
- Adam Roberts, Afghanistan and International Security
- Yoram Dinstein, Terrorism and Afghanistan
- W. Michael Reisman, International Legal Dynamics and the Design of Feasible Missions: The Case of Afghanistan
- John F. Murphy, Afghanistan: Hard Choices and the Future of International Law
- Sean D. Murphy, The International Legality of US Military Cross-Border Operations from Afghanistan into Pakistan
- Alan Cole, Legal Issues in Forming the Coalition
- Charles Garraway, Afghanistan and the Nature of Conflict
- Geoffrey S. Corn, Making the Case for Conflict Bifurcation in Afghanistan: Transnational Armed Conflict, al Qaida and the Limits of the Associated Militia Concept
- Gary D. Solis, Law of War Issues in Ground Hostilities in Afghanistan
- W. Hays Parks, Combatants
- Michael N. Schmitt, Targeting and International Humanitarian Law in Afghanistan
- Matthew C. Waxman, The Law of Armed Conflict and Detention Operations in Afghanistan
- Stephane Ojeda, US Detention of Taliban Fighters: Some Legal Considerations
- Ryan Goodman, Rationales for Detention: Security Threats and Intelligence Value
- David Turns, Jus ad Pacem in Bello? Afghanistan, Stability Operations and the International Laws Relating to Armed Conflict
- Kenneth Watkin, Stability Operations: A Guiding Framework for “Small Wars” and Other Conflicts of the Twenty-First Century?
- Marco Sassòli, The International Legal Framework for Stability Operations: When May International Forces Attack or Detain Someone in Afghanistan?
- Eric Talbot Jensen & Amy M. Pomeroy, Afghanistan Legal Lessons Learned: Army Rule of Law Operations
- Françoise J.Hampson, Is Human Rights Law of Any Relevance to Military Operations in Afghanistan?
- Stephen Pomper, Human Rights Obligations, Armed Conflict and Afghanistan: Looking Back Before Looking Ahead
This Review Essay, to be published in the Indian Yearbook of International Law and Policy (2010) surveys the recent literature on the tensions between of autonomy and accountability in robotic warfare. Four books, taken together, suggest an original account of fundamental changes taking place in the field of IHL: P.W. Singer’s book Wired for War: the Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century (2009), William H. Boothby’s Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict (2009), Armin Krishnan’s Killer Robots: Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons (2009), and Ronald Arkin’s Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots (2009). This Review Essay argues that from the point of view of IHL the concern is not the introduction of robots into the battlefield, but the gradual removal of humans. In this way the issue of weapon autonomy marks a paradigmatic shift from the so-called “humanization” of IHL to possible post-human concerns.
- Julie Browne & Eric S. Dickson, ‘‘We Don’t Talk to Terrorists’’: On the Rhetoric and Practice of Secret Negotiations
- Karen Brounéus, The Trauma of Truth Telling: Effects of Witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts on Psychological Health
- Seung-Whan Choi, Legislative Constraints: A Path to Peace?
- R. Urbatsch, Isolationism and Domestic Politics
- Idean Salehyan, The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations
THE 1st CILS CONFERENCE 2010:
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia
4th and 5th October 2010, Monday and Tuesday
CALL FOR PAPERS/ PARTICIPATION
We are pleased to announce that Center for International Law Studies (CILS) of the Faculty of Law University of Indonesia is holding the 1st CILS Conference in Depok, Indonesia on 4th and 5th October 2010. We look forward to welcoming you at the conference and value your contribution to the ongoing success of this very first annual conference.
The 1st CILS Conference 2010
Year 2009 is a big leap both for Center for International Law Studies (CILS) and Indonesian Journal of International Law (IJIL). That year is marked by national acknowledgement of Directorate of Higher Education, Ministry of National Education, upon IJIL’s achievement, as for the CILS, it has been deemed as one of prestigious national institution dealing with international law in Indonesia. The idea to promote international law is well embedded in CILS and IJIL has successfully served as the vehicle in disseminating international law issues throughout Indonesia to any related stakeholders.
