- Julien Chaisse, Debashis Chakraborty, & Jaydeep Mukherjee, Managing India's Foreign Exchange Reserve: an Exploration of the SWF Temptation
- Akshay Kolse Patil, Precedents in Investor State Arbitration
- A Jayagovind, Anti-Dumping Agreement and Exhaustion of Law Remedies
- Ishupal Singh Kang, TRIPS through the Lens of Global Public Goods: Are TRIPS-plus FTAs eating up all the Good there is?
- Michael Reynolds & Michelle Chowdhury, Article 102 and High Technology Industries: the Impact of the European Microsoft and and Intel Cases
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Call for Papers
ASIL International Organizations Interest Group
The International Organizations Interest Group of the American Society of International Law will hold a works-in-progress workshop on October 29, 2010, at the headquarters of the Organization of American States, Washington, DC.
If you are interested in presenting a paper at the workshop, please submit an abstract to Kristen Boon (Kristen.Boon[at]shu.edu), Jacob Cogan (jacob.cogan[at]uc.edu), and Lorena Perez (LPerez[at]oas.org) by the end of the day on August 27. Abstracts should be a couple of paragraphs long, but no more than one page. Papers should relate to the subject “international organizations.”
Papers selected for presentation are due no later than October 18. Papers should not yet be in print; ideally, authors will have time to make revisions based on the comments from the workshop.
The workshop’s format will be as follows. Each paper will be introduced by a commentator for about ten minutes. The author will have the opportunity to respond, if he or she wishes to do so. The floor will then be opened up for a little more than an hour of comments, reactions, and discussion from the group as a whole. The workshop is conducted on the assumption that everyone has read all of the papers in advance. After we have selected papers, we will ask for volunteers to serve as commentators. One need not present a paper or comment on a paper to participate.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions at all about the workshop or paper submissions.
Jacob Katz Cogan
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Nettelfield: Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague Tribunal's Impact in a Postwar State
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) struggled to apprehend and try high-profile defendants like the Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević, and often received more criticism than praise. This volume argues that the underappreciated court has in fact made a substantial contribution to Bosnia and Herzegovina's transition to democracy. Based on more than three years of field research and several hundred interviews, this study brings together multiple research methods, including surveys, ethnography, and archival materials, to show the court's impact on five segments of Bosnian society, emphasizing the role of the social setting in translating international law in domestic contexts. Much of the early rhetoric about the transformative potential of international criminal law helped foster unrealistic expectations that institutions like the ICTY could not meet, but judged by more realistic standards, international law is seen to play a modest yet important role in postwar transitions. The findings of this study have implications for the study of international courts around the world and the role law plays in contributing to social change.
This chapter revisits the idea of subjects of international law and suggests that there may be multiple entities that enjoy international personality even if they do not all have the same capacities as states to hold international rights and obligations. The scope of these obligations, however, remains unclear. In cases brought against international organizations the issue has been seen as one of attribution and here it is argued that the same act can be simultaneously attributed to the international organization as well as the relevant member states. The concept of complementarity is used to highlight how we need to be able to consider simultaneous responsibilities and not see the acts of peacekeepers as exclusively attributable to the entity that authorized the operation.
- Attila Tanzi, Reducing the Gap between International Water Law and Human Rights Law: The UNECE Protocol on Water and Health
- Stefania Negri, Waterborne Disease Surveillance: The Case for a Closer Interaction between the UNECE Protocol on Water and Health and the International Health Regulations (2005)
- Olivier De Schutter, The Emerging Human Right to Land
- Fabrizio Marrella, On the Changing Structure of International Investment Law: The Human Right to Water and ICSID Arbitration
- Stephen Stec, Humanitarian Limits to Sovereignty: Common Concern and Common Heritage Approaches to Natural Resources and Environment
We, the editorial board of the Indian Journal of International Economic Law (IJIEL), 2010-2011 invite submissions from academicians, scholars and graduate students for the fourth issue of the Journal. Submissions are invited in the following categories: full length articles (10,000-12,000 words); case reviews, legislative analyses, short comments and short articles by 'qualified graduate and doctoral students (7000-8000 words); Law in Focus and Case Comments by practitioners (3000-5000 words).
IJIEL is an annual journal that is managed, edited and produced by students of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore – India’s premier law school. The Journal’s mandate extends to all academic scholarship relevant to International Economic Law, including international finance and taxation, cross-border regulatory reform, interrelations between trade, human rights and the environment, international competition law, economic aspects of intellectual property rights and TRIPS, etc. We are particularly interested in scholarship that focuses on recognising the staggering impact of international trade and commerce on developing countries.
This double blind refereed journal with peer reviewing has steadily grown since its inception and the three issues we’ve published thus far have been a tremendous success in terms of the breadth and quality of the submissions and the enthusiastic support of stalwarts in the field. We are proud to state that the forwards of our issues have been penned by Professor Jagdish Bhagwati, Mr. Arvind Subramaniam from the Peterson Institute and Dr. Thomas Cottier, Managing Director at WTI, Berne. In addition to the third issue which is currently in the process of publication, as an attempt to tap niche aspects of this dynamic field, we will be publishing a special issue on Space Law and International Economic Law with a forward by Judge Abdul G. Koroma, Member of the International Court of Justice.
