Saturday, September 18, 2010

Symposium: The Future of the WTO

The American University Washington College of Law, the Emerging Dynamic Global Economies (EDGE) Network, and the German Marshall Fund will present a roundtable on "The Future of the WTO," September 23, 2010, in Washington, DC. The program is here. Here's the idea:
Is the WTO ready to meet the challenges of 21st Century? What impact will the economic crisis have on the WTO? Are reforms needed to the WTO decision making and dispute settlement mechanisms to make the organization more legitimate, accountable and effective? How can greater coherence in international economic policy making between the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO be facilitated? Will the "success" of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism be maintained in the face of new, complex challenges such as climate change, energy and financial crises? This distinguished panel will address these and other important issues.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Tully: Australian Court Permits Damages Claim for Torture by former Guantánamo Bay Detainee to Proceed

Stephen Tully has posted an ASIL Insight on Australian Court Permits Damages Claim for Torture by former Guantánamo Bay Detainee to Proceed.

Crowe: Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and International Legal Responses

David Crowe (Elon Univ. - History and Law) has published Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and International Legal Responses (Routledge 2010). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

War Crimes and acts of genocide are as old as history itself, but particularly during the 20th century. Yet what are war crimes and acts of genocide? And why did it take the world so long to define these crimes and develop legal institutions to bring to justice individuals and nations responsible such crimes? Part of the answer lies in the nature of the major wars fought in the 20th century and in the changing nature of warfare itself.

This study looks at war crimes committed during the Second World War in the USSR, Yugoslavia, Germany, and efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice. This led to successful postwar efforts to define and outlaw such crimes and, more recently, the creation of two international courts to bring war criminals to justice. This did not prevent the commitment of war crimes and acts of genocide throughout the world, particularly in Asia and Africa. And while efforts to bring war criminals to justice has been enhanced by the work of these courts, the problems associated with civil wars, command responsibility, and other issues have created new challenges for the international legal community in terms of the successful adjudication of such crimes.

Reinisch: Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts

August Reinisch (Univ. of Vienna - Law) has published Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts (Oxford Univ. Press 2010). Contents include:
  • August Reinisch, Introduction
  • Peter Hilpold, UN Sanctions before the ECJ: the Kadi case
  • Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Domestic Court Reactions to UN Security Council Sanctions
  • Jan Wouters & Pierre Schmitt, Challenging Acts of Other United Nations' Organs, Subsidiary Organs and Officials
  • Jean d'Aspremont & Catherine Brölmann, Challenging International Criminal Tribunals before Domestic Courts
  • August Reinisch, Decisions of the European Patent Organization before National Courts
  • Jakob Wurm, Asking National Courts to Correct the Over-flight Charges of Eurocontrol
  • Kirsten Schmalenbach, Challenges against Decisions of the European Schools before National Courts
  • Rutsel Martha, Challenging Acts of INTERPOL in Domestic Courts
  • Cedric Ryngaert, Domestic Legal Remedies against OPEC
  • August Reinisch, Conclusions

Capling & Low: Governments, Non-State Actors and Trade Policy-Making

Ann Capling (Univ. of Melbourne - Political Science) & Patrick Low (World Trade Organization) have published Governments, Non-State Actors and Trade Policy-Making: Negotiating Preferentially or Multilaterally? (Cambridge Univ. Press 2010). Here's the abstract:
One of the most pressing issues confronting the multilateral trade system is the challenge posed by the rapid proliferation of preferential trade agreements. Plenty has been written about why governments might choose to negotiate preferentially or multilaterally, but until now it has been written almost exclusively from the perspective of governments. We know very little about how non-state actors view this issue of 'forum choice', nor how they position themselves to influence choices by governments about whether to emphasize PTAs or the WTO. This book addresses that issue squarely through case studies of trade policy-making and forum choice in eight developing countries: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Kenya, Jordan, Indonesia and Thailand. The case studies are based on original research by the authors, including interviews with state and non-state actors involved in the trade policy-making process in the eight countries of this study.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Call for Submissions: Jerome A. Cohen Prize Essay in International Law and East Asia (Reminder)

As noted previously, the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics has issued a call for submissions for the Jerome A. Cohen Prize Essay in International Law and East Asia. The call is here. The submission deadline is September 24.