One of the great transformations made by IJIL is indeed that since the volume 7 number 1 of 2009, IJIL is published in English, as to make it readable for foreign experts who want to learn how Indonesia is dealing with international law. "The first IJIL Writing Competition" was launched last year, which is resulted in numerous well written articles submitted and won. Currently "the second IJIL Writing Competition" is open for submission, and expects more articles will be coming in and enriches the competition itself.
The idea of organizing this International Conference is actually comes out from the expectation to gather any international law stakeholders both in Indonesia, regional or international arena to bring together any ideas in promoting and developing international law. As we all are aware the world is becoming borderless and international law is serving much more than before in guarding the conflict between its subjects taken places.
The theme itself is carefully chosen as to be general as it can be, since the very first conference would serve as the intriguing factors for any international law stakeholders.
This conference then is expected to take place every year to mark any international law development. Within this broad conference theme of "Progressive Development of International Law", there are five parallel sessions which will focus on the following sub-themes: (1) Law of the Sea; (2) International Economic Law; (3) Air and Space Law; (4) International Environmental Law; (5) International Human Rights and (6) General Topic.
There will be a Plenary Session on the first day of the Conference where the invited Speakers consist of respected international law scholars will give speech and share opinion to the participants regarding the progressive development of international law as a major theme of the conference itself.
Call for Papers
There will be up to twelve papers per panel to give presenters and discussants adequate time for fruitful engagement. We encourage participants to focus their papers and address the conference theme and sub-themes. In addition to the general call for individual papers, we would also like to encourage individuals to organize their own panels by coordinating with colleagues. This will allow for the panels to be more cohesive and will also foster greater collaboration between international law stakeholders.
Selection criteria for papers
The papers accepted for presentation at the IJIL conference will be based on a competitive selection process. For this conference, we intend to select 100 papers for presentation at the parallel sessions. The selection will be done by the IJIL Secretariat. The selection criteria will be as follows:
- Relevance to the broad theme and subtheme
- Quality of the abstract
- Geographical diversity of presenters
- Balance between senior and junior presenters
Submissions of individual papers
Participants should first indicate the relevant parallel session, based on the sub-theme that they wish to be included in and second, indicate the general category of their paper.
- Name of presenter: Mr. E
- Title of paper: "Illegal Migrants in Southeast Asia"
- Subtheme: International Human Rights
- Abstract: Description of paper in not more than 300 words.
The deadline for submission is 05 July 2010
Submission for panels
The panel organizer should coordinate with the other speakers and take responsibility for that panel, and ensure that all details are provided with the consent of the other speakers. For example:
- Name of panel coordinator: Ms F
- Title of panel: Maritime Security
- Subtheme: Law of the Sea
- Title of paper I: "Maritime Security in Southeast Asia"
- Title of paper II: "Indonesian’s Perspective on Maritime Security"
- Title of paper III: "Cooperative Measures in Combating Piracy"
- Title of paper IV: "Joint Patrol: Challenge and Effectiveness"
- Abstract: Description of panel in not more than 500 words and description of individual papers in not more than 300 words each.
The proposed panel should consist of minimum 4 presenters, including the panel convener.
The deadline for submission 05 July 2010
1. Submission of Abstract: 05 July 2010. Authors will be notified 15 working days after the deadline on the status of their submission
2. Deadline for Early Bird Registration and Payment: 02 August 2010
3. Submission of Completed Paper: 30 August 2010
4. Closing date for Registration and Payment: 30 August 2010
5. Conference: 04-05 October 2010
- Rafael Nieto Navia, La decisión de la Corte Internacional de Justicia sobre excepciones preliminares en el caso de Nicaragua v. Colombia
- Robert K. Goldman, Internal Displacement, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the Principles Normative Status, and the Need for Their Effective Domestic Implementation in Colombia
- Abdelwahab Biad, La Cour Pénale Internationale à la croisée des chemins
- Francisco Orrego Vicuña, La protección de los derechos del individuo en el derecho internacional: ¿Es la selectividad compatible con la universalidad?
