Gegenstand der Arbeit ist das Spannungsfeld zwischen Investitionsschutzabkommen und staatlichem Gemeinwohl. Die Thematik hat in den letzten 15 Jahren weltweit für erhitzte Diskussionen, teilweise gewalttätige Proteste und tiefgreifende Verunsicherungen gesorgt. Dass das Spannungsfeld trotz dieses vergleichsweise langen Zeitraums nichts an Brisanz verloren hat, zeigt das jüngst vom schwedischen Energiekonzern Vattenfall gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland angestrengte ICSID-Verfahren um das Kohlekraftwerk Moorburg bei Hamburg.
Das Werk untersucht das Spannungsfeld exemplarisch am Beispiel des Tatbestands der indirekten Enteignung und seiner Abgrenzung zu nicht-entschädigungspflichtigen Regulierungen. Zur Bestimmung des Tatbestands wird im Rahmen der Vertragsauslegung nach den Regeln der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention ein Rechtsvergleich zwischen dem US-amerikanischen, dem deutschen Recht und dem Recht der EU sowie den regionalen Menschenrechtskonventionen, insbesondere der EMRK, vorgenommen. Dieser Rechtsvergleich bildet die Grundlage für die Bestimmung allgemeiner Rechtsprinzipien (Art. 38 (c) StIGH), die dann ihrerseits bei der Auslegung der Enteignungstatbestände der Investitionsschutzabkommen angewandt werden können. Die damit vorgenommene Untersuchung des Spannungsfelds versteht sich als juristische Aufarbeitung der gegenwärtigen Rechtslage und leistet durch die Aufarbeitung der Rechtslage einen Beitrag zu einem besseren Verständnis des Rechtsgebiets, einer Verobjektivierung der Diskussion um seine Vor- und Nachteile und damit auch zu seiner zukünftigen Entwicklung.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Perkams: Internationale Investitionsschutzabkommen im Spannungsfeld zwischen effektivem Investitionsschutz und staatlichem Gemeinwohl
Friday, November 4, 2011
Given the current state of multilateral trade negotiations, it appears that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) will serve as the main vehicle for increased liberalization in the short term. The question arises, whether the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) should and could include provisions for special treatment for developing countries, and what other aspects of the TPP have special effects on the growth of developing countries. An important range of issues relates to the preservation of policy space for developing countries to take measures to promote their development. PTAs do not normally have significant arrangements for so-called “special and differential treatment,” which at the WTO includes expanded market access for developing countries in developed country markets, and abstention by developed countries from demands for reciprocal market opening of developing countries. Since the TPP is hoped to have an expanding membership, and is heralded as a “21st Century” trade agreement, it is worthwhile to consider what types of special provisions would be appropriate to be included relating to developing countries.
A decade after 9/11, the international field of counter-terrorism is now thick with law. But that does not mean that the law is coherent or legitimate. The birth of new rules, institutions and processes can be anarchic. New norms overlay older, pre-existing legal forms and regimes, generating normative, procedural and institutional ambiguity, fragmentation and collision. In this context, this article first assesses the state of international anti-terrorism law in relation to three notions of coherence: its internal coherence as a discrete legal regime; its relational coherence in respect of other specialized legal regimes; and its consistency of application as a key characteristic of coherence. The law’s coherence may affect its legitimacy; but legitimacy is also affected by other factors. This article next considers two such factors: the determinacy of anti-terrorism law; and the legitimacy of the legal processes and institutions surrounding it. Global anti-terrorism law is an imperfect, chaotic work in progress. The processes and institutions for managing incoherence will gradually muddle through some of the problems of ambiguity, indeterminacy, conflict and fragmentation. Sometimes the dialogue will be constructive, and at other times it will be pistols at ten paces. Much work nonetheless needs to be done to adjust the superstructures which produce and circulate the law. The reform project is urgent not least because the law continues to subordinate liberty to state interests, without necessarily making the world safer.
