- Stephanie E. Berry, Bringing Muslim Minorities within the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—Square Peg in a Round Hole?
- Dominic McGoldrick, Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life—Crucifixes in the Classroom?
- Elspeth Berry, The Zone of Interaction Between Partnerships, LLPs and Human Rights in United Kingdom Law
- Sandy Ghandhi, Human Rights and the International Court of Justice The Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Case
- Elizabeth Wicks, A, B, C v Ireland: Abortion Law under the European Convention on Human Rights
- Stephen Skinner, The Right to Life, Democracy and State Responsibility in ‘Urban Guerilla’ Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber Judgment in Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy
- Paul Johnson, Homosexuality, Freedom of Assembly and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Alekseyev v Russia
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
- Eli Berman, Michael Callen, Joseph H. Felter, & Jacob N. Shapiro, Do Working Men Rebel? Insurgency and Unemployment in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Philippines
- Justin Conrad, Interstate Rivalry and Terrorism: An Unprobed Link
- Scott Wolford, Dan Reiter, & Clifford J. Carrubba, Information, Commitment, and War
- Timothy M. Peterson & A. Cooper Drury, Sanctioning Violence: The Effect of Third-Party Economic Coercion on Militarized Conflict
- Jaroslav Tir & Douglas M. Stinnett, The Institutional Design of Riparian Treaties: The Role of River Issues
- Jeffrey Carpenter & Juan Camilo Cardenas, An Intercultural Examination of Cooperation in the Commons
- Olaf J. de Groot & Idil Göksel, Conflict and Education Demand in the Basque Region
- Itamar Mann, The Dual Foundation of Universal Jurisdiction: Towards a Jurisprudence for the 'Court of Critique'
- Ulrich Mückenberger, Civilising Globalism: Transnational Norm-Building Networks as a Lever of the Emerging Global Legal Order?
The symposium explores whether and how the co-existence, interaction, and antagonisms of different legal orders (international law, domestic law, EU law, regimes established by private actors) and their driving agents (regulators, contract-makers, and courts and tribunals) contribute to creating and maintaining global public goods. Contributors will discuss transatlantic perspectives on how different legal orders may contribute to the production and management of public goods.
- Tatiana Bachvarova, Victims' Eligibility before the International Criminal Court in Historical and Comparative Context
- Kate Doran, Provisional Release in International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law
- Barbora Hola, Catrien Bijleveld, & Alette Smeulers, Punishment for Genocide - Exploratory Analysis of ICTR Sentencing
- Solange Mouthaan, The Prosecution of Gender-based Crimes at the ICC: Challenges and Opportunities
- Melanie O'Brien, Sexual Exploitation and Beyond: Using the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to Prosecute UN Peacekeepers for Gender-based Crimes
- Sabine Corneloup, Réflexion sur l’émergence d’un droit de l’Union européenne en matière de nationalité
- Giulio Cesare Giorgini, Les limites des méthodes en droit international des affaires
- Florian Grise, L’octroi d’intérêts composés par les tribunaux arbitraux d’investissement
THE SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW
3rd Biennial Global Conference
SIEL 2012 - Singapore
12-14 July 2012
CALL FOR PAPERS AND PANELS
The Third Biennial Global Conference of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL) will be held in Singapore and hosted by the National University of Singapore’s Centre for International Law (CIL) and Faculty of Law on 12-14 July 2012. The CIL website for the conference may be found here.
The conference committee seeks proposals for paper presentations and conference panels under the following terms:
Over the course of the last two decades, the communities of scholars, practitioners and others active in the area of international economic law have grown and diversified in ways that few could have predicted. The field of international economic law now includes a diverse array of participants and covers many new substantive issues. Inevitably, the term international economic law defies easy definition: it is at once both a fully integrated part of public international law and an identifiable field in its own right.
This conference provides an opportunity for exploring many different facets of international economic law. Given that the aim of the Society includes fostering research in the area of IEL and promoting cooperation among all parts within the field, the SIEL Global Conference offers a forum for those inside and outside academia to exchange pedagogical and research methods, as well as to explore greater cooperation among the many different constituencies of the field.
We welcome proposals for papers and panels on any topic related to international economic law, including:
- the three traditional pillars of IEL: international trade, investment, and monetary/financial policies;
- the relationship between these pillars, and between these pillars and other branches of law, such as intellectual property;
- the influence of disciplines such as those concerned with economics, the environment, political economy, development theory and other disciplines on international economic law;
- comparative economic law, focussing on how international economic law interacts with laws, institutions and actors at the domestic level;
- the function of international economic law in different parts of the world;
- the roles of law and legal practices in international economic governance, particularly in the monetary and financial international institutions;
- methods and trends in the research, teaching and learning of international economic law, including empirical methodologies; and
- interactions between scholars, practitioners, government officials and civil society groups active in international economic law.
We are particularly interested in integrating new voices with more established figures in the field, and therefore welcome works in progress from young or new scholars, as well as work from parts of the world not typically represented at such conferences, such as from developing and emerging economies.
