The Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law (Aegean Rev Law Sea) is a peer-reviewed and refereed international journal published by Springer and the Aegean Institute of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law. The Review aims in bringing together the research in the fields of the law of the sea and maritime law by considering them as interrelated legal disciplines. It welcomes studies of high quality that examine the legal order of the marine space and its use by man, especially in relation with navigation and shipping, at the international, regional and national level.
The Review is managed by the Director of the Aegean Institute Dr. jur Nikolaos Skourtos. Its Editorial Board consists of over 40 leading international academic members and International Judges representing the principal legal systems of the world. It publishes original research articles that examine law of the sea and maritime issues from a theoretical, historical, comparative and case-study perspective. Relevant survey articles, book reviews and court decisions are also included. The main disciplines covered are International, Foreign and Comparative Law.
The journal is published in both print and online versions and is under the indexing process with Google Scholar, OCLC, SCImago, SCOPUS, Summon by Serial Solutions.
The Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law is inviting papers for Vol. 2 No. 1 & 2 which are scheduled to be published on the first and second quarter of 2012. The Vol. 2 No. 1 will be of generic content on the journal’s related fields, while Vol. 2 No.2 will be under the thematic title “Energy and the Sea”.
Please send your manuscript to the editorial assistant (Mr. Spiros Loupis) at email@example.com up to the 30th of December 2011 for Vol. 2, No. 1 and up to the 31st of March 2012 for Vol. 2, No. 2.
For more information, visit the official website of the journal http://www.springer.com/law/international/journal/12180.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
In this article I explore the distinction and relationship between two types of international legal pluralism. Internal pluralism construes a pluralism that is internal to the international legal order. External pluralism contests any hierarchical claim of international law and thus is external to the international order.
The central argument of the article is that the two types of pluralism, in a somewhat paradoxical way, depend on each other. While the international legal order needs its hierarchical claim to supremacy in order to provide the stability and legal certainty to serve the essential interests of states, communities, and individuals, the legitimacy of its claim to supremacy relies on the inspiration, diversity and politics that are articulated in the paradigm of external pluralism. In turn, the paradigm of external pluralism seems difficult to reconcile with the interests of stability of the international legal system, and yet it relies at least in part on that system since its primarily political project cannot provide stability at the international level.
Friday, December 2, 2011
- Shahram Dana (John Marshall Law School), "The Perverse Effects of International Criminal Justice"; Commentator: Dawood Ahmed (Univ. of Chicago - Law)
- Leila Sadat (Washington Univ., St. Louis - Law), "Crimes Against Humanity: Limits, Leverage and Future Concerns"; Commentator: Tim Waters (Indiana Univ., Bloomington - Law)
- Charles Jalloh (Univ. of Pittsburgh - Law), "The Meaning of 'Greatest Responsibility' in ICL"; Commentator: David Scheffer (Northwestern Univ. - Law)
- Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Southern Methodist Univ. - Law), "Prosecutorial Misconduct at the ICC"; Commentator: Leila Sadat (Wash. Univ., St. Louis - Law)
- Beth Van Schaack (Santa Clara Univ. - Law), "Jurisprudential Relativity: The Legality of the Bin Laden and Al Aulaqi Killings"; Commentator: Sasha Greenawalt (Pace Univ. - Law)
- Alexandra Huneeus (Univ. of Wisconsin - Law), "International Criminal Law by Other Means"; Commentator: Beth Van Schaack (Santa Clara Univ. - Law)
- Enzo Cannizzaro, Paolo Palchetti, & Ramses A. Wessel, Introduction: International Law as Law of the EU
- Ramses A. Wessel, Reconsidering the Relationship between International and EU Law: Towards a Content-Based Approach?
