- Michael Kagan, Refugee Credibility Assessment and the "Religious Imposter" Problem: A Case Study of Eritrean Pentecostal Claims in Egypt
- Do Thanh Cong, Catfish, Shrimp, and the WTO: Vietnam Loses Its Innocence
- Paul Enríquez, Deconstructing Transnationalism: Conceptualizing Metanationalism as a Putative Model of Evolving Jurisprudence
- Robert C. Blitt, One New President, One New Patriarch, and a Generous Disregard for the Constitution: A Recipe for the Continuing Decline of Secular Russia
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
- Luis Moreno-Ocampo, The International Criminal Court: a reflection
- Adam Roberts, The civilian in modern war
- Ryan Goodman, Controlling the recourse to war by modifying jus in bello
- Dale Stephens, Blurring the lines: the interpretation, discourse and application of the Law of Armed Conflict
- Brian J. Bill, The Redulic ‘Rule’: military necessity, commander’s knowledge, and methods of warfare
- Louise Arimatsu, Territory, boundaries and the Law of Armed Conflict
Modern critical legal thinking is pivoted on the critique of universalism. The critique of international law’s universalism has been done through theoretical workouts. Consequently, the new international legal scholarship is able to accommodate novel movements and intellectuals. TWAIL is such a movement. It has focused on capturing the relation between international law and the production of disadvantage for the subalterns of diverse geographies. However, self-satisfaction of legal scholars aside, is social-science-type discourse seeding the various parts – economic, human rights and humanitarian law – of positive international law? After all, how many judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), among other international courts, have ever mentioned “thinkers”? Given that all these international institutions operate with a treaty based constitutional mandate, lawyers have begun to think international law in constitutional terms. I will use Chimni’s scholarship to introduce the idea of TWAIL and Žižek’s “suspension of the law” to evaluate TWAIL’s criticality.
The Hertie School of Governance, Berlin: A European Professional School for Public Policy
is recruiting a
Professor of Law and Governance in Europe (m/f)
The Hertie School of Governance is an international teaching and research centre of excellence that prepares students for leadership positions in government, business, and civil society. An internationally-recruited faculty, interdisciplinary in outlook, research, and teaching, offers analytically-challenging and practice-oriented courses on governance, policy analysis, management, and leadership and helps students grow intellectually in a professional, research-intensive environment, characterised by public debate and engagement.
Applicants should hold a PhD in law or a related discipline and have their focus of research on the legal structures of governance and regulation in Europe, preferably with a distinct profile in the law of the European Union. Their work should reflect interdisciplinary openness and excellence in research on an international level. Applicants should be willing to teach law and governance and European Union law in the Master of Public Policy and Executive Master of Public Management programmes and contribute to the PhD programme. We will consider junior candidates if they are exceptionally qualified and show high academic potential. The position is to be filled by September 2011.
Relative to rank, applicants should have:
- an international profile
- published extensively in top journals
- a proven record in teaching
As a professional school, the Hertie School seeks faculty with a commitment to intensive, high-quality teaching. All applicants are expected to be professionally fluent in English, the teaching language of the Hertie School. The Hertie School is prepared to reward excellence with competitive salaries and attractive conditions of work. The level of the position will be in line with the candidate's qualifications.
Review of applications will begin no later than 31 January 2011. Application procedure: The Hertie School will review applications that include all of the following documents:
- A letter of motivation
- A current Curriculum Vitae, including detailed personal and professional data and data on teaching experience
- A current publication list
- Names and contact details of up to three reference persons
Please send your application to firstname.lastname@example.org. For information about the Hertie School visit www.hertie-school.org. If you have questions about the position, please contact Prof. Nico Krisch. Strict confidentiality in the application process is assured. The Hertie School is an equal opportunity employer.
- Edward C. Luck, The Responsibility to Protect: Growing Pains or Early Promise?
