SIEL/CUP Prize for an Essay on International Economic Law
A prize has been established by the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL) and Cambridge University Press for the best essay submitted in the field of international economic law. The competition is open to current students and those who have graduated within the last five years. The prize consists of £200, as well as £300 of Cambridge University Press book vouchers and a three year subscription to the World Trade Review. The winning essay will be submitted to the World Trade Review for publication. The closing date for submissions is 30 September 2011. For submission details and terms and conditions, please see the prize website.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
This paper responds to Curtis A. Bradley & Mitu Gulati, Withdrawing from International Custom, 120 Yale L.J. 202 (2010). Bradley and Gulati argue against a "andatory view” "of customary international law that binds all nations irrespective of individual consent and argue in favor of a "default view" under which nations may withdraw from at least some rules of customary international law. This paper argues that Bradley and Gulati have misread history in three ways. First, they overstate the importance of the default view during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. As this paper shows, the default view was never the predominant understanding of customary international law. Second, Bradley and Gulati assert that the mandatory view developed to bind non-Western states to Western rules, when, in fact, nineteenth century advocates of the mandatory view stated expressly that non-Western nations could not be bound without their consent. Third, while arguing for greater flexibility in international rules, Bradley and Gulati ignore comity doctrines that have historically allowed precisely the kind of discretion they seek.
- Brian Flanagan & Sinéad Ahern, Judicial Decision-Making and Transnational Law: A Survey of Common Law Supreme Court Judges
- Trevor C Hartley, Choice of Law Regarding the Voluntary Assignment of Contractual Obligations under the Rome I Regulation
- Anthea Roberts, Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law
- Michael Harker, Sebastian Peyer, & Kathryn Wright, Judicial Scrutiny of Merger Decisions in the EU, UK and Germany
- Israel De Jesús Butler, Securing Human Rights in the Face of International Integration
Human rights norms are often studied as an independent body of law with tribunals dedicated to interpreting and enforcing those norms. However, human rights norms are also increasingly incorporated into the development of substantive law in fields as diverse as labor law, corporate governance, environmental law, torts, intellectual property, and armed conflict. The symposium will bring together scholars in diverse areas of substantive law to discuss the impact of human rights norms in their fields.
Conference: The Interaction of International Investment Law with Other Fields of Public International Law
International Investment Law has undoubtedly become more of the most dynamic fields of international law. However, with most attention focused on investment protection standards, the interaction of international investment law with other sub-fields of international law has remained largely uncharted. In order to fill this gap, the conference intends to examine the linkage of international investment law and other rules of international law – in particular, the law on armed conflict, sustainable development law, human rights law and trade law. The conference will also address the relationship between international investment law and regional law, such as the law of the European Union, and the special situation of resource rich developing countries.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
- Jane Mcadam, Swimming against the Tide: Why a Climate Change Displacement Treaty is Not the Answer
- Rebecca Dowd, Dissecting Discrimination in Refugee Law: an Analysis of its Meaning and its Cumulative Effect
- Asha Kaushal & Catherine Dauvergne, The Growing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian Refugee Exclusions
- Roger Errera, The CJEU and Subsidiary Protection: Reflections on Elgafaji - and After
This article is part of a larger project to analyze the rarely-considered gender aspects of the crime of aggression and to explore whether or not the amendments adding the crime of aggression to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) represent an advancement for women. This piece focuses on the potential for the new provisions to chill bona fide exercises of humanitarian intervention given that (1) the crime is expansively drafted to potentially cover all uses of sovereign force, (2) delegates rejected efforts by the United States to include an express exception for military operations launched to prevent the commission of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and (3) other proposals that would have prevented humanitarian interventions from being considered “acts of aggression” were not fully explored or implemented. The article acknowledges that feminist theory may never fully come to terms with a notion of humanitarian intervention given the doctrine’s valorization of militarism, especially in light of the fact that women are so often excluded from decisions about uses of force. It nonetheless argues that if we want to hold out the possibility of humanitarian intervention being deployed in defense of women, elements of the new provisions (such as the terms “manifest,” “character,” “gravity,” and “consequences”) should be interpreted to exclude situations involving the nascent responsibility to protect doctrine.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Call for Papers: The War on Terror and the Impact on Muslim Communities – Security, Human Rights and the Media
Call for Papers
Conference: The War on Terror and the Impact on Muslim Communities – Security, Human Rights and the Media
Brunel University – 28th June 2011
Keynote: Professor Conor Gearty, London School of Economics
2011 sees the tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. The ten years following 2001 have seen Western democratic States engaging in a global ‘War on Terror’. The ‘War on Terror’ has had an unquantifiable impact on Muslim citizens and residents of these States, despite their ongoing commitment to ideals such as human rights and freedom of expression.