Conference: India-United States Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (Reminder)

Today and tomorrow, September 16-17, 2010, the University of Reading, in association with Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, will be holding its second workshop to examine various issues arising from the India-United States Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (123 Agreement). I noted the announcement here. Here's the program:

16 September

Welcome: Robert P. Barnidge, Jr./Venugopalraju Balaji

Session 1: Normative Issues

Chair: Sandy Ghandhi, University of Reading

Chamu Kuppuswamy, University of Sheffield, The 123 Agreement: Is it a Recognition and Exercise of the Right to Peaceful use of Nuclear Energy or an Underserved Reward for Holding out Against a near Universal Treaty?

Uday Shankar, Rajiv Gandhi School, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Looking through the Prism of Human Rights

Session 2: Implications for India (1)

Chair: Subbaiah Amirthalingam, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

Manoj Kumar Sinha, WB National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, 123 Agreement: Legal and Political Implications

Pooja Singhania & Tanushree Bhuwalka, students, Gujarat National Law University, The Implications of the 123 Agreement: Changing Horizons

Session 3: Implications for India (2)

Chair: Robert P. Barnidge, Jr., University of Reading

Venugopalraju Balaji, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, The Consequences of the 123 Agreement for India’s Strategic Objectives and Traditional Distance from United States Influence in International Relations

Palanichamy Vanangamudi, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, Indo-US Nuclear Deal and National Development: A Critical Study

Session 4: International Trade and the 123 Agreement

Chair: Manoj Kumar Sinha, WB National University of Juridical Sciences

Joelien Pretorius, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, RSA, Reinterpreting the Pelindaba Treaty: The 123 Agreement and the Politics of Africa-India Nuclear Trade

Subbaiah Amirthalingam, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, International Law Governing the Nuclear Trade with Specific Reference to India-US Civil Nuclear Deal

17 September

Session 5: Nuclear Energy and the Environment

Chair: Michael Lieberman, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Robert P. Barnidge, Jr., University of Reading, The United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, The International Law Commission, and International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited By International Law: Theory and Practice

Valeria Eboli, University of Pisa, The Relationship between the India-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement and the International Obligation of the Parties on the Protection of the Environment

Erika Hennequet, student, University of Reading/University of Nanterre, Paris, The Relationship between the 123 Agreement and International Environmental Law

Session 6: The 123 Agreement in Wider Context

Chair: Venugopalraju Balaji, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

Michael Lieberman, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, The Nuclear Renaissance, Counterproliferation and Transnational Regulatory Networks

Chaim Braun, Stanford University, USA, Expanding the Indian Nuclear Energy Program following the Passage of the India – U.S. Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation

Diallo: Le consentement des parties à l'arbitrage international

Ousmane Diallo has published Le consentement des parties à l'arbitrage international (Presses Universitaires de France 2010). Here's the abstract:

Mode juridictionnel privé de règlement des litiges, l'arbitrage offre une alternative à la saisine du juge. Qu'il soit interne ou international, l'arbitrage repose généralement sur le consentement des parties. C'est donc à juste titre que celui-ci a été qualifié de pierre angulaire de l'arbitrage. Effectivement, c'est sur ce consentement que la justice privée s'est longtemps appuyée pour justifier sa légitimité, revendiquer son autonomie et conquérir un nouvel espace de liberté.

Solidement porté par le consentement qui lui sert de fondement, l'arbitrage n'a cessé de se développer au point d'apparaître de nos jours comme le mode normal de règlement des litiges du commerce international. On le dit particulièrement adapté au règlement de telle ou telle catégorie de litiges, manière d'affirmer sa vocation à étendre son emprise. Parvenu à l'âge adulte, c'est donc tout naturellement que l'arbitrage cherche à s'affranchir du caractère exceptionnel que lui imprime sa subordination au consentement, lequel apparaît de plus en plus comme un îlot de résistance à son expansion, sinon à son efficacité.

Première étude d'ensemble sur la question, le présent ouvrage a le grand mérite d'exploiter au mieux la richesse qu'offre une approche comparative, non seulement pour retracer le rôle important joué par le consentement dans l'évolution de l'arbitrage, mais aussi, et surtout, pour mettre à nu les multiples tentatives en vue de son émancipation de la tutelle des parties. Il en résulte une éclipse momentanée du consentement, qui ravive les contestations de la compétence arbitrale et dévoile à nouveau sa subordination au consentement, facteur de légitimation par excellence de l'arbitrage. C'est dire que le consentement ne fait pas que survivre à ces assauts, il réussit même à prospérer.