- Robyn Eckersley, The Politics of Carbon Leakage and the Fairness of Border Measures
- Meri Koivusalo, Common Health Policy Interests and the Shaping of Global Pharmaceutical Policies
- Jennifer M. Welsh, Implementing the “Responsibility to Protect”: Where Expectations Meet Reality
Why should a Spanish court take jurisdiction over an American lawyer accused of facilitating torture on Guantanamo Bay? What empowers a London magistrate to sign an arrest warrant for a former Chilean President? Can it be legitimate or morally defensible for an Israeli court to try a former Nazi whose crimes occurred outside Israel and indeed prior to the establishment of Israel?
This book provides the first full account, explanation, and critique of extraterritorial punishment in international law. Extraterritoriality is deeply entrenched in the practice of legal punishment in domestic legal systems and, in certain circumstances, an established principle of public international law. Often, States claim the right to punish certain offences provided for under their own domestic laws even when they are committed outside their territorial boundaries. Furthermore, extraterritoriality is one of the most remarkable features of international criminal law. Many individuals have been prosecuted in different parts of the world for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, etc. before tribunals which are often located outside the territorial boundaries of the state in which the offences were perpetrated. Finally, the issue of extraterritorial punishment is of pressing importance because of the emergence of new forms of globalized crime, such as transnational terrorism, drug-trafficking, trafficking of human beings, and so on.
This book provides a convincing normative account of extraterritorial punishment. In doing so, it will steer current debates on international criminal justice and the philosophy of punishment in new directions, and link these debates to globalization, the emergence of transnational crime, terrorism, war, and the problem of impunity and mass atrocity.
The onset of the current process of globalization has brought about momentous changes to the rules and processes of international law. This comprehensive book examines a number of these changes, including the radical expansion of international economic law, the increase in the power of international economic organizations, and the new informal approaches to law-making. The greater reliance on judicial and arbitral mechanisms, and the proliferation of international human rights instruments, many of which have a direct bearing on international economic relations, are also discussed. The contributors to this book are all prominent experts in the fields of international law and international political economy, drawn from both developing and developed countries.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
- Didem Kayali, Enforceability of Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses
- Paul Michael Blyschak, Arbitrating Overseas Oil and Gas Disputes: Breaches of Contract Versus Breaches of Treaty
- Alexandra Johnson & Isabelle Wildhaber, Arbitrating Labor Disputes in Switzerland
- Sarosh Zaiwalla, LCIA India: Will It Change the International Arbitration Scene in India?
- Detlev Kühner, The Revised IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
- David Wilson, The Resurgence of Scotland as a Force in International Arbitration: The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010
This book chapter expands upon the themes in "The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law", furnishing additional illustrations and methods of reasoning that engender internal contridictions.
The focus of this chapter is not any particular doctrinal controversy; rather, it is an inquiry into the methods of reasoning commonly employed in international criminal law (ICL) discourse. Many of our familiar methods of analysis and argumentation are riddled with contradictions. These contradictions reflect the heritage of ICL – a fusion of important liberal projects that prove on closer inspection to have incompatible aspects. These contradictions manifest, for example, in ICL discourse declaring important liberal principles but then reasoning in ways that lead to contraventions of the stated principles. These incongruities can be found in our methods of interpretation, our embrace of transplanted norms, and ideological assumptions that inform our reasoning. The chapter aims to contribute to ICL discourse by drawing attention to these incongruities, instilling awareness of the need for more sophisticated discourse, and encouraging reflection on how best to resolve such contradictions.
In Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to lawsuits brought against foreign government officials for alleged human rights abuses. The Court did not necessarily clear the way for future human rights litigation against such officials, however, cautioning that such suits "may still be barred by foreign sovereign immunity under the common law". At the same time, the Court provided only minimal guidance as to the content and scope of common law immunity. Especially striking was the Court’s omission of any mention of the immunity of foreign officials under customary international law ("CIL").