- Enzo Cannizzaro, The Neo-Monism of the European Legal Order
- Jan Willem van Rossem, The EU at Crossroads: A Constitutional Inquiry into the way International Law is received within the EU Legal Order Alessandra Gianelli, Customary International Law in the European Union
- Jan Klabbers, The Validity of EU Norms Conflicting with International Obligations
- Bruno de Witte, Using International Law for the European Union’s Domestic Affairs
- Panos Koutrakos, International Agreements in the Area of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy
- Frederik Naert, The Application of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in CSDP Operations
- Andrea Gattini, Effects of Decisions of the UN Security Council in the EU Legal Order
- Beatrice Bonafé, Direct Effect of International Agreements in the EU Legal Order: Does it Depend on the Existence of an International Dispute Settlement Mechanism?
- Antonello Tancredi, On the Absence of Direct Effect of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s Decisions in the EU Legal Order
- Giacomo Gattinara, Consistent Interpretation of WTO Rulings in the EU Legal Order?
- Marise Cremona, Member States Agreements as Union Law Eleftheria Neframi, Mixed Agreements as a Source of European Union Law
- Christina Eckes, International Law as Law of the EU: the Role of the ECJ
- Paolo Palchetti, Judicial Review of the International Validity of UN Security Council Resolutions by the European Court of Justice
- Frederico Casolari, Giving Indirect Effect to International Law within the EU Legal Order: The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation
This article examines the phenomena of dissent within WTO dispute settlement panels and within Appellate Body divisions ("horizontal disagreement") and the failure of certain WTO dispute settlement panels to follow previous rulings of the Appellate Body ("vertical disagreement"). With respect to horizontal disagreement, the article responds to a recent critique of my earlier piece on the subject (The Lack of Dissent in WTO Dispute Settlement, 9 J. Int’l Econ. L. 895 (2006)). With respect to vertical disagreement, the article examines whether there are textual or normative reasons why panels should not disagree with the Appellate Body. It argues that the series of panels that have declined to follow previous Appellate Body decisions (in the context of the zeroing disputes) have been engaging in a dialectical process with the Appellate Body in an attempt to signal difficulties with the Appellate Body's prior reasoning. The article goes on to identify parameters within which it might be appropriate for panels to diverge from previous Appellate Body rulings; in particular, it identifies examples of what might be, in the words of the Appellate Body, "cogent reasons" not to follow prior Appellate Body decisions.
- M.N.S. Sellers, Introduction
- John Tasioulas, Parochialism and the legitimacy of international law
- Armin von Bogdandy & Sergio Dellavalle, Parochialism, cosmopolitanism, and the paradigms of international law
- Ileana M. Porras, Liberal cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitan liberalism?
- James Griffin, Are human rights parochial? James Griffin
- Maxwell Chibundu, The parochial foundations of cosmopolitan rights
- Chios Carmody, Rights in reverse
- Brian Lepard, Parochial restraints on religious liberty
- M.N.S. Sellers, Parochialism, cosmopolitanism, and justice
This paper is for a symposium on the Tenth Anniversary of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL). The paper places the ACWL in the broader context of international trade law governance. It notes that although the ACWL is quite different than the WTO Appellate Body in presenting legal arguments as opposed to issuing rulings, it plays an analogous role in two respects. First, it enhances the legitimacy of the WTO dispute settlement system through facilitating developing country access to it, thus increasing the law’s normative force. Second, it helps to clarify WTO rules to developing country policymakers in providing them with legal opinions, and thus helps to ensure that the rules are understood and followed across the WTO membership. In its ten years, the ACWL has become an important institution in these two respects — dispute settlement and analysis of measures’ consistency with WTO rules, including a member’s own.
