Saturday, July 16, 2011
- Mikael Rask Madsen & Clement Salung Petersen, Editors' Introduction: The Internationalisation of Danish Law
- Amnon Lev, Internationalisation of Law: Historical and Cultural Aspects
- Jonas Christoff Ersen & Mikael Rask Madsen, The End of Virtue? Denmark and the Internationalisation of Human Rights
- Michael Gøtze & Henrik Palmer Olsen, Restrained Integration of European Case Reports in Danish Legal Information Systems and Culture
- Joseph Lookofsky, The CISG in Denmark and Danish Courts
- Anne Lise Kjaer, European Legal Concepts in Scandinavian Law and Language
- Jesper Lau Hansen, Coping with Emerging Federalism - Working with Securities Trading in the European Union
- Clement Salung Petersen, Treaties in Domestic Civil Litigation: Jura Novit Curia?
Friday, July 15, 2011
- J. Benton Heath, Introduction to the Jerome A. Cohen Prize in International Law and East Asia
- Frank K. Upham, A Tribute to Jerome Alan Cohen on His Eightieth Birthday
- Margaret K. Lewis, Controlling Abuse to Maintain Control: The Exclusionary Rule in China
- Jeremy Daum, Tortuous Progress: Early Cases Under China's New Procedures for Excluding Evidence in Criminal Cases
- Yu-Jie Chen, One Problem, Two Paths: A Tiawanese Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in China
- Hyeon-Ju Rho, The Exclusionary Rule in China and a Closer Look at the Dynamics of Reform
- Dui Hua, Translation of China's New Rules on Evidence in Criminal Trials
- Brendan Simms & D.J.B. Trim, Towards a history of humanitarian intervention
- D.J.B. Trim, 'If a prince use tyrannie towards his people': interventions on behalf of foreign populations in early-modern Europe
- Andrew Thompson, The Protestant interest and the history of humanitarian intervention, c.1685–c.1756
- Brendan Simms, 'The age of chivalry is not dead': the idea of humanitarian intervention in the era of Burke
- John Bew, 'From an umpire to a competitor': Castlereagh, Canning and the issue of international intervention in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars
- Abigail Green, Intervening in the Jewish question, 1840–1878
- Davide Rodogno, The 'principles of humanity' and the European powers' intervention in Ottoman Lebanon and Syria in 1860–61
- Matthias Schulz, The guarantees of humanity: the Concert of Europe and the origins of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877
- Davide Rodogno, The European powers' intervention in Macedonia, 1903–1908: an instance of humanitarian intervention?
- Maeve Ryan, The price of legitimacy in humanitarian intervention: Britain, the European powers and the abolition of the West African slave trade, 1807–1867
- William Mulligan, British anti-slave trade and anti-slavery policy in East Africa, Arabia, and Turkey in the late nineteenth century
- Gideon Mailer, The origins of humanitarian intervention in Sudan: Anglo-American missionaries after 1899
- Mike Sewell, Humanitarian intervention, democracy, and imperialism: the American war with Spain, 1898, and after
- Thomas Probert, The innovation of the Jackson–Vanik Amendment
- Sophie Quinn-Judge, Fraternal aid, self-defence, or self-interest? Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia (1978–1989)
- Matthew Jamison, Humanitarian intervention since 1990 and 'liberal interventionism'
- D.J.B. Trim, Humanitarian intervention in historical perspective
- Oz Hassan & Jason Ralph, Introduction: Democracy promotion and human rights in US foreign policy
- Mark J. L. McClelland, Exporting virtue: neoconservatism, democracy promotion and the end of history
- Oz Hassan & Andrew Hammond, The rise and fall of American's freedom agenda in Afghanistan: counter-terrorism, nation-building and democracy
- Jeff Bridoux, 'It's the political, stupid': national versus transnational perspectives on democratisation in Iraq
- Nicolas Bouchet, Barack Obama's democracy promotion at midterm
- James D. Boys, What's so extraordinary about rendition?