Ronen: Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma – But Beware of Background Noises: Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of the Laws of Armed Conflict
Attempts to bring issues related to the laws of armed conflict before domestic courts encounter numerous procedural and substantive obstacles. As a result, there is almost no domestic jurisprudence dealing directly with the law on the conduct of hostilities as a matter of state responsibility. Domestic courts have nonetheless contributed to the development of this law through decisions concerning international criminal law and the law of occupation (and through it, international human rights law). Since each of these spheres of the laws of armed conflict is characterized by different fundamental principles, the limits of reliance on this jurisprudence in developing the law on the conduct of hostilities must be acknowledged, lest the latter be reshaped in a manner which is inconsistent with its basic tenets.
Reservations to treaties is one of the most difficult and controversial areas of treaty law. It has great practical consequences, including for international human rights law. In August 2011, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) adopted a 'Guide to Practice' on the subject. The Guide to Practice is the outcome of some 15 years of effort. Its impact will depend upon its reception by States and others, but is likely to be considerable. This event will be an early opportunity to discuss the law of reservations and Guide to Practice with Professor Alain Pellet, the ILC's Special Rapporteur for the topic.
- Symposium: The League of Nations and the Construction of the Periphery
- Fleur Johns, Thomas Skouteris & Wouter Werner, Introduction
- Usha Natarajan, Creating and Recreating Iraq: Legacies of the Mandate System in Contemporary Understandings of Third World Sovereignty
- Umot Özsu, Fabricating Fidelity: Nation-Building, International Law, and the Greek–Turkish Population Exchange
- Rose Parfitt, Empire des Nègres Blancs: The Hybridity of International Personality and the Abyssinia Crisis of 1935–36
- Michelle Burgis, Transforming (Private) Rights through (Public) International Law: Readings on a ‘Strange and Painful Odyssey’ in the PCIJ Mavrommatis Case
- Michael Fakhri, The 1937 International Sugar Agreement: Neo-Colonial Cuba and Economic Aspects of the League of Nations
- Hague International Tribunals: International Criminal Court and Tribunals
- Markus D. Dubber, Common Civility: The Culture of Alegality in International Criminal Law
- Gerhard Anders, Testifying about ‘Uncivilized Events’: Problematic Representations of Africa in the Trial against Charles Taylor
- Current Legal Developments
- Jean-Philippe Kot, Israeli Civilians versus Palestinian Combatants? Reading the Goldstone Report in Light of the Israeli Conception of the Principle of Distinction
- Daniele Amoroso, Moving towards Complicity as a Criterion of Attribution of Private Conducts: Imputation to States of Corporate Abuses in the US Case Law
- Christiane Ahlborn, The Normative Erosion of International Refugee Protection through UN Security Council Practice
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Since the end of the last century, UN peacekeeping has undergone a fundamental and largely unexamined change. Peacekeeping operations, long expected to use force only in self-defence and to act impartially, are now increasingly relied upon by the Security Council as a means to maintain and restore security within a country. The operations are established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and some are empowered to use 'all necessary measures', language traditionally reserved for enforcement operations.
Through a close examination of these twenty-first century peacekeeping operations - including operations in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti and the Darfur region of the Sudan - the book shows that they are, for the most part, fundamentally ill-suited to the enforcement-type tasks being asked of them. The operations, which are under-funded, under-equipped and whose troops are under-trained, frequently lurch from crisis to crisis. There is scant evidence, some 10 years on, that matters are likely to improve.
The book argues that bestowing enforcement-type functions on a peacekeeping operation is misconceived. Such operations are likely to be unsuccessful in their enforcement-type tasks, thereby causing serious damage to the excellent reputation of UN peacekeeping, and the UN more broadly. In addition, because such operations are more likely to be perceived as partial, their ability to carry out traditional (non-forceful) peacekeeping tasks may be impeded. Finally, the Security Council's practice of charging peacekeeping operations with enforcement functions lessens the pressure on the Council to work to establish genuine enforcement operations - ie, operations that are considerably better suited to restoring peace and security.
