- Part I Topics
- Special Focus I: The State and the Global Economy
- Karle M. Meessen, Distinguished Essay: Governmental Decision-Making in the World Economy
- Fabian Amternbrink, Central Bank Challenges in the Global Economy
- Ludwig Gramlich, An International Normative Framework for Sovereign Wealth Funds?
- Heike Schweitzer, Sovereign Wealth Funds: Market Investors or “Imperialist Capitalists”? The European Response to Direct Investment by Non-EU State-Controlled Entities
- Rosa M. Lastra, The Role of the IMF as a Global Financial Authority
- Andreas Falke, No Ado About Nothing: Obama’s Trade Policies After 1 Year
- Special Focus II: Climate Change and International Economic Law
- Alexander Proelss & Kerstin Güssow, Carbon Capture and Storage from the Perspective of International Law
- Wolfgang Weiß, Biofuels and WTO Law
- Erich Vranes, Climate Labelling and the WTO: The 2010 EU Ecolabelling Programme as a Test Case Under WTO Law
- Mireille Cossy, Environmental Services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): Legal Issues and Negotiating Stakes at the WTO
- Kierstyn Inglis, European Union Competences and Actions in International Environment Law: Recent Developments and Current Challenges
- Part II Regional Integration
- Colin M. Brown, The European Union and Regional Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU-Korea FTA
- Tomer Broude, MENA: The Question of Palestinian Observership and Accession to the WTO
- Stephen Clarkson, Integration and Disintegration in North America: The Rise and Fall of International Economic Law in One Region
- Colin McCarthy, African Regional Economic Integration: Is the Paradigm Relevant and Appropriate?
- Félix Peña, Regional Integration in Latin America: Some Lessons of 50 Years of Experience
- Prasit Aekaputra, Report on the ASEAN Economic Cooperation and Integration
- Part III International Economic Institutions
- Claudia Schmucker & Katharina Gnath, From the G8 to the G20: Reforming the Global Economic Governance System
- Edwini Kessie, The Doha Development Agenda at a Crossroads: What Are the Remaining Obstacles to the Conclusion of the Round: Part II?
- Andreas Krallmann, WTO Dispute Settlement – The Establishment of ‘Binding Guidance’ by the Appellate Body in US Stainless Steel and Recent Dispute Settlement Rulings
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
This book analyzes the position of the ICC in relation to national court systems. The research illustrates that what seemed to be a straight forward relationship between the ICC and national courts under the complementarity mechanism, proves to be much more complex in practice. Using the referrals of Uganda and Darfur, the book demonstrates ways in which it might be possible to prosecute for crimes currently not prosecuted by the ICC and brings to light possible solutions to overcome the gaps in law and practice in the jurisdictional relation between the ICC and national systems. It will be of value to academics, students and policy-makers working in the area of international law, international organizations, and human rights.
Ramji-Nogales: Questioning Hierarchies of Harm: Women, Forced Migration, and International Criminal Law
Though international criminal law has made great strides in addressing harm perpetrated against women in wartime, its gendered structure diverts attention away from other significant harms that women endure as a result of armed conflict. In particular, international criminal law’s hierarchy of harm elevates crimes committed as part of a plan or pattern across political groups over equally serious forms of harm perpetrated randomly, often within political groups. Thus the private and opportunistic harms enabled by situations of displacement and perpetrated against female forced migrants do not fall clearly within the framework of international criminal law. This vacuum of accountability extends beyond international criminal law, as female forced migrants cannot rely on their own governments, their host governments, and often even international humanitarian organizations to protect them against opportunistic violence. International criminal law could fill the void only after quite serious reconstruction, namely expansion of its scope and restructuring of its focus. It may be that a structure designed specifically to prevent and account for opportunistic violence against female forced migrants would be better equipped to perform that task. Criminal accountability might be better performed in national legal systems or informal justice systems created within camp environments. There are also solutions other than criminal accountability, such as human rights law, that might be more appropriate in addressing such harms. In the meantime, until a solution is found that places these ‘private’ crimes on equal footing with ‘public’ attacks currently prohibited by international criminal law, the serious and frequent harms suffered by forcibly displaced women will continue to be overlooked, relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of harm.