There will be plenary and concurrent panels. Each panel will be moderated and may also have commentators on the papers presented. We anticipate that many of the eminent members of the SIEL Founding Executive Council and members of the present SIEL Executive Council will attend the conference - as presenters, commentators, and as Key Note Speakers (see www.sielnet.org for a full listing as information becomes available).
Paper and Panel Proposals must be submitted by 15 October 2011 via email to email@example.com, in accordance with the following instructions.
Please, write “SIEL 2012 Conference Call for Papers/Panels” in the subject of the email.
Every paper and panel proposal will be reviewed by at least two members of the conference committee, on a double blind and confidential basis.
The organizers anticipate announcing between December 2011 and January 2012 the results of this call for papers and panel proposals.
Paper proposals should include a cover e-mail with full institutional affiliation and contact details of the proposer, and a WORD attachment with a paper abstract of no longer than 300 words. The abstract must not include any details identifying the proposer.
In evaluating proposals, please note that priority will be given to unpublished papers and works in progress. In your cover e-mail, please note whether the paper has already been published, or has been accepted for publication. No individual can participate on multiple panels.
Accordingly, if you submit a paper proposal and are listed also in a panel proposal, we will consider both proposals, but cannot accept both your paper proposal and the proposal that you speak as part of a panel.
Panel proposals should include two separate documents: (a) a panel title, a short description of the topics covered during the panel, and (b) a list of suggested panelists (no more than 5, which includes moderators, commentators and discussants), including concise information about the panelists and their specific contribution to the panel, as a presenter of a paper or in a different role. Suggested panelists must have been consulted by the organizer of the panel about the proposal. They must have confirmed their interest in serving on such a panel if it were to be selected. Please take into account the diversity of speakers and opinions reflected in your panel proposal. In assessing and selecting panel proposals, the organizers may take into account the diversity of speakers and the originality & topicality of the panel's topic and presentations. Only one panel proposal per person (panel organizer and speakers included) will be considered.
Based on past experience and the high number of panel proposals typically submitted, and taking into account the need to design a balanced conference program, the organizers reserve the right to accept panel proposals subject to conditions regarding the size and composition of the panel and the variety of topics covered during a single panel discussion.
Conference papers will be made available to conference participants prior to the conference. Accepted papers (from paper and panel proposals) must be submitted by 10 June 2012, in order to ensure the dissemination of papers among conference attendees. Papers from the previous conferences were published online as part of a working paper series on SSRN's Legal Scholarship Network (see here & here).
Conference Fees, Costs and Financial Support
All conference participants, including speakers, must cover their own travel, accommodation and attendance costs. Conference fees and associated attendance costs will be kept as low as possible.
Depending on financial support being available, before 15 October 2011, the Society will publish a funding application form on the SIEL 2012 conference website. To qualify for any available funding, the application form must be completed in full and submitted to the Society. Depending on financial support available, the Society hopes to provide a subsidy of the conference fee and/or travel costs for select speakers on the basis of need, particularly from developing countries. Any such support would be handled as reimbursements following a speaker’s participation in Singapore rather than as SIEL purchasing or assisting in the purchase of an airline ticket in the first instance. The Society cannot guarantee that any particular individual will be awarded funding, nor how much overall funding will be available.
About the SIEL
The Society of International Economic Law is an organization for academics and academically-minded practitioners and officials in the field of International Economic Law. The Society is global and inclusive in terms of the expertise and interests of participants, and the many disciplines encompassed by IEL. Among other objectives, the Society also seeks to bring together its members in areas of common interest, as well as supporting academic activities in the field.
The SIEL’s previous conferences included in each case the presentation of almost 100 papers by IEL scholars, new and established, from around the world, covering the many different facets of the field. For more information on the SIEL Inaugural Global Conference (held in Geneva) see here and on the 2nd SIEL Biennial Global Conference (held in Barcelona) see here.
SIEL 2012 Singapore Conference Committee
Chairs: Douglas Arner; Michael Ewing-Chow; Meredith Kolsky Lewis; & Colin Picker.
Committee Members: Ichiro Araki; Freya Baetens; Laurence Boulle; Tomer Broude; Chris Brummer; Won-Mog Choi; Bradly Condon; Abhijit Das; Susan Franck; Henry Gao; Norah Gallagher; Tomohiko Kobayashi; Jurgen Kurtz; Doris Lopez; Shin-yi Peng; Julia Qin; Michelle Ratton Sanchez; Ed Sim; Vera Thorstensen; Tania Voon; Heng Wang; Rolf H. Weber; & Galina Zukova.
With the administrative support of Gerry Ng of NUS.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Chilton: Curious Inconsistencies: An Empirical Examination of the Ratification of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Preferential Trade Agreements
The United States signs both Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) with other nations to help increase access to markets and secure lower production costs. Although both of these types of treaties are integral to the pursuit of those goals, there has been an asymmetry in the attention paid to efforts to put these treaties into effect. The ratification of PTAs has drawn fierce political opposition and has also been the subject of a robust academic literature. In contrast, the ratification of BITs has drawn hardly any political opposition and has been almost entirely ignored by scholars. Surprisingly, however, PTAs pass Congress almost immediately while BITs languish for years. This paper first outlines why it is surprising that BITs have such long delays in Congress and then goes on to estimate a series of cox proportionate hazard models to show that this discrepancy cannot be explained by political factors or the countries we choose to sign BITs with alone.