- Foreign State Immunity at Home and Abroad
- John B. Bellinger III, The Dog that Caught the Car: Observations on the Past, Present, and Future Approaches of the Office of the Legal Adviser to Official Acts Immunities
- Chimène I. Keitner, Foreign Official Immunity After Samantar
- David J. Bederman, The "Common-Law Regime" of Foreign Sovereign Immunity: The Actual Possession Rule in Admiralty
- Peter B. Rutledge, Samantar and Executive Power
- Lewis S. Yelin, Head of State Immunity as Sole Executive Lawmaking
- Roger O'Keefe, State Immunity and Human Rights: Heads and Walls, Hearts and Minds
- David P. Stewart, The Immunity of State Officials Under the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
- Paul B. Stephan, The Political Economy of Jus Cogens
- Christian Tomuschat, The International Law of State Immunity and Its Development by National Institutions
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The old understanding of international law as something created solely by and for sovereigns is defunct. Today the production and enforcement of international law increasingly depends on private actors, not traditional political authorities. As with other public services that we used to take for granted – schools, prisons, energy utilities and transportation networks – privatization has come to international law.
The tasks of this paper are both positive and normative. It both locates the privatization process within a broader model of law production and uses criteria supplied by that theory to assess its value. It argues that innovation in the production of international law may achieve considerable benefits. Changes in international economics and politics make experimentation imperative. At the same time, some forms of privatization pose considerable risks without corresponding benefits. The question whether international law applies at all to particular conduct is fundamental and has profound consequences. It involves a choice between legal systems, not simply a choice among applicable rules. Privatization that destabilizes the domain of international law, i.e., that makes it less clear where international rules apply, produces high costs that require exceptional justification.
In particular, the last portion of the paper traces through a range of areas where the political branches, through statutes, have given different directions as to the application of international law in lawsuits. I argue that courts should follow these directions, not only because of a general obligation to fulfill statutory intent, but because disregard of them will confuse the general issue of when international law applies. Thus the courts should not expand the domain of international law when statutory law indicates otherwise, and should not demur from applying international law where legislation invokes it, no matter what private litigants seek and whether or not courts generally wish to contribute to the development of international law. As simple and straightforward as these propositions may seem, they resolve many pressing current disputes.
The Italian PROF. GIUSEPPE CIARDI FOUNDATION will award its scientific prize in 2012 in the overall amount of 1.500 Euro. The prize is intended to reward any substantial and original study dealing with military law, law of war or any matter connected with or related to the aforementioned.
Works submitted must have been published after the 1st January 2009 and must be written either in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. The Jury will be presided over by Doctor Giovanna Ciardi. Other four members are going to be designated on equal number both by the International Society for the Military Law and the Law of War and the Italian Group of the same Society.
Works submitted need to be sent in three copies, by postal mail, before 1st January 2012 as follows:
a) two copies to FONDAZIONE PROF. GIUSEPPE CIARDI, Presidente Dott.ssa Giovanna Ciardi, c/o Gruppo Italiano della Società di Diritto Militare e della Guerra, Viale delle Milizie 5/c 00192 ROMA ITALIA;
b) one copy to INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MILITARY LAW AND THE LAW OF WAR SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT MILITAIRE ET DE DROIT DE LA GUERRE, Avenue de la Renaissance 30 – 1000 BRUSSELS/BRUXELLES, BELGIUM/BELGIQUE – General Secretariat/Secrétariat général.
All submissions must indicate the author of the work (full name; postal and e-mail addresses; phone and fax numbers).
The International Society for the Military Law and the Law of War, in order to widen the choice of scientific works for the award, may submit a list of works, eventually based on both the book reviews of the Revue de Droit Militaire et de la Guerre and the articles published by the same Revue, after having sought the consent of the author. The above lists must be submitted by mail with one copy of each work before 1st February 2012, with all the necessary information on the author, to FONDAZIONE PROF. GIUSEPPE CIARDI, Presidente Dott.ssa Giovanna Ciardi, c/o Gruppo Italiano della Società di Diritto Militare e della Guerra, Viale delle Milizie 5/c 00192 ROMA ITALIA.
Appropriate consideration will be taken in order to comply with both the principle of impartiality and the separation of duties between designated members of the Jury and the members reviewing and/or acting as proponents of works for the award. The Jury has the faculty to award a second price of the amount of 500 Euro. In this case the winner of the first price will be awarded with 1.000 Euro. Other not awarded works may obtain a special and reasoned mention for exceptional scientific worth.
