The prohibition of the use of force is one of the most crucial elements of the international legal order. Our understanding of that rule was both advanced and challenged during the period commencing with the termination of the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait, and concluding with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The initial phase was characterized by hopes for a functioning collective security system administered by the United Nations as part of a New World Order. The liberation of Kuwait, in particular, was seen by some as a powerful vindication of the prohibition of the use of force and of the UN Security Council. However, the operation was not really conducted in accordance with the requirements for collective security established in the UN Charter. In a second phase, an international coalition launched a humanitarian intervention operation, first in the north of Iraq, and subsequently in the south. That episode is often seen as the fountainhead of the post-Cold War claim to a new legal justification for the use of force in circumstances of grave humanitarian emergency-a claim subsequent challenged during the armed action concerning Kosovo. There then followed repeated uses of force against Iraq in the context of the international campaign to remove its present or future weapons of mass destruction potential. Finally, the episode reached its controversial zenith with the full scale invasion of Iraq led by the US and the UK in 2003.
This book analyzes these developments, and their impact on the rule prohibiting force in international relations, in a comprehensive and accessible way. It is the first to draw upon classified materials released by the UK Chilcot inquiry shedding light on the decision to go to war in 2003 and the role played by international law in that context.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
- Part I Topics
- Christoph Ohler, International Regulation and Supervision of Financial Markets After the Crisis
- Christoph Herrmann, Don Yuan: China’s “Selfish” Exchange Rate Policy and International Economic Law
- August Reinisch, Protection of or Protection Against Foreign Investment?: The Proposed Unbundling Rules of the EC Draft Energy Directives
- Andreas R. Ziegler, The Nascent International Law on Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)
- Till Müller-Ibold, Foreign Investment in Germany: Restrictions Based on Public Security Concerns and Their Compatibility with EU Law
- Marc Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Common Commercial Policy After Lisbon
- Markus Krajewski, Services Trade Liberalisation and Regulation: New Developments and Old Problems
- Jörg Philipp Terhechte, Applying European Competition Law to International Organizations: The Case of OPEC
- Roland Ismer, Mitigating Climate Change Through Price Instruments: An Overview of the Legal Issues in a World of Unequal Carbon Prices
- Part II Regional Integration
- Richard Senti, Regional Trade Agreements in the World Trade Order
- Marise Cremona, The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements
- Tomer Broude, Regional Economic Integration in the Middle East and North Africa: A Primer
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, North American Regional Economic Integration: Recent Trends and Developments
- Gabriele Tondl & Timo Bass, Integration in Latin America
- Chien-Huei Wu, The ASEAN Economic Community Under the ASEAN Charter; Its External Economic Relations and Dispute Settlement Mechanisms
- Part III International Economic Institutions
- Edwini Kessie, The Doha Development Agenda at a Crossroads: What Are the Remaining Obstacles to the Conclusion of the Round?
- Wolfgang Bergthaler & Wouter Bossu, Recent Legal Developments in the International Monetary Fund
- Katharina Gnath, Developments at the G8: A Group’s Architecture in Flux
During the last twenty years we have experienced a sharp rise in the number of international courts and tribunals and a correlative expansion of their jurisdictions. This increase in power invites posing some difficult questions concerning the performance of international courts: Are they effective tools for international governance? Do they in fact fulfill the expectations that led to their creation? And why do some courts appear to be more effective than others? Etc...
A growing body of legal literature has turned its attention to such questions of effectiveness in recent years. Such literature contains many important insights as to the factors which could explain increased or decreased court effectiveness. Nevertheless, the 'Achilles heel' of most publications in the field is the crude and/or intuitive definitions of "effectiveness" that they employ, which often equate effectiveness with compliance. The lack of a clear definition of effectiveness is sometimes further compounded by general assumptions about the role of international courts in international life, which seem to transpose the role that courts play in national legal systems into the international realm.
At the same time, the social sciences literature has long afforded considerable attention to methodological issues relating to the assessment of organizational effectiveness in general, and public organizational effectiveness in particular. This literature appears to provide a number of conceptual frameworks and empirical indicators that could be alternatively applied towards assessing the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals.