- Rebecca Sanders, (Im)plausible legality: the rationalisation of human rights abuses in the American 'Global War on Terror'
- Maureen Ramsey, Dirty hands or dirty decisions? Investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for abuses of detainees in counter terrorism operations
- José Juste Ruiz & Valentín Bou Franch, El caso de las plantas de celulosa sobre el río Uruguay: Sentencia de la Corte Internacional de Justicia de 20 de abril 2010
- Francisco José Pascual Vives, El desarollo de la institución del amicus curiae en la jurisprudencia internacional
- Carmen López-Jurado Romero de la Cruz, Kosovo ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: La opinión consultiva de 22 de julio de 2010
- Esperanza Orihuela Calatayud, La delimitación de los espacios marinos en los archipiélagos de Estado. Reflexiones a la luz de la ley 44/2010, de 30 de diciembre de aguas canarias
- Juan Antonio Pérez Rivarés, Los efectos jurídicos de las directrices de la Comisión Europea en materia de ayudas de Estado
Call for Papers: Peace Diplomacy, Global Justice and International Agency: Rethinking Human Security and Ethics in the Spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld
CALL FOR PAPERS
Peace Diplomacy, Global Justice and International Agency: Rethinking Human Security and Ethics in the Spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961)
Conference of the Hague Academic Coalition, Peace Palace, 9 and 10 November 2011
September 18, 2011 marks the 50th anniversary of the death of United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld who tragically passed away in a plane crash, on his way to cease-fire negotiations in the Katanga province of the Congo. The conflict in the Congo, which he worked so hard to end, re-emerged in the past decade and a half, with tragic consequences for the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). Hammarskjöld advocated a community-based vision of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security. Central to his conception of an effective United Nations was his fundamental belief that states should respect the UN’s institutional neutrality, and so enable it to become an instrument and expression of the international community in pursuit of the Charter’s objectives. For Hammarskjöld, the UN’s primary responsibility was to do everything within its means to protect successive generations from the ravages of war.
The advent of the Arab Spring uprisings in the first half of 2011 provide us with a new context in which we might examine the continuing relevance of Dag Hammarskjöld’s approach to the maintenance of global peace and security. The advent of the Arab Spring uprisings in the first half of 2011 has posed new challenges for the UN’s capacity to respond, support and engage with a regional civilian revolt against repressive governance undertaken ostensibly in pursuit of the ideals of the International Bill of Rights. The passing of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya, and their reference to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), mark an important moment in the Security Council’s approach to the maintenance of peace and security, and the UN’s interaction with other international actors (e,g., International Criminal Court, NATO, Arab League, African Union). These events, and the development of the collective security system, raise intriguing questions as to what extent contemporary approaches are still consistent with Hammarskjöld’s vision of the UN. This conference will examine whether and how Dag Hammarskjöld’s legacy can be used as a vehicle in reviewing these recent initiatives of the international community This timely and highly relevant commemorative conference on the continuing relevance of Dag Hammarskjöld’s approach does justice both to his pioneering thought and to the inspiration he can provide for those involved in promoting international cooperation for justice and peace at a time of momentous global change.
The Hague Academic Coalition invites the submission of paper abstracts (300 words maximum) on topics falling broadly within the theme of the conference. Papers addressing such issues as the critical relationship between justice, peace and democracy, and the continuing relevance of Dag Hammarskjöld’s approach to contemporary situations are especially welcome. Abstracts must be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org by 1 September 2011. For further information and the full text of the call for papers click here.
In several recent cases, domestic courts in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and Canada have grappled with the scope of conduct-based immunity as a matter of common law, statutory law, and customary international law. In so doing, some courts have failed to distinguish between precedents involving defendants who are physically present on the forum state’s territory and precedents involving defendants who have not been served within the jurisdiction. Insisting on this distinction might at first seem counter-intuitive, because conduct-based immunity attaches to the act, not the individual. However, all cases of immunity involve competing jurisdictional principles. When a defendant is not physically present within the forum state, there is no competing principle of territorial jurisdiction (unless the conduct occurred in the forum state, in which case most states recognize an exception to state immunity for tortious conduct that results in personal injury or death or property damage or loss). When a defendant is physically present within the forum state, a competing principle of plenary jurisdiction over territory must be taken into account. In these cases, conduct-based immunity might not preclude the exercise of adjudicatory jurisdiction, leaving it to other abstention doctrines (such as the political question doctrine and the act of state doctrine) to curb the exercise of adjudicatory jurisdiction where appropriate.
- Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement
- Roni Amit, No Refuge: Flawed Status Determination and the Failures of South Africa's Refugee System to Provide Protection
- Udara Jayasinghe & Sasha Baglay, Protecting Victims of Human Trafficking Within a ‘Non-Refoulement’ Framework: is Complementary Protection an Effective Alternative in Canada and Australia?
- Roger Errera, Cessation and Assessment of New Circumstances: a Comment on Abdulla, CJEU, 2 March 2010
- Silja Klepp, A Double Bind: Malta and the Rescue of Unwanted Migrants at Sea, a Legal Anthropological Perspective on the Humanitarian Law of the Sea
- Tom Farer, Introduction: Emerging Powers and Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century
- Global Insights
- Randall Schweller, Emerging Powers in an Age of Disorder
- Fen Osler & Paul Heinbecker, The “New” Multilateralism of the Twenty-First Century
- Rohan Mukherjee & David M. Malone, From High Ground to High Table: The Evolution of Indian Multilateralism
- Mingjiang Li, Rising from Within: China’s Search for a Multilateral World and Its Implications for Sino-US Relations
- Andrey Makarychev & Viatcheslav Morozov, Multilateralism, Multipolarity, and Beyond: A Menu of Russia’s Policy Strategies
- Gelson Fonseca Jr., Notes on the Evolution of Brazilian Multilateral Diplomacy
Call for Papers
The National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Asian Society of International Law (AsianSIL) are pleased to invite applications to attend the 3rd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2012 – Asian Approaches to International Law. The Workshop will be held at NUS in Singapore from Thursday, 23 February to Friday, 24 February 2012.