The proclamation of the winners will be issued at the XIX Congress of the International Society for Military Law and the Law Of War.
A PDF version of this call for nominations may be downloaded here.
This paper explains how the U.S. military implements its International Humanitarian Law obligation to mitigate and prevent harm to civilians. Specifically, this paper explains in rich detail, based on field interviews, the process the U.S. military follows to estimate and mitigate the impact of conventional weapons on collateral persons and objects in most pre-planned military operations involving air-to-surface weapons and artillery.
In recent years, an entire body of academic literature and policy commentary has been based on an incomplete understanding of how the U.S. conducts military operations. The literature is incomplete because U.S. practices are shrouded in secrecy and largely inaccessible. As a result commentators have lacked a descriptive foundation to analyze and critique U.S. operations. Their writings have focused on easily describable issues such as whether a target was a lawful military objective, and then typically shift attention to the question of proportionality balancing and collateral damage.
These commentators skip an important aspect of actual practice - the scientifically grounded mitigation steps followed by U.S. armed forces. Those mitigation steps are designed to ensure a less than 10% probability of collateral damage resulting from any pre-planned operation. This paper’s description differs from the general and incomplete approach currently found in scholarship and more accurately describes the reality of modern operations. In those operations U.S. armed forces follow rigorous steps prior to engaging in any proportionality balancing.
This paper is intentionally descriptive and explanatory; it makes a contribution to theory by providing a qualitative empirical account that explains for the first time in scholarly literature the process of collateral damage estimation and mitigation as practiced by the U.S. military. While this paper will be especially useful for those seeking to understand how collateral damage is estimated in targeted killing operations, the paper’s relevance is not limited to the context of targeted killings.
Key Findings: In pre-planned operations the U.S. military follows a rigorous collateral damage estimation process based on a progressively refined analysis of intelligence, weapon effects, and other information. When followed, this process dramatically reduces the amount of collateral damage in U.S. military operations, and also ensures high levels of political accountability. However, due to the realities of combat operations, the process cannot always be followed; The U.S. military’s collateral damage estimation process is intended to ensure that there will be a less than 10 percent probability of serious or lethal wounds to non-combatants; Less than 1% of pre-planned operations which followed the collateral damage estimation process resulted in collateral damage; When collateral damage has occurred, 70% of the time it was due to failed “positive identification” of a target. 22% of the time it was attributable to weapons malfunction, and a mere 8% of the time it was attributable to proportionality balancing - e.g. a conscious decision that anticipated military advantage outweighed collateral damage; According to public statements made by U.S. government officials the President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense must approve any pre-planned ISAF strike where 1 civilian casualty or greater is expected.
- Henrik Horn, Louise Johannesson, & Petros C. Mavroidis, The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2010: Some Descriptive Statistics
- Baris Karapinar, Export Restrictions and the WTO Law: How to Reform the ‘Regulatory Deficiency’
- Martin Roy, Democracy and the Political Economy of Multilateral Commitments on Trade in Services
- Kazunobu Hayakawa & Nobuaki Yamashita, The Role of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) in Facilitating Global Production Networks
- Nellie Munin, The Interpretation of the GATS Footnotes: Between a Rock (Form) and a Hard Place (Substance)
- Marc D. Froese, Do Developed Countries ‘Lawyer up’ Faster than Developing Countries? Evaluating the Speed and Momentum of Trade Litigation at the World Trade Organization
- Gilbert Gagné, Free Trade and Cultural Policies: Evidence from Three US Agreements
Risk has always been an element of life. Yet modern technology continues to spread environmentally hazardous activity beyond State boundaries. These hazardous—yet socially useful—activities exist in a grey area between legality and wrongfulness.
The Environment, Risk and Liability in International Law explains the important role liability plays in risk management and environmental protection, within the realm of international law. The text explores questions such as the lawfulness of acts which negatively affect the environment, as well as who should be liable for transfrontier damages. From private to public interest, from individual to common concern, activities involving risk are a growing preoccupation of our societies.