In this Article, we explain why, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s inattention in Samantar to the international law backdrop of the case, CIL immunity principles are likely to be relevant to the development of the post-Samantar common law of immunity. In considering the relationship between CIL and common law immunity, the Article makes three contributions. First, it sets forth a case for CIL’s relevance that is not dependent on a single theoretical perspective regarding the domestic status of CIL. Second, it presents a balanced assessment of the rapidly evolving CIL landscape, noting in particular the erosion of immunity protections for human rights violations in criminal proceedings and the lack of a similar erosion - at least so far - in civil suits for damages. Third, by emphasizing institutional considerations rather than arguing for a particular outcome, it isolates and analyzes particular variables - such as the views of the Executive Branch and the policies embodied in domestic statutes - that will shape how CIL affects the common law of immunity after Samantar.
Le choix du thème de la Table-Ronde organisée en février 2009 par l’INDEMER s’est aisément imposé.
Sujet ancien et classique, dira-t-on, en dépit des évolutions profondes subies par le droit de la mer au cours des dernières décennies.
Est-ce si vrai ? Il a semblé, en effet, que la notion même de passage n’était pas dépourvue d’ambiguïté – et à ce titre, méritait d’être analysée – mais aussi qu’elle s’était peut être substantiellement renouvelée.
Ambiguïté, la notion de passage l’est à coup sûr. Pour n’en donner qu’une idée, doit-on considérer comme relevant du passage ce qui fait uniquement l’objet de la réglementation conventionnelle ? Si l’on s’en tient à cette conception, seuls le passage inoffensif à travers les eaux territoriales, le passage en libre transit dans les détroits servant à la navigation internationale et le passage archipélagique, tous trois régis par les dispositions pertinentes de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer du 10 décembre 1982, devraient être retenus.
Mais le concept de passage ne devrait-il pas être entendu au sens naturel du terme, impliquant une certaine étroitesse de l’espace ainsi que la présence de terres à proximité. En d’autres termes, pourrait-on parler, par exemple, de passage dans les eaux d’une mer fermée ou semi-fermée ? Peut-on aussi l’évoquer à propos du franchissement d’une zone de guerre, alors qu’est présent dans ce dernier cas le seul élément d’espace réduit ? Au-delà même et de façon générale, ne devrait-on pas considérer comme utilisés de manière indifférenciée les termes de navigation et de passage ?
Mais, à supposer même que l’on en reste à une définition purement conventionnelle du passage, d’autres formes de ce dernier ne sont-ils pas apparus plus récemment, comme, par exemple, celle de « passage revendicatif » ?
Autant de questions, parmi bien d’autres d’ailleurs, qu’ont soulevé les intervenants à cette Table-Ronde et auxquelles ils tentent d’apporter leurs réponses.
- Volume 340
- Paul R. Beaumont, Reflections on the Relevance of Public International Law to Private International Law Treaty Making
- Sergio M. Carbone, Conflits de lois en droit maritime
- Katharina Boele Woelki, Unifying and Harmonizing Substantive Law and the Role of Conflict of Laws
- Volume 342
- Valeriy Musin, The Influence of the International Sale of Goods Convention on Domestic Law Including Conflict of Laws (with Specific Reference to Russian Law)
- Yasuaki Onuma, A Transcivilizational Perspective on International Law. Questioning Prevalent Cognitive Frameworks in the Emerging Multi-Polar and Multi-Civilizational World of the Twenty-First Century
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
We lack consensus regarding who lawfully may be held in military custody in the contexts that matter most to U.S. national security today—i.e., counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. More to the point, federal judges lack consensus on this question. They have grappled with it periodically since 2002, and for the past three years have dealt with it continually in connection with the flood of habeas corpus litigation arising out of Guantanamo in the aftermath of the Supreme Court‘s 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush. Unfortunately, the resulting detention jurisprudence is shot through with disagreement on points large and small, leaving the precise boundaries of the government‘s detention authority unclear.