Following a successful research seminar series, (speakers include: Dr Lawrence McNamara (University of Reading); Prof Ian Cram (University of Leeds); Dr Ayesha Shahid (University of Hull) and Prof Clive Walker (University of Leeds)), Brunel Law School would like to invite submissions for an inter-disciplinary conference focusing on ‘The War on Terror and the Impact on Muslim Communities’.
Topics of particular interest include the impact of the War on Terror on Muslim Communities in relation to:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
The attitude of the press to Muslim communities
The legality of counter-terrorism measures
The impact of the War on Terror abroad on Muslim Communities in the UK
Proposals for papers addressing any of these themes should be submitted to Ms Stephanie Berry, Brunel Law School (Stephanie.Berry@brunel.ac.uk) by 7 March 2011. Proposals should not exceed 300 words and should be accompanied by a Curriculum Vitae. We would welcome papers from a range of different disciplines and from PhD, early career and more established researchers. Selection decisions will be made by 25 March 2011.
Domestic arbitration is under attack as permitting repeat players to evade mandatory statutory law, retarding legal developments, undermining democratic lawmaking, and ultimately imposing substantively biased outcomes on less sophisticated parties through contracts of adhesion. Collectively, these critiques of domestic arbitration could be interpreted as suggesting that domestic arbitration seeks to obviate or even subvert public interests and the public realm. The thesis of this chapter is that, in contrast to criticisms of domestic arbitration, international arbitration has a vibrant public realm. International arbitration has the potential to produce public goods and to go beyond simply resolving disputes, but to also promote international cooperation, transnational governance and the development of the international rule of law.
- Jeffrey G. Johnston, The Risk of Torture as a Basis for Refusing Extradition and the Use of Diplomatic Assurances to Protect against Torture after 9/11
- Jennifer Trahan, The Rome Statute's Amendment on the Crime of Aggression: Negotiations at the Kampala Review Conference
- Jens Dieckmann & Christina Kerll, Representing the "General Interests of the Defence": Boon or Bane? - A Stocktaking of the System of ad hoc Counsel at the ICC
- Michael Ramsden, Joint Criminal Enterprise: Cambodia's Reply to Tadić
- Minna Kimpimäki, Genocide in Rwanda - Is It Really Finland's Concern?
The modern concept of crimes against humanity is a product of the scale and horror of the crimes committed in the two world wars as well as a growing consensus in the international community that certain crimes committed within national borders are legitimate subjects of international law and adjudication. Unlike war crimes and genocide, crimes against humanity are not codified in an international convention. Instead, the law of crimes against humanity has primarily developed through the evolution of customary international law. Although the statutes of most international and internationalized tribunals contain definitions of these crimes, there are significant differences among those definitions. Furthermore, the evolution of the definition of crimes against humanity in these international instruments has not been entirely linear: Later definitions are sometimes more expansive and sometimes narrower than their predecessors. As a result, the content of the norm prohibiting crimes against humanity remains subject to greater controversy than the norms prescribing genocide and war crimes.
