- January 31, 2011: Harlan Cohen (Univ. of Georgia – Law), “From International Law to International Conflicts of Law: The Fragmentation of Legitimacy”
- February 7, 2011: David Luban (Georgetown Univ. – Law), “Risk Taking and Force Protection”
- February 14, 2011: Beth Simmons (Harvard Univ. – Government), “Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice in the Late Twentieth Century”
- February 21, 2011: John Knox (Wake Forest Univ. – Law), “Human Rights and Environmental Protection”
- February 23, 2011: Leora Bilsky (Tel Aviv Univ. – Law), “Transnational Holocaust Restitution”
- March 14, 2011: Monica Hakimi (Univ. of Michigan – Law), “Towards a Unified Human Dignity Regime”
- March 21, 2011: James Morrow (Univ. of Michigan - Political Science), “Spoilt Darlings?: Treatment of Prisoners of War During the World Wars”
- March 28, 2011: Christine Chinkin (London School of Economics – Law), “The Kosovo Human Rights Panel and Human Rights Law”
- April 4, 2011: Andrew Lang (London School of Economics – Law), “International Economic Law and the Neo-Liberal Turn”
- April 11, 2011: Karen Knop (Univ. of Toronto – Law), “The Tokyo Women's Tribunal and the Turn to Fiction”
- April 18, 2011: Abdullahi An-Na'im (Emory Univ. – Law), “Human Rights, Universality and Sovereignty: The Relevance and Irrelevance of Sharia”
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
- Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Die Entwicklung des interamerikanischen Systems zum Schutz der Menschenrechte
- Armin von Bogdandy & Stephan Schill, Die Achtung der nationalen Identität unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag. Zur unionsrechtlichen Rolle nationalen Verfassungsrechts und zur Überwindung des absoluten Vorrangs
- Valentin Pfisterer, Die nationale Sicherheitsstrategie der Vereinigten Staaten von Mai 2010 - ein Bericht
- Mia Swart, Is there a Text in This Court? The Purposive Method of Interpretation and the ad hoc Tribunals
- Ute Mager, Die Entwicklung des Wasserwirtschaftsrechts. Referenzgebiet für ein materiell-rechtlich fundiertes internationales Verwaltungsrecht
- January 28, 2011: Hari M. Osofsky (Univ. of Minnesota - Law), The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Multidimensional Governance
- February 4, 2011: Jason Yackee (Univ. of Wisconsin - Law), Do BITs Attract Foreign Direct Investment? Hints from Alternative Evidence
- February 18, 2011: Evan J. Criddle (Syracuse Univ. - Law), Proportionality in Counterinsurgency: A Relational Theory
- March 4, 2011: Jeffrey L. Dunoff (Temple Univ. - Law), Rethinking Regime Interaction
- April 1, 2011: Lesley Wexler (Univ. of Illinois - Law), Is International Humanitarian Law Humanitarian?
- April 8, 2011: Jide Nzelibe (Northwestern Univ. - Law), Strategic Globalization: International Law as an Extension of Domestic Political Conflict
- April 15, 2011: Máximo Langer (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law), The Archipelago and the Hub: Universal Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court
- April 22, 2011: Anna Gelpern (American Univ. - Law), Banks, Governments, and Debt Crises
- Eugenio Cusumano, Policy Prospects for Regulating Private Military and Security Companies
- Natalino Ronzitti, The Use of Private Contractors in the Fight against Piracy: Policy OptionsHuman Rights
- Federico Lenzerini & Francesco Francioni, The Role of Human Rights in the Regulation of Private Military and Security Companies
- Ieva Kalnina & Ugis Zeltins, The Impact of the EU Human Rights System on Operations of Private Military and Security Companies
- Francesco Francioni, The Role of the Home State in Ensuring Compliance with Human Rights by Private Military Contractors
- Carsten Hoppe, Positive Human Rights Obligations of the Hiring State in Connection with the Provision of Coercive Services by a Private Military And Security Company
- Christine Bakker, Duties to Prevent, Investigate and Redress Human Rights Violations by Private Military and Security Companies: The Role of the Host State
- Giulia Pinzauti, Adjudicating Human Rights Violations Committed by Private Contractors in Conflict Situations before the European Court of Human Rights
- Guido Den Dekker & Eric Myjer, The Right to Life and Self-Defence of Private Military and Security Contractors in Armed ConflictInternational Humanitarian Law
- Luisa Vierucci, Private Military and Security Companies in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello Issues
- Giulio Bartolini, Private Military Companies as "Persons who Accompany the Armed Forces"
- Luisa Vierucci, Private Military and Security Companies in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello Issues
- Christine Bakker & Susanna Greijer, Children's Rights: The Potential Impact of Private Military and Security Companies
- Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Women and Private Military and Security Companies
- Valentina Falco, Private Military and Security Companies and the EU's Crisis Management: Perspectives under Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
- Marina Mancini, Faustin Ntoubandi & Thilo Marauhn, Old Concepts and New Challenges: Are Private Contractors the Mercenaries of the 21st Century?Accountability and Responsibility of Private Contractors