This chapter, written with much pleasure in Bruno Simma’s honour, seeks to explore the ideas embedded in Simma’s notion of a move toward ‘a true public international law’ or ‘a contemporary international legal order which is strongly influenced by ideas of public law.’ We argue for two distinct but overlapping meanings of ‘public’ in this context. The first is an international law that is ‘inter-public’ law, being made by and for a set of entities (primarily States) that are not merely ‘actors’ (in the jargon of international relations), but public entities operating under public law. The second is a quality of publicness in law that is also becoming part of understandings of international law of the sort Bruno Simma has enunciated. Neither of these ideas - inter-public law and publicness - are commonplace or widely accepted in international law. We argue, however, that they represent important dimensions in current and future international law. We observe some tension between Bruno Simma’s idea of an ‘international community’ based on shared interests and the concepts underlying ‘inter- public law’, and we heretically suggest that the idea of ‘international community’ may become something of a by-way on the path to developing a theoretical basis for the dense and intrusive rules and institutions and governance processes serving multiple interests and constituencies that more and more characterise international law. We argue that it is fundamental for any publicly-oriented approach to international law to be built on an adequately-theorized account of the concept of law and the roles of law.
- Special Issue: Indigenous Rights in Southern Africa
- Jennifer Hays & Megan Biesele, Introduction: Indigenous rights in southern Africa: international mechanisms and local contexts
- Nigel Crawhall, Africa and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- Sidsel Saugestad, Impact of international mechanisms on indigenous rights in Botswana
- Robert K. Hitchcock, Maria Sapignoli, & Wayne A. Babchuk, What about our rights? Settlements, subsistence and livelihood security among Central Kalahari San and Bakgalagadi
- Renee Sylvain, At the intersections: San women and the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa
- Rodney K. Hopson, Language rights and the San in Namibia: a fragile and ambiguous but necessary proposition
- Jennifer Hays, Educational rights for indigenous communities in Botswana and Namibia
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Chesney: Who May Be Killed? Anwar Al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force
Anwar al-Awlaki is a dual Yemeni-American citizen who has emerged in recent years as a leading English-language proponent of violent jihad, including explicit calls for the indiscriminate murder of Americans. According to the U.S. government, moreover, he also has taken on an operational leadership role with the organization al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), recruiting and directing individuals to participate in specific acts of violence. Does international law permit the U.S. government to kill al-Awlaki in these circumstances?
Part I opens with a discussion of what we know about AQAP, about al-Awlaki himself, and about the U.S. government’s purported decision to place him on a list of individuals who may be targeted with lethal force in certain circumstances. Part II then explores objections to killing al-Awlaki founded in the U.N. Charter’s restraints on the use of force in international affairs. I conclude that a substantial case can be made, at least for now, both that Yemen has consented to the use of such force on its territory and that in any event the conditions associated with the right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 can be satisfied. Part III then turns to objections rooted in IHL and IHRL, beginning with the question whether an attack on al-Awlaki would fall within IHL’s field of application. I conclude that the threshold of armed conflict has been crossed in two relevant respects. First, it has been crossed in Yemen itself as between AQAP on one hand and the U.S. and Yemeni governments on the other. Second, it has been crossed as well with respect to the United States and the larger al Qaeda network—and not only within the geopolitical borders of Afghanistan. Building from these premises, I then proceed to consider whether al-Awlaki could be targeted consistent with IHL’s principle of distinction. I conclude that he can be if he is in fact an operational leader within AQAP, as this role would render him a functional combatant in an organized armed group.
Should the analysis instead turn on IHRL, however, the central issue becomes the requirement of necessity inherent in IHRL’s protection for the right-to-life, and in particular the notion of temporal necessity. I conclude that this requirement is not an obstacle to attacking al-Awlaki insofar as (i) there is substantial evidence that he is planning terrorist attacks, (ii) there is no plausible opportunity to incapacitate him with non-lethal means, and (iii) there is not good reason to believe that a plausible non-lethal opportunity to incapacitate him will arise before harm to others occurs. A second question then arises, however. Must al-Awlaki be linked to a specific plot to carry out a particular attack, or is it enough that the evidence establishes that he can and will attempt or otherwise be involved in attacks in the future without specificity as to what the particulars of those attacks might be? The former approach has the virtue of clarity, yet could rarely be satisfied given the clandestine nature of terrorism. The latter approach necessarily runs a greater risk of abuse and thus perhaps justifies an especially high evidentiary threshold, but in any event it is a more realistic and more appropriate approach (particularly from the point of view of the potential victims of future terrorist attacks).