- Ursula Kriebaum, The Relevance of Economic and Political Conditions for Protection under Investment Treaties
- Louise Otis & Eric H. Reiter, The Reform of the United Nations Administration of Justice System: The United Nations Appeals Tribunal after One Year
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
- Roger P. Alford & James Tierney, Moral reasoning in international law
- Oona A. Hathaway, Between power and principle
- Mary Ellen O'Connell, Jus cogens: international law's higher ethical norms
- Lea Brilmayer, The problem of provenance: the proper place of ethical reasoning in the selection of applicable law
- Michael Steven Green, Choice of law as general common law: response to Professor Brilmayer
- Lea Brilmayer, A reply
- Perry Dane, The natural law challenge to choice of law
- Donald Earl Childress III, The role of ethics in United States private international law
- Samantha Besson, The nature of human rights theory: beyond the ethical/political divide
- H. Patrick Glenn, The ethic of international law
This article develops the framework of comparative institutional analysis for assessing the implications of judicial interpretation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The analytical framework offers an improved means to describe and assess the consequences of choices made in treaty drafting and interpretation in terms of social welfare and participation in social decision-making. The analysis builds on specific examples from WTO case law. Our framework approaches treaty drafting and judicial interpretive choices through a comparative institutional lens - that is, in comparison with the implications of alternative drafting and interpretive choices for social welfare and participation in social decision-making processes. By deciding among alternative interpretations, the judicial bodies of the WTO effectively determine which social decision-making process decides a particular policy issue. That decision, in turn, can have profound domestic and international implications. While this article focuses on the WTO, the framework developed here has general relevance for understanding the interpretation of international and domestic legal texts from 'law and economics' and 'law and society' perspectives.
- Marco Pinfari, Time to Agree: Is Time Pressure Good for Peace Negotiations?
- Stephen E. Gent & Megan Shannon, Decision Control and the Pursuit of Binding Conflict Management: Choosing the Ties that Bind
- Jacob D. Kathman & Reed M. Wood, Managing Threat, Cost, and Incentive to Kill: The Short- and Long-Term Effects of Intervention in Mass Killings
- Andreas Leibbrandt & Raúl López-Pérez, The Dark Side of Altruistic Third-Party Punishment
- Scott Helfstein & Dominick Wright, Covert or Convenient? Evolution of Terror Attack Networks
- Halvard Buhaug, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Helge Holtermann, Gudrun Østby, & Andreas Forø Tollefsen , It’s the Local Economy, Stupid! Geographic Wealth Dispersion and Conflict Outbreak Location
- Matthew Gillett & Matthias Schuster, Fast-track Justice: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Defines Terrorism
- Manuel J. Ventura, Terrorism According to the STL's Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: A Defining Moment or a Moment of Defining?