Autant de questions aussi brûlantes qu'actuelles, sur lesquelles cet ouvrage offre une analyse détaillée et des solutions originales.

Conference: Making History in the Courtroom: From the Soviet Show Trials to the Khmer Rouge Trials

Today and tomorrow, September 16-17, 2010, the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, with the participation of the Institut d’histoire du temps présent of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, will host a conference on "Making History in the Courtroom: From the Soviet Show Trials to the Khmer Rouge Trials." The program is here. Here's the idea:

In 1945, the International Military Tribunal opened the case against 22 Nazi officers and leaders accused of conspiracy and war crimes. At that time, the victims of these crimes were not welcomed as witnesses and were generally not given an opportunity to offer testimony in either oral or written form. Their experiences were too recent and vivid to form part of the legal record, and at the same time it must be noted that historians had not yet begun to write the history of the Third Reich and of the genocide of the Jews.

Eventually, however, the evidence collected by the prosecution became an essential archive and the focus of considerable historical research. The trial was to become a pivotal moment in the process of remembering and then the writing of the history of the war. Even more significant, the legacy of the Nuremberg trials has been that of rendering a new standard of justice in the aftermath of war crimes, genocide, and other atrocities. International courts have multiplied war crime trials, as well as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, have had a large impact on international awareness of and commitment to bringing perpetrators to account in South Africa, the former Yugoslavia, the Rwanda, and Cambodia.

The most recent war crimes trials are those that have been under way in Cambodia since February, 2009. The Khmer Rouge Trials are a novelty in that these proceedings are taking place after the history of the genocidal regime has been written, the archives collected, the witnesses interviewed, the dead buried and even forgotten by the current generation. The question to be posed in this new context is what is the significance of these trials on Cambodian society? What are the effect of a rather precarious yet highly visible judicial process thirty years after the crimes have been committed?

The conference will address the interaction of memory, history, trials and tribunals. The focus of the papers, given by leading international lawyers and historians, will be that of the role trials play in the development of public opinion, the cultivation of longer term social memory and the impact upon the writing of history. There will be a special focus on the symbolic value and international visibility of these trials, manifested most obviously in the filming of the procedings as well as in the use of video and film as evidence.

Tzanakopoulos: Human Rights and United Nations Security Council Measures

Antonios Tzanakopoulos (Univ. of Glasgow - Law) has posted Human Rights and United Nations Security Council Measures (in Norm Conflicts in Public International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Erika de Wet & Jure Vidmar eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
When the Security Council imposes binding obligations through decisions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter it may impact on internationally protected human rights and the corresponding obligations of UN member states to respect these rights. Member states are then faced with potentially conflicting obligations. This contribution surveys the respective position of Security Council measures and human rights obligations in the (emergent) normative hierarchy of international law. It defines normative conflict and discusses state practice in order to establish whether Article 103 of the UN Charter is a conflict or a hierarchy rule and whether human rights obligations are subordinate to Security Council measures.

New Issue: Rivista di Diritto Internazionale

The latest issue of the Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (Vol. 93, no. 2, 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Articoli
    • M. Lugato, Sono le sanzioni individuali del Consiglio di sicurezza incompatibili con il rispetto delle garanzie procedurali?
    • M.R. Mauro, Leggi di amnistia e punizione dei crimini internazionali
  • Note e Commenti
    • M. Lugato Simboli religiosi e Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: il caso del crocifisso
    • S. Migliorini, La continuità degli atti comunitari e del terzo pilastro dopo l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona
  • Panorama
    • G. Pecchioni, L’uso della forza da parte dei soggetti coinvolti nel conflitto in Georgia
    • N. Lazzerini, Effetti diretti orizzontali dei principi generali . . . ma non delle direttive che li esprimono? La sentenza della Corte di giustizia nel caso Kücükdeveci
    • A. Leandro, Una pretesa in materia di competenza esclusiva dell’Unione Europea dinanzi alla Corte internazionale di giustizia
    • F. Marongiu Buonaiuti, Una controversia relativa alla Convenzione di Lugano giunge alla Corte internazionale di giustizia
    • S. Marino, La proposta di regolamento sulla cooperazione giudiziaria in materia di successioni