The proposed article surveys some key notions used in social sciences literature relating to the methodology for measuring the effectiveness of public organizations and discusses their possible application to international courts. In Part One, I will discuss the notion of "organizational effectiveness" and explain the choice of a goal-based definition of effectiveness as the most suitable approach for evaluating the performance of international courts. I then survey a number of ways to classify organizational goals and illustrate some of the difficulties and ambiguities that measuring effectiveness on the basis of goal-attainment may nonetheless entail. In Part Two, I shall introduce some key methodological moves used by the social sciences literature in order to measure institutional effectiveness after the goals of the organization have been identified. Such moves include the fleshing out of different operational categories relating to the evaluated organization's structure, process and outcome. In Part Three, I will discuss how the methods of analysis developed in the social sciences literature could be applied to study of international courts, given the unique attributes and context for their operation, and suggest some elements that should be integrated in future research projects seeking to develop a suitable research methodology.
To be clear, my purpose in the article is not to offer any conclusions as to whether international courts in general, or any specific international court in particular, are "effective". My main interest is, instead, to introduce a research agenda that could advance a sophisticated and inter-disciplinary approach towards addressing the question of international court effectiveness.
- October 8: Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary, Univ. of London), Divided We Stand - The Case of the International Whaling Commission
- October 15: Luca Radicati di Brozolo (Catholic Univ. of Milan), Judicial Decisions as Expropriation - The Implications of Saipem v Bangladesh
- October 22: David Keane (Middlesex Univ.), Survival of the Fairest? Evolution and the Geneticization of Rights
- October 29: Scott Sheeran (Univ. of Essex), Reforming the Law of UN Peacekeeping
- November 5: Dan Saxon (Lauterpacht Centre), The Philosophy of International Humanitarian Law. The First Leverhulme Lecture
- November 12: Tom McInerney (International Development Law Organization), Treaty Monitoring and State Fiscal Capacity - with Particular Focus on Developing Countries
- November 19: Kate Miles (Univ. of Sydney), International Investment Law, Empire and the Environment
- November 26: Peter FitzGerald (Stetson Univ.), Fins, Fur and Formalism - The Impact of International Economic Law upon Domestic Animal Law
- December 3: Michael Wood (20 Essex Street) & James Crawford (Univ. of Cambridge), The ICJ's Kosovo Opinion
- September 15: Eric Posner (Univ. of Chicago - Law), Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Reciprocity
- September 22: Michael Doyle (Columbia Univ. - International and Public Affairs, Political Science, and Law), The UN Charter: A Global Constitution?
- October 6: Mary Dudziak (University of Southern California - Law and History), Law, War, and the History of Time
- October 13: Tim Buthe (Duke Univ. - Political Science), The Rise of Supranational Regulatory Authority: Competition Policy in the European Union
- October 20: Kal Raustiala (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law), Information and International Institutions
- October 22: Peter Katzenstein (Cornell Univ. - Government), The Transnational Spread of American Law: Legalization as Soft Power
- November 10: Oona Hathaway (Yale Univ. - Law) & Scott Shapiro (Yale Univ. - Law), Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law
- November 17: Kathryn Sikkink (Univ. of Minnesota - Political Science), to be determined
- December 1: Benedict Kingsbury (New York Univ. - Law), Obligations Overload for Fragile States
- December 3: Beth Simmons (Harvard Univ. - Government), Subjective Frames and Rational Choice: Transnational Crime and the Case of Human Trafficking
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Anne Peters, Rechtsordnungen und Konstitutionalisierung: Zur Neubestimmung der Verhältnisse
- André Nollkaemper, Rethinking the Supremacy of International Law
- Erich Vranes, Völkerrechtsdogmatik als „self-contained discipline“? Eine kritische Analyse des ILC Report on Fragmentation of International Law
- Michael Potacs, Das Verhältnis zwischen der EU und ihren Mitgliedstaaten im Lichte traditioneller Modelle
- Bruno de Witte, European Union Law: How Autonomous is its Legal Order?