The workshop builds on the success of the first and second NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshops in 2008 and 2010 and is intended to cultivate the next generation of international legal scholars. Younger academics, doctoral students, young legal professionals with an interest in scholarship are encouraged to apply. Exceptional Master’s students are also welcome to submit their abstracts. Paper-givers who are selected through a competitive process will have their reasonable expenses covered.
Theme for the 2012 Workshop - Asian Approaches to International Law
Asia has long been an outlier both in terms of its international institutions and its embrace of international law. Asia has not chosen to construct regional institutions comparable to those in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, preferring to adopt an approach of variable geometry and pragmatic alliances. The region’s commitment to what some call the “Asian way” has sometimes privileged consultation and consensus over clear and binding obligations. The 3rd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2012 seeks to explore, from the perspective of younger scholars from Asia, how international law in the region has developed and what its prospects are in the decades to come.
The Workshop is intended to provide a platform for younger academics from the region to discuss ongoing research in international law with one another and more senior commentators. It also fosters the presence of “Asian voices” in international law through the post-Workshop publication of cutting edge research in the Asian Journal of International Law. (Please note that while all paper submissions shall be considered for publication, the Asian Journal of International Law’s offer to publish is subject to peer-review and editorial discretion.)
Proposals from young scholars and professionals across the region are encouraged on any topic linked to international law, but particularly focusing on Asian Approaches to International Law. Subject areas might include (a) History and Theory of International Law, (b) Law of Armed Conflict (IHL), (c) International Organizations, (d) Dispute Settlement, (e) Law of the Sea, (f) Law of Environment, (g) Human Rights, (h) International Criminal Law, (i) Law of Development, (j) International Economic Law, (k) Private International Law (Conflict of Laws).
To submit a proposal, please complete the Online Abstract Submission Form by Friday, 16 September 2011.
Those selected to participate in the workshop will be notified by Friday, 7 October 2011. Participation will be contingent on producing a draft of the paper (in the order of 8,000 words) by Friday, 30 December 2011.
Submission of Abstract : Friday, 16 September 2011
Notification of Acceptance : Friday, 7 October 2011
Paper Submission : Friday, 30 December 2011
Registration Form Submission : Friday, 30 December 2011
Workshop : Thursday, 23 February to Friday, 24 February 2012
- Philip Allott, Foreword
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Relevance of Theory and History: The Essence and Origins of International Law
- Alain Wijffels, Early-Modern Scholarship on International Law
- Patrick Capps, Natural Law and the Law of Nations
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Origins of Consensual Positivism – Pufendorf, Wolff, and Vattel
- Amnon Lev, The Transformation of International Law in the 19th Century
- Jörg Kammerhofer, Hans Kelsen’s Place in International Legal Theory
- Iain Scobbie, “The Holiness of the Heart’s Affection”: Philip Allott’s Theory of Social Idealism
- Frédéric Mégret, International Human Rights Law Theory
- Robert Cryer, Theory of International Criminal Law
- Katja S Ziegler, International Law and EU Law: Between Asymmetric Constitutionalisation and Fragmentation
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, International Law, International Politics, and Ideology
- William E. Butler, Periodization and International Law
- Jean Allain, Acculturation through the Middle Ages: The Islamic Law of Nations and its Place in the History of International Law
- Randall Lesaffer, The Classical Law of Nations (1500–1800)
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, The 19th Century Life of International Law
- Lauri Mälksoo, International Law between Universality and Regional Fragmentation. The Historical Case of Russia
- Carlo Focarelli, International Law in the 20th Century
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Treaty-making in the United States follows a well-worn track: the President negotiates and signs; the Senate gives advice and consent; and the President ratifies. This Article argues that the order of the first two steps is not constitutionally determined and should be reversed under certain circumstances. As text, historical context, and evolving practice demonstrate, the Treaty Clause gives the President and the Senate the flexibility to determine the timing and specificity of the Senate’s advice and consent. The present system of advice and consent after negotiation and signature limits the number of treaties that can be made under the Treaty Clause, slows the entry into force of even minor treaties, and leads to intentionally endless delays (amounting to outright deaths) for major multilateral ones. By having broad-brush advice and consent precede treaty negotiation and signature, the United States could greatly improve the efficiency of its treaty-making process and increase its negotiating power at the international level.