- Harmen van der Wilt, Universal Jurisdiction under Attack: An Assessment of African Misgivings towards International Criminal Justice as Administered by Western States
- Chacha Bhoke Murungu, Towards a Criminal Chamber in the African Court of Justice and Human Rights
- Raphaël van Steenberghe, The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute: Clarifying its Nature
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Cases and Legislation
- Peter Wilkitzki, German Government Not Obliged to Seek Extradition of CIA Agents for ‘Extraordinary Rendition’: Comments on the El-Masri Judgment of the Cologne Administrative Court
- Micaela Frulli, ‘The Times they are A-Changing’ — the Italian Court of Cassation Denies Germany Immunity from Execution to Allow Compensation to War Crimes’ Victims
- André Nollkaemper, Dual Attribution: Liability of the Netherlands for Conduct of Dutchbat in Srebrenica
- Katharina Margetts & Katerina I. Kappos, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
- Abraham L. Newman & Elliot Posner, International interdependence and regulatory power: Authority, mobility, and markets
- Cornelia Navari, The concept of practice in the English School
- Johannes Urpelainen, The enforcement–exploitation trade-off in international cooperation between weak and powerful states
- Dominic Tierney, Multilateralism: America’s insurance policy against loss
- Shannon Brincat, Towards a social-relational dialectic for world politics
- Alexandra Homolar, Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US security policy
- M. Patrick Cottrell & Travis Nelson, Not just the Games? Power, protest and politics at the Olympics
- Valbona Muzaka, Linkages, contests and overlaps in the global intellectual property rights regime
- Nicolas F Diebold, Standards of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law
- Anne Smith, Internationalisation and Constitutional Borrowing in Drafting Bills of Rights
- Filippo Fontanelli, ISO and CODEX Standards and International Trade Law: What Gets Said Is Not What's Heard
- Michael Schillig, Directive 93/13 and the ‘Price Term Exemption’: A Comparative Analysis in the Light of the ‘Market for Lemons’ Rationale
- Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli, Where the Law Becomes Irrelevant: Consular Assistance and the European Union
- Cedric Ryngaert, The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to the Responsibility of Member States in Connection with Acts of International Organizations
- Laurens van Puyenbroeck & Gert Vermeulen, Towards Minimum Procedural Guarantees for the Defence in Criminal Proceedings in the EU
Past two decades have witnessed an unprecedented increase in litigation in the matters of immunity of States and their officials when they are accused of commission of serious violations of human rights and/or international crimes. National courts in UK, USA and elsewhere, as well as international tribunals have reached diverse decisions on these points, but what is more diverse is the reasoning on which these decisions are based. This talk will examine these decisions as part of State practice, which in its classical meaning also includes acts and positions of legislative and executive branches of government. The argument will then proceed to identify five different grounds on which national courts can and must deny immunity to States and officials in both civil and criminal proceedings when the subject-matter of litigation involves serious violations of human rights and/or international crimes.Update: The talk is now available here.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Call for Submissions: The European Union and International Investment Protection Law and Arbitration
Dr. Richard Happ (Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH) and Prof. Dr. Christian Tietje (Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) will be preparing a special edition with a focus on the relationship between investment treaty law and European Union law. This relationship already had been the focus of attention of arbitral tribunals in the past. Several investment treaties are in force between member states of the European Union. Recently, tribunals in i.a. AES v. Hungary and Electrabel v. Hungary faced the task to determine this relationship. With the entering into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, several new aspects became relevant, even though the proposal of the Commission for a regulation establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries (COM(2010)344 final) is still under discussion. However, the EU has started concrete negotiations on investment chapters/treaties with third countries based on the communication from the Commission "Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy" (COM(2010)343 final).
The Special Edition should cover all important aspects arising out of the upcoming EU regulation and the emerging EU investment protection and promotion treaties. Topics to be covered include, inter alia,
- Requests for preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU) by national courts of member states concerning investment arbitration awards (N.N.)
- EU, BITs and Investor's rights - can the post-termination protection be waived by States?
- The EU, the EU members states and the Energy Charter Treaty
- The future of EU investment policy (N.N.)
We ask you to submit substantiated proposals, i.e. an abstract, for topics. Proposed papers should not have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere yet.
The timeframe for the papers is difficult to ascertain. We currently expect that the regulation on transitional arrangements will not be agreed on by Council and EP this year (2011), but rather in winter/spring next year. The Special Edition should be published within a very short time once the final regulation has been adopted. We will be more clear on this by the end of 2011.
- Matthew Saul, The Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law: A Formula for Uncertainty in the Scope and Content of the Right?
- Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon
- Bal Sokhi-Bulley, The Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union: A New Panopticism
- Alexandra Timmer, Toward an Anti-Stereotyping Approach for the European Court of Human Rights
- Phoebe Okowa, The International Court of Justice and the Georgia/Russia Dispute
- Gina Clayton, Asylum Seekers in Europe: M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece
- Daniel Moeckli, Of Minarets and Foreign Criminals: Swiss Direct Democracy and Human Rights
Call for Papers
“Jus ‐ Post ‐ Bellum”: Mapping the normative foundations
May 31– June 1, 2012, The Hague, Netherlands
The proper ending of conflict and the organization of post‐conflict peace is one of the greatest challenges of contemporary warfare. This issue has resurfaced in the context of modern interventions and their aftermath. The Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies’ Jus Post Bellum Project investigates whether and how a contemporary jus post bellum may facilitate greater fairness and sustainability in conflict termination and peacemaking. It seeks to establish the historical and normative foundations of a modern jus post bellum, including its relationship to jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The project seeks to identify the contours, operation, and impact of this concept, based on analysis of historical peace settlements, contemporary peace agreements and case‐studies. In addition, the project seeks to develop a catalogue of rules and principles of post‐conflict peace in order to guide priorities and policy choices in a number of key areas: conflict termination and ending of conflict, the interplay between international humanitarian law and human rights law in post‐conflict settings, the balance between “local ownership” and foreign authority, reconstruction and rule of law reform, the treatment of individual criminal responsibility in peace settlements, and the allocation of property rights.
The project is proud to host its launch conference, “‘Jus ‐ Post – Bellum’: Mapping the normative foundations”, May 31 – June 1, 2012. The first of several project seminars, this conference will seek to clarify the meaning and content of the concept (including, e.g., its relationship to and distinction from the field of transitional justice), including contemporary understandings and criticisms of the concept, and historical and modern approaches towards the definitions of key notions, such as “jus”, “post” and “bellum”.
We are seeking submissions of academic research papers for presentation at the conference. Submissions should include an abstract of no more than 300 words and be accompanied by a CV. Please indicate for which panel the abstract is intended (panels may be subject to change). Submissions must be written in English and sent to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than Friday, January 13, 2012. Selected participants will be informed in early February 2012. Final papers should be submitted by April 15, 2012. Accepted papers may be considered for publication in a conference volume.
Submissions should address one or more of the following issues:
1. Conflict termination and the definition of “post”:
Since Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, the rules of international law have been founded upon a distinction between “war” and peace. Warfare has been categorized in the notions of jus ad bellum (justification of the use of force) and jus in bello (conduct of hostilities) for centuries. Modern armed conflict is characterized by a decline of formality in the beginning and ending of conflict. This makes it necessary to re‐define the trigger for the application of jus post bellum. Taking into account the diversification in contemporary practice (collective security arrangements, modern peace‐settlements, cease‐fire arrangements, occupation), questions arise as to when, and under what circumstances, jus post bellum comes into play, and whether it is necessary to distinguish a jus post bellum proper from a further “jus ex bello”.
We are particularly interested in submissions on the temporal scope of application of the laws of war and armed conflict (i.e., the beginning and ending of hostilities), and indicators for the ending of conflict (whether the conflict is international, internal or involves occupation) as well as guidelines for conflict termination (e.g., exit strategies from conflict).
2. Modern conflicts and the definition of “bellum”:
Classical jus post bellum has been linked to inter‐state warfare and international armed conflict. In light of the proliferation of civil wars, and the extension of the laws of war to internal armed conflict, a modern jus post bellum must be tied to armed violence more generally, rather than inter‐state war. In this context, it is important to investigate which rules of jus post bellum are context (and conflict) specific, and which are global in nature. To what extent can the concept of jus post bellum be extended to internal armed conflicts, non‐traditional wars (e.g. the “war on terror” or the “war on drugs”) and enforcement operations? What would a modern jus post bellum internum imply? What are its sources, and its normative content?