Ohlin: Nash Equilibrium and International Law

Jens David Ohlin (Cornell Univ. - Law) has posted Nash Equilibrium and International Law (Cornell Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Game theory has been a mainstay in the international relations literature for several decades, but its appearance in the international law literature is of a far more recent vintage. Recent accounts have harnessed alleged lessons learned from game theory in service of a new brand of “realism” about international law. These skeptical accounts conclude that international law loses its normative force because states that “follow” international law are simply participants in a Prisoner’s Dilemma seeking to achieve self-interested outcomes. Such claims are not just vastly exaggerated; they represent a profound misunderstanding about the significance of game theory. Properly conceived, the best way to understand international law is as a Nash Equilibrium - a focal point that states gravitate towards as they make rational decisions regarding strategy in light of strategy selected by other states. In domains where international law has the greatest purchase, the strategy is reciprocal compliance with international norms. This strategy is consistent with the normativity of both law and morality, both characterized by self-interested actors who accept reciprocal constraints on action to generate Nash Equilibria and, ultimately, a stable social contract. These agents - “constrained maximizers” as the philosopher David Gauthier calls them - accept the constraints of a normative system in order to achieve cooperative benefits. The paper concludes by explaining that it is also rational for states to comply with these constraints: agents evaluate plans and strategies and then stick to them, rather than obsessively reevaluating them at each moment in time. A state that defects from international law when the opportunity arises may, in the long run, reduce its overall payoff, as compared to a state that selects and adheres to a strategy of constrained maximization.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

New Issue: Journal of Conflict Resolution

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 54, no. 5, October 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Alastair Smith, The Pernicious Consequences of UN Security Council Membership
  • Katja B. Kleinberg & Benjamin O. Fordham, Trade and Foreign Policy Attitudes
  • John Conybeare & Dong-Hun Kim, Democracy, Institutionalization, and Corporate Alliances
  • Shanna A. Kirschner, Knowing Your Enemy: Information and Commitment Problems in Civil Wars
  • Roman M. Sheremeta, Expenditures and Information Disclosure in Two-Stage Political Contests
  • Christophe Boone, Carolyn Declerck, & Toko Kiyonari, Inducing Cooperative Behavior among Proselfs versus Prosocials: The Moderating Role of Incentives and Trust

Koppell: World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance

Jonathan G.S. Koppell (Arizona State Univ. - Public Affairs) has published World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance (Univ. of Chicago Press 2010). Here's the abstract:

Dilemmas from climate change to financial meltdowns make it clear that global interconnectedness is the norm in the twenty-first century. As a result, global governance organizations (GGOs)—from the World Trade Organization to the Forest Stewardship Council—have taken on prominent roles in the management of international affairs. These GGOs create and promulgate rules to address a host of pressing problems. But as World Rule reveals, they struggle to meet two challenges: building authority despite limited ability to impose sanctions and maintaining legitimacy while satisfying the demands of key constituencies whose support is essential to a global rulemaking regime.

Through a novel empirical study of twenty-five GGOs, Jonathan GS Koppell provides a clearer picture of the compromises within and the competition among these influential institutions by focusing attention on their organizational design. Analyzing four aspects of GGO organization in depth—representation and administration, the rulemaking process, adherence and enforcement, and interest group participation—Koppell describes variation systemically, identifies patterns, and offers explanations that link GGO design to the fundamental challenge of accountability in global governance.

New Issue: Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

The latest issue of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (Vol. 28, no. 3, September 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Clara Burbano Herrera & Yves Haeck, Letting States off the Hook? The Paradox of the Legal Consequences following State Non-Compliance with Provisional Measures in the Inter-American and European Human Rights Systems
  • Björn Ahl, Exploring Ways of Implementing International Human Rights Treaties in China
  • Tineke Lambooy, Corporate Due Diligence as a Tool to Respect Human Rights

Conference: Resources of Conflicts - Conflicts over Resources (Update)

The Goettingen Journal of International Law will host a conference on "Resources of Conflicts - Conflicts over Resources," October 7-9, 2010, in Göttingen. I noted the call for papers here. The registration deadline is today. The program is now available here.

UPDATE: The registration deadline has been extended until September 23.

Singh: How Should the Third World See Constitutionalism in International Law?