Scholars and practitioners addressing the problem of unauthorized humanitarian intervention often characterize the central difficulty of the issue as arising out of the fact that when the U.N. Security Council fails to authorize states to use military force to stop mass atrocities, the law requires a result - doing nothing - that is illegitimate and morally abhorrent. One scholarly solution to this predicament has been to subordinate considerations of legality to those of legitimacy or morality by arguing that in certain cases in which the Security Council does not authorize an intervention that should take place, the international community should tolerate the unlawful intervention as “excused” or “justified.”
This Article responds to this recent willingness to look beyond the law by illuminating the unaccounted costs of unauthorized humanitarian intervention and by proposing a more rigorous framework for assessing these uses of force. Specifically, this Article advocates a new emphasis on the systemic consequences of unauthorized intervention, focusing on the impact of unauthorized humanitarian intervention on two elements of the international system that preserve the primacy of law over power: first, the principle of sovereign equality of states, and second, the principle that military force should be used only in the common interest. This Article urges that the impact of unauthorized uses of nondefensive force on these principles, and therefore on the vitality of law in the international system, should be an essential consideration in any evaluation of unauthorized humanitarian intervention. By considering the deeper implications of looking the other way when states resort to war to protect human rights, this Article challenges the conventional account of unauthorized humanitarian intervention as raising a choice between protecting human rights and protecting sovereignty, and it contends that the roots and benefits of the prohibition against unauthorized military force should compel policy makers to consider alternatives to military force when responding to grave human rights abuses.
- Mario Savino, Global Administrative Law Meets "Soft" Powers: The Uncomfortable Case of Interpol Red Notices
- Diane A. Desierto, Leveraging International Economic Tools to Confront Child Soldiering
- Issue Focus: Legal Control on the World Climate Change
- Xiaoyi Jiang & Fahui Hao, Legal Issues for Implementing the Clean Development Mechanism in China
- Osamu Yoshida, Procedural Aspects of the International Legal Regime for Climate Change: Early Operation of the Kyoto Protocol's Compliance System
- Yiyuan Su, The International Legal Concerns on Climate Change Regime: Taiwan's Perspective
- Zhang Liang, Unprecedented RTA Practices between the Customs Territories of China
- Notes & Comments
- Yun-Gi Hong, Dichotomously Stiffened Dialectics in the Entangled Modernity of the Colonized and the Colonizers: A Critical Comment on Professor Singh's Article, "Colonised's Madness, Colonisers' Modernity and International Law: Mythological Materialism in the East-West Telos"
- François LeSieur, Commentaire sur la Nouvelle Loi Française Relative à la Lutte contre la Piraterie et à l’Exercice des Pouvoirs de Police de l’État en Mer
- I.B.R. Supancana, Legal Issues Regarding Foreign Investment and the Implementation of the Japan-Indonesia Economic Partnership Agreement
- Regional Focus & Controversies: Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation
- China : Zhichao Chen
- Taiwan : Yen-Hsueh Lai
- Miron Mushkat & Roda Mushkat, The political economy of state accession to international legal regimes: A re-assessment of the China-World Trade Organization nexus
- Bashar H. Malkawi, Rules of origin under US trade agreements with Arab countries: Are they helping and hindering free trade?
- Neelesh Gounder & Biman Chand Prasad, Regional trade agreements and the new theory of trade: Implications for trade policy in Pacific Island countries
- Monica Singhania & Akshay Gupta, Determinants of foreign direct investment in India
- J. Pfumorodze, WTO remedies and developing countries
- Gilles Carbonnier, Introduction: The Global and Local Governance of Extractive Resources
- Global Insights
- Paul Stevens, Contractual Arrangements and Revenue Management: The UK/Scotland and Norwegian Experience
- Christine Batruch, Does Corporate Social Responsibility Make a Difference?
- Xiaojie Xu, Chinese Responses to Good Energy Governance
- Jonathan Di John, Is There Really a Resource Curse? A Critical Survey of Theory and Evidence
- Peter Schaber, Property Rights and the Resource Curse
- Jorge E. Viñuales, The Resource Curse: A Legal Perspective
- Giacomo Luciani, Price and Revenue Volatility: What Policy Options and Role for the State?
- Matthew S. Winters & John A. Gould, Betting on Oil: The World Bank’s Attempt to Promote Accountability in Chad
- Gilles Carbonnier, Fritz Brugger, & Jana Krause, Global and Local Policy Responses to the Resource Trap
- Achim Wennmann, Breaking the Conflict Trap? Addressing the Resource Curse in Peace Processes
- Douglas W. Arner & Ross P. Buckley, Redesigning the Architecture of the Global Financial System
- Mark E. Footer, The (Re)turn to 'Soft Law' in Reconciling the Antinomies in WTO Law
- Gina Heathcote, Feminist Reflections on the 'End' of the War on Terror
- Rain Liivoja, Service Jurisdiction under International Law
- Roger O'Keefe, Protection of Cultural Property under International Criminal Law
- Brad R. Roth, Secessions, Coups and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine
- Margaret A. Young, Protecting Endangered Marine Species: Collaboration between the Food and Agriculture Organization and the CITES Regime
- Michael Kirby, UN Special Procedures — Reflections on the Office of UN Special Representative for Human Rights in Cambodia
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
- Thomas J. Schoenbaum, The scope of liability to private party claimants for maritime pollution damages under US law
- Letizia Borg Cristiano, The Insurer's Post-Contractual Duty of Good Faith: Search for a balanced regime
- Christophe Tytgat, The EU advance cargo declaration regime: a shipping perspective
This book examines the history, principles, and practice of awarding compensation and restitution in investor-State arbitration disputes, which are initiated under investment treaties. The principles discussed may be applied to all international law cases where damage to property is an issue.