3. Which law applies to the transition to peace — the “jus” in jus post bellum:
Law‐making in the 20th century has been more concerned with jus ad bellum and jus in bello than with jus post bellum. Classical treatises have treated specific elements of the concept (e.g., end of hostilities, conditions of peace treaties, reparation) in a cursory fashion. Individual aspects of jus post bellum have been analyzed as a single phenomenon in law or doctrine, and the study of processes of transition from conflict to peace have been addressed in a sui generis and ad hoc fashion. Rules and norms have remained focused on conflict termination, rather than peacemaking. It has been invoked in connection with themes such as occupation, reconstruction after conflict, state‐building, counter‐insurgency strategy, accountability and post‐conflict justice or R2P. However, the field is muddy and a clear set of norms needs to be developed. What rules, principles and normative frameworks should be included in a definition of jus post bellum? How do these rules interact with just war theory, the conduct of hostilities or the practical challenges of operating in a post‐conflict environment? How does jus post bellum relate to, and how is it different from, the field of transitional justice? Which are obligatory laws and which are better defined as “best‐practices” principles? To what end will these rules of jus post bellum serve? Can they limit the consequences of armed force by entailing a closer consideration of post‐conflict peace in decisions made prior to intervention? Can they encourage parties not to engage in conflict, or to conduct their hostilities during conflict in a manner so as not to damage the prospects of fair and just peace? Can they facilitate a successful transition to peace, rather than a mere “exit” from conflict?
Taking the April 2003 rejection by Israel's Supreme Court of a petition to ban flechette use rounds in the densely populated Gaza Strip as its point of departure, this innovative and interdisciplinary book offers the only in-depth study on flechette weapons conducted to date. Its timeliness is demonstrated in the 2009 Goldstone Report’s call for an urgent UNGA discussion on such weapons’ future legality. The book's first part reviews flechette weapon development and use during the Vietnam War as well as the consequent efforts to ban them. It then turns to the Israeli case: the use in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the resulting Supreme Court petition. The book's third and main part dissects the prolonged debate over banning flechettes while resting on unique primary sources such as Israeli post mortem reports together with an ample legal and military-medical literature. The book thus provides one of the most comprehensive explorations available of the distinctions separating legal from illegal conventional weapons.
- Robert Zoellick, Foreword
- Anne-Marie Leroy, Preface
- Benedict Kingsbury, Global administrative law in the institutional practice of global regulatory governance
- Daniel Bradlow, Reform of the governance of IFIs: a critical assessment
- Hassane Cissé, Should the political prohibition in charters of international financial institutions be revisited? The case of the World Bank
- Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, International financial institutions and claims of private parties: immunity obliges
- William Berenson, Squaring the concept of immunity with the fundamental right to a fair trial: the case of the OAS
- Evarist Baimu & Aristeideis Panou, Responsibility of international organizations and the World Bank Inspection Panel: parallel tracks unlikely to converge?
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Partnerships, emulation, and coordination: toward the emergence of a droit commun in the field of development finance
- Stephen Zimmermann & Frank Fariello, Coordinating the fight against fraud and corruption: agreement on cross-debarment among multilateral development banks
- Michael Trebilcock, Rule of law and development: in search of the Holy Grail
- Deval Desai, Deborah Isser, & Michael Woolcock, Rethinking justice reform in fragile and conflict-affected states: the capacity of development agencies and lessons from Liberia and Afghanistan
- Chiara Giorgetti, International norms and standards applicable to situations of state fragility and failure: an overview
- Annie Petsonk, Legal obligations and institutions of developing countries: rethinking approaches to forest governance
- Chris Brummer, Networks in (-)action? The transgovernmental origins of, and responses to, the financial crisis
- Alexandre Pinheiro dos Santos, Mitigating the impact of financial crises on the Brazilian capital market
- Charlotte Streck & Thiago Chagas, Developments in climate finance from Rio to Cancun
- Richard Stewart, Bryce Rudyk, & Kiri Mattes, Governing a fragmented climate finance regime
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A number of established multilateral regimes offer important avenues for climate mitigation efforts complementary to those of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Tackling discrete dimensions of the climate challenge in regional, sectoral and other global venues can yield action on multiple fronts, contributing toward closing the gap between national pledges and the UNFCCC goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. This discussion paper for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change) examines ongoing and potential efforts in the International Maritime Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Montreal Protocol, and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.