- Sorcha MacLeod, The Role of International Regulatory Initiatives on Business and Human Rights for Holding Private Military and Security Contractors to Account
- Carsten Hoppe & Ottavio Quirico, Codes of Conduct for Private Military and Security Companies: The State of Self-regulation in the Industry
- Nigel White, Institutional Responsibility for Private Military and Security Contractors
- Charlotte Beaucillon, Julian Fernandez & Hélène Raspail, State Responsibility for Conduct of PMSC Violating Ius ad BellumCriminal and Civil Liability of Private Military and Security Companies and their Employees
- Ottavio Quirico, The Criminal Responsibility of PMSC Personnel under International Humanitarian Law
- Micaela Frulli, Immunity for Private Contractors: Legal Hurdles or Political Snags?
- Andrea Atteritano, Liability in Tort of Private Military and Security Companies: Jurisdictional Issues and Applicable Law
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea examines the rights and duties of states across a broad spectrum of maritime security threats. It provides comprehensive coverage of the different dimensions of maritime security in order to assess how responses to maritime security concerns are and should be shaping the law of the sea. The discussion sets out the rules regulating passage of military vessels and military activities at sea, law enforcement activities across the different maritime zones, information sharing and intelligence gathering, as well as armed conflict and naval warfare. In doing so, this book not only addresses traditional security concerns for naval power but also examines responses to contemporary maritime security threats, such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, piracy, drug-trafficking, environmental damage and illegal fishing.
While the protection of sovereignty and national interests remain fundamental to maritime security and the law of the sea, there is increasing acceptance of a common interest that exists among states when seeking to respond to a variety of modern maritime security threats. This book argues that security interests should be given greater scope in our understanding of the law of the sea in light of the changing dynamics of exclusive and inclusive claims to ocean use. More flexibility may be required in the interpretation and application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea if appropriate responses to ensure maritime security are to be allowed.
- January 21, 2011: Joseph Marko (Univ. of Graz - Law), From Peace-Keeping to Peace Building: Problems in the Implementation of Peace Treaties in the Western Balkans
- January 28, 2011: Sang-Hyun Song (President, International Criminal Court), The Principle of Complementarity
- February 4, 2011: John Jones (Doughty Street Chambers, London), War Crimes and Extradition Issues in UK Courts: Recent Developments
- February 11, 2011: Dan Sarooshi (Univ. of Oxford - Law), title to be confirmed
- February 18, 2011: Geoff Gilbert (Univ. of Essex - Law), Hierarchies, Regime Interaction, Penguins and the Protection of Refugees in International Law
- February 25, 2011: Nico Schrijver (Leiden Univ. - Law), Discussion on the Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures: United Nations of the Future. The Role of International Law
- March 4, 2011: Anthony Aust (formerly, Deputy Legal Adviser, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office), The Risks of the Unlimited Exercise of Advisory Jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice: Kosovo and Beyond
- March 11, 2011: Peter B. Rutledge (Univ. of Georgia – Law), The Constitutional Law of International Arbitration
- March 18, 2011: Dan Saxon (Lauterpacht Centre; former Senior Prosecutor, ICTY), The Second Leverhulme Lecture: Theories and Practices for Proving Individual Criminal Responsibility for Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
- January 20, 2011: Emily Haslam (Univ. of Kent), The Trials of Samo and Tufft and the Development of International Criminal Law
- January 27, 2011: To Be Announced
- February 3, 2011: Emily Reid (Univ. of Southampton), WTO Law and Human Rights: Sustainable Development – a Lens through which to Integrate Fragmented Fields
- February 10, 2011: Nigel Rodley (Univ. of Essex), Detention and Counter-Terrorism
- February 17, 2011: Marc Weller (Univ. of Cambridge), Title to be confirmed
- February 24, 2011: Stephen Humphries (London School of Economics), Title to be confirmed
- March 3, 2011: To Be Announced
- March 10, 2011: Susan Marks (London School of Economics), Human Rights and Root Causes