The book starts by tracing the roots of the applicable international legal principles to Roman law, and from there follows their evolution through the European law of extra-contractual liability and eventually through the Chorzów Factory case to principles of compensation and restitution in the modern law of international investment.
The greater part of the book is then dedicated to examination of the modern application of these principles, focusing on the jurisprudence of international tribunals under various arbitral rules such as ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules. Monetary compensation as the prevalent form of remedy sought and awarded in investor-State disputes is discussed in more detail, including topics such as the amount of compensation for damage resulting from breach of investment treaties or for lawful expropriation of foreign investor's property, a brief overview of valuation methods, supplementary compensation for moral damages, interest, costs, and currency fluctuations as well as various principles that may limit the amount of recoverable compensation, such as causation. A full chapter is dedicated to the discussion of the theory and practice of awarding restitution in investor-State disputes. The book also covers the general principle of reparation in international law as applied in investor-State arbitrations. The topics discussed cover all the theoretical as well as practical issues which may be raised in awarding compensation and restitution in investment treaty disputes between States and foreign investors.
As the number of investment treaties approaches 3,000 the applicability of the terms of these treaties becomes more and more widespread. With this increased scope of application has come increased litigation of claims brought under investment treaties, while as these claims have increased the relationship between investment treaties and other regimes of international law has increasingly come into question. This ITF Public Conference will consider the interaction of the international investment law regime and other regimes of international law. To this end panels will consider the relationship between investment law and international human rights, the WTO regime and the law of the European Union.
La gestion des déchets radioactifs a une place particulière, ayant des conséquences juridiques, dans l’ensemble des activités nucléaires, caractérisée par une réelle complexité, présente surtout dans la phase finale du stockage. L’objet de l’ouvrage est de rechercher s’il existe, au plan international, un encadrement juridique cohérent et complet relatif à la prévention des risques transfrontières et à la réparation des dommages nucléaires dus aux déchets radioactifs. La focalisation sur le droit international public se justifie par le fait que le domaine de la gestion des déchets radioactifs se caractérise par un cadre international très présent et par la place de la responsabilité des États dans cette activité. Les dispositions concernant la prévention sont étudiées en faisant la distinction entre risques « techniques » (sûreté, protection de l’environnement) et risques « politiques » (sécurité nucléaire et garanties nucléaires). Dans le domaine de la réparation des dommages, l’étude porte sur l’adéquation du régime de responsabilité civile nucléaire à la spécificité des accidents dus aux déchets radioactifs.
- Tomer Broude, Marc L. Busch & Amelia Porges, Introduction: some observations on the politics of international economic law
- Meredith Kolsky Lewis, The politics and indirect effects of asymmetrical bargaining power in free trade agreements
- Kimberlee G. Weatherall, The politics of linkages in U.S. preferential trade agreements
- Uche Ewelukwa, The politics of African trade negotiations in the WTO's Doha Round
- Claire R. Kelly, The politics of legitimacy in the UNCITRAL working methods
- Marc Bungenberg, The politics of the European Union's investment treaty-making
- Axel Berger, The politics of China's investment treaty-making programme
- Lauge Skovgaard Poulsen, The politics of south-south bilateral investment treaties
- Yvonne C. L. Lee, The politics of sovereign wealth funds: benign investors or smoking guns?
- Douglas Arner, The politics of international financial law
- Marc L. Busch & Krzysztof Pelc, The politics of judicial economy at the WTO
- Henry Gao & C. L. Lim, The politics of competing jurisdictions in WTO and RTA disputes, and the use of private international law analogies
- Moshe Hirsch, The politics of rules of origin
- Perry S. Bechky, The politics of divestment
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
- Matthias Leemann, Challenging international arbitration awards in Switzerland on the ground of a lack of independence and impartiality of an arbitrator
- Bernhard Berger, Kritische Gedanken zur Revision von Art. 7 IPRG im Lichte eines praktischen Beispiels
- S.I. Strong, Collective Arbitration Under the DIS Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes: A European Form of Class Arbitration?