The primary challenge in defining crimes against humanity is to identify the precise elements that distinguish these offenses from crimes subject exclusively to national laws. The contours of the definition not only determine the scope of international jurisdiction, but also give rise to a number of additional important consequences. First, unlike most domestic crimes, crimes against humanity are generally considered outside the purview of statutes of limitations. Second, the immunities that often shield State representatives from criminal responsibility are not available for crimes against humanity, at least when trials are held before international tribunals. Third, although the concept of universal jurisdiction – the theory that certain crimes are subject to the jurisdiction of all States – remains controversial; proponents of universal jurisdiction invariably include crimes against humanity within its scope. This means, for example, that while the crime of murder generally can only be tried in a court with a jurisdictional link to the act, a murder committed as a crime against humanity arguably can be tried in any criminal court in the world. Finally, the prohibition of crimes against humanity is a jus cogens norm of international law, which means that derogation is not permitted under any circumstances. As a result of this status, some authorities assert that States have an international law obligation either to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity or to extradite them to States intending to pursue prosecutions.
In light of the very serious legal consequences of designating an offense a crime against humanity as well as the heightened moral condemnation the label entails, the importance of understanding the exact contours of these offenses cannot be underestimated. This chapter provides a brief historical sketch of the evolution of the norm prohibiting crimes against humanity, assesses the current state of the definition with respect to each potential element of the chapeau and some the constitutive crimes, and argues that a normative framework should be adopted to resolve the remaining uncertainties surrounding this category of international crimes.
Ligustro & Sacerdoti: Problemi e tendenze del diritto internazionale dell’economia. Liber amicorum in onore di Paolo Picone
- Giuseppe Cataldi, Gli aiuti c.d. «legati»: questioni aperte tra diritto allo sviluppo e obblighi internazionali ed europei in tema di concorrenza
- Giovanni Cellamare, Osservazioni sulle disposizioni in materia di ricostruzione e di governance dell’economia contenute in risoluzioni del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU
- Emanuele Cimiotta, Conflitto armato nella Repubblica Democratica del Congo e principio della sovranità permanente degli Stati sulle proprie risorse naturali
- Criseide Novi, Il concetto di partenariato e le relazioni esterne economiche dell’Unione europea
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Why Does International Economic Law Fail to Protect «Global Public Goods»?
- Giorgio Sacerdoti, Nascita, affermazione e scomparsa del Nuovo Ordine Economico Internazionale: un bilancio trent’anni dopo
- Michele Vellano, Verso il superamento del principio della parità formale degli Stati nel governo dell’economia mondiale
- Gabriella Venturini, Diritto allo sviluppo e Obiettivi del Millennio nella prospettiva della tutela dei diritti umani
- Giovanna Adinolfi, Sovranità monetaria e diritto internazionale dell’economia: la politica di tasso di cambio cinese alla luce del diritto del Fondo monetario internazionale
- Maria Chiara Malaguti, Se a fallire sono gli Stati
- Christoph G. Paulus, What Constitutes a Debt in the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Context?
- Francesco Seatzu, The Council of Europe Development Bank: A Legal Appraisal
- Christian Tomuschat, The Euro – A Fortress Threatened from Within
- Marcella Distefano, La globalizzazione agricola tra esigenze di liberalizzazione degli scambi e tutela dei diritti umani
- Talia Einhorn, Hunger, Aid, WTO Law and International Competition Law – The Missing Links in the World Trading System
- Carlo Focarelli, L’Università e la ricerca nel mercato globale
- Pablo J. Martín Rodríguez, El debate sobre las salvaguardias en la OMC
- Roberto Mastroianni, I servizi pubblici nel GATS e nel TFUE: una radicale divergenza di impostazione?
- Paolo Mengozzi, Libera prestazione dei servizi, scommesse e giochi d’azzardo: Organo d’appello dell’OMC e Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea a confronto
- Richard Senti, Die Regionalen Handelsabkommen: Bausteine oder Stolpersteine der geltenden Welthandelsordnung
- Antonello Tancredi, Il perdurante ricorso agli accordi di limitazione delle esportazioni come strumento di protezione commerciale
- Friedl Weiss, Good Governance in the Procedural Practice of the WTO
- Beatrice I. Bonafè, L’autorizzazione ad adottare contromisure nel quadro dell’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio: il requisito delle «circostanze sufficientemente gravi»
- Enzo Cannizzaro, Il rilievo di accordi esterni nell’interpretazione degli Accordi OMC
- Valeria Di Comite, Sovvenzioni vietate e diritti compensativi illegittimi: quali conseguenze per la violazione del diritto OMC?