Biad: La Cour Internationale de Justice et le droit international humanitaire : Une lex specialis revisitée par le juge
La majorité des affaires examinées par la Cour internationale de justice depuis sa création en 1946 a porté sur des différends relatifs à la délimitation des frontières terrestres et maritimes, à la protection diplomatique ainsi qu'au recours à la force. Qu'en est-il de l'application du droit des conflits armés ou droit international humanitaire ? Peut-on dire que le jus in bello constitue la dimension absente du contentieux devant la Cour ? Si tel n'est pas le cas, quel est l'apport de la juridiction internationale permanente au développement de cette lex specialis ?
Au-delà de la référence emblématique aux "considérations élémentaires d'humanité", valables aussi bien en temps de paix qu'en temps de guerre (Détroit de Corfou), la Cour internationale de justice a eu l'occasion d'aborder le jus in bello dans l'exercice à la fois de sa fonction contentieuse et consultative. Les conflits armés en Amérique centrale (Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci), dans les Balkans (Application de la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide), dans la région des Grands lacs (Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo) et au Proche-Orient (Conséquences juridiques de l'édification d'un mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé) ont permis à la Cour d'identifier les "principes intransgressibles" (Licéité de la menace ou de l'emploi d'armes nucléaires). Elle a voulu souligner par là le degré supérieur qui s'attache aux prescriptions du jus in bello et qui les apparente à des normes de jus cogens.
Depuis l'affaire des activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci, la Cour a contribué à clarifier la relation complexe qu'entretiennent dans cette lex specialis le droit coutumier et le droit conventionnel. Elle a été amenée à préciser les obligations coutumières des Etats et notamment de la puissance occupante (Conséquences juridiques de l'édification d'un mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé ; Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo, R.D.C. c. Ouganda) ainsi que les conséquences qu'il convient de tirer en termes de responsabilité internationale pour violation du jus in bello.
La jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de justice en matière de droit international humanitaire revêt ainsi une importance particulière et a des implications non seulement à l'égard des Etats, mais aussi à l'égard des juridictions pénales internationales chargées de réprimer les infractions graves aux Conventions de Genève de 1949 qui, à l'instar des tribunaux pénaux internationaux pour l'ex-Yougoslavie et le Rwanda, n'ont pas manqué de s'en inspirer. C'est ainsi que progressivement s'est constitué par strates successives une jurisprudence de la Cour en matière d'application du jus in bello qui mérite d'être rappelée sous la forme d'une analyse commentée des arrêts et avis consultatifs pertinents.
- Artículos académicos
- Fernando de Mateo Venturini, El futuro del sistema multilateral de comercio
- Alberto do Amaral Júnior, A integração entre o comércio internacional e a proteção do meio ambiente
- Bradly J. Condon, La interpretación plurilingüe en los informes de los grupos especiales y del Órgano de Apelación
- Eugenio Grageda Núñez, La interpretación de los tratados para evitar la doble tributación, el Modelo de la OCDE y sus Comentarios
- Artículos profesionales
- Mateo Diego-Fernández, Brevísima explicación y análisis de las reformas a la Ley Federal de Competencia Económica de México
- Robert Chesney, Who May Be Killed? Anwar al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force
- Galit Raguan, Adjudicating Armed Conflict in Domestic Courts: The Experience of Israel's Supreme Court
- Chris De Cock, Counter-Insurgency Operations in Afghanistan. What about the ‘Jus ad Bellum’ and the ‘Jus in Bello’: Is the Law Still Accurate?
- Ian Henderson, Civilian Intelligence Agencies and the Use of Armed Drones
- Christine Byron, International Humanitarian Law and Bombing Campaigns: Legitimate Military Objectives and Excessive Collateral Damage
- Rob McLaughlin, The Law of Armed Conflict and International Human Rights Law: Some Paradigmatic Differences and Operational Implications
- Alon Margalit & Sarah Hibbin, Unlawful Presence of Protected Persons in Occupied Territory? An Analysis of Israel's Permit Regime and Expulsions from the West Bank under the Law of Occupation
- Current Developments
- Louise Arimatsu & Mohbuba Choudhury, Year in Review
- Michael N. Schmitt, Drone Attacks under the Jus ad Bellum And Jus in Bello: Clearing the ‘Fog of Law’
- Ivana Vuco, Domestic, Legal or Other Proceedings Undertaken by Both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Side
- Robin Geiβ, Poison, Gas and Expanding Bullets: The Extension of the List of Prohibited Weapons at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court in Kampala
- Stephanie Carvin, The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual: An Update
- Focus Topic: The Gaza Blockade
- James Kraska, Rule Selection in the Case of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza: Law of Naval Warfare or Law of the Sea?