- Fabián Augusto Cárdenas Castañeda & Felipe Cadena García, Desafíos impuestos por el derecho internacional ambiental al derecho internacional clásico
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sloane: Review of 'Law at the Vanishing Point: A Philosophical Analysis of International Law,' by Aaron Fichtelberg
This is a largely critical review of Professor Aaron Fichtelberg’s philosophical analysis of international law. The centerpiece of the book’s affirmative agenda, a “non-reductionist” definition of international law that purports to elide various forms of international law skepticism, strikes the reviewer as circular, misguided in general, and, in its application to substantive international legal issues, difficult to distinguish from a rote form of legal positivism. Law at the Vanishing Point’s avowed empirical methodology and critical agenda, while largely unobjectionable, offer little that has not been said before, often with equal if not greater force. I commend the author’s effort to bring the professional philosopher’s toolkit to bear on the perennial questions about international law’s reality and efficacy, and the author’s philosophical aptitude emerges clearly in the work. But I doubt that many readers will find the non-reductionist definition particularly helpful in this regard: it is unclear what the philosophical excursions in Law at the Vanishing Point add to the continuing debates about international law. The need for serious and legally informed philosophical attention to the manifold questions subsumed by international legal skepticism has sadly remained, with few and partial exceptions, unchanged since H.L.A. Hart explored the issue in his canonical 1961 work, The Concept of Law, only to see it largely neglected by a subsequent generation of legal philosophers.
Exploring the relationship between domestic law and international law had been a hobbyhorse of German and French public law scholarship well into the early twentieth century. The relevant debates revolved around two major positions: “dualism”, on the one hand, and “monism”, on the other.With international co-operation becoming at least moderately successful in the wake of the Second World War, these debates were no longer continued. They came to be regarded as intellectual relics stemming from a different age. Often with little accuracy, they were presented in the introductory chapters of textbooks, based on an understanding that they concern mere constructive matters. They were taken to be irrelevant to the progress of humanity that was to be advanced by international law. Quite remarkably, the themes relevant to the old debate have been resuscitated in discourses dealing with final authority in the European Union. The themes have become mingled with discussions of federalism and are now presented, without further ado, as issues possessing a constitutional significance. Hence, traditional disputes are recast in a manner that appears to affect, in one way or another, the “constitutionalisation” of the Union. As is well known, the European constitutionalisation farrago has in the meanwhile spilled over into general international law. Remarkably, the constructive questions revert to their original intellectual habitat, even if in the new cloth of ideas concerning the purported constitution of international law.As is often the case in intellectual history, when prior debates are almost forgotten the reformulation of older ideas comes dressed up in new vocabulary. What has emerged from the constitutional context of Union Law and begun to reach out into general international law are (relatively) new kids on the block, namely, “pluralism” and “cosmopolitanism”. Adorned with constitutional pathos they are advanced as alternatives to the trite dualist and the long abandoned monist paradigm. The article argues, first, that pluralism and cosmopolitanism do not really offer any alternatives. Making sense of the relevant positions requires translating them into the conceptual world of the received debate. If defensible, pluralism, either in simple or cosmopolitan form, formulates a new version of monism; if not, it amounts to a travesty of constitutional ideas, which assimilates legality to the mindset of administrative action. Moreover, it is argued below – in a spirit somewhat reminiscent of Kelsen – that choosing one construction over the other is a question of political philosophy. Monism commends itself not least owing to its superb constitutionalist sensibilities.