- Aldo Ligustro, Conflitti di giurisdizione e «dialogo tra corti» internazionali nella prospettiva dell’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio
- Maria Irene Papa, L’actio popularis nel sistema di risoluzione delle controversie dell’Organizzazione mondiale del commercio
- Peter Behrens, Germany’s Incremental Modernisation of Private International Company Law
- Massimo V. Benedettelli, Sul trasferimento della sede sociale all’estero
- Sergio M. Carbone, Investimenti pubblici esteri e libera circolazione dei capitali
- Guido Carducci, Defining «Investment» in Public and Private International Law and the Scope of ICSID, NAFTA and Energy Charter Treaty Investment Arbitration
- Jürgen Basedow, Riconoscimento di decisioni straniere nell’ambito della Rete Europea della Concorrenza
- Francesco Bestagno, Gli aiuti di Stato in tempi di crisi: il sostegno all’economia reale tra misure nazionali e Piano europeo di ripresa
- Gianluca Contaldi, Aiuti di Stato e crisi economica internazionale
- Francesco Munari, Il rapporto tra la disciplina sugli aiuti di Stato e le politiche a tutela dei cittadini e dei consumatori
- Lorenzo Federico Pace, Il divieto di abuso di posizione dominante quarant’anni dopo la sentenza «Continental Can»
- Giuseppe Tesauro, Mercato e concorrenza tra Costituzione e norme comunitarie
- Antonio Tizzano, Il contributo dei giudici dell’Unione europea allo sviluppo del diritto della concorrenza
- Pia Acconci, The Implementation of the Patent Regulation of the TRIPs Agreement and the Protection of Non-trade Values. Have Continuous Negotiations Become the Mechanism for Balancing Them?
- Pasquale De Sena, Fondo monetario internazionale, Banca mondiale e rispetto dei diritti dell’uomo
- Francesco Francioni, Imprese militari e di sicurezza private e rispetto dei diritti umani: la responsabilità dello Stato di nazionalità
- Manlio Frigo, Il Codice dei beni culturali: aspetti di diritto internazionale e comunitario
- Marco Gestri, La politica europea dell’immigrazione: solidarietà tra Stati membri e misure nazionali di regolarizzazione
- Valentina Grado, Divieto di commercio di diamanti «insanguinati» e ordinamento dell’OMC
- Peter Hilpold, Die WTO im Legitimationskonflikt – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Herausforderungen im Bereich des Menschenrechtsschutzes
- Kurt Siehr, Das Unidroit-Übereinkommen von 1995 und Staatseigentum an archäologischen Kulturgütern
- Invited Articles
- The Editors, An Asian Journal of International Law
- OWADA Hisashi, Asia and International Law
- XUE Hanqin, Meaningful Dialogue Through a Common Discourse: Law and Values in a Multi-Polar World
- Edith BROWN WEISS, International Law in a Kaleidoscopic World
- Hilary CHARLESWORTH, The Women Question in International Law
- B.S. CHIMNI, Asian Civilizations and International Law: Some Reflections
- Tom FARER, Human Security: Defining the Elephant and Imagining Its Tasks
- Tommy KOH, International Law and the Peaceful Resolution of Disputes: Asian Perspectives, Contributions, and Challenges
- Martti KOSKENNIEMI, What Use for Sovereignty Today?