Opinio Juris Discussion of Wuerth's Foreign Officials Immunity Determinations in U.S. Courts: The Case Against the State Department
Depuis la Muraille de Chine, en passant par le mur d'Hadrien, la ligne Maginot, le mur de l'Atlantique ou, plus récemment, les murs de Berlin, de Palestine, de Chypre, de Ceuta et Mellila, du Cachemire, entre les deux Corées, à Bagdad, au Sahara occidental, entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, etc. - sans oublier les nombreux projets -, l'histoire et l'actualité prouvent que les murs ont toujours constitué le symbole d'une certaine sécurité pour des Etats ou des empires.
Ils semblent aujourd'hui se multiplier et « emmurent » de plus en plus des portions de territoires à travers le monde avec des formes variées : mur frontière, barrière de sécurité, simple limite, fortification, rempart ou même mur virtuel. L'anachronisme semble ainsi tout le temps présent à l'heure de la mondialisation, et la logique binaire paraît s'imposer en lieu et place d'une réalité plus complexe. Or, si ce phénomène est souvent traitée sous un angle politique, la problématique juridique mérite d'être envisagée : que ce soit sur le questionnement du statut du territoire sur lequel se trouve ce mur et/ou sur le statut du mur en lui-même, sur les intérêts qu'il protège, sur les conséquences juridiques de ce mur en matière humanitaire ou de droits de l'homme, en termes de responsabilité ou de libre circulation des hommes et des marchandises. Il est donc des murs qui interpellent directement le droit international à partir du moment où ils répondent à une certaine situation internationale (gel d'un conflit, séparation d'une population autrefois unie ou vivant sur le même territoire, construction d'une barrière contre le terrorisme et/ou le crime organisé, ou contre l'immigration clandestine, etc.).
L'objectif de cet ouvrage est par conséquent d'envisager la question sous un angle transversal (et non comme une collection de cas particuliers) en droit international, sans occulter la nécessaire mise en perspective historique, politique, philosophique ou symbolique indispensable à la compréhension juridique d'un objet social aujourd'hui omniprésent.
- Mohammed El Said, The implementation paradox: intellectual property regulation in the Arab world
- Ben Tran, International business ethics
- Ilias Kapsis, The impact of the recent financial crisis on EU competition policy for the banking sector
- Sieglinde Gstöhl, Blurring regime boundaries: uneven legalization of non-trade concerns in the WTO
- David J. Hornsby, WTO effectiveness in resolving transatlantic trade-environment conflict
This article examines whether the jurisprudential and institutional premises of the doctrine of stare decisis retain their validity in the field of foreign affairs. The proper role of the judicial branch in foreign affairs has provoked substantial scholarly debates—historical, institutional, normative—since the very founding of the republic. Precisely because of the sensitivity of the subject, the Supreme Court itself has both cautioned about the judicial branch’s comparative lack of expertise in the field and recognized a web of deference doctrines designed to protect against improvident judicial action. Notwithstanding all of this, however, neither the Supreme Court nor any scholar has ever examined the complicated relationship between these two significant fields of law. The article first sets the context with an analysis of the foundations of stare decisis. After a review of the values that animate the doctrine, it explores the subtly important jurisdictional premises of stare decisis. Almost entirely overlooked by courts and scholars, these inherent jurisdictional limitations on the force of precedent have direct implications for the proper place of stare decisis in foreign affairs law. The article then examines the special constitutional arrangement of powers in the field, and in particular the respective roles of Congress and the Executive. But of equal significance, the article also canvasses the multiplicity of avenues by which our legal system now channels foreign affairs issues to the enforcement authority of federal courts. This growing inter-branch tension highlights the significance of reflexively cloaking the resultant judicial precedents with full stare decisis effect. The analysis in Stare Decisis and Foreign Affairs demonstrates that in fact a more nuanced and accommodating understanding of precedent is required for certain fundamental aspects of foreign affairs law. For purely domestic statutes, fidelity to the value judgments first made by Congress within and for our domestic legal system should avoid both the fact and appearance of independent judicial agency in foreign affairs lawmaking. Moreover, where Congress takes it upon itself to define the entire content of the law—without importing international legal norms—the courts need look only to familiar domestic sources and materials in interpretive inquiries. Matters are different, however, for the broad and expanding field of controversies that likewise fall within the Article III “judicial Power” but involve the courts in the enforcement of rights or obligations founded in international law. In this field, the analysis in this article demonstrates that the likelihood and consequence of judicial error are greater; that precedents are particularly susceptible to rapid erosion by exogenous forces of change; and that institutional considerations make judicial leadership fortified by rigid precedent particularly problematic in the first place. It ultimately concludes that these distinct considerations should function as an additional “special justification” for reexamining international law precedents. Consistent with the systemic values of stare decisis, however, the reexamination power should exist only for the issuing court; lower courts in our hierarchically integrated judicial branch—the vertical dimension of stare decisis—should remain bound by precedents to the full extent of existing law.