- Jacques Ziller, Zur Europarechtsfreundlichkeit des deutschen Bundesverfassungsgerichtes. Eine ausländische Bewertung des Urteils des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes zur Ratifikation des Vertrages von Lissabon
Golove & Hulsebosch: A Civilized Nation: The Early American Constitution, the Law of Nations, and the Pursuit of International Recognition
This article argues, contrary to conventional accounts, that the animating purpose of the American Constitution was to facilitate the admission of the new nation into the European-centered community of “civilized states.” Achieving international recognition - which entailed legal and practical acceptance on an equal footing - was a major aspiration of the founding generation from 1776 through at least the Washington administration in the 1790s, and constitution-making was a key means of realizing that goal. Their experience under the Articles of Confederation led many Americans to conclude that adherence to treaties and the law of nations was a prerequisite to full recognition, but that popular sovereignty, at least as it had been exercised at the state level, threatened to derail the nation’s prospects. When designing the federal Constitution, the framers therefore innovated upon republicanism in a way that balanced their dual commitments to popular sovereignty and earning international respect. The result was a novel and systematic set of constitutional devices designed to ensure that the nation would comply with treaties and the law of nations. These devices, which generally sought to insulate officials responsible for ensuring compliance with the law of nations from popular politics, also signaled to foreign governments the seriousness of the nation’s commitment. At the same time, however, the framers recognized that the participation of the most popular branch in some contexts - most importantly, with respect to the question of war or peace - would be the most effective mechanism for both safeguarding the interests of the people and achieving the Enlightenment aims of the law of nations. After ratification, the founding generation continued to construct the Constitution with an eye toward earning and retaining international recognition, while avoiding the ever-present prospect of war. This anxious and cosmopolitan context is absent from modern understandings of American constitution-making.
- Miguel García García-Revillo & Miguel J. Agudo Zamora, Underwater Cultural Heritage and Submerged Objects: Conceptual Problems, Regulatory Difficulties. The Case of Spain
- Stephan Hobe & Jörn Griebel, New Protectionism – How Binding are International Legal Obligations During a Global Economic Crisis
- Johanna Fournier, Reservations and the Effective Protection of Human Rights
- Charles Majinge, The Future of Peacekeeping in Africa and the Normative Role of the African Union
- Bernhard Kuschnik, Humaneness, Humankind and Crimes Against Humanity
- Ioana Cismas, Secession in Theory and Practice: the Case of Kosovo and Beyond
- Current Developments
- Bill Bowring, The Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and 14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHR
- Mindia Vashakmadze & Matthias Lippold, “Nothing but a Road Towards Secession”- The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo?
- GoJIL Focus: ICC Review Conference
- Hans-Peter Kaul, Kampala June 2010 – A First Review of the ICC Review Conference
- Sabine Klein, Uganda and the International Criminal Court Review Conference: Some Observations of the Conference’s Impact in the ‘Situation Country’ Uganda
- Roger S. Clark, Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Considered at the First Review Conference on the Court, Kampala, 31 May-11 June 2010
- Robert Heinsch, The Crime of Aggression After Kampala: Success or Burden for the Future?
- Astrid Reisinger Coracini, The International Criminal Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression – at Last . . . in Reach . . . Over Some
- Morten Bergsmo, Olympia Bekou & Annika Jones, Complementarity After Kampala: Capacity Building and the ICC’s Legal
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- S.I. Strong, Research in International Commercial Arbitration: Special Skills, Special Sources
- Steven H. Reisberg, The Rules Governing Who Decides Jurisdictional Issues: First Options v. Kaplan Revisited
- Matthew T. Parish & Charles B. Rosenberg, An Introduction to the Energy Charter Treaty
- Dmitry Davydenko & Eugenia Kurzynsky-Singer, Substantive Ordre Public in Russian Case Law on the Recognition, Enforcement and Setting Aside of International Arbitral Awards
- Ignacio Gómez-Palacio, International Commercial Arbitration: Two Cultures in a State of Courtship and Potential Marriage of Convenience
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Hans van Houtte, International Investment Treaties and Arbitration as Imbalanced Instruments: A Re-visit
- Giuditta Cordero Moss, Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: Further Steps
- Benedetta Coppo, Comparing Institutional Arbitration Rules: Differences and Similarities in a Developing International Practice
- Lukas F. Wyss, Trends in Documentary Evidence and Consequences for Pre-arbitration Document Management
- Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke, Zur Herrschaft internationaler Gerichte: Eine Untersuchung internationaler öffentlicher Gewalt und ihrer demokratischen Rechtfertigung
- Ingolf Pernice, La Rete Europea di Costituzionalità – Der Europäische Verfassungsverbund und die Netzwerktheorie
- Mathias Hong, Hassrede und extremistische Meinungsäußerungen in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und nach dem Wunsiedel–Beschluss des BVerfG
- Cornelia Janik, Die EMRK und internationale Organisationen – Ausdehnung und Restriktion der equivalent protection–Formel in der neuen Rechtsprechung des EGMR
Monday, August 30, 2010
This Article offers a new justification for modern litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), a provision from the 1789 Judiciary Act that permits victims of human rights violations anywhere in the world to sue tortfeasors in U.S. courts. The ATS, moribund for nearly 200 years, has recently emerged as an important but controversial tool for the enforcement of human rights norms. “Realist” critics contend that ATS litigation exasperates U.S. allies and rivals, weakens efforts to combat terrorism, and threatens U.S. sovereignty by importing into our jurisprudence undemocratic international law norms. Defenders of the statute, largely because they do not share the critics’ realist assumptions about international relations, have so far declined to engage with the cost-benefit critique of ATS litigation and instead justify the ATS as a key component in a global human rights regime.