This essay on the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) is the first chapter in a new book on international courts and tribunals. Important constraints on the ICJ’s jurisdiction preclude it from resolving most disputes between States, and, as was the case for the predecessor Permanent Court of International Justice, the ICJ is not at the apex of an appellate system of international or national courts. Nevertheless, as the judicial wing of the United Nations, the ICJ stands as the most authoritative court for the interpretation of general rules of international law, with its decisions regularly cited by other global, regional, and national courts. Further, despite its limited jurisdiction, the Court has addressed numerous important disputes among States and issued advisory opinions that have greatly shaped and influenced the development of international law across subject matter areas. In short, the Court is a highly respected and authoritative judicial tribunal, lying at the center of the global legal system, with an influence that extends well beyond the legal relations of the Parties that appear before it.
This Article offers a new way to understand the enforcement of domestic and international law that we call “outcasting.” Unlike the distinctive method that modern states use to enforce their law, outcasting is nonviolent: it does not rely on bureaucratic organizations, such as police or militia, that employ physical force to maintain order. Instead, outcasting involves denying the disobedient the benefits of social cooperation and membership. Law enforcement through outcasting in domestic law can be found throughout history - from medieval Iceland and classic canon law to modern-day public law. And it is ubiquitous in modern international law, from the World Trade Organization to the Universal Postal Union to the Montreal Protocol. Across radically different subject areas, international legal institutions use others (usually states) to enforce their rules and typically deploy outcasting rather than physical force. Seeing outcasting as a form of law enforcement not only helps us recognize that the traditional critique of international law - that it is not enforced and is therefore both ineffective and not real law - is based on a limited and inaccurate understanding of law enforcement. It also allows us to understand more fully when and how international law matters.
- Amissi M. Manirabona, L'affaire Trafigura: vers la répression de graves atteintes environnementales en tant que crimes contre l'humanité?
- Noémie Blaise, La responsabilité de protéger: les écueils d'une consécration juridique tant attendue
- A. Albarian, Le fidéisme contractuel
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Law, Justice and Development (LJD) Week 2011 will be a forum to explore how legal innovation and empowerment can contribute to development. For the first time, LJD Week will be a Bank Group event co-organized by the World Bank’s Legal Vice Presidency, IFC and MIGA Legal Departments, and ICSID. LJD Week 2011 intends to focus on three key issues: (a) Global issues, such as challenges relating to international financial regulation, the use of intellectual property rights in development settings, legal challenges/solutions in fragile and conflict states, public-private partnerships, stolen asset recovery, and others; (b) Regional challenges, which will include the role of law in supporting economic and social stability in the Middle East and North Africa region, and legal harmonization as a tool for regional integration; (c) Country cases, which will look at examples of how legal innovation and empowerment have contributed to a rise in global economic power (China), supported state-building (South Sudan), and helped manage emergencies and catastrophic risks (Haiti). LJD Week is scheduled for November 14 - 17, 2011, at World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C., and will include: a three-day International Forum on November 14 - 16 with an opening session, followed by parallel sessions and a plenary round table of General Counsel; and a training day on November 17. For more information please visit WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/LJDWEEK2011 or email LJDevelopment@worldbank.org.
Conference: Why Still ICSID? Summary Procedures, Annulment Proceedings and the Future of ICSID Arbitration
The purpose of this conference is to assess the future role of ICSID in investment treaty dispute resolution. To this end, panels will consider (a) the developing use of summary procedures in investment treaty arbitration, (b) the ongoing development of ICSID's annulment jurisprudence and (c) ICSID's position in connection with developments in the European Union and bilateral and multilateral treaty practice (e.g. Australia's decision to not include investor-state dispute provisions in future trade agreements and South Africa's investment treaty review).