Comments and criticisms on this draft paper are welcome.
Hessbrueggern: ECOWAS Court Judgment in Habré v. Senegal Complicates Prosecution in the Name of Africa
- Daniel Abebe & Eric A. Posner, The Flaws of Foreign Affairs Legalism
- Robert M. Chesney, Iraq and the Military Detention Debate: Firsthand Perspectives from the Other War, 2003–2010
- Ching-Fu Lin, Global Food Safety: Exploring Key Elements for an International Regulatory Strategy
- Special Theme: International Migration in Africa
- Ibrahim Awad, Introduction: Concepts, Practice and Policies of International Migration in Africa
- Aderanti Adepoju, Formulating Migration Policy at the Regional, Sub-Regional and National Levels in Africa
- Aurelia Wa Kabwe-Segatti, Regional Integration Policy and Migration Reform in SADC Countries: An Institutional Overview of Power Relations
- Thomas Lacroix, Politiques de codéveloppement et le champ associative immigré africain : un panorama européen
- Harouna Mounkaila & Hamidou Issaka Maga, La gestion des migrations internationales au Niger : défis, enjeux et Perspectives
- Simon Bekker, Explaining Violence Against Foreigners and Strangers in Urban South Africa: Outbursts During May and June 2008
- Tarek Badawy, The Protection of Refugees Between Obligations under the United Nations Charter and Specific Treaty Obligations: The Case of Egypt
- Ibrahim Wani, International Migration and Human Rights
- General Articles
- Melissa Khemani, Corruption and the Violation of Human Rights: The Case for Bringing the African Union Convention on Prevention and Combating Corruption Within the Jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
- Charles Riziki Majinge, The Doctrine of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources in International Law and its Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of a Mining Sector in Tanzania
- Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, Yesterday’s Mistakes Still Today’s News: The Persisting Cloud of Humanitarian Violations Over United Nations Peacekeeping: A New Agenda for Accountability
- Salman M. A. Salman, Water Resources in the Sudan North-South Peace Process: Past Experience and Future Trends
- Notes and Comments
- Suzy H. Nikièma, Nature et portée des exceptions relatives au développement durable dans les accords internationaux d’investissement
- Abdoulaye Soma, Sur le principe d’une obligation des Etats africains de se « démocratiser » : éléments de droit constitutionnel et de droit international public
- Kishore Singh, Right to Education and Equality of Opportunity in Education: An Analysis of Constitutional Obligations in African States
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
- JHHW, Editorial: Dispatch from the Euro Titanic: And the Orchestra Played; On Snippets From the Mail Box of the Editor: Poaching Masthead Changes
- Symposium: Revisiting Immunity
- Dapo Akande & Sangeeta Shah, Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts
- Jasper Finke, Sovereign Immunity: Rule, Comity or Something Else?
- Annie Bird, Third State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations
- Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Thomas Jaeger, & Robert Kordic, The Role of Atypical Acts in EU External Trade and Intellectual Property Policy
- Sarah M. H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner, Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan
- Mehrdad Payandeh, The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart
- Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
- Sujitha Subramanian, EU Obligation to the TRIPS Agreement: EU Microsoft Decision
- Critical Review of International Governance
- Helen Keller, Andreas Fischer, & Daniela Kühne, Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals
- Wenhua Shan & Sheng Zhang, The Treaty of Lisbon: Half Way toward a Common Investment Policy
- Review Essays
- Thomas Kleinlein, On Holism, Pluralism, and Democracy: Approaches to Constitutionalism beyond the State
- Kirsten Sellars, Imperfect Justice at Nuremberg and Tokyo
- Khurshid Iqbal, Re-conceptualising the right to development in Islamic law
- Hatla Thelle, Who infringes their rights? Discrimination of Chinese peasant-workers
- Evelyne Schmid, A few comments on a comment: the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 32 on Article 14 of the ICCPR and the question of civilians tried by military courts
- Abdulaziz M. Alwasil, Saudi Arabia's engagement in, and interaction with, the UN human rights system: an analytical review
- Linda Briskman, Deborah Zion, & Bebe Loff, Challenge and collusion: health professionals and immigration detention in Australia
- Amar Shah, Human rights and mentally disordered offenders
- Riccardo Baldissone, Human rights: a lingua franca for the multiverse
- Jakob Cornides, Human rights pitted against man (II)-the network is back
- Kay Goodall, Human rights pitted against man (II)-a response
- February 7, 2011: Stephen M. Schwebel (formerly, Judge and President, International Court of Justice), The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and Other Obsolescences
- February 21, 2011: Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah (National Univ. of Singapore - Law), The Old Order Changeth: Envisioning the New Order in International Law on Foreign Investment
- March 7, 2011: Abby Cohen Smutny (White & Case), Getting Fast Relief -- Is It Possible? Provisional Measures in ICSID Arbitration
- March 28, 2011: Thea Lee (AFL-CIO), Rebalancing bilateral investment agreements: the challenges ahead
- April 4, 2011: Federico Ortino (King's College London - Law), The Role of International Investment Tribunals
- April 11, 2011: Manfred Schekulin (OECD Investment Committee), The OECD Guidelines for MNEs Revisited: Will They Make a Difference?