- Andrew Sanger, The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
- Lara Walker & Paul Beaumont, Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice
- Stephen G.A. Pitel, The Canadian Codification of Forum Non Conveniens
- Gbenga Bamodu, In Personam Jurisdiction: An Overlooked Concept in Recent Nigerian Jurisprudence
- Simon Patrick Camilleri, Article 23: Formal Validity, Material Validity or Both?
- Uglješa Grušić, Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts under the Brussels I Regulation
- Chi Manjiao, "The Iceberg Beneath the Water": The Hidden Discrimination against the Lex Mercatoria in Chinese Arbitration
- Elsabe Schoeman, Third (Anglo-Common Law) Countries and Rome II: Dilemma or Deliverance?
- Marcin Czepelak, Concurrent Causes of Action in the Rome I And II Regulations
Conference: Estado y Futuro del Derecho Internacional Económico en América Latina: Del Comercio a la Inversió
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Over the last several years, a dense network of treaties, conventions, protocols have been generated by a growing number of African international organizations. The growing number of international organizations include regional judiciaries, regional and continental wide organizations such as the African Union and the variety of regional economic communities. They cover a broad range of concerns including trade, security, common resources such as rivers and lakes, the environment and human rights. The jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has influenced civil society challenges of human rights and rule of law violations at the national level resulting in what some have referred to as ‘modest harvests.’ An entirely new generation of practitioners and scholars of international law has also emerged and international law has provided these experts, practitioners and scholars important normative guidance that has formed the basis of their interactions with African states at the national, regional and continental levels. In this sense, international law has gained increasing salience as a way of framing and responding to the challenges facing the African peoples and governments.
Even though international legal, institutional and professional growth has increased, many African governments have remained committed to their sovereignty and African leaders have largely escaped accountability under national and regional legal regimes. Accountability functions by international mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) have not fared better. Africa’s relationship with these international legal regimes is complex – instead of confronting the culture of impunity through good faith investigations and prosecutions of those bearing the greatest responsibility for international crimes in Africa’s numerous post-Cold War conflicts, the African Union has more or less branded the ICC as nothing more than a new form of imperialism masquerading as international rule of law.
Further, there are already conflicts of obligations arising from the multiplicity of regional and international treaties. Thus, although only 31 of the 50 members of the African Union are concurrent Rome Statute and African Union members, the entire membership of the African Union has decided not to cooperate with the ICC. In the area of regional trade agreements, the problems arising from conflicting and overlapping memberships and treaty obligations are a well known problem.
A major objective of the conference will be to engage in a broad ranging conversation among scholars, practitioners and policy-makers to examine and evaluate how these international and regional regimes and institutions in Africa are producing new narratives of justice and how best they can make a real difference in responding to the challenges facing African peoples and governments.
Abstracts and papers are invited on a broad range of themes including the French intervention in Cote D’Ivoire, the NATO/US allied action in Libya, the fledgling jurisprudence of regional integration tribunals as well as piracy trials being conducted under universal jurisdiction, the race for African resources by China and other countries. Thus, a broad range of themes from public to private international law, as well as international and regional economic and trade legal systems and policies will be explored at the conference and abstracts and papers are invited.
In addition, papers and abstracts are invited to examine one of the reigning paradigms of African international legal scholarship that has argued that Africa has been and continues to be an innovator and generator of institutions and rules of international law, rather than its passive recipient. Papers and abstracts examining the tenability of claims that Africa is wholly disadvantaged and ineffectual in regimes such as international arbitration and trade as well as the extent to which such regimes have reinforced Africa’s peripheral location in the international political economy are invited.
Selected papers presented at the conference will be published in the inaugural issue of a new international law journal which will serve as an authoritative mouthpiece of the African international law experience.
Abstracts are due by September 30, 2011. Final Papers will be due on or before March 15, 2012.
All abstracts and final papers should be sent to:
Prof. James Gathii
Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship
Governor George E. Pataki Professor of International Commercial Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208-3494
- Elizabeth Wilson & Catrien Termeer, Governance of Climate Change Adaptation: Introduction to the Special Issue
- Catrien Termeer, Art Dewulf, Marleen van Rijswick, Arwin van Buuren, Dave Huitema, Sander Meijerink, Tim Rayner, & Mark Wiering, The Regional Governance of Climate Adaptation: A Framework for Developing Legitimate, Effective, and Resilient Governance Arrangements
- Robbert Biesbroek, Judith Klostermann, Catrien Termeer, & Pavel Kabat, Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in the Netherlands
- Tineke Ruijgh-van der Ploeg, Manifestations of Adaptive Capacity: An Institutional Analysis of Adaptation of a Local Stormwater Drainage System
- Stefania Munaretto & Judith Klostermann, Assessing Adaptive Capacity of Institutions to Climate Change: A Comparative Case Study of the Dutch Wadden Sea and the Venice Lagoon
- Heleen-Liedeke P. Mees & Peter P. J. Driessen, Adaptation to Climate Change in Urban Areas: Climate-Greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto
- Lee J. Alston & Krister Andersson, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Forest Protection: The Transaction Costs of Implementing REDD
Over the last twenty years, the social scientific understanding of human behavior has taken a significant leap forward. Important advances in several fields have increased the complexity and accuracy of prevailing models of individual actors, group dynamics, and communication. Unfortunately, too few of the key insights of that scholarship have been incorporated into the theory or practice of human rights promotion. In this project, we collect research from a broad set of disciplines and analyze its implications for human rights scholarship and practice. By focusing on non-legal scholarship that touches on norm creation, diffusion, and institutionalization, we present a broad range of interdisciplinary insights relevant to human rights scholars and practitioners.