- ONUMA Yasuaki, The Asian Society of International Law: Its Birth and Significance
- Hélène RUIZ FABRI, Reflections on the Necessity of Regional Approaches to International Law Through the Prism of the European Example: Neither Yes nor No, Neither Black nor White
- Michael HWANG S.C. & Jennifer FONG Lee Cheng, Definition of ‘‘Investment’’—A Voice from the Eye of the Storm
- Md. Saiful KARIM & Shawkat ALAM, Climate Change and Reduction of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Ships: An Appraisal
- Niels PETERSEN, International Law, Cultural Diversity, and Democratic Rule: Beyond the Divide Between Universalism and Relativism
- Catherine RENSHAW, Andrew BYRNES, & Andrea DURBACH, Testing the Mettle of National Human Rights Institutions: A Case Study of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Co-published by Oxford University Press and the International Law Institute, and prepared by the Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State, the Digest of United States Practice in International Law presents an annual compilation of documents and commentary highlighting significant developments in public and private international law, and is an invaluable resource for practitioners and scholars in the field.
Each edition compiles excerpts from documents such as treaties, diplomatic notes and correspondence, legal opinion letters, judicial decisions, Senate committee reports and press releases. Each document is selected by members of the Legal Adviser's Office of the U.S. Department of State, based on their judgments about the significance of the issues, their potential relevance to future situations, and their likely interest to scholars and practitioners. In almost every case, the commentary to each excerpt is accompanied by a citation to the full text.
Harold Hongju Koh (Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State), "Foreign Official Immunity after Samantar: A U.S. Government Perspective."
Panel One: Immunity in U.S. Courts after Samantar
Moderater: Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt Univ. Law)
David Bederman (Emory Univ. – Law)
John Bellinger III (formerly, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State; Arnold & Porter)
Sarah Cleveland (Columbia Univ. – Law; U.S. Department of State)
Chimène Keitner (Univ. of California Hastings School of the Law)
Panel Two: Head of State, Diplomatic, and Other Immunities
Moderator: Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt Univ. – Law)
Michael A. Newton (Vanderbilt Univ. – Law)
Edward Swaine (George Washington Univ. – Law)
Lewis Yelin (U.S. Department of Justice)
Panel Three: State Immunity and Human Rights
Moderator: Klint Alexander (Vanderbilt Univ. – Law)
Lorna McGregor (REDRESS/Univ. of Essex)
Roger O'Keefe (Univ. of Cambridge – Law)
Beth Stephens (Rutgers Univ. – Law)
David Stewart (Georgetown Univ. – Law)
Panel Four: The International Law of State Immunity and Its Development by National Institutions
Moderator: Jacob Katz Cogan (Univ. of Cincinnati – Law)
David Caron (Univ. of California, Berkeley - Law)
Lori Fisler Damrosch (Columbia Univ. – Law)
Elena Sciso (LUISS Guido Carli - Law)
Paul Stephan (Univ. of Virginia – Law)
Christian Tomuschat (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin – Law)
Resort to experts by international judges (ex curia) is a relatively rare phenomenon in international adjudication. Much more frequent is resort to experts by the parties (ex parte). This short note suggests five possible reasons why. First, experts are retained to establish facts or scientific truths. However, perhaps with the exception of criminal jurisdictions, the ultimate aim of international adjudication is not so much establishing facts or truths, but to settle disputes; establishing facts does not necessarily lead to the settlement of the underlying dispute. Second, all international courts and tribunals are last instance jurisdictions. It is precisely the finality of international judges that makes their fallibility ultimately immaterial. Third, international tribunals decide on matters that often affect directly sovereign states’ interests. International courts and tribunals are thus reluctant to rely on experts ex curia because they might offer an interpretation of facts, or an assessment of causation, embarrassingly different from the ones put forward by the experts of the sovereign parties. Fourth, the sporadic resort to ex curia experts can be explained by a certain unwillingness of international judges to abdicate their judicial function, to let experts enter their own province by giving them the last word. Fifth, most international courts operate on a tight budget, with little margin for variable and unplanned expenses. While experts ex curia are paid from the courts’ budget, the parties pay for their own experts.
It is now standard in contemporary international law commentary to note that the latter part of the 20th has Century seen a move away from the traditional understanding of international law as fundamentally based on the consent of States. As just two examples, customary international law has in some contexts become more influential than treaties, and human rights obligations are now recognised as often binding States even when they have signed no treaty acknowledging their existence. Treaty interpretation, by contrast, has remained focused upon the parties to a treaty, with even textualist approaches to treaty interpretation being justified as the best means of ascertaining the intent of the contracting States.