An examination of some of the recent decisions of the panels and Appellate Body demonstrates the continuing evolution of WTO trade rules through traditional processes of treaty interpretation, reference to earlier jurisprudence and judicial reasoning. The quasi-judicial development of the law in these ways has facilitated finding that reflect contemporary concerns for the environment and human health, even for political concerns about public morals. The WTO trade rules can be flexible in the face of efforts to protect endangered species or to protect against the spread of disease. Recent disputes suggest that threats to orderly international trade do not lie in inflexible or out-dated rules, but rather in the failure by Members themselves to conduct proper risk assessments and by their imposition of measures that are little more than ill-disguised restrictions on international trade.
Never in the nation’s history has the scope and meaning of Congress’s power to “Define and Punish. . . Offenses Against the Law of Nations” mattered as much. The once obscure power has in recent years been exercised in broad and controversial ways, ranging from civil human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statue (ATS) to military commissions trials in Guantanamo Bay. Yet it has not yet been recognized that these issues both involve the Offenses Clauses, and indeed raise common constitutional questions.First, can Congress only “Define” offenses that clearly already exist in international law, or does it have discretion to codify debatable, embryonic, or even nonexistent international law norms? Second, assuming Congress does have creative leeway under the Offenses Clause, what happens to this discretion when it delegates the power to a coordinate branch? Ironically, the Offenses Clause has cross-cutting political implications: a narrow understanding of the power limits the crimes that can be tried before military commissions, but also forecloses much human rights litigation under the ATS.
This Article shows that Offenses Clause only allows Congress to “Define” – to specify the elements and incidents of - offenses already created by customary international law. It does not allow Congress to create entirely new offenses independent of preexisting international law. At the same time, the Framers understood international law to be vague and intertwined with foreign policy considerations. Reasonable people can widely disagree about what international law is and requires. Thus courts reviewing congressional definitions should give them considerable deference. Moreover, whatever discretion Congress has in defining offenses disappears when it broadly delegates that power to another branch, as it has in the ATS. Thus courts can only recognizes causes of action under the ATS for the most well-established and clearly defined international crimes. The Supreme Court suggested a similar standard for ATS causes of action in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. Appreciating the role of delegation in the ATS shows that the limits on offenses that can be litigated under the statute have a constitutional dimension.
The Article develops the original understanding of the Offenses Clause – particularly important given the lack of any judicial decisions on it in the nation’s first century. It draws on previously unexplored sources, such as early cases about the meaning of the “Define” power in the cognate context of “piracy and felonies;” legislation by early Congresses exercising - or refusing to exercise – the Offenses power – and discussions by Framers like Madison and others.
- A. Proelß, Einführung
- T. Marauhn, Menschenrecht auf eine gesunde Umwelt: Trugbild oder Wirklichkeit?
- G. Winter, Die institutionelle und instrumentelle Entstaatlichung im Klimaschutzregime: Gestalt, Problemlösungskapazität und Rechtsstaatlichkeit
- R. Dolzer & C. Kreuter-Kirchhof, Das Umweltvölkerrecht als Wegweiser neuer Entwicklungen des allgemeinen Völkerrechts?
- H. Horn & P. C. Mavroidis, Trade, Environmental Policies and the Role of Jurisdiction in the WTO
- P.-T. Stoll, Gerechte Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen zwischen Bewahrung der Artenvielfalt, Schutz indigenen Wissens und Wirtschaftsfreiheit
- A. Epiney, Abfalltourismus aus rechtlicher Sicht; ausgewählte europarechtliche Aspekte
- U. Beyerlin, Wege zur Verbesserung der Nord-Süd-Kooperation in globalen Umweltfragen
- K. Hakapää, Protection of the Marine Environment in the Light of New Uses and Old Dangers
- Gary Born's Keynote Address to the "Borders Skirmishes" symposium at University of Missouri's Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution: video
- Nico Schrijver's Sir Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures at the University of Cambridge on "The United Nations of the Future. The Role of International Law": audio
- John Witt's inaugural lecture as the Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law at the Yale Law School on "Lincoln’s Code: The Puzzling History of the Laws of War": audio
L’Organisation mondiale du commerce constitue le cadre de référence en matière de commerce international. Les États qui en sont membres ne doivent pas, dans l’élaboration de leur cadre normatif, entraver le commerce. Dans cette optique, il est normal que le droit de l’OMC ait pour effet de réduire la marge de manœuvre normative des États dans l’élaboration de leur législation. Le présent ouvrage vise à évaluer l’ampleur de cette dépossession normative. Le thème des OGM sert de cadre d’analyse concret, puisqu’il traduit bien les préoccupations reliées à cette dépossession lorsque les États désirent encadrer les risques sanitaires et environnementaux.