Conference: Ten Years In: Appraising the International Law of the 'Long War' in Afghanistan and Pakistan
October 2011 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. This conference, cosponsored by Boston University School of Law, the U.S. Naval War College, and the American Society of International Law's Francis Lieber Society, will examine current controversies in the law of armed conflict, the law governing recourse to force, and international human rights law arising out of the continuing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and related operations in Pakistan. Panelists will address, among other issues, counterinsurgency doctrine, the increasing individuation of warfare, the tactical directive, rules of engagement, the concept of “direct participation in hostilities,” unmanned systems, targeted killings, and cross-border operations. The keynote address will be delivered by Dr. David Kilcullen, founding CEO and President of Caerus Associates.
Ho: Access to Medicine in the Global Economy: International Agreements on Patents and Related Rights
Access to medicine is a topic of widespread interest. However, some issues that impact such access are presently inadequately understood. In particular, international laws require most nations to provide patents on drugs, resulting in premium prices that limit access. In Access to Medicine in the Global Economy, Professor Cynthia Ho explains such laws and their impact for a diverse group of readers, from scholars and policy makers to students in a variety of disciplines. This book explains and interprets important international agreements, beginning with the landmark Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), but also including more recent free trade agreements and the pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Professor Ho addresses controversial topics, such as when a nation can provide a compulsory license, as well as whether a nation may suspend in-transit generic goods. The book also discusses how patent-like rights (such as "data exclusivity") prevent lower-cost generic medicines from entering into the marketplace and provides strategies for minimizing the harm of such rights. Clear explanations and diagrams, frequently asked questions, and case studies make these topics accessible to any reader. The case studies also provide a theory of patent perspectives that helps explain why access to medicine, though a universal goal, remains elusive in practice. The book aims to provide an important first step toward eventual workable solutions by promoting a better understanding of existing and future laws that impact access to medicine.
- Claus D. Zimmermann, Exchange Rate Manipulation and International Law
- Current Developments
- Jacob Katz Cogan, The 2010 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice
- Guiguo Wang, China's FTAs: Legal Characteristics and Implications
- Stefan Barriga & Leena Grover, A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression
- Ireneusz C. Kamiński, “Historical Situations” in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
- Artur Kozłowski, The Legal Construct of Historic Title to Territory in International Law – An Overview
- Michał Kowalski, Armed Attack, Non-State Actors and a Quest for the Attribution Standard
- Bart M.J. Szewczyk, Enlargement and Legitimacy of the European Union
- Valentina S. Vadi, Environmental Impact Assessment in Investment Disputes: Method, Governance and Jurisprudence
- Tomasz Włostowski, Selected Observations on Regulation of Private Standards by the WTO
- Marcin Kałduński, State Immunity and War Crimes: the Polish Supreme Court on the Natoniewski Case
- Roman Nowosielski, State Immunity and the Right of Access to Court. The Natoniewski Case before the Polish Courts
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) establishes an independent international monitoring committee (SPT) which itself will visit states and places where persons are deprived of their liberty. It also requires states to set up independent national bodies to visit places of detention. This book, drawing upon events held and interviews with governments, civil society, members of UN treaty bodies, national visiting bodies and others, identifies key factors that have shaped the operation of these visiting bodies since OPCAT came into force in 2006. It looks in detail at the background to the adoption of the Protocol, as well as how the international committee, the SPT, has carried out its mandate in its first few years. It examines the range of places of detention that could be visited by these bodies, and the expectations placed on the national visiting bodies themselves.
The book also places the OPCAT within the broader system of torture prevention in the UN and elsewhere and identifies a range of trends arising from the different geographical regions. As well as providing an insight into its work, this detailed examination of OPCAT also provides valuable lessons for other new human rights treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, which have similar provisions concerning national mechanisms.
- Milan Bakeš, Marie Karfíková, & Zdeněk Karfík, Tax Aspects of Foreign Investments
- Alexander J. Bělohlávek, Conﬁdentiality and Publicity in Investment Arbitration, Public Interest and Scope of Powers Vested in Arbitral Tribunals
- Marcin Czepelak, Contractual Choice of Forum in International Investment Arbitration
- Grzegorz Domański & Marek Świątkowski, Application of Most Favoured Nation Clause to Jurisdiction Provisions in Light of the Award in Austrian Airlines v. Slovakia
- Leonila Guglya, International Review of Decisions concerning Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award: A Threat to the Sovereignty of the States or an Overestimated Hazard (so far)? (with Emphasis on the Developments within the International Investment Arbitration Setting)
- Oleksiy Kononov, International Investment Law: Is it Time to Change the Traditional BIT System?