Part I opens with an abstract typology of criteria and constraints that might be used to define a detention standard at the individual level. Part II then provides further context with a thumbnail sketch of two overarching disagreements that greatly complicate the detention debate: we do not agree as to which bodies of law govern this question, nor do we agree as to what each particular body of law actually has to say, if anything, regarding individualized detention criteria even if that body is applicable. Part III follows with a survey of about two dozen habeas decisions between 2002 and 2010 in which courts grapple with the individualized-scope issue, using the typology from Part I as a device to facilitate comparison of the decisions.
With respect to affirmative predicates for detention, the survey concludes that something close to consensus has emerged regarding the use of group membership as a sufficient condition for detention, but that there may yet be considerable disagreement as to what counts as membership in this context. The survey also notes that the jury remains out with respect to whether non-member support for certain groups may also function as a sufficient condition for detention. With respect to variables that can function as constraints on detention authority, the survey shows that the courts have developed consensus against employing certain constraints (such as forbidding the use of detention as to citizens, or in circumstances where the government might have a criminal prosecution alternative). On the other hand, the question of geographic constraints on the scope of detention authority remains unsettled.
Part IV considers the ramifications of this descriptive account. I open by arguing that the lingering uncertainty matters a great deal both in terms of the remaining Guantanamo cases and in terms of other military activities that take place in the shadow of the habeas caselaw. I then consider the arguments for and against legislation to reduce the uncertainty, finding that the case for legislation is difficult but ultimately persuasive in the abstract (note that this paper is not a pitch for adopting some particular legislative proposal). Finally, I explain that the detention litigation illustrates three larger phenomena: (i) the dynamic relationship between law and strategic context; (ii) the increasing significance of domestic courts for purposes of developing international humanitarian law, and (iii) the increasing extent to which domestic law challenges both international humanitarian law and international human rights law for primacy when it comes to the legal regulation of national security-related activities.
- Justus Reid Weiner, Avinoam Sharon, & Michelle Morrison, Peacekeepers: Will They Advance Any Prospective Arab-Israeli Peace Agreement?
- Olgun Akbulut, Criteria Developed by the European Court of Human Rights on the Dissolution of Political Parties
- Suzanne Egan & Rachel Murray, Casting a Cold Eye on the Origins and Development of an All-Island Charter of Rights
- Ronald J. Sievert, Working Toward a Legally Enforceable Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime
- Charlie Xiao-chuan Weng, Assessing the Applicability of the Business Judgment Rule and the "Defensive" Business Judgment Rule in the Chinese Judiciary: A Perspective on Takeover Dispute Adjudication
International human rights law requires states to protect people from abuses committed by third parties. Decision-makers widely agree that states have such obligations, but no framework exists for identifying when states have them or what they require. The practice is to varying degrees splintered, inconsistent, and conceptually confused. This article presents a generalized framework to fill that void. The article argues that whether a state must protect someone from third-party harm depends on the state’s relationship with the third party and on the kind of harm caused. A duty-holding state must take reasonable measures to restrain the abuser. That framework is grounded in international law and intended to guide decisions in concrete cases. So after presenting and justifying the framework, the article applies it to two current debates in human rights law: when must a state protect against third-party harms committed outside its territory? And what must states do to protect women from private acts of violence? The article ends by suggesting how the same framework may inform analogous obligations outside human rights law.
d'Aspremont & De Brabandere: The Complementary Faces of Legitimacy in International Law: The Legitimacy of Origin and the Legitimacy of Exercise
Global governance rests on the exercise of public authority by a myriad of actors. In the international order, the more powers and influence these actors acquire, the more their legitimacy proves to be controversial. It is submitted here that the legitimacy of international, regional, and domestic actors that partake in global governance - those considered here as global actors - must be appraised from a two-fold standpoint. Their legitimacy can first be gauged through the lens of the origin of their powers. This is what this Article calls the legitimacy of origin. The origin of the power may often prove an insufficient indicator of an actor’s legitimacy. For this reason, legitimacy is also evaluated in light of the way in which the actor exercises its power. This is what this Article calls the legitimacy of exercise. This Article is based on the assumption that failing to recognize this dual character of legitimacy of actors involved in global and regional governance can undermine any endeavor to grasp the contemporary complexity of the latter.