The purpose of the present article is to highlight the existence of a subset of treaties for which even a teleological approach to interpretation fails to capture the central importance for the treaty of entities other than the contracting States. These “power-conferring treaties” do not merely entrust tribunals with the power to effectively fashion the means by which a treaty’s goals should be achieved. To varying degrees, they grant control of the treaty itself, including at times both its enforcement and the very meaning of its terms, to entities other than the contracting States. As a result, the traditional emphasis in treaty interpretation on the “object and purpose” of the treaty, and the precise language in which the treaty is written, will fail to generate an interpretation that faithfully captures the manner in which the treaty genuinely functions.
The article then illustrates the potential impact of the power-conferring nature of a treaty through an analysis of the meaning of the term "investment" in the International Convention for Settlement of Investment Disputes. This is one of the most controversial topics in contemporary international investment law, with an enormous impact upon the jurisdiction of ICSID arbitral tribunals. It is argued that recognising the power-conferring nature of the ICSID Convention provides an enhanced understanding into the way that this term should be interpreted.
Monday, January 24, 2011
- January 18, 2011: James Gathii (Albany Law School), “The Turn to Regional Trade Agreements”
- February 1, 2011: Karen Knop (Univ. of Toronto - Law), “The Informal State of International Law: The United States and Women’s Rights”
- February 15, 2011: Tara Melish (SUNY, Buffalo - Law), “Collapsing Rights Typologies: Developing a More Useable and Effective Framework for Assessing Socioeconomic Rights Claims”
- March 1, 2011: Gabriella Blum (Harvard Univ. - Law), "The Individuation of War"
- March 22, 2011: Ralph Wilde (Univ. College London - Law), “Applying Human Rights Law to State Action Abroad: Human Rights Imperialism?”
- April 5, 2011: Jacob Katz Cogan (Univ. of Cincinnati - Law), “The Regulatory Turn in International Law”
- April 19, 2011: Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Southern Methodist Univ. - Law), “The Expressive Dimension of EU Criminal Law”
This contribution analyzes the ECJ's relationship with other international courts and tribunals, focusing on international trade law, European Human Rights, international environmental law and international investment law. The conclusion is that despite the increasing interaction between the ECJ and other international courts and tribunals, the ECJ is reluctant to give up its supreme role of final interpreter of European law and international law aspects related to it.
This book analyzes the regime of navigation in historical relation to the United Nations Convention of the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) of 10 December 1982, and then analyzes in detail the concept of international straits to arrive at a complete definition. This work examines the eight categories of straits laid out in the UNCLOS. It analyzes the right of innocent passage and the regime of transit passage, both systems of navigation in international straits, and then presents the domestic legislation and the traffic separation schemes which apply to international straits. Finally, the work includes a complete catalogue of straits with the reference to their respective UNCLOS articles.
CALL FOR PAPERS
ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW NETWORK (AIELN) CONFERENCE 2011
University of Hong Kong and Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Inaugural Conference of the Asian International Economic Law Network (AIELN(I)) was held on 3 August 2009 at the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, with the theme of "Multilateralism and Regionalism in Global Economic Governance: Trade, Investment and Finance".
The second AIELN conference (AIELN 2011) will be held on Friday and Saturday, 15-16 July 2011. AIELN 2011 will be co-hosted by the faculties of Law of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong and will take place at the University of Hong Kong.
The theme for AIELN 2011 is "The Global Financial and Economic Crisis and The Post-Crisis International Economic Law Environment".
The Call for Papers for this Conference concerns two different types of papers:
(1) Those for the Main Theme Panel Discussion (Panel 1) and the Concluding Main Theme Panel Discussion (Panel 6)
(2) Those for four Thematic Panels on Trade; Investment; Money and Finance; and Development, Climate Change, Agriculture and Energy (Panels 2, 3, 4 and 5)
The Organizing Committee seeks to encourage the participation in the Conference of specialists in international economic law, whether young professionals or established scholars, academics or practitioners, by inviting submissions of paper proposals for speakers in all Panels.