- Pierre Lalive & Laura Halonen On the Availability of Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Hana Marková & Miroslava Zajíčková, Budgetary Legal Consequences of Breaching the Terms of Investment Incentives
- Pavel Mates & Michal Bartoň, Public versus Private Interest – Can the Boundaries Be Legally Deﬁned?
- Miloš Olík & David Fyrbach, The Competence of Investment Arbitration Tribunals to Seek Preliminary Rulings from European Courts
- Andreas von Staden, Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Enron, and Sempra Annulment Decisions
- Insur Zabirovich Farkhutdinov, Foreign Investor and Host State: Need for Balance Interests
- Boris Kasolowsky & Caroline Harvey, Amici Curiae in Investment Treaty Arbitrations: Authority and Procedural Fairness
- Finn Madsen, Navigating in the Archipelago of Swedish Due Process Safeguards: A Sea Chart indicating a Few Treacherous Reefs
- Charles Poncet, Obtaining Revision of "Swiss" International Arbital Awards: Whence after Thalès?
- David Ramsjö & Siri Strömberg, Manifest Lack of Jurisdiction? A Selection of Decisions of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce concerning the Prima Facie Existence of an Arbitration Agreement (2005-2009)
- Antoine Romanetti, Preventing the Multiple and Concurrent Arbitration Proceedings: Waiver Clauses
- Bengt-Åke Johnsson & Ola Nilsson, Waiving the Right to Arbitrate by Initiating Court Proceedings
- Symposium: Governing Civil Society: NGO Accountability, Legitimacy and Influence
- Dana Brakman Reiser & Claire R. Kelly, Introduction: Governing Civil Society
- Shamima Ahmed, The Impact of NGOs on International Organizations: Complexities and Considerations
- Kenneth Anderson, “Accountability” as “Legitimacy”: Global Governance, Global Civil Society and the United Nations
- Steve Charnovitz, The Illegitimacy of Preventing NGO Participation
- Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, NGO Standing and Influence in Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions
- Oonagh B. Breen, Through the Looking Glass: European Perspectives on Non-Profit Vulnerability, Legitimacy and Regulation
- Thomas Kelley, Wait! That’s Not What We Meant by Civil Society!: Questioning the NGO Orthodoxy in West Africa
- Dana Brakman Reiser & Claire R. Kelly, Linking NGO Accountability and the Legitimacy of Global Governance
- Matthew Alderton, The Act of State Doctrine: Questions of Validity and Abstention from Underhill to Habib
- Jane McAdam, An Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement in International Law: The Right to Leave as a Personal Liberty
- Odette Murray, David Kinley & Chip Pitts, Exaggerated Rumours of the Death of an Alien Tort? Corporations, Human Rights and the Remarkable Case of Kiobel
- Marion Panizzon, Migration and Trade: Prospects for Bilateralism in the Face of Skill-Selective Mobility Laws
- Carla L. Reyes, WTO-Compliant Protection of Fundamental Rights: Lessons from the EU Privacy Directive
- Karen N. Scott, International Environmental Governance: Managing Fragmentation through Institutional Connection
Monday, August 15, 2011
- Emanuele Massetti, Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals
- P. R. Shukla & Subash Dhar, Climate agreements and India: aligning options and opportunities on a new track
- Zhongxiang Zhang, In what format and under what timeframe would China take on climate commitments? A roadmap to 2050
- Sean Walsh, Huifang Tian, John Whalley & Manmohan Agarwal, China and India’s participation in global climate negotiations
- Special section articles: European democracy and migration
- Markus Ketola, EU democracy promotion in Turkey: funding NGOs, funding conflict?