- February 2, 2011: Takis Tridimas (Queen Mary, Univ. of London), The EU and International Law: Uneasy Bedfellows?
- February 16, 2011: Mashood Baderin (SOAS), Religion and Human Rights: Towards a Better Understanding
- March 9, 2011: Robert Cryer (Univ. of Birmingham), The Relationship Between War Crimes and Humanitarian Law: Marriage, Not Unity?
‘Law without courts’ seemed to Hugo Grotius an entirely coherent approach to the juridification of international relations. The first edition of his Law of War and Peace (1625) reflects an intense commitment to framing claims and rules for conduct outside the state in terms of legal rights and duties, but not to judicialization, even though arbitration between sovereigns was addressed in earlier works he had read, such as Alberico Gentili’s Law of War (1598). Yet in modern times international judicialization – the creation and use of international courts and tribunals – has been not only a significant component of liberal approaches to international order, but for some thinkers an indispensable concomitant of juridification. Section I of this chapter provides an overview of the waves, and accretion, in the formation of what are now ten basic types of international courts. Section II offers some balance to the tendencies (implicit in the approach taken in Section I) to acclaim each flourishing legal institution as an achievement and to study only what exists, by considering the marked unevenness in the issues, and in the ranges of states, currently subject to juridification through international courts and tribunals. Section III addresses the question whether the density and importance of the judicially-focused juridification that now exists has implications for politics, law, and justice that are truly significant and qualitatively different from what has gone before. This is explored by examining some of the main roles and functions of international courts, considered not simply as a menu but as a complex aggregate. Section IV concludes.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
This conference is an initiative between SOLON, the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and the Centre for Contemporary British History to explore themes surrounding judicial roles and responses to war crimes (broadly construed)– past, present and future – and also responses to such initiatives, from victims/victors, interested agencies and commentators, including the UN, NATO and various local, regional and international NGOs. Papers presented at this conference will consider questions such as whether the history of such prosecutions indicate that they should simply expose/reveal or whether they should always punish; what is the role of mediation in the interests of revelations of ‘truth’, and what impact can strategies for reconciliation have. Developments in areas like forensic anthropology will also be considered, and the issues surrounding how witness testimony should be managed within the legal process. Consideration of the ethical or moral basis for war crimes prosecutions, and the problem of their chronological dimensions provide a focus for other discussions. Speakers and delegates will debate when, if ever, it ceases to be practical or useful, in terms of successful post-conflict reconstruction to pursue war crimes prosecutions? A particular focus will be on the International Criminal Court, where the Court’s actions indicate that it is taking on the role of the conscience of the world. Does the future of war crime prosecutions lie solely, or mainly, with the ICC? Is this acceptable, given the lack of universal global support for the ICC? As this is the second Biennial Conference, we will also be hearing reports from delegates at the first conference of developments with which they have been associated.
- Susan Olzak, Does Globalization Breed Ethnic Discontent?
- Krista E. Wiegand & Emilia Justyna Powell, Past Experience, Quest for the Best Forum, and Peaceful Attempts to Resolve Territorial Disputes
- Juan Miguel Benito, Pablo Brañas-Garza, Penélope Hernández, & Juan A. Sanchis, Sequential versus Simultaneous Schelling Models: Experimental Evidence
- Orlandrew E. Danzell, Political Parties: When Do They Turn to Terror?