Prabhakar Singh (Jindal Global Law School) has posted How Should the Third World See Constitutionalism in International Law? Here's the abstract:
A survey of international law scholarship throws up three kinds of approaches: constitutional, pluralistic and global administrative law (GAL). What is there for the Third World to choose? Both international law and constitutional law are colonial gifts. India in particular and Third World in general is slightly obsessed with a constitutional imagery as seen in the India-Quantitative Restriction Case at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Therefore, it depends; Chimni approaches GAL from a Third World perspective (TWAIL) whereas Koskenniemi prefers constitutionalism. Constitutional vocabularies are often used to address the United Nations (UN) Charter, the WTO, and the European Union (EU). The diversity of legal regimes presents a problem of harmonisation within the monism-dualism ideology of international law. With the increasing assertion of the EU as a strong dualist normative laboratory, new scholarship is replacing constitutionalism by pluralism as the preferred but defensive ideology – the definition of constitutionalism stands upside down now. After the European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s Kadi judgement, pluralism and constitutionalism stand in opposite camps. This paper attempts to address this international constitutional confusion. It ends on an open note: there are issues that cannot be concluded and constitutionalism as an ideology remains, as is often the case, a non-concluded question for an eternally observing Third World.

David: The Role of Precedent in the WTO - New Horizons?

Felix David (Maastricht Univ. - Law) has posted The Role of Precedent in the WTO - New Horizons? Here's the abstract:
Until recently, the answer to the question of whether there exists a rule of binding precedent in the WTO legal order was a fairly clear “not really,“ at least certainly not one in the sense of the rather strict common law doctrine of stare decisis. Previous decisions could not be ignored, due to their persuasiveness, but did not have any binding force except as between the parties to a particular dipute, it was noted. A recent Appellate Body decision, however, has resulted in a heated discussion among the WTO Membership on the subject, as well as a questionable decision by a panel in a subsequent dispute. These new developments merit a closer look at the mentioned Appellate Body decision, the Report in US - Stainless Steel, in which the Appellate Body required from panels to advance cogent reasons in order to justify a departure from its previous decisions. This analysis will attempt to ascertain whether the Appellate Body really intended to open ’new horizons’ regarding the role of precedent in the WTO order. This paper will argue that US - Stainless Steel represents a further step (and in view of some Members of the WTO a step too far) in a line of cases in which the Appellate Body has gradually sought to expand the binding force of its decisions.

Mégret: The International Criminal Court as a Political Object (La Cour Pénale Internationale: Objet Politique)

Frédéric Mégret (McGill Univ. - Law) has posted The International Criminal Court as a Political Object (La Cour Pénale Internationale: Objet Politique). Here's the abstract:
This draft chapter (in French) for an edited collection on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court aims to characterize the ICC as a "political object." It suggests that whilst the ICC is premised on an aspiration to transcend politics, it finds it very difficult to achieve that goal in practice. On the one hand, the ICC is an improvement on victors' or ad hoc hoc justice, and it is shaped by a cosmopolitan vision of its role that sees itself as profoundly a-political. Politics, from thereon, are always seen as external to the Court, a contamination from the outside world to be minimized as much as possible in the courtroom. On the other hand the ICC can be seen as its own source of "politics": it is in itself a form of "soft power," if only that of its state parties; the prosecutor's discretion can hardly be described as anything but political, even in the best sense of the term; and, most importantly, the Court is called upon to implement an at least rough form of "foreign policy" if it is to achieve anything. All in all, the Court ends up being deeply reliant on some of those very practices that it is prone to condemn. The easy way out is to go for marginal targets and at least ensure that the Court fills its docket, but there is a very real risk that the ICC will become an instrument of politics, rather than a tool to challenge its worse aspects.

Workshop: Posner

Eric Posner (Univ. of Chicago - Law) will give a talk today at the New York University School of Law Hauser Globalization Colloquium on "Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Reciprocity."

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Føllesdal: The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Review: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights

Andreas Føllesdal (Univ. of Oslo - Norwegian Centre for Human Rights) has posted The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Review: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights (Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 595-607, Winter 2009). Here's the abstract:
The literature concerning judicial review reveals a long list of misgivings of such constraints on domestic democratic decision making. Of concern here are some of the principled objections against the practice of international judicial review of human rights, using the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a suitable case. This court monitors the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and is among the most powerful treaty-based courts. Still, the ECtHR respects States’ discretion in the form of a "Margin of Appreciation." And it exercises what is sometimes referred to as "weak" review. That is: the ECtHR can find a law or its application to be incompatible with the ECHR, but this does not directly affect the validity of that law in the domestic legal system. Nor does the ECtHR replace such laws with one of its own making, as some forms of "strong" judicial review would.When we ask about the normative legitimacy of such laws, treaties, and bodies, different theories will approach the matter quite differently. The presentation of objections to such international review and responses to them show the implications of different ways to bring normative requirements to bear on institutions. To bring this out, the focus is on two main concerns. Such review seems to violate the commitment to political equality expressed by majority rule, and it is thought to rely on a problematic, predatory conception of human nature. Jeremy Waldron, Richard Bellamy, and others have argued these concerns, often from quite plausible normative premises concerning an individual’s sense of justice and the need to avoid domination. Section 1 presents these criticisms. Section 2 then sketches an alternative way to bring normative requirements to bear on institutional design - Liberal Contractualism - which stands in some contrast especially to that of Waldron. Three main features are laid out, to bring out weaknesses in how Waldron and Bellamy use their normative premises to assess a practice or an institution. Central to this liberal contractualism is a particular institutionalist approach, and a concern for trust-building institutions among individuals who are “contingent compliers” with a sense of justice. This account is somewhat more kindly disposed toward international judicial review of human rights, at least in principle. Section 3 then goes back to the criticisms presented in section 1, and considers the merits of each. Section 4 concludes by identifying some of the weak spots in the case for international human rights review as hitherto made.