After sketching some of the contemporary features of legitimacy in international law in Part I, this Article focuses on the extent to which the so-called principle of democratic legitimacy has impinged on how legitimacy of global actors is conceived today in Part II. In Part III, this Article then turns to assessing how, against that backdrop, legitimacy of global actors is evaluated in contemporary practice. Although not ignoring that the question of legitimacy may arise in connection with other actors, this Article focuses on two public global actors in particular, namely governments and international intergovernmental organizations, with a view to demonstrating that the appraisal of the legitimacy of governments differs from that of the legitimacy of international organizations. This Article argues that while the legitimacy of origin has constituted the classical measure to evaluate the legitimacy of governments, recent practice has shifted the paradigm toward the legitimacy of exercise. This Article also submits that the exact opposite paradigm shift is simultaneously taking place in the context of the legitimacy of international organizations, for the legitimacy of international organizations is incrementally reviewed from the vantage point of the legitimacy of origin, despite having classically been based on the legitimacy of exercise.
There are few topics as controversial as globalisation. It is meant to bring economic growth and solve a range of social, cultural and humanitarian problems. However, there are significant debates in relation to the extent that the reality of globalisation reflects this idealized vision. In particular, globalisation has produced a highly interdependent world, rendering state boundaries meaningless and challenging the ideology and limits of certain areas of international law. This book will provide the opportunity to address some of the multifaceted issues provoked by the issue of globalisation.
The book is an exploration of the intricate nexus that emerges as a result of globalisation, inextricably linking together issues of international law, human rights, environmental law and international trade law. Bringing together a number of experts in the field, the book focuses on the areas of social justice and environmental justice, and explores the links that exists between the two and the effect of globalisation on these areas. A variety of topics are addressed throughout the chapters of this book – including biodiversity, the law of the sea, biotechnology, child labour, the rights of women, corporate social responsibility, terrorism and counter-terrorism, water resources, intellectual property rights and the role of non-government organisations. As globalisation has many facets and actors, the contributions to the book engage with interdisciplinary research to deal with the various challenges identified, and critically explore both the potential of globalisation as a vehicle of sustainable and equitable development.
Why do advocacy campaigns succeed in some cases but fail in others? What conditions motivate states to accept commitments championed by principled advocacy movements? Joshua W. Busby sheds light on these core questions through an investigation of four cases - developing-country debt relief, climate change, AIDS, and the International Criminal Court - in the G-7 advanced industrialized countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Drawing on hundreds of interviews with policy practitioners, he employs qualitative, comparative case study methods, including process-tracing and typologies, and develops a framing/gatekeepers argument, emphasizing the ways in which advocacy campaigns use rhetoric to tap into the main cultural currents in the countries where they operate. Busby argues that when values and costs potentially pull in opposing directions, values will win if domestic gatekeepers who are able to block policy change believe that the values at stake are sufficiently important.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
En poursuivant sur la ligne tracée dans une étude de 1976 par l’auteur germanophone Wolfgang Preiser (Professeur émérite de droit pénal et de droit international public de l’Université de Francfort-sur-le-Main), Robert Kolb (professeur de droit international à l’université de Genève) mène une réflexion sur l'existence et l'entité de phénomènes juridiques internationaux dans des civilisations anciennes ne relevant pas du bassin méditérannéen.
Existait-il dans leurs rapports internationaux la perception du droit ? Un droit international public, même embryonnaire, s'est-il formé à travers leurs échanges ? Quels sont au fond les critères définitionnels permettant d'identifier un droit international public ? Si un tel droit s'est formé, quelles institutions et règles a-t-il généré ? Comment les divers phénomènes juridiques internationaux de ces cultures se comparent-ils entre eux ?