L’ouvrage se divise en trois parties. La partie préliminaire brosse un tableau des OGM, sous les angles scientifique, politique et juridique. Ensuite, la partie I est l’occasion d’analyser la problématique au regard des dispositions pertinentes de l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires, car il semble qu’une majorité de mesures relatives aux OGM tombe dans son champ d’application. Finalement, la partie II se concentre sur la question des mesures ne relevant pas du domaine sanitaire et phytosanitaire. Le GATT et l’Accord sur les obstacles techniques au commerce font l’objet d’une analyse détaillée.
C’est au terme d’une analyse globale du corpus juridique applicable qu’il devient possible d’évaluer réellement l’impact des règles de l’OMC sur le potentiel d’adopter des mesures encadrant le commerce international des OGM. C’est du moins au regard de cette analyse exhaustive qu’il devient possible d’identifier la meilleure manière pour les États d’élaborer des réglementations encadrant le commerce des OGM tout en minimisant les risques que celles-ci soient considérées contraires aux principes de l’OMC.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
- Sven Schilf, Der Gerichtsstand des Erfüllungsortes im deutsch-schweizerischen Rechtsverkehr bei Geltung des UN-Kaufrechts als anwendbarem Recht – Rückschau auf de Bloos / Tessili
Whether States, coalitions of States or inter-governmental organizations can engage in humanitarian intervention lawfully without the UN Security Council´s authorization has been debated at length. Following NATO´s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, the international lawgiver had to act. The result was the concept of the responsibility to protect. But the fundamental question of the legality of humanitarian intervention remained. This book takes a new approach by combining legal theory and international law. Legal theory enables the concept of legal validity to be better understood and permits the question to be evaluated thoroughly in international law. The outcome is that the international lawgiver has to confront the hard problem whether or not there is enough interest for human rights protection.
Trachtman: Who Cares About International Human Rights? The Supply and Demand of International Human Rights Law
Especially in circumstances of great asymmetry, international law can usefully be understood in terms of supply and demand, which highlights the costs and benefits to both the demanding state and the responding state. Human rights protection will often have this asymmetric character as between liberal democratic states and authoritarian states. It is not immediately obvious why liberal democratic states care about human rights in authoritarian states, but this article provides a taxonomy of bases for concern. It is also not immediately obvious why authoritarian states would enter into human rights treaties that constrain their actions. While they may have domestic reasons to use international law to “lock-in” certain behaviors, assuming that international law serves this purpose, or to signal to either external audiences or internal audiences what type they are, these types of reasons seem less plausible and general than a simpler exchange-based model under which other states provide some valuable consideration or refrain from taking harmful action in exchange for human rights protection. International law can serve as a tool for exchange of consideration—for reciprocal and linked exchange—that disrupts existing political equilibria, allowing a superior political outcome for each state under asymmetry. International law may also address the collective action problem that may arise among liberal democratic states as they determine how to share the costs of inducing authoritarian states to protect human rights.
This chapter introduces the general and security exceptions in Articles XX and XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT 1994’) and Articles XIV and XIV bis of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (‘GATS’). The general exceptions are key provisions of the GATT 1994 and the GATS, allowing Members to justify on a number of non-trade policy grounds measures that would otherwise be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. These grounds include protecting the environment, public health and public morals, and preventing deceptive practices. The general exceptions provide a mechanism for balancing trade liberalisation (as a means to achieving objectives such as raising standards of living) with other important policy objectives that Members may choose to pursue. As such, they often feature prominently in disputes brought to the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’). The security exceptions serve a similar function, in that they ensure that the GATT 1994 and the GATS do not require Members to compromise their essential security interests. However, the security exceptions have featured much less prominently in WTO litigation; we therefore discuss them in less detail in this chapter.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Editors and Oxford University Press (OUP) are pleased to announce the establishment of The James Crawford Prize of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS). This annual prize will award £500 of OUP books and a subscription to JIDS to the author of the best paper received by the Journal*. The winning paper will also be published in JIDS. For the 2012 Prize, submissions are required by 28 February 2012 to be considered for the award.