This Article addresses the realists’ critique on its own terms, offering the first defense of ATS litigation that is itself rooted in realism – the view that nations are unitary, rational actors pursuing their security in an anarchic world and obeying international law only when it suits their interests. In particular, this Article identifies three flaws in the current realist ATS critique: First, critics rely on speculation about catastrophic future costs without giving sufficient weight to the actual history of ATS litigation and to the prudential and substantive limits courts have already imposed on it.
Second, critics’ fears about the sovereignty costs that will arise when federal courts incorporate international-law norms into domes-tic law are overblown because U.S. law already reflects the limited set of universal norms, such as torture and genocide, that are actionable under the ATS. Finally, this realist critique fails to overcome the incoherence created by contending that the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts may harm U.S. interests while also assuming that nations are unitary, rational actors.
Moving beyond the critique, this Article offers a new, positive realist argument for ATS litigation. This Article suggests that, in practice, the U.S. government as a whole pursues its security and economic interests in ATS litigation by signaling cooperativeness through respect for human rights while also ensuring that the law is developed on U.S. terms. This realist understanding, offered here for the first time, both explains the persistence of ATS litigation and bridges the gap that has frustrated efforts to weigh the ATS’s true costs and benefits.
- XVIIIème Congrès international de droit comparé, Washington, DC 2010: Rapports nationaux helléniques
- Athanassios C. Papachristos & Andreas Helmis, La culture juridique et l’acculturation en droit
- Christina Deliyanni-Dimitrakou, Christina M. Akrivopoulou & Yannis Naziris, The role of practice in Greek legal education
- Eugenia Dacoronia, Catastrophic harms
- Alexander G. Fessas, Regulation of same-sex marriage
- Zoe Papassiopi-Passia, Consumer protection in Greek private international law
- Evangelos Vassilakakis, Recent private international law codifications
- Kalliope Makridou, Cost and fee allocation in civil procedure
- Dimitrios Tsikrikas, Les actions collectives en droit grec
- Konstantinos N. Kyriakakis, Corporate governance
- Christos S. Chrissanthis, Legal aspects of speculative funds (hedge funds, private equity funds)
- Ioannis Voulgaris, La location-financière (leasing) en Grèce
- Alexandra E. Douga, Insurance law between business law and consumer law
- Dionysia Kallinikou, The balance of copyright
- Costas Papadimitriou, The prohibition of age discrimination in labor relations
- Nikolaos Davrados, The protection of foreign investment in Greece
- Angelos Yokaris, International law in domestic systems
- Theodora Antoniou, Foreign voters
- Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas & Stylianos-Ioannis G. Koutnatzis, Constitutional courts as ‘positive legislators’
- Athanasios D. Tsevas, Plurality of political opinions and the concentration of the media
- Michail Vrontakis, Les droits de l’homme, sont-ils universels et normatifs?