Telles sont les questions abordées dans cet ouvrage qui examine les principales cultures extra-européennes dans la période antérieure à l'arrivée du colonisateur et dès lors avant le contact avec la conception juridique occidentale : l'Amérique précolombienne, les Iles polynésiennes, l'Afrique noire, l'Inde et la Chine avec ses régions limitrophes.
Lectureships in Law
London School of Economics and Political Science - Department of Law
£40,323-£46,710 pa inclusive
The Department of Law at the London School of Economics was rated as the best law department in the country by the Research Assessment Exercise 2008. To support our undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programmes and to strengthen our research profile, we are now seeking to appoint at least two lecturers in Law.
For these posts, we invite applications from candidates with teaching experience and evidence of a strong research potential in one or more of the following areas: International Law (preferably International Economic Law), Torts, Employment Law and IT Law.
You will contribute to the scholarship and intellectual life of the School by conducting research which will enhance the School's high reputation as a research-led teaching institution. We encourage the development of teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and all members of the Department's academic staff are expected to contribute to core undergraduate teaching.
A PhD (completed or soon to be completed) or commensurate experience is essential. Appointments will commence on 1 September 2011 or as soon as possible thereafter.
For further information about the Department see http://www/lse.ac.uk/law
To apply for this post please go to www.lse.ac.uk/JobsatLSE and select "Visit the ONLINE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM web page". If you have any queries about applying on the online system, please call 020 7955 7859 or email email@example.com quoting reference LEC/10/15. We value diversity and wish to promote equality at all levels.
The closing date for receipt of applications is Monday 10 January 2011 (11.59pm, UK time). Regrettably, we are unable to accept any late applications.
Interviews will be held on 22 February 2011.
Click here for Employer Profile
IGLP: THE WORKSHOP is an intensive ten day residential program designed for DOCTORAL and POST-DOCTORAL SCHOLARS. The Workshop aims to promote innovative ideas and alternative approaches to issues of global law, economic policy and social justice in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The initiative will bring young scholars and faculty from around the world together with leading faculty working on issues of global law and economic policy for serious research collaboration and debate. In 2011, we will inaugurate a series of new Pro-Seminars designed for small groups of scholars engaged in collaboration aiming toward publication. Alumni of past IGLP Workshops are particularly encouraged to apply to participate in these new Pro-Seminars.
The 2011 Workshop will focus on deepening our understanding of heterodox traditions for understanding global political economy. The ongoing economic crisis has challenged conventional thinking about the relationship between global economic life and national or local political choices and legal arrangements. The result is an opening for new thinking. To date, the academy has not taken advantage of that opening. We are convinced that doing so will require us to revisit and revive the many experimental and alternative traditions of thinking about the international political system, legal order and economy which have existed alongside mainstream thinking for more than a century. This year’s substantive streams will focus on the ability of heterodox traditions -- from sociology, political theory, economics and law – to contribute to our thinking about ways forward from the crisis.
The Workshop is organized to maximize the opportunity for cross-training. Directed by a team of Harvard faculty, the Workshop aims to bring together specialists from across the arts and sciences as well as the professional schools who are interested in the intersections between law, economics and global policy. Our goal will be to understand the history and structure of our contemporary world political and economic system. We will aim to map modern money, finance, development, governance, regulation and social justice, opening them to contestation and debate.
L’école de New Haven de droit international propose une réinterprétation globale et iconoclaste des moyens et des fins du droit international, dont le but doit être l’élaboration d’un « droit international de la dignité humaine ». Cette école de pensée fournit donc au juriste les moyens conceptuels lui permettant d’identifier ou d’inventer et ensuite de recommander les mesures qui concourent à ce but fondamental. Elle nourrit cet intérêt pour les valeurs de sources aussi variées que les policy sciences, les sciences sociales, le contextualisme de Whitehead et le réalisme américain des années trente.
Sans surprise, cette perspective orthogonale à l’esprit positiviste n’a pas facilité l’intérêt de la doctrine française du droit international public, qui est plus centrée sur le fonctionnement interne du système juridique et les liens logiques qui en cimentent les éléments. Cet ouvrage se veut donc une passerelle dans la compréhension d’un pan important de la doctrine américaine.