The selection will be made by a Prize Committee composed of the Editorial Director, the Associate Editors, and possibly further members of the Editorial Board of JIDS depending on the narrower fields of the papers submitted for the prize. The Committee may choose not to award the prize and hold it over for a subsequent year if, in their view, the papers submitted do not reach the standards required.
For the first JIDS Prize the award will be published and announced in the second issue of volume 3 of JIDS, in July 2012.
Submissions should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
The Editorial Director and Publisher are happy to answer any questions about The James Crawford Prize of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS).
* All contributors are eligible for the award, though preference may be given to young academics or authors at early stages of their careers.
- Jakob Th. Möller, Case Law of the UN Human Rights Committee relevant to Members of Minorities and Peoples in the Arctic Region
- Nigel Bankes, The Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Territory through the Property Rights Provisions of International Regional Human Rights Instruments
- Boštjan M. Zupančič, Causation in Cases of Environmental Degradation: The Missing Link in Adjudicating Human Rights
- Kamrul Hossain, The Realization of the Right to Environment and the Right to Development in respect to the Arctic Indigenous Peoples
- Lee Swepston, Good Governance and Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
- Timo Koivurova, The Status and Role of Indigenous Peoples in Arctic International Governance
- Leena Heinämäki, Towards an Equal Partnership between Indigenous Peoples and States: Learning from Arctic Experiences?
- Antje Neumann, Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in the context of Area Protection and Management: International Approaches versus Regional Approaches in the Arctic
- Adam Stepien, The Influence of Sámi and Inuit on the Danish and Norwegian Development Cooperation with the Indigenous Peoples in the Global South: Actors and Norms
- Jean-Francois Arteau, Creation of Autonomous Government in Nunavik
- Tanja Joona & Juha Joona, The Historical Basis of Saami Land Rights in Finland and the Application of ILO Convention No. 169
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Practical Implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights: A Case Study of the Russian Federation (Comparison with Certain Developments in Africa in Relation to Indigenous Peoples)
- Øyvind Ravna, The Process of Identifying Land Rights in parts of Northern Norway: Does the Finnmark Act Prescribe an Adequate Procedure within the National Law?
- Rachael Lorna Johnstone & Aðalheiður Ámundadóttir, Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Iceland’s Financial Crisis
- Níels Einarsson, Fisheries Governance and Social Discourse in Post-Crisis Iceland: Responses to the UN Human Rights Committee’s views in Case 1306/2004
- Alyson JK Bailes, Human Rights and Security: Wider Applications in a Warmer Arctic?
- Emily Hildreth, Holes in the Ice: Why a Comprehensive Treaty Will Not Succeed in the Arctic and How to Implement an Alternative Approach
- Piotr Graczyk, Observers in the Arctic Council – Evolution and Prospects
- Kees Bastmeijer, Intergenerational Equity and the Antarctic Treaty System: Continued Efforts to Prevent “Mastery”
- Sebastien Duyck, Drawing Lessons for Arctic Governance from the Antarctic Treaty System
Conference: Die Schutzverantwortung – Responsibility to Protect: Ein Paradigmenwechsel in der Entwicklung des Internationalen Rechts?