- Claire Spirou & Vassiliki Koumpli, Public private partnerships under Greek law
- Theodore Fortsakis, Andreas Tsourouflis & George Pitsilis, Regulation of corporate tax avoidance
- Christos Mylonopoulos, Corporate criminal liability and Greek law
- Georgios Triantafyllou, Truth or due process: exclusionary rules in Greek criminal procedure law
- Dimitrios Kioupis, Cybercrime legislation in Greece
What does “representation” mean when applied to international organizations? This paper examines representation as a fundamental, if often neglected, aspect of democratic governance which, if perceived by enough members to be deficient or unfair, can interfere with the other components of good governance, as well as with performance of an organization’s core tasks. Using the case of the IMF, we examine how the concept can be applied an international organization. We posit that IMF decision making comprises a two-stage process. In the first stage members are assigned a quota, which drives their respective shares of votes. Descriptive representation best fits this stage. The second stage consists of decision-making in the Fund’s Executive Board, including the formation of constituencies in the Board and the consensual mode of decision making that is employed therein. Here, some form representation construed in principal-agent terms provides the most traction. We find that subjecting the IMF to this kind of conceptual scrutiny highlights important deficiencies in its representational practices.
Call for Papers
2011 International Law Association Asia-Pacific Regional Conference
Contemporary International Law Issues in the Asia Pacific:
Opportunities and Challenges
May 29-June 1, 2011
Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Chinese (Taiwan) Society of the International Law - Chinese (Taiwan) Branch of the International Law Association
Center for International Legal Studies, College of International Relations,
National Chengchi University
I. Conference Theme
The Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law is pleased to hold the International Law Association (ILA) Asia-Pacific Regional Conference from Sunday, May 29 to Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei, a Four Seasons Hotel, in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. The theme of the conference will be Contemporary International Law Issues in the Asia Pacific: Opportunities and Challenges. This conference aims to provide a forum for international law stakeholders to explore the full range of international and transnational legal issues related to the Asia-Pacific region. The tentative schedule of the conference is the following:
Sunday, May 29: Registration and Welcome Reception
Monday, May 30: Opening Ceremony and Conference Sessions
Tuesday, May 31: Conference Sessions and Closing Ceremony
Wednesday, June 1: Optional Half-Day City Tour
II. Topics for Papers and Panels
Proposals from both scholars and professionals are encouraged on any topic relating to international law with a focus on the Asia Pacific. Subject areas may include, but are not limited to, the following:
- General Public International Law:
- The Use of Force
- Asia-Pacific Security
- Territorial Disputes
- Teaching and Research of International Law
- The Law of the Sea
- International Frameworks on Fisheries Conservation
- International Criminal Law
- International Protection of Human Rights
- International Economic Law
- The WTO, APEC and ASEAN
- FTAs and the Cross-Strait ECFA
- United Nations and Regional Organizations
- Private International Law
- Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Court Judgments
Paper and panel proposals must be submitted electronically by December 20, 2010 to email@example.com. A proposal of no more than 300 words should include the author’s name and full contact information. The conference committee welcomes proposal submissions and conference attendance from ILA members. The conference committee will select proposals and announce the outcome by the end of January 2011. Presenters are required to submit full, referenced papers by April 30, 2011. The Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs will publish the conference proceedings.
III. Conference Details
The conference registration fee will be waived for paper presenters and a discounted rate will be offered to ILA members. An additional fee will be charged for the Taipei city tour on June 1. The conference committee will provide additional information on registration fees and a variety of hotels and airlines, including China Airlines and Eva Air, here. Other inquiries about the conference can be directed to Professor Pasha Hsieh, Conference Co-organizer, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
- Lara Appicciafuoco, The Promotion of the Rule of Law in the Western Balkans: The European Union’s Role
- Martina Spernbauer, EULEX Kosovo: The Difficult Deployment and Challenging Implementation of the Most Comprehensive Civilian EU Operation to Date
- Dren Doli & Fisnik Korenica, Kosovar Constitutional Court’s Jurisdiction: Searching for Strengths and Weaknesses
- Michael Bothe, Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice is not the Last Word on Kosovo’s Independence
- Robert Howse & Ruti Teitel, Delphic Dictum: How Has the ICJ Contributed to the Global Rule of Law by its Ruling on Kosovo?
- Björn Arp, The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo and the International Protection of Minorities
- Robert Muharremi, A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo
- Thomas Burri, The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links
- James E. Moliterno, What the ICJ’s Decision Means for Kosovars
- Elena Cirkovic, An Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence
- Hanna Jamar & Mary Katherine Vigness, Applying Kosovo: Looking to Russia, China, Spain and Beyond After the International Court of Justice Opinion on Unilateral Declarations of Independence