Speakers will be selected through a competitive process without any prejudice to factors such as race, gender, language, religious background and geographical location.
Papers of the speakers will be selected by the Selection Committee.
Note should be taken that presentation shall be made only in English.
SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (SIEL):
All speakers at the Conference must be members of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL). A non-member may respond to the Call for Papers but if selected, will be expected to join promptly. For instruction as to how to sign up for SIEL, please refer to: http://www.sielnet.org/Default.aspx?pageId=98112
Please note that the standard rate of SIEL membership is Pound 85@year, but there are discounts available for students, academics and government officials and those who work for NGOs. Additional discounts are available for people from developing countries. Also, please note that benefits for SIEL members include discounted rates for SIEL meetings, discounts on subscription to several renowned journals, discounted rates on all or some titles from Cambridge University Press, Cameron May publishers, Hart Publishing, among others. For the details of the benefits of SIEL membership, please refer to: http://www.sielnet.org/Default.aspx?pageId=106037
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR PANELS 1 AND 6:
Concepts and Objectives:
These Panels will discuss general issues of multilateralism and regionalism in global economic governance in the wake of the global economic and financial crisis. Panel 1 will focus on finding what problems and challenges we are facing in governing the global economy, particularly on how to coordinate multilateralism and regionalism in global economic governance in the wake of the global financial and economic turmoil of recent years. Both comprehensive proposals and sector-specific proposals will be welcome. Also, region-specific and comparative regional analyses will be welcome.
Panel 6 will focus on finding solutions to the problems and challenges we are facing in governing the global economy, and may contain constructive policy proposals for improving global economic governance. Improvement of global economic governance may take the form of reforming the existing multilateral and/or regional institutions, establishing new ones, or better coordinating existing multilateral and regional institutions. As in Panel 1, both comprehensive proposals and sector-specific proposals will be welcome.
Also, region-specific and comparative regional analyses will be welcome.
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR PANELS 2, 3, 4 AND 5:
The themes of these Panels are fixed as follows:
Panel 2 - Multilateral and Regional Trade Law
Panel 3 - Multilateral and Regional Investment Law
Panel 4 - Multilateral and Regional Monetary and Financial Law
Panel 5 - Multilateral and Regional Challenges: Development, Climate Change, Energy and Agriculture
Paper proposals should address specific topics relating to the post-crisis environment in any specific area.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:
An applicant is required to submit his or her paper proposal of 500 to 800 words to: Email: Douglas.Arner@hku.hk in MS WORD format. The submission deadline is Monday, 28 February 2011. The result will be announced to all applicants by e-mail by 30 April 2011.
The following content must be included in the submission:
1. Title of the paper with keywords (up to 5 words).
2. Paper proposal. (1 and 2 should be in the same file).
3. Name of applicant.
4. Affiliation of applicant.
5. Mailing address for contact person.
6. E-mail address of applicant.
7. Telephone number (including country code) for contact person.
8. The name (number) of the Panel to which the proposal is submitted. (3 through 8 should be in the text of the e-mail. Please note that they should not be in the paper proposal in supra 2.)
9. CV and major publications and presentations of applicant in an attached file (in either MS WORD or PDF file).
Those selected as speakers are required to submit full papers by 30 June 2011. The time allocated to each speaker is 15 minutes. Speakers can submit a full paper which may require more than 15 minutes for presentation. However, even in this case, the number of words of the full paper should be no more than 10,000 words including citations.
AIELN 2011 will cover accommodation costs of speakers, as well as conference meals. However, due to budgetary restrictions, participants will need to cover their own costs of transportation.
The Organizing Committee is planning to publish the result of the Conference in a book, though it has not concluded a contract with any publishing house yet. The speakers may be advised to write a longer paper for publication. They will be informed of the instruction for publication after the Conference.