- Michelle Pace, Liberal or social democracy? Aspect dawning in the EU's democracy promotion agenda in the Middle East
- Thomas Demmelhuber, The European Union and illegal migration in the southern Mediterranean: the trap of competing policy concepts
- Hannah M. Cross, Rents, rights, rejections and resistance: West African migrants, the EU's migration regime and militarisation in Mauritania
- General articles
- Murat Metin Hakkı, Property wars in Cyprus: the Turkish position according to international law
- Leonard Hammer, Re-examining the extraterritorial application of the ECHR to northern Cyprus: the need for a measured approach
- Sean Goggin, Human rights and ‘primitive’ culture: misrepresentations of indigenous life
- Man Yee Karen Lee, Religion, human rights and the role of culture
- Laura Kittel, Healing heart and mind: the pursuit of human rights in Engaged Buddhism as exemplified by Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama
- Tamara Jaber, A case for Kosovo? Self-determination and secession in the 21st century
- Velayutham Saravanan, Subalterns v. state institutions: politicians, state, forest, law and atrocities on tribals in Tamil Nadu, 1990–2000
- Manisuli Ssenyonjo, Reflections on state obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights in international human rights law
With the increasing scope and density of international law, we will observe increasing instances of fragmentation. Fragmentation is not necessarily a problem, insofar as there may be no need for coordination among different legal regimes. But where it does raise issues of conflict, or presents opportunities for synergy, it is useful to inquire whether fragmentation might be managed in a way that would reduce inefficient conflict, or harvest synergies. The existing formal system for management, provided in the VCLT, is quite limited in its response, and the outcomes that it produces would not necessarily be substantively satisfactory. This article reviews a number of types of responses that states might determine to use, in order to increase coherence. States can establish informal coordination mechanisms, and perhaps provide a mandate to international organizations to coordinate with one another. They can establish enforcement institutions for one regime that effectively structurally subordinates the law included in another regime. They can establish specific rules or general standards for the relationship between different rules. These rules or standards can constitute varying degrees of delegation to courts that may be established to address these issues.
Importantly, the growing congestion of international law, and the relation of different international legal rules to one another, provides some opportunities for synergy. Different rules of international law may be linked with one another in order to facilitate the making of law, and in order to improve the enforcement of law. There may be economies of scale and scope that can be harvested by appropriate linkages between rules and organizations. It is possible to construct beneficial competition among international legal rules or organizations. Finally, different regimes may be linked in order to use one regime to compensate those harmed by another.
THE INSTITUTE FOR TRANSNATIONAL ARBITRATION
1st Annual Winter Forum
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
INTERCONTINENTAL MARK HOPKINS SAN FRANCISCO
February 2-3, 2012
CALL FOR PAPERS
In collaboration with the Academic Council, the Executive Committee and the Young Arbitrators Initiative of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA) are proud to announce the creation of a new annual Winter Forum. Building on the Academic Council’s tradition of biennial exploration of scholarly papers and the format of the Friday Forum in Dallas, the Winter Forum will provide a unique opportunity for academic and scholarly debate – with a practical twist – for topical issues in international arbitration.
The first half of the Winter Forum will showcase several works-in-progress, including presentations by authors, commentary by internationally recognized academics and practitioners, and interactive discussions among all participants. Our objective is to integrate the unique insights of academics and practitioners, encourage collaboration, and promote the evolution of international arbitration during a time of global transition. After lunch and a keynote address by Professor George A. Bermann of Columbia Law School, the Winter Forum will conclude with a Tylney-Hall-style discussion forum.
Possible Topics for Works-In-Progress
In connection with this initiative, we now initiate a call for works-in-progress. Keeping in mind ITA’s objective to provide "leading educational and professional activities for legal counsel, arbitrators, business executives, government officials, academics and other professionals through programs that examine, critique and seek to improve the practice and study of international arbitration and provide opportunities to enhance the arbitration community," we encourage authors to consider a broad variety of topics. Possibilities might include exploration of:
- Emerging issues of substantive law in international commercial arbitration or international investment law;
- Consideration of procedural issues, including issues related to arbitrator selection and challenge, evidentiary considerations, preliminary measures, concurrent proceedings, and enforcement and review;
- The relationship between international commercial arbitration and investment law, as well as between these two pillars and other branches of law, such as intellectual property and environmental law;
- The recent jurisprudence of national courts related to international arbitration, either domestic or comparative, and the implications for basic concepts of jurisdiction, arbitrator competence and independence;
- Innovative research methodologies for the exploration and consideration of international arbitration and transnational dispute resolution;
- The interactions among scholars, practitioners, government officials and civil society groups active in international arbitration;
- The consideration of international arbitration’s commercial impact, including implications of cost, the net value of arbitration and the opportunities to build sustainable dispute resolution into international business and investment.
We encourage works-in-progress that are from both established and junior scholars and practitioners. The Winter Forum is intended to integrate the scholarly insights and perspectives of both academics and practitioners. Previous explorations of scholarly works-in-progress during Academic Council events have included presentations by international arbitration luminaries such as David Caron ("The Design and Operation of International Courts and Tribunals: A Theory of Bounded Strategic Space and Positional Logics"), José Alvarez ("The Once and Future Investment Regime") and Jan Kleinheisterkamp ("The Impact of Internationally Mandatory Laws on the Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements"). We anticipate that the works-in-progress and commentaries presented in the Winter Forum will follow this tradition of excellence, and we intend to reserve one presentation for work by a junior scholar or practitioner.
Paper Submission and Selection
All proposals must be submitted by October 15, 2011, via email to ITAWinterForum@gmail.com in accordance with the following conventions. First, proposals should be made in a Word document that is no longer than 1,000 words. Second, your cover email should indicate your affiliated institution, your contact details and whether your paper has been submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere. In evaluating proposals, please note that priority will be given to unpublished papers and works-in-progress. Every paper proposal will be reviewed on a blind basis by at least two members of the Conference Committee (identified below).