Parish: International Officials

Matthew Parish (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) has posted International Officials (Austrian Review of International and European Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This article reviews a series of recent international legal regimes in post-conflict countries that conferred upon international officials executive authorities to override countries’ domestic institutions. The focus is on the regimes in the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosovo) but Cambodia, East Timor and Iraq are also considered. The levels of probity and wisdom with which such powers have been exercised are very mixed. The model these offices have followed is one of military government, by its nature absolutist, and so far these powers have not been subject to effective check or review. This has undermined international law, as civil rights are eroded or international mandates spin out of control. The article concludes with tentative suggestions for a review mechanism of the decisions of such officials.

New Issue: Chinese Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Chinese Journal of International Law (Vol. 9, no. 3, September 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Articles
    • Solon Solomon, The Great Oxymoron: Jus In Bello Violations as Legitimate Non-Forcible Measures of Self-Defense: The Post-Disengagement Israeli Measures towards Gaza as a Case Study
    • Gulazat Tursun, The Protection of Minorities in Court Proceedings: A Perspective on Bilingual Justice in China
  • Courts and Tribunals
    • Tafsir Malick Ndiaye, The Advisory Function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
  • Development and History
    • Yen-Chiang Chang, International Legal Obligations in Relation to Good Ocean Governance

New Issue: Revista Española de Derecho Internacional

The latest issue of the Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (Vol. 61, no. 2, 2009) is out. Contents include:
  • Estudios
    • Joaquín Alcaide Fernández & Claudia Cinelli, La "Cuestión ártica" y el Derecho internacional
    • Francisco José Pascual Vives, Las obligaciones de promoción y protección de las inversiones extranjeras en la segunda generación de APPRI españoles
    • Irene Blázquez Rodríguez, El Derecho sucesorio islámico: principios informadores y excepción de orden público internacional
  • Jurisprudencia
    • Francisco Javier Quel López, Jurisprudencia en materia de Derecho internacional público
    • Santiago Alvarez González, Jurisprudencia en materia de Derecho internacional privado

New Issue: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht

The latest issue of the Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht (Vol. 20, no. 1, 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Helen Keller & Christina Schnell, International Human Rights Standards in the EU - A Tightrope Walk between Reception and Parochialism?
  • Caroline Kleiner, Le dialogue entre le droit civil et le droit international privé en matière de nom

New Issue: Rivista di Diritto Internazionale

The latest issue of the Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (Vol. 93, no. 1, 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Articoli
    • B. Conforti, In tema di immunità funzionale degli organi statali stranieri
    • P. Fois, I valori fondamentali del « nuovo » diritto internazionale e il principio pacta sunt servanda
    • A. Adinolfi, La Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona
  • Note e Commenti
    • E. Rebasti, Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo e responsabilità degli Stati per trasferimento di poteri ad una organizzazione internazionale: la decisione nel caso Gasparini
    • S. Migliorini, Sulle proposte di modifica del regolamento 44/2001 in tema di competenza relativa alle controversie individuali di lavoro
  • Panorama
    • A. Ciampi, Un Ombudsperson per gestire le richieste al Comitato 1267 per la cancellazione dalle liste
    • B.I. Bonafé, Garanzie bilaterali di obblighi integrali? In margine alla ris. 1887 (2009) del Consiglio di sicurezza
    • R. Baratta, Un recente procedimento di infrazione « interstatale » dinanzi alla Commissione europea
    • M. Frulli, La Spagna modifica le norme relative alla giurisdizione universale: le ragioni di una riforma annunciata
    • E. Cannizzaro, Il bilanciamento fra diritti fondamentali e l’art. 117, 1o comma, Cost.
    • E. Sciso, Il principio dell’interpretazione conforme alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e la confisca per lottizzazione abusiva
    • F.M. Palombino, Laicità dello Stato ed esposizione del crocifisso nella sentenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo nel caso Lautsi