Ce livre introduit aux différents concepts de l’Ecole de New Haven par trois textes théoriques de W. Michael Reisman, qui livrent aussi en creux un panorama inédit de la doctrine américaine contemporaine. Il illustre ensuite l’intérêt de cette école pour le droit international au gré de neuf contributions consacrées à des défis actuels, qu’il s’agisse des actes juridiques imparfaits, de l’intervention humanitaire, du droit de la guerre, de l’organisation constitutionnelle des Nations Unies, du changement de régime, des droits de l’homme. Cet ouvrage s’adresse autant au théoricien qu’au praticien, tant il illustre le souhait des fondateurs de l’Ecole de New Haven de construire une théorie qui fonde « l’utilisation consciente, délibérée du droit comme un instrument d’action politique ».
Monday, December 13, 2010
The aim of the seminar is to map relevant practices in the framework of four international organizations (the UN, the NATO, the EU and the AU) and to review these practice from the perspective of the law of international responsibility.
The Expert Seminar is a closed event. It is the second of two exploratory seminars (the first one was held in Stockholm, October 2009) that map the terrain of responsibility in multinational military operations. In 2011 a larger conference will be organised that will build on the two exploratory expert seminars and that will discuss possible principles and procedures that may provide (partial) answers to the problems concerning responsibility in military operations.
The seminar is part of the ACIL research project 'Shared Responsibility in International Law' (SHARES), funded by the European Science Foundation. SHARES will examine the allocation of international responsibilities in cases where multiple actors cooperate to pursue common international objectives.
- A.J. Bellia & Bradford Clark, The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations
- Curtis Bradley & Laurence Helfer, International Law, Statutory Construction, and the US Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
- Stephen Schnably, The Temporal Problems in Declarations of Non-Self-Execution: A New Approach to Judicial Enforcement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Juvenile Justice Cases
- Beth Stephens, The Modern Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
- Michael Van Alstine, Stare Decisis and Foreign Affairs
- Ingrid Wuerth, Federal Common Law and the Immunity of Foreign Officials
Conference: On the Front-Line of Accountability – War Reporting and Related Contemporary Issues in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law
Organized as part of the launch activities of the Inter-Faculty Research Platform on International Criminal and Humanitarian Law initiated by the University of Amsterdam, the TMC Asser Instituut, Leiden University and the Free University Amsterdam, this conference proposes to examine interrelated issues pertaining to the multi-layered relationship between the media – specifically war correspondents – and the existing legal framework of international humanitarian (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL).
Considering the rapid evolution of contemporary modes and methods of conflict reporting over the course of the past two decades (including the Wikileaks phenomenon), alongside the reinvigoration of the international community’s commitment to the institution of a concrete international criminal justice framework, the conference will:
Assess the changing face of contemporary war reporting from practical ‘front line’, legal and ethical perspectives;
Critically examine the existing regime of protections for journalists under IHL with a view to establishing whether these protections are adequate or are in need of review or supplementation in the form of a dedicated protocol or independent covenant; and
Consider the role of the war correspondent in the context of international criminal proceedings.
This conference will have an inherently cross disciplinary focus and will involve participants with both practical and academic experience in the areas of international criminal law, international humanitarian law, the political and social sciences and war journalism. Speakers include Geoffrey Roberston QC who will provide the keynote address, Ben Anderson, Dr. Michael Kearney, Dr. Julia Hoffmann and David Leigh who is investigations executive editor at the Guardian newspaper.
This handbook explores criminal law systems from around the world, with the express aim of stimulating comparison and discussion. General principles of criminal liability receive prominent coverage in each essay—including discussions of rationales for punishment, the role and design of criminal codes, the general structure of criminal liability, accounts of mens rea, and the rights that criminal law is designed to protect—before the authors turn to more specific offenses like homicide, theft, sexual offenses, victimless crimes, and terrorism.