The objective of this work is to restate the requirements of democratic legitimacy in terms of the deliberative ideal developed by Jürgen Habermas, and apply the understanding to the systems of global governance. The idea of democracy requires that the people decide, through democratic procedures, all policy issues that are politically decidable. But the state is not a voluntary association of free and equal citizens; it is a construct of international law, and subject to international law norms. Political self-determination takes places within a framework established by domestic and international public law. A compensatory form of democratic legitimacy for inter-state norms can be established through deliberative forms of diplomacy and a requirement of consent to international law norms, but the decline of the Westphalian political settlement means that the two-track model of democratic self-determination is no longer sufficient to explain the legitimacy and authority of law. The emergence of non-state sites for the production of global norms that regulate social, economic and political life within the state requires an evaluation of the concept of (international) law and the (legitimate) authority of non-state actors. Given that states retain a monopoly on the coercive enforcement of law and the primary responsibility for the guarantee of the public and private autonomy of citizens, the legitimacy and authority of the laws that regulate the conditions of social life should be evaluated by each democratic state. The construction of a multiverse of democratic visions of global governance by democratic states will have the practical consequence of democratising the international law order, providing democratic legitimacy for international law.
Das humanitäre Völkerrecht muss sich angesichts veränderter Konfliktformen hinterfragen lassen. Es geht dabei um die Frage des Begrenzens organisierter bewaffneter Gewalt (besonders in sog. asymmetrischen Konflikten), um die Möglichkeit, das Völkerrecht fortzuentwickeln und um sein Verhältnis zu anderen Formen internationalen Rechts.
Konkret werden diese Probleme beim Schutz von Kulturgütern, Situationen militärischer Besetzung, bei der Piraterie, der Abgrenzung von militärischen und polizeilichen Aufgaben von Streitkräften, es geht um Haftung für völkerrechtswidriges Handeln und um Probleme der Wiederherstellung von Staatlichkeit nach Beendigung von Konflikten.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Investor-state arbitration is a relatively new dispute settlement mechanism that allows foreign investors the opportunity to seek redress for damages arising out of breaches of investment-related treaty obligations by the governments of host countries. Claims are submitted to independent, international arbitration tribunals, which are called upon to interpret the treaty at hand. Because of the public interest involved in these cases, the awards of these tribunals are subject to much scrutiny and debate. Thus, it has already generated hundreds of cases and created new legal disciplines, inspiring a continuous string of legal writings. This book describes the process of investor-state arbitration in all of its phases, and provides the reader with comprehensive insight into investor-state arbitration.
Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues includes contributions from many of the leading experts in the field, from private practitioners and academics to government and NGO officials. In this way, the book differs from other books on this topic because it includes contributions from all actors involved, providing more credibility in an area in which one of the main criticisms is bias against governments. This book provides pragmatic and reliable analysis of all aspects of this evolving topic.
Under Attack makes a new contribution to the field of international relations in general and the study of international law and armed conflict in particular, in two core ways. First, it links information from varying disciplines, most notably international relations and international law, to form a comprehensive picture of state practice and the challenges it poses to the legal rules for the use of force. Secondly, it organises the information in such a way to identify two core groups of contemporary justifications used by states: humanitarian reasons and self-defence, both with their sub-categories. At the core of this book is the question of how state practice since 1990 has challenged the long-established legal regime on the international use of force. Are we merely witnessing a temporary and insignificant challenge to international law or are the rules genuinely under attack?
Dans un contexte où les interactions entre les ordres et les systèmes juridiques à l’échelle nationale, régionale et internationale, vont sans cesse croissantes, il devient nécessaire d’essayer de penser des moyens d’articulation rationnelle du pluralisme juridique.
Les droits fondamentaux pourraient-ils y contribuer ? Telle est la suggestion qui est éprouvée par les différentes contributions réunies dans le présent ouvrage. Elle provient tout simplement de l’observation empirique de la présence récurrente des droits fondamentaux comme objet de communication, notamment juridictionnelle, dans les rapports entre les différents ensembles normatifs. Bien que cela ne soit pas leur fonction première, l’idée est émise que les droits fondamentaux pourraient jouer le rôle de « charnières » entre systèmes et ordres juridiques et contribuer ainsi à l’ordonnancement du pluriel.