Die Völkerrechtsordnung wird heute seltener durch „klassisches“ Vertragsrecht, sondern zunehmend durch die Normsetzung überstaatlicher Institutionen geprägt. Matthias Frenzel untersucht, welche universellen internationalen Organisationen eigenständig abstrakt-generelle Rechtsakte erlassen können. Anhand der einzelnen Gründungsstatute analysiert er die Modalitäten der für die Mitgliedstaaten entstehenden völkerrechtlichen Pflichten und zeigt Gemeinsamkeiten und vor allem Unterschiede der vertraglichen Konzeptionen auf. Im zweiten Teil des Buchs widmet sich der Autor den Auswirkungen dieser Sekundärrechtsetzung auf das deutsche Verfassungsrecht. Neben den grundgesetzlichen Anforderungen an die Mitwirkung der Bundespublik in den Organisationen im Allgemeinen erörtert er die Konsequenzen, die sich aus der völkerrechtlichen Bindung an das institutionelle Sekundärrecht für die Legislative ergeben.
An early version of this paper was presented at a joint Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (Adelaide)/Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI, University of Waterloo)/United Nations University (UNU, Tokyo)/ Australian Governance Research Network workshop on the topic of 'Ethical Supports For Strengthening the International Rule of Law in International Affairs.' The paper seeks to assess the content of the notion of international impartiality as it has developed since the 19th Century as key to international governance and the rule of law. The genesis of 'international impartiality' lies in third party adjudication, but the concept blossomed in the interwar with the rise of an international civil service, and has become more generally descriptive of many of the activities engaged in by international organizations including, for example, peacekeeping. Yet impartiality has been shaken by recurrent crises: a crisis of plausibility in a world polarized by antagonistic ideologies and where the search for an Archimedean standpoint sometimes seems illusory; a crisis of desirability as international impartiality seems to sacrifice too much, even for international organizations, of a connection with the domestic setting; and a crisis of morality, as impartiality at times became associated with accommodation with evil. The paper proposes to better problematize international impartiality by looking at how national biases may not be as important today as a range of personal or generic biases; how impartiality should be seen less as a blank slate and more as a critical way of engaging one’s own situationality; and how impartiality may, in ultimate analysis, be less a quality existing in splendid isolation than one that emerges from collegiality and transparency. The paper concludes with a few thoughts on how “international impartiality” is being displaced by other foundations for the legitimacy of international law and governance.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Pavlakos & Pauwelyn: Principled Monism and the Normative Conception of Coercion Under International Law
In this work we argue that the existence of a global legal order, where the lines between national and international law are increasingly blurred, must be grounded on a scheme of principles of justice (‘Principled Monism’). Rather than neatly structured based on strict separation, automatic incorporation or formal hierarchy of regimes, sources or norms (eg, international law trumps national law), these principles of justice are in many instances elaborated and further developed, if not constituted, by formally inferior or sub-international law contexts. The global legal order thereby presents itself as a collection of institutionalised norms that develop, expand and promote a scheme of principles of justice, which itself does not depend for its existence on any act of legal authority but merely requires for its activation and implementation some concrete instances of institutional intervention.
This chapter seeks to challenge the mainstream use of the principle Lex specialis derogat generali to articulate HRL and IHL. It is argued here that judges and legal expert do not actually articulate HRL and IHL along the lines of that principle but rather engage in a systemic integration of these two sets of rules. More specifically, it is submitted here that, under the guise of the principle Lex specialis derogat generali, most judges and experts apply a principle of interpretation of international law, that is the principle of systemic integration of international law. The ambition of this chapter is accordingly to shed some light on the actual manner in which HRL and IHL have been articulated and dispel the impressions that are conveyed by the professed use of conflict-resolution mechanisms. This chapter will start by recalling the elementary features of the principle of systemic integration of international law (1) and those of the principle of Lex specialis derogat generali (2) with a view to showing that each of them constitute a very specific mechanism that does not serve the same purpose as the other. The chapter will then demonstrate how, in the context of the simultaneous application of IHL and HRL, these two mechanisms have been conflated, the systemic integration principle being applied under the guise of the Lex specialis derogat generali (3). Eventually, this chapter will try to unearth some of the reasons underlying the trompe l’oeil created by the use of the Lex specialis derogat generali to carry out a systemic integration of IHL and HRL (4).