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The application of international law to state contracts with foreign private companies was the cause of continuing controversy throughout much of the twentieth century. State contractual undertakings with foreign investors raise a number of legal issues that do not fit well into the traditional pattern of international law as a law between states, but which also cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the exclusive application of the municipal law of the contracting state. In recent years the controversy has gained new prominence as a result of the advent of a new form of international dispute settlement, namely the mechanism of investment treaty arbitration. The main feature of this model of dispute resolution is that foreign investors are entitled to bring claims against states directly before international arbitral tribunals. This model, which emerged strongly in the late 1990s, has generated a rapidly expanding body of arbitral case law and in the process become one of the most significant new developments in modern international law. Many of the disputes subject to investment treaty arbitration have their origin in contractual commitments made by states toward foreign investors. At the same time international commercial arbitration continues to be the preferred means of dispute resolution in contracts between foreign investors and states or state entities. This book explores how contract claims against states are dealt with in the two parallel processes of treaty-based and contract-based arbitration. The book charts the development of commercial arbitration into an international legal remedy in this field, discusses the theoretical problems which it creates for international law, and outlines the most significant substantive features of the international law applicable to contract claims as developed by arbitral tribunals on the basis of treaty standards and customary law.
International financial law is in many ways a peculiar instrument of global economic affairs. Unlike international trade and monetary affairs, where global coordination is directed through formal international organizations, international financial law arises through inter-agency institutions with ambiguous legal status. Furthermore, the commitments made by regulatory officials participating in such forums are non-binding. This divergence is perplexing, especially when comparing international financial law to international trade. Both trade and finance comprise key areas of ‘international economic law’ and their rules have important distributive consequences for global markets and market participants. This article suggests that in order to understand soft law’s value as a coordinating mechanism, an institutional assessment of the way that law is enforced is necessary. Under close inspection, international financial law departs from traditional public international law notions of informality and can in fact be ‘harder’ than its soft-law quality suggests. This feature helps explain why international financial rules, though technically non-binding, are often relied upon. The predominance of international soft law in finance does not, however, imply that it is without flaws, and this article highlights important structural deficiencies that the World Trade Organization, a more mature legal regime, largely avoids.
Since the mid-1990s, increasing international attention has been paid to the issue of violence against women; however, there is still no explicit international human rights treaty prohibition on violence against women and the issue remains poorly defined and understood under international human rights law. Drawing on feminist theories of international law and human rights, this critical examination of the United Nations' legal approaches to violence against women analyses the merits of strategies which incorporate women's concerns of violence within existing human rights norms such as equality norms, the right to life, and the prohibition against torture. Although feminist strategies of inclusion have been necessary as well as symbolically powerful for women, the book argues that they also carry their own problems and limitations, prevent a more radical transformation of the human rights system and ultimately reinforce the unequal position of women under international law.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Transnational private regulatory bodies (TPRs) composed of either private actors or a hybrid of public and private actors are increasingly replacing direct governmental regulation or have begun to regulate areas that have never been subject to governmental oversight. Such privately-ordered, informal arrangements typically facilitate coordination without entailing long-term commitments, rigid rules that might constrain state executives, or more than minimal public scrutiny. By increasing the information asymmetries among the various (domestic and global) stakeholders, and by evading or rendering obsolete traditional constitutional checks and balances and other oversight mechanisms, TPR threatens to exacerbate the already existing regulatory oversight deficit that globalization is widely believed to have created in many democratic states. In this essay we discusses the prospect that national courts (NCs) will take it upon themselves to directly or indirectly review these TPRs and address some of the challenges that the TPRs potentially raise with respect to economic efficiency, democracy, and equality. We describe some of the tools that NCs they have developed over the years in response to privatized regulation at the domestic level and examine the constraints that NCs face in applying similar such tools to TPRs, and assess the potential and limits of NC regulation.