Monday, September 13, 2010

New Volume: Australian Year Book of International Law

The latest volume of the Australian Year Book of International Law (Vol. 28, 2009) is out. Contents include:
  • James Crawford, International Law in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia 1996-2008: A Comparison
  • Katharine G. Young, The World, through the Judge's Eye
  • Dylan Bushnell, Re-thinking International Criminal Law: Re-connecting Theory with Practice in the Search for Justice and Peace
  • Afshin Akhtarkhavari, Power, Environmental Principles and the International Court of Justice
  • Natalie Klein, Litigation over Marine Resources: Lessons for Law of the Sea, International Dispute Settlement and International Environmental Law
  • Andrew Serdy, Some Views are More Equal than Others: Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the Strange Loss of Confidence in Article IV of The Antarctic Treaty

New Issue: Journal du Droit International

The latest issue of the Journal du Droit International ("Clunet") (Vol. 137, no. 3, Juillet-Août-Septembre 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Doctrine
    • Gilbert Guillaume, Le précédent dans la justice et l'arbitrage international (Lalive Lecture, 2 juin 2010)
    • Gérard Teboul, Remarques sur le rang hiérarchique des conventions inter-étatiques et du droit international coutumier dans l'ordre juridique international
    • Nabil Ferjani &Véronique Huet, L'impact de la décision onusienne d'embargo sur l'exécution des contrats internationaux
    • Bernard Haftel, Entre Rome II et Bruxelles I: l'interprétation communautaire uniforme du règlement Rome I
  • Variétés
    • Emilie Kleinmann, La protection des emblèmes, sigles, dénomination et poinçons officiels des États et organisations intergouvernementales et internationales par l'article 6 ter de la Convention d'Union de Paris

New Issue: ASA Bulletin

The latest issue of the ASA Bulletin (Vol. 28, no. 2, 2010) is out. Contents include:
  • Timothy G. Nelson, Annulment of International Arbitration Awards: The Orinoco Steamship Case Sails On
  • Alexander R. Markus & Sandrine Giroud, A Swiss Perspective on West Tankers and Its Aftermath – What about the Lugano Convention?
  • Thomas Legler, Sind in Zukunft Patentstreitigkeiten in der Schweiz de lege lata nicht mehr schiedsfähig?

Ford: How Leadership in International Criminal Law is Shifting from the U.S. To Europe and Asia

Stuart Ford (John Marshall Law School) has posted How Leadership in International Criminal Law is Shifting from the U.S. to Europe and Asia: An Analysis of Spending on and Contributions to International Criminal Courts (Saint Louis University Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article represents the first comprehensive attempt to understand how much the international community has spent on international criminal courts since 1993. It collects data on costs of and contributions to the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. The results are striking. The international community will have spent nearly $6.3 billion by the time that most of the existing international criminal courts have closed their doors at the end of 2015. Spending on international criminal courts peaked in 2009 at $560 million and will decrease for the foreseeable future. By the end of 2015, yearly spending on international criminal courts will drop to $167 million, a decline of nearly two-thirds.

One of the most significant findings is that leadership in funding for international criminal courts – and by extension leadership in international criminal justice – is shifting from the United States to Europe. The United States will have been the largest single contributor to international criminal courts in the period 1993-2015. However, U.S. contributions as a percentage of total contributions have been declining steadily since 2004. By 2015, the United States’ contribution will essentially be zero. The decline in U.S. spending is almost entirely being offset by increased spending by European states who will be contributing more than 60% of total funding for international criminal courts by 2015.