- Claude Witz, Der neueste Beitrag der französischen Cour de cassation zur Auslegung des CISG (2007-2010)
- Martin Illmer, Schieflage unter der Brüssel I-VO – die Folgen von West Tankers vor dem englischen Court of Appeal
Call for Papers
ASIL International Organizations Interest Group
The International Organizations Interest Group of the American Society of International Law will hold a works-in-progress workshop on Friday, October 28, 2011, at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (just outside of Boston).
If you are interested in presenting a paper at the workshop, please submit an abstract to Jacob Cogan (jacob.cogan[at]uc.edu), Lorena Perez (LPerez[at]oas.org), and Justin Jacinto (jjacinto[at]curtis.com) by the end of the day on August 26. Abstracts should be a couple of paragraphs long but not more than one page. Papers should relate to the subject “international organizations.” One of the workshop’s sessions, comprising two to three papers, will be set aside for graduate students and young, non-academic professionals.
Papers selected for presentation are due no later than October 17, as they will be pre-circulated. Papers should not yet be in print; ideally, authors will have time to make revisions based on the comments from the workshop.
The workshop’s format will be as follows. Each paper will be introduced by a commentator, after which the author will have the opportunity to respond if he or she wishes. The floor will then be opened up for discussion. The workshop is conducted on the assumption that everyone has read all of the papers in advance. After we have selected papers, we will ask for volunteers to serve as commentators. One need not present a paper or comment on a paper to participate. Registration for the workshop will open in September.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions about the workshop or paper submissions.
Jacob Katz Cogan
Interest Group Co-Chairs
Interest Group Vice-Chair
- Asif H Qureshi, Critical Concepts in the New International Economic Order and its Impact on the Development of International Economic Law – A Tribute to the Call for a NIEO
- Congyan Cai, Regulation of Non-Traditional Investment Risks and Modern Investment Treaty Regime in the Era of Late Globalization
- Tarcisio Gazzini, Drawing the Line between Non-compensable Regulatory Powers and Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment – An Economic Analysis of Law Perspective
La crise financière qui a débuté en 2007 est à l'origine de l'une des plus graves récessions depuis les années 30. L'ampleur de cette première crise véritablement mondiale a conduit à une profonde remise en cause du système monétaire et financier international, d'aucuns appelant à sa refondation. Elle a incité les Etats et les organisations internationales à caractère économique et financier à rechercher ensemble des solutions pour sortir de la crise et pour corriger les failles d'un système tout entier menacé de s'écrouler. En l'espace de quelques années des réformes sans précédent ont ainsi été engagées, d'autres sont encore discutées ou simplement espérées pour construire un système monétaire et financier international plus solide.
En organisant à l'OCDE, les 16 et 17 mars 2010, un colloque sur «La refondation du système monétaire et financier international», le CEDIN entendait contribuer aux réflexions relatives à l'évolution et aux nécessaires mutations du système mis en place en 1944. Plus précisément, l'objet de ce colloque fut d'approfondir les débats relatifs aux perspectives d'évolutions règlementaires et institutionnelles de ce système en abordant trois thématiques principales : la coordination des politiques économiques et monétaires, la réglementation des marchés et des acteurs de la finance, l'aménagement de la gouvernance internationale. Au travers de ces réflexions apparaissent à la fois l'ampleur des réformes engagées ou attendues, et les difficultés et réticences à construire un «nouveau Bretton Woods».
Conformément à la tradition du CEDIN, ce colloque - ouvert par une allocution du Secrétaire général de l'OCDE, M. A. Gurrià - a rassemblé des personnalités françaises et étrangères de divers horizons, des représentants éminents d'institutions nationales ou internationales, des universitaires de différentes disciplines, des professionnels qui ont su profiter de ces journées pour confronter leurs points de vue sur les principales évolutions réglementaires et institutionnelles du système monétaire et financier international, qu'elles soient réalisées, en cours ou espérées.
Annex III of Resolution RC/Res.6, adopted by consensus at Kampala on 12 June 2010, contains seven “Understandings” concerning the amendments that add the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute. The legal status of the Understandings, however, was never discussed during the Review Conference, leading scholars to acknowledge that it is difficult to determine how they will influence the Court once the aggression amendments enter into force. Indeed, no scholar to date has attempted to systematically analyze the Understandings.