In its 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court reaffirmed a strict presumption against the extraterritorial application of federal statutes on the ground that the presumption provides “a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects.” In fact, the presumption has been anything but stable, and Morrison, which overturned forty years of circuit court precedent on the geographic reach of federal securities law, does nothing to make it more predictable. In a previous article, I argued that the Court should reject a strict presumption against extraterritoriality in favor of a renewed version of an older canon: a presumption against the extension of statutes beyond limits set by the international law of legislative jurisdiction, or a presumption against extrajurisdictionality. In this article, I explain how Morrison exacerbates the confusions inherent in the Court’s unmoored jurisprudence on the extraterritorial application of statutes, and describe how the circuit court decisions it rejected actually illustrate the virtues of a presumption against extrajurisdictionality.
- Ellen Eftestøl-Wilhelmsson, The Rotterdam Rules in a European multimodal context
- Michael N. Tsimplis, Law and jurisdiction for English limitation of liability proceedings
Davis: Privatizing the Adjudication of International Commercial Disputes: The Relevance of Organizational Form
What role should for-profit organizations play in governing commercial transactions? Recent scholarship on the privatization of commercial law has advocated expanding the role of for-profits. This essay tests the merits of that proposal in a context where the case for relying on for-profits seem particularly strong, namely the adjudication of international commercial disputes. Both theory and evidence suggest that there is a role for providers of dispute resolution services that take a variety of organizational forms, including for-profits, not-for-profits, international organizations and various kinds of hybrid organizations.
This paper is a response to Curtis A. Bradley & Mitu Gulati, Withdrawing from International Custom, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 120, p. 202 (2010), which argues against the Mandatory View (according to which states are bound by customary international law with no possibility of opting out), and in favor of a Default View which permits states to opt out of international custom unilaterally. My response offers the following arguments: (1) Currently, the most significant contested issue about customary international law in US discourse concerns the laws of war - a topic that Bradley and Gulati treat only briefly and incidentally. Their proposal would make it possible for the United States to withdraw unilaterally from customary law-of-war limitations. (2) Part of Bradley and Gulati's case for the Default View is that it actually represents the historical norm until the twentieth century. I argue that their sources don't adequately support this claim. Their main source, Vattel, thought that states can opt out only of a customary rule that is indifferent in itself - a category that excludes many important rules of customary international law, including the jus in bello rules of the law of war. I discuss other sources as well. (3) Bradley and Gulati believe that the Mandatory View was a colonialist invention to lock new nations into old rules, but I argue that the history they cite does not support this diagnosis. (4) Turning from history to policy, permitting states to opt out of the law of war would likely have immediate dangerous effects on the ground as the US military rewrites its manuals and retrains officers and troops to respond to changes in law. The result of a US opt-out is more likely to be an unraveling of the law of war than a helpful revision leading to better rules.
Monday, January 17, 2011
- Karen N. Scott, Managing Sovereignty and Jurisdictional Disputes in the Antarctic: The Next Fifty Years
- Gregory Rose and Ben Milligan, Law for the Management of Antarctic Marine Living Resources: From Normative Conflicts towards Integrated Governance?
- Jan Glazewski, South Africa and the Southern Polar Region: A Reflection on the Past, the Present, and Future Prospects
- Md. Waliul Hasanat, Towards Model Arctic-Wide Environmental Cooperation Combating Climate Change
- Danilo Comba, The Polar Continental Shelf Challenge: Claims and Exploitation of Mineral Sea Resources—An Antarctic and Arctic Comparative Analysis
- Jorge E. Viñuales, Iced Freshwater Resources: A Legal Exploration
- Interview with Achim Steiner
- Martin Beniston, Climate change and its impacts: growing stress factors for human societies
- Michael Bothe, Carl Bruch, Jordan Diamond & David Jensen, International law protecting the environment during armed conflict: gaps and opportunities
- Julian Wyatt, Law-making at the intersection of international environmental, humanitarian and criminal law: the issue of damage to the environment in international armed conflict
- Mara Tignino, Water, international peace, and security
- Karen Hulme, Taking care to protect the environment against damage: a meaningless obligation?