Cantore: 'How Does it Feel to be on Your Own?' Mutual Recognition Agreements and Non Discrimination in the GATS: A 'Third Party's' Perspective

Carlo Maria Cantore (Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna) has posted 'How Does it Feel to be on Your Own?' Mutual Recognition Agreements and Non Discrimination in the GATS: A 'Third Party's' Perspective (German Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 8, 2010). Here's the abstract:

The aim of this working paper is to analyze the compatibility between two relevant provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first is art. VII, Recognition, which seems to allow a Member to recognize standards of one or more Members – and not of others – without violating its GATS obligations, although this freedom should not be abused. The second is the general Non-Discrimination provision as of GATS art. II, since the aim of the GATS, at least as it reads in its preamble, is to provide a multilateral framework to trade liberalization in the services market on a non-discriminatory basis. Through the following pages, I will try to explain the rationale to sign Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) and their impact on the GATS system. It is true that there is a general principle of transparency and openness of the MRAs, but it is necessary to get our hands dirty with the reality and understand if and how such an openness clause works.

The most important part of my research has been checking all the MRAs, the Unilateral Recognition provisions (GATS art. VII.4) and the Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) (GATS art. V) notified to the WTO secretariat, and the results of this work are, in some cases, unexpected, in terms of actors involved, number of agreements signed, and their contents.

Call for Submissions: Journal of International Law and International Relations

The Journal of International Law and International Relations, a peer-reviewed journal at the University of Toronto, has issued a call for submissions for its forthcoming issue 1 of volume 7. Here's the call:

jilir journal of international law & international relations

Call for Submissions

Volume 7, Issue 1

Deadline for Submissions: September 27th, 2010

The Journal of International Law and International Relations (JILIR) invites submissions from scholars of both International Law and International Relations for its Fall 2010 issue. The Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that seeks to develop interdisciplinary discourse at the nexus of two dynamic disciplines.

JILIR is welcoming submissions on the wide variety of topics located in the intellectual space jointly occupied by International Law and International Relations.

A joint venture of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and the Munk School of Global Affairs, the Journal's advisory board is comprised of scholars from both International Law and International Relations, including Martti Koskenniemi, Robert Keohane, Benedict Kingsbury, Janice Gross Stein, Michael Byers, Kenneth Abbott, Jose Alvarez, Upendra Baxi, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Jutta Brunnée, Martha Finnemore, Karen Knop, Stephen Krasner, Friedrich Kratochwil, Oona Hathaway, Réné Provost, Philippe Sands, Shirley Scott, Gerry Simpson, Stephen Toope, and Rob Walker.

Please send submissions via e-mail to submissions@jilir.org, as attachments in Microsoft Word. Please include the author's full contact information (name, institutional affiliation, mailing address, telephone number(s), and e-mail address) in the body of the e-mail.

The deadline for submissions is September 27th, 2010.

Smeulers: Collective Violence and International Criminal Justice

Alette Smeulers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Amsterdam Centre of the Interdisciplinary Research on International Crimes and Security) has published Collective Violence and International Criminal Justice: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Intersentia 2010). The table of contents is available here. Here's the abstract:

Extreme forms of collective violence such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes can endanger international peace and security. The international criminal justice system has been set up in order to prosecute these crimes and to thus restore international peace and security. These crimes are however extremely complex social phenomena and it takes an inter- and multidisciplinary approach to understand the true nature of this type of criminality and to effectively prosecute the perpetrators thereof.

This book enhances our knowledge of these complex phenomena and thus contributes to a better and more effective system of international criminal justice. Scholars from many different scientific disciplines such as law, criminology, political science, psychology, research methodology and information technology as well as practitioners from within the field have contributed to this book.

General themes in the book are: What kind of people are perpetrators of collective violence? How can we attribute criminal responsibility to individuals for crimes which are collective in nature? How can we study these crimes and how can we discover patterns of violence? What role can statistics play when holding individuals accountable? How to develop strategies of prosecution? What difficulties do prosecutors and judges face and how important and useful is the ICC Case Matrix? These are just a few of the many questions addressed in this book.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Conference: International Law Weekend 2010 (Update)

The American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association will host International Law Weekend 2010, October 21-23, 2010, in New York City. The conference theme is "International Law and Institutions: Advancing Justice, Security and Prosperity." I posted the call for papers here. The schedule of events is now available here.

Milanovic: Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

Marko Milanovic (Univ. of Nottingham - Law) has posted Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This case note analyzes the Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 December 2009. This was the first case in which the Court applied the far-reaching general prohibition of discrimination in Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention, and did so with regard to a politically volatile situation of electoral discrimination based on ethnicity in a post-conflict society - discrimination that was in fact institutionalized in order to end a war. Likewise, as the implementation of the Court's judgment requires an amendment to the Bosnian Constitution, the case poses significant compliance challenges, which are also likely to arise in a number of other cases currently pending before the Court. All of these issues make this a case deserving of continuing attention.