- Jennifer Kavanagh, Selection, Availability, and Opportunity: The Conditional Effect of Poverty on Terrorist Group Participation
- Ravi Bhavnani, Dan Miodownik, & Hyun Jin Choi, Three Two Tango: Territorial Control and Selective Violence in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza
Monday, January 31, 2011
- February 3, 2011: Stefan Talmon (Univ. of Oxford - Law), The Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Kosovo, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion and What it May Mean for Scottish Independence
- February 24, 2011: Michael Wood (20 Essex Street), International Law and the Use of Force: Are New Rules Needed?
- March 16, 2011: Steven Greer (Univ. of Bristol - Law), Should Police Threats to Torture Suspects Always Be Severly Punished? Reflections on the Gafgen Case
- February 9, 2011: Yitzhak Benbaji (Bar-Ilan Univ.), The Moral Power of Soldiers to Undertake the Duty of Obedience
- February 16, 2011: Michael Walzer (Institute for Advanced Study), Can the Good Guys Win
- March 2, 2011: Doreen Lustig (New York Univ. - Law), Doing Business, Fighting a War: Non-State Actors and the Non State at Nuremberg
- March 9, 2011: David Kretzmer (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem and Academic Center of Law and Business, Ramat Gan), The Inherent Right to Self-Defense and Proportionality in Ius ad Bellum
- March 23, 2011: Matthew C. Waxman (Columbia Univ. - Law), Regulating Resort to Force: Form and Substance of the UN Charter Regime
- March 30, 2011: Paul Kahn (Yale Univ. - Law), Imagining Warfare, or I know It When I See It
- April 6, 2011: Joseph Weiler (New York Univ. - Law), Not so Quiet on the Western Front: Reflections on the Bellicose Debate Concerning the Distinction between Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello
- April 13, 2011: Andreas Zimmermann (Univ. of Potsdam) & Philip Alston (New York Univ. - Law), Enforcing International Humanitarian Law in Asymmetric Armed Conflicts - the Case of Gaza
- April 27, 2011: Gabriella Blum (Harvard Univ. - Law), State, Crime, and Punishment
International Investment Law is a special branch of international law, but does not exist in ‘clinical isolation’ from international law. Following up on the successful conference on ‘International Investment Law and General International Law’, held in March 2010, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop 2011 addresses the relationship between investment law and other specialised areas of law, such as human rights, environmental law, WTO law, etc. How does international investment law interact with them? Is the interaction productive, or does it lead to a ‘clash of cultures’? What techniques are available to avoid regime-collisions, and have they been used? Are there common principles governing the interaction between the different special regimes? Presentations at the workshop will address these and other crucial issues, and by so doing, provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between ‘International Investment Law and Its Others’.
Friday, 18 March 2011
Welcome Reception and Buffet
Keynote Address: The Other Side of the Coin – Recent Paradoxes of Investment Arbitration
Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña SC (Santiago de Chile)
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Opening Remarks & General Introduction
Professor Rainer Hofmann (Frankfurt am Main)
Professor Christian J. Tams (Glasgow)
International Investment Law and Human Rights
Mr. Marc Jacob (Heidelberg)
Comments by Professor Markus Krajewski (University of Erlangen) and
Mr. Noah Rubins (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Paris) (tbc)
International Investment Law and Group Rights to Self-Determination and Autonomy
Professor Tarcisio Gazzini (Amsterdam)
Comments by Professor Rainer Hofmann (University of Frankfurt) and
Dr. Nikolaos Lavranos (Senior Policy Advisor, Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs)
International Investment Law and International Environmental Law
Ms. Alessandra Asteriti (Glasgow)
Comments by Mr. David Gaukrodger (Senior Legal Consultant, OECD,
Paris) and Dr. Patricia Nacimiento (White & Case, Frankfurt)
International Investment Law and Domestic Public Law
Professor Monika Polzin (Augsburg)
Comments by Dr. Veijo Heiskanen (Lalive, Geneva) and
Professor Pavel Sturma (University of Prague)
Professor Stefan Kadelbach (Frankfurt am Main) (tbc)
Professor Christian J. Tams (Glasgow)
- Bryan Mercurio & Dianna Shao, A Precautionary Approach to Decision Making: The Evolving Jurisprudence on Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement
- Rafael Leal-Arcas, European Union – China Trade Relations
- Petra L. Emerson, An Economic Integration Agreement on Services: A Possible Solution to the Doha Development Round Impasse