We anticipate announcing the selected papers by November 15, 2011. Authors selected for the Winter Forum must be prepared to circulate a substantially complete draft of their paper no later than Wednesday, January 18, 2012.
While ITA cannot reimburse all travel expenses, selected authors will receive a waiver of the conference fee for the Winter Forum and two nights’ accommodation at a comfortable hotel in the Bay Area.
Papers and commentary from previous scholarly events from the Academic Council have been published in the World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR). While not required, publication in WAMR is encouraged for presentations at the January Forum.
Please submit enquiries to either of the ITA Winter Forum Co-Chairs, Susan Franck (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Leah Harhay (Leah@LeahDHarhay.com).
2012 ITA Winter Forum Selection Committee
Co-Chairs: Susan Franck and Leah Harhay
José Alvarez, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Andrea Bjorklund, Professor of Law, University of California-Davis School of Law
Gary Born, Partner, Wilmer Hale LLP
Jean Kalicki, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
Abby Cohen Smutny, Partner, White & Case LLP
Jarrod Wong, Associate Professor, McGeorge School of Law
With the administrative support of David Winn, Director of the ITA.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Call for Papers: Public International Law, International Criminal Law & International Human Rights Law
Call for Papers
Public International Law, International Criminal Law & International Human Rights Law: A Critical Evaluation of the Scholarship of Professor William Schabas
Over the last half a century the discourse of public international has been enlivened by a growing emphasis on international human rights law, spawning robust debate and discussion, and also the creation of an imperfect system of accountability for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. In the last two decades in particular, the scholarship and activism of Professor William Schabas has had a significant impact on the growth and direction of the normative frameworks around these subjects. In addition through his own engagement in different theatres, Professor Schabas has also contributed to the spread of implementation models worldwide, and has supervised a growing number of successful doctoral contributions that have further enhanced the quality of the debate. His sterling role on the Sierra Leone Truth Commission is but one manifestation that that his contribution has spread well beyond the realms of the classroom: recognition that is also reflected in the bestowal of the Order of Canada upon him for his contribution to human rights.
On the occasion of his 60th year, we are seeking contributions from scholars, practitioners, judges and others that critically engage with the published contributions of Professor William Schabas. We seek this in the belief that the best testament to a scholar is a critical engagement with their work. We therefore invite contributions of between 8,000 and 10,000 words, in English or French that critically assess the work and impact of Professor Schabas’ writing. The book is likely to be published by Cambridge University Press and will therefore adhere to the house style of that publisher, with further details provided with the invitation letter to those whose abstracts have been accepted. The range of topics that we anticipate include: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the creation and functioning of the International Criminal Court, the death penalty, the concept of reservations to treaties, norms of jus cogens, minority rights, religion and human rights, truth commissions, reparative justice and other topics including literature and human rights.
To be considered for publication we request interested authors submit a 500 word abstract, outlining the general thrust of their contribution and highlighting the aspect of Professor Schabas’ scholarship that will be engaged. This abstract should be sent to either of the two editors by the 1st of October 2011. The abstracts will be vetted by a panel of hand-picked editors who are familiar with the work of Professor Schabas, with potential authors informed of the acceptance of their abstract by mid December 2011. Since this is a competitive call for papers, we intend to enforce a strict deadline on the submission of full papers, which will be due on the 1st of May, 2012. The submissions will be peer-reviewed by our esteemed editorial board with feedback to the authors within six weeks of submission. Those considering this call for papers are welcome to have an informal discussion with either of the two editors.
June 2011 Publication of the call for papers, distributed widely through email lists and through the Society of Legal Scholars (UK) and similar subject bodies abroad
October 2011 Deadline for detailed abstracts, to be vetted at first instance by us, with the assistance of the editorial panel.
December 2011 Feedback on Abstracts and issuance of invitations for full papers.
May 2012 Deadline for the full papers, which will be sent out the panel for refereeing and comments.
July 2012 Formal feedback to authors, requesting any suggested changes.
October 2012 Final deadline for papers, with the submission forwarded to Cambridge University Press two weeks later.
We have engaged a formal panel of editors who are familiar with Professor Schabas’ work and will be able to assess contributions and make suggestions to writers. These include: Professor Andrew Clapham (Geneva), Professor Francoise Hampson (Essex), Professor Douglas Cassel (Notre Dame), Professor Dinah Shelton (George Washington), Professor Christine Chinkin (LSE), Professor David Scheffer (Northwestern), Professor David Wippman (Minnesota), Professor David Kretzmer (Hebrew U), Professor Diane Marie Amann (UC Davis), Professor Emmanuel Decaux (University Panthéon-Assas Paris II), and Professor Alain Pellet (University Paris Ouest).
Dr. Kathleen Cavanaugh, Lecturer, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway, Republic of Ireland. Tel: +353 92 49 3799 E: Kathleen.Cavanaugh@nuigalway.ie; Prof. Joshua Castellino, Professor of Law & Head of Law Department, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 208 411 4735 E: J.Castellino@mdx.ac.uk