This key reference covers all of the world's major legal systems—common, civil, Asian, and Islamic law traditions—with essays on sixteen countries on six different continents. The introduction places each country within traditional distinctions among legal systems and explores noteworthy similarities and differences among the countries covered, providing an ideal entry into the fascinating range of criminal law systems in use the world over.
This essay examines the relationship between legitimacy and the presence of both male and female judges on international criminal court benches. It argues that sex representation – an approximate reflection of the ratio of the sexes in the general population – on the bench is an important contributor to legitimacy of international criminal courts. First, it proposes that sex representation affects normative legitimacy because men and women bring different perspectives to judging. Consequently, without both sexes, adjudication is inherently biased. Second, even if one rejects the proposition that men and women "think differently", sex representation affects sociological legitimacy because sex representation signals an impartial bench and capacity to do justice to constituencies involved in the shaping of international criminal adjudication. The essay concludes by raising questions for further study.
En décembre 2009 à Copenhague, 40 000 personnes et 125 chefs de gouvernement se penchaient au chevet d’une planète malade. Il s’agissait pour la communauté internationale de définir un régime international pour lutter contre les changements climatiques.
Le Protocole de Kyoto, adopté en 1997 n’avait qu’un niveau d’ambition limitée en termes de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ; il n’impose de réduction chiffrée qu’aux seuls pays industrialisés qui l’ont ratifié, et cela pour une période expirant en 2012. Ni les Etats-Unis ni les grands pays émergents n’ont souscrit d’obligations de réduction de leurs émissions au titre du Protocole de Kyoto.
L’« Accord » négocié à Copenhague au sein d’un petit groupe de Chefs d’Etats n’a pu être adopté dans le cadre onusien et les négociations se poursuivent dans la perspective des conférences du Mexique (fin 2010) et de l’Afrique du Sud (fin 2011). Face aux impératifs économiques et de compétitivité internationale, ces négociations dessinent un régime international du climat profondément renouvelé.
La « diplomatie climatique » parviendra-t-elle à relever ce défi sans précédent ?
Ecrit à deux mains par un praticien et une scientifique, cet ouvrage permettra à tous ses lecteurs de mieux comprendre les enjeux des négociations actuelles et avenir, ainsi que les perspectives qu’elles ouvrent pour la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement à l’approche du Sommet « Rio+20 ».
Sunday, December 12, 2010
- A.E. Monsanto, El derecho internacional ambiental en las decisiones arbitrales del Mercosur
- S.A. Rey, El deber de investigar y sancionar las violaciones de derechos humanos en el sistema europeo de protección de los derechos humanos
- G.R. Salas, Los estados latinoamericanos y la jurisdicción de la Corte Internacional de Justicia
- B.M. Tondini, La relación entre el Derecho Internacional Privado y el derecho fiscal internacional. La doctrina de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación
- XXI Congreso Argentino de Derecho Internacional “Dr. Enrique Ferrer Vieyra”, Córdoba, 1º al 3 de octubre de 2009
- A.D. Abruza, Palabras de apertura
- J.A. Barraguirre, El sistema de solución de controversias en materia de inversiones. Panorama actual y proyecciones
- J.J. Cerdeira, Jurisdicción internacional, ley aplicable y cooperación en materia de obligaciones alimentarias
- A. Dreyzin de Klor, La normativa sobre Medio Ambiente en el Derecho del Mercosur y su aplicación en los laudos arbitrales
- M.C. Montenegro, Crisis financiera y cambios políticos internacionales. El papel de las Organizaciones Internacionales
- V. Bazán, Las reparaciones en el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos con particular referencia al sistema interamericano
- A. Rossetti, Sobre las reparaciones en el derecho internacional
- G.E. Chalita, Evaluación del Aprendizaje: Sistema de Respuestas Múltiples
- A.V. Mastache, Evaluación: el uso de las pruebas se selección múltiple