We accept only electronic submissions. All submissions may be e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org
For more information on our Editorial Board, circulation policy and submission guidelines kindly refer to www.ijiel.com
We look forward to receiving your submissions.
Convenor, IJIEL, 2010-2011
Chief Editor, IJIEL, 2010-2011
Indian Journal of International Economic Law (IJIEL),
National Law School of India University (NLSIU),
Bangalore – 560240
Monday, July 19, 2010
- Branislav L. Slantchev, Feigning Weakness
- Sonal S. Pandya, Labor Markets and the Demand for Foreign Direct Investment
- Cristina Bodea, Exchange Rate Regimes and Independent Central Banks: A Correlated Choice of Imperfectly Credible Institutions
- Matthew A. Baum & Tim Groeling, Reality Asserts Itself: Public Opinion on Iraq and the Elasticity of Reality
- Xun Cao & Aseem Prakash, Trade Competition and Domestic Pollution: A Panel Study, 1980–2003
- David Bach & Abraham L. Newman, Transgovernmental Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: Evidence from Insider Trading Regulation
Payandeh: Internationales Gemeinschaftsrecht: Zur Herausbildung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Strukturen im Völkerrecht der Globalisierung
Im Zeitalter der Globalisierung finden Interessen und Werte der internationalen Gemeinschaft zunehmend ihren Niederschlag im Völkerrecht. Dieser inhaltliche Wandel geht einher mit Veränderungen in der Struktur der internationalen Rechtsordnung: Soweit Gemeinschaftsinteressen betroffen sind, wird der Grundsatz, dass Staaten nicht ohne oder gegen ihren Willen Verpflichtungen unterworfen werden können, nicht mehr durchgehend eingehalten und im Rahmen der Rechtsdurchsetzung können nicht unmittelbar von einer Rechtsverletzung betroffene Staaten im Interesse der internationalen Gemeinschaft tätig werden. Zur theoretischen und dogmatischen Erfassung dieses strukturellen Wandels wird der Begriff des internationalen Gemeinschaftsrechts vorgeschlagen. Dieses bezeichnet normativ eine Kategorie von Rechtsnormen, die sich durch besondere gemeinschaftliche Mechanismen der Normentstehung und Rechtsdurchsetzung auszeichnen. Deskriptiv bezeichnet es eine dritte Stufe der Völkerrechtsentwicklung, die neben das Koexistenzvölkerrecht und das Kooperationsvölkerrecht tritt.
Robinson: A Response to William Schabas and a Reflection on Discursive Assumptions: One Vision or Many?
This article critically examines some of the criticisms leveled by Professor William Schabas with respect to early policies and jurisprudence of the ICC, namely self-referrals and admissibility due to inaction. That examination serves as a springboard for broader observations about discursive assumptions in international criminal law.
One observation is that although discourse focuses on points of disagreement, it is also a vehicle through which the interpretive community implicitly absorbs and acquiesces in countless assumptions and propositions, which limit and shape legal debate.
For example, it is today an almost universally-shared belief that territorial state referrals were ‘not contemplated’ by the Rome Statute drafters and hence that they represent an ‘innovation’. This widespread belief is the diametric opposite of the actual drafting history, which expressly shows not only that territorial state referrals were repeatedly discussed but also that they were not even controversial. The controversy was whether referrals by states parties without an ‘interest’ in the situation should be permitted. Yet the distorted belief about history has framed and shaped the present legal debate. In this way, a straightforward application of the text, in a manner expressly contemplated by the drafters, has generated a significant literature and in opposite discussions about creative re-interpretations. Similarly, the widespread but incorrect conviction that Article 17 contains only the oft-cited criteria of ‘unwilling’ and ‘unable’ has generated a distorted debate about admissibility in inaction scenarios, culminating in unsubstantiated and legitimacy-draining accusations against the Court. The controversy shows the power of collective perception to reconstruct not only history but text itself.
A related observation concerns the tendency of members of the interpretive community to assume a single vision or model of the Court and to impose that expectation onto the Statute. Such arguments are easily supported by invocations of ‘drafters intent’. However, this article recommends skepticism about portrayals of the drafters as having a monolithic vision or of any single philosophy underlying the Statute. Multiple plausible models are compatible with the Statute, and open-minded assessment of the merits and implications of each is needed. Such models may include, for example, an ‘antagonistic’ model, a ‘catalyst’ model, a ‘reverse cooperation’ model and a ‘facility’ model.
- Karen N. Scott, Safety of shipping in the Southern Ocean
- Thomas M. Brown, For the "round and top of sovereignty": boarding foreign vessels at sea on terror-related intelligence tips
Sunday, July 18, 2010
It is the aim of this article to demonstrate that the impact of coups d’état in international political discourse outweighs actual consequences under the law of responsibility in international law. This article argues that - leaving aside the hypothesis of effective control by a foreign state - coups d’état, despite being systematically condemned in political discourse, do not engage the responsibility of any state as they cannot be attributed to any international legal subject. The article however argues that coups can constitute preparatory actions to a subsequent internationally wrongful act.