- Lisette M. Braman, Pablo Suarez & Maarten K. van Aalst, Climate change adaptation: integrating climate science into humanitarian work
- Vikram Kolmannskog & Lisetta Trebbi, Climate change, natural disasters and displacement: a multi-track approach to filling the protection gaps
- Selected Article on International Humanitarian Law
- Friedrich Rosenfeld, Collective reparation for victims of armed conflict
Unrecognized states are territories that have achieved de facto independence, yet have failed to gain international recognition as independent states. These territories constitute anomalies in the international system of sovereign states and often present significant challenges to policy makers, as evidenced by the war in Georgia and the continued debate over Kosovo’s independence.
This book draws on both theory and case studies to better understand the phenomenon of unrecognized states, demonstrating that the existence of such entities is less unusual than previously assumed. Moving away from an overt focus on case studies, the chapters present various themes that link the emergence, operations, and development of unrecognized states and assess how the established order of states responds to the challenges they present: How do unrecognized interact with the international system of sovereign states? How does it shape their emergence, operations and development? How do these entities develop in a context of non-recognition? Are we witnessing a new form of statehood, or are these entities better understood as states-in-waiting? What are the strategies available for dealing with unrecognized states? Could power-sharing or autonomy provide a solution or are more innovative strategies necessary?
- Hugh Thirlway, The International Court of Justice 1989-2009: At the Heart of the Dispute Settlement System?
- Michael Wells-Greco, Operation ‘Cast Lead’: Jus in Bello Proportionality
- André J. Berends, The EU Insolvency Regulation: Some Capita Selecta
The fragmentation of international law is in some ways an embarrassment of riches, with multiple tribunals creating jurisprudence in particularized areas. This richness leads also to complexity and to the phenomenon that Marti Koskiennemi has so accurately termed “fragmentation.” Our purpose in this essay is to look “beyond fragmentation” given that the status quo of multiple discrete nuclei developing in isolation from one another is unsatisfactory and, we argue, stands in the way of the continuing relevance of international law in modern times. The international investment arena, with its myriad ad hoc tribunals and legal doctrines enshrined in treaties that either codify or build on customary international law, offers an excellent laboratory in which to theorize about communication between the nuclei and when such communication is appropriate. We have suggested an inter-nuclei communication model for use when tribunals are obliged to give content to treaty norms that are inherently vague or to fill lacunae in treaties. This approach takes advantage of the positive aspect of fragmentation – the development of specialized jurisprudence in particular areas of the law. Yet this does not mean that all expertise is freely transferable. A specialized doctrine deeply embedded in a complex treaty might be a poor candidate for transfer to another regime in which the analogous doctrine operates in an altogether different context. For this reason we have suggested a cautious approach to inter-nuclei communication characterized by a willful awareness by tribunals in one sphere of international law of what goes on in other related spheres, and an exercise of canvassing the views expressed by other tribunals in these related spheres for guidance to inform, or test, one’s own analysis. We test our propositions by reference to two recurring issuing in international investment arbitration – the principle of denial of justice and the doctrine of necessity.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
- Global Insights
- Margaret Joan Anstee, The John Holmes Memorial Lecture: What Price Security?
- Sakiko Fukuda-Parr & David Hulme, International Norm Dynamics and the “End of Poverty”: Understanding the Millennium Development Goals
- Astri Suhrke, Virtues of a Narrow Mission: The UN Peace Operation in Nepal
- Ann Florini & Benjamin K. Sovacool, Bridging the Gaps in Global Energy Governance
- Special Focus
- Alexandra Gheciu & Roland Paris, NATO and the Challenge of Sustainable Peacebuilding
- Anand Menon & Jennifer Welsh, Understanding NATO’s Sustainability: The Limits of Institutionalist Theory
- Alexandra Gheciu, Divided Partners: The Challenges of NATO-NGO Cooperation in Peacebuilding Operations
- Michael J. Williams, (Un)Sustainable Peacebuilding: NATO’s Suitability for Postconflict Reconstruction in Multiactor Environments