This essay attempts to fill that lacuna in the burgeoning literature on the aggression amendments. It considers four possible interpretations of the Understandings: (1) that they are amendments to the Rome Statute; (2) that they are a primary means of interpreting the aggression amendments under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT); (3) that they are an agreement to modify by one or more parties to the Rome Statute under Article 41 of the VCLT; and (4) that they are supplementary means of interpreting the aggression amendments under Article 32 of the VCLT. It concludes that, unless they are adopted by all of the States Parties to the Rome Statute at the 2017 Review Conference, the Understandings are nothing more than supplementary means of interpretation that the Court would have the right to ignore once the aggression amendments enter into force.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Part I of this symposium contribution seeks to put in sharper focus exactly what is, and what is not, in dispute following the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08-1555 (Jan. 2010). Part II presents three challenges to common assumptions about conduct-based immunity, which I consider under the headings of personal responsibility, penalties, and presence. Under the heading of personal responsibility, I emphasize that state responsibility and individual responsibility are not mutually exclusive. This pushes against the view that the only relevant question for determining an individual’s entitlement to conduct-based immunity is whether the alleged conduct is attributable to the foreign state. Briefly stated, conduct that is not attributable to the foreign state does not benefit from immunity. Conduct that is solely attributable to the foreign state and does not entail personal responsibility does benefit from immunity. Conduct that entails both personal and state responsibility might or might not benefit from immunity, depending on other relevant factors. Part III suggests criteria that should guide lower courts in determining an individual defendant’s entitlement to conduct-based immunity.
- Panagiotis Delimatsis, Protecting Public Morals in a Digital Age: Revisiting the WTO Rulings on US – Gambling and China – Publications and Audiovisual Products
- CA Thomas, Of Facts and Phantoms: Economics, Epistemic Legitimacy, and WTO Dispute Settlement
- Dukgeun Ahn & Jieun Lee, Countervailing Duty against China: Opening a Pandora's Box in the WTO System?
- Simon Lester, A Framework for Thinking about the ‘Discretion’ in the Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction
- Juscelino F. Colares, The Limits of WTO Adjudication: Is Compliance the Problem?
- David J. Townsend & Steve Charnovitz, Preventing Opportunistic Uncompliance by WTO Members
- Alex Mills, Antinomies of Public and Private at the Foundations of International Investment Law and Arbitration
- Volume 344
- Mark E. Villiger, The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - 40 Years after
- José E. Alvarez, The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment
- Volume 347
- Jean Salmon, Quelle place pour l’Etat dans le droit international d’aujourd’hui?
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Les relations entre organisations régionales et organisations universelles
This book carefully and thoroughly analyses the legal questions raised by the phenomenon of terrorism, and past and recent efforts to fight it, from the perspective of international humanitarian law (IHL). The objective is to substantially contribute to a better understanding of the issues surrounding the content and applicability of IHL as it applies to terrorism as well as to analyse and contextualise the current debates on these controversial and critically important questions. While due heed is paid to doctrinal debates, particular emphasis is placed on the practice of social actors, particularly, although not exclusively, States. The analysis of their actual conduct as well as their expectations about the interpretation and application of the law is crucial to establishing an interpretive consensus on when and how IHL is relevant to regulate acts of terrorism.
The approach of the book is analytical and discursive, rather than prescriptive. Thus the reader will find the relevant rules of IHL and other legal regimes as regards terrorism, but also the debates over their application, the contradictions in State practice and the impact these may have upon IHL's evolution and implementation. The aim is to provide legal practitioners, as well as those in military, political and academic circles, with a useful reference point. Hopefully the book will also prove useful to other readers who will find its content and easy-to-read style an encouragement to getting acquainted with a topical subject, traditionally thought to be reserved for legal specialists.
- Issue Focus: Human Rights Protection of the Vulnerable in an Age of Globalization
- Patricia S. Daway, Migrant Workers' Rights and Status under International Law : the Asian Experience
- Yoshiaki Sato, Immigration Law and Policy of Japan in the Age of East Asian Community-Building
- Lijiang Zhu, The Right of Ethnic Minorities to Free Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings under International Law : With Special Reference to China
- Ershadul Karim, Health as Human Rights under National and International Legal Framework : Bangladesh Perspective
- Notes & Comments
- Mahdev Mohan, Singapore and the Universal Periodic Review: An Unprecedented Human Rights Assessment
- A. Zahid & R. B. Shapiee, Pacta Sunt Servanda : Islamic Perception
- Regional Focus & Controversies: Middle East Conflict under International Law
- Palestine : Yousef Shandi
- Israel : Robbie Sabel
- Jacob Katz Cogan, The Regulatory Turn in International Law
- Duncan B. Hollis, An e-SOS for Cyberspace
- Mark Stiggelbout, The Recognition in England and Wales of United States Judgments in Class Actions
- Olivier De Schutter, The Green Rush: The Global Race for Farmland and the Rights of Land Users
- Philip Alston, Hobbling the Monitors: Should U.N. Human Rights Monitors be Accountable
Sunday, July 10, 2011
- George K. Foster, Striking a Balance Between Investor Protections and National Sovereignty: The Relevance of Local Remedies in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Diane A. Desierto, ASEAN’S Constitutionalization of International Law: Challenges to Evolution Under the New ASEAN Charter