Pour en tester la pertinence et en évaluer les atouts et les éventuelles faiblesses, des spécialistes de différentes branches du droit international public et privé, de la protection régionale des droits de l’homme, du droit de l’Union européenne, de la théorie du droit et du droit constitutionnel se sont livrés à des analyses permettant dans un premier temps d’observer le recours fluctuant aux droits fondamentaux dans les échanges entre systèmes juridiques internationaux et régionaux, et dans un deuxième temps de souligner l’usage ambivalent des droits fondamentaux dans les rapports des ordres juridiques nationaux avec les normes d’origine externe.
Il en ressort que si les droits fondamentaux présentent bien cette capacité singulière à être le support d’une communicabilité entre ensembles normatifs distincts, ils restent pour le moment un outil imparfait d’articulation des rapports de systèmes tant que ne seront pas davantage rationalisées des techniques structurelles de « partage » de ces normes.
Rüdiger Scholz beleuchtet das komplexe Zusammenspiel von Gesundheitsvölkerrecht und WTO-Recht. Den Kern der Arbeit bildet die zukünftige Koordination der völkerrechtlichen Regime. Dazu analysiert der Verfasser neben dem einschlägigen WTO-Recht das sich in den letzten Jahren verstärkt entwickelnde Gesundheitsvölkerrecht, in dessen Zentrum die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) steht. Dabei überprüft er, inwiefern die Arbeit der Codex Alimentarius Kommission (CAK) im Bereich Lebensmittelsicherheit mittlerweile rechtsstaatlichen Standards genügt. Die Einführung von regionalen Lebensmittelstandards wird empfohlen, um die Arbeit der CAK von handelspolitischen Konflikten freizuhalten. Rüdiger Scholz analysiert kritisch die reformierten Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften zum Schutz vor der internationalen Verbreitung von Gesundheitsgefahren. Die etablierte Arbeitsteilung zwischen CAK und WTO erweist sich als reformbedürftig.
Die WTO-Streitbeilegungsorgane sollten künftig eine formelle Überprüfung von Codex-Lebensmittelstandards vornehmen. De lege ferenda schlägt der Autor die Anerkennung der Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften als internationale Normen im Sinne des WTO-Rechts vor. Auf diese Weise könnten die für beide Regime schädlichen exzessiven Gesundheitsschutzmaßnahmen vermieden werden. Konflikten zwischen WHO-Antitabakregime und WTO-Recht sollte über die Technik der authentischen Interpretation begegnet werden. Im Ergebnis erweist sich die verstärkte Vernetzung der Regime als die beste Koordinationstechnik.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
L’équipe du Centre d’études et de recherches internationales et communautaires (CERIC) a accueilli du 4 au 6 juin 2009 le colloque annuel de la Société française pour le droit international. Le colloque a témoigné à la fois de l’originalité, du dynamisme et de l’importance du droit international en la matière, tout en mettant en évidence ses limites. Le droit international de l’environnement est à la fois un outil fondamental de coopération entre les États et un facteur d’harmonisation et de dynamisation des droits nationaux. Mais le colloque d’Aix n’a pas, à proprement parler, été un colloque sur le droit de l’environnement. Restés fidèles à l’approche de nos prédécesseurs, nous nous sommes, en effet, attachés à saisir des questionnements fondamentaux du droit international général à travers le prisme d'un sujet apparemment singulier. Les trois jours de travaux ont cherché à comprendre comment les défis environnementaux ébranlent voire transforment les catégories et concepts structurant le droit international. Comme l’avait remarquablement mis en lumière l’un des sinon le précurseur de la matière, Alexandre-Charles Kiss, l’environnement se présente comme un sujet « carrefour », à la confluence de problématiques multiples dont l'interaction contribue, dans une sorte de complexité féconde, à revivifier les tissus du droit international. Ne fallait-il pas saisir là une occasion de dépoussiérer l'image d'un droit international qui ne saurait se résumer à une collection de règles compassées, frappées de péremption par l'évolution d'un Monde auxquelles elles seraient inadaptées ou, à la manière de ces étoiles éteintes depuis des siècles mis dont on continue à percevoir la lumière, traduisant des rapports de forces depuis longtemps dépassés ?