New Issue: International Arbitration Law Review

The latest issue of the International Arbitration Law Review (Vol. 14, no. 5, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Thierry Berger & Mark Roberts, The new ICC Rules of Arbitration: a brief overview of the main changes
• Hong-Lin Yu, How far can party autonomy be stretched in setting the grounds for the refusal of arbitral awards?
• Charles Kotuby Jr, ‘Other international obligations’ as the applicable law in investment arbitration
• Sanja Djajic, Contractual claims in treaty-based arbitration – with or without umbrella and forum selection clauses
• Judy Zhu, China’s CIETAC Arbitration – New Rules under review
• Richard Smith, Angeline Welsh & Manish Aggarwal, Jivraj v Hashwani – the UK Supreme Court overturns a controversial Court of Appeal ruling on arbitration
• Luis Fernando Bermejo, Mandatory ICC provision in Guatemala’s Arbitration Law is declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Guatemala

New Issue: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies

The latest issue of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies (Vol. 2, no. 1, November 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Christina M. Cerna, The History of the Inter-American System's Jurisprudence as Regards Situations of Armed Conflict
• Justine N. Stefanelli & Sarah Williams, Disaster Strikes: Regulatory Barriers to the Effective Delivery of International Disaster Assistance within the EU
• Allison Anderson, Jennifer Hofmann, & Peter Hyll-Larsen, The Right to Education for Children in Emergencies
• Valerie Oosterveld, Forced Marriage and the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Legal Advances and Conceptual Difficulties

Garcia & Tomkiewicz: L'Organisation mondiale du commerce et les sujets de droit

Thierry Garcia (Université de Nice Sophia-Antipoli - Law) & Vincent Tomkiewicz (Université de Nice Sophia-Antipoli - Law) have published L'Organisation mondiale du commerce et les sujets de droit : Colloque de Nice des 24 et 25 juin 2009 (Bruylant 2011). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Si de nombreux travaux ont été consacrés tant à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce qu’aux sujets de droit, aucune étude d’ensemble reliant ces deux concepts n’a encore été réalisée à ce jour.

L’originalité de cet ouvrage consiste ainsi à étudier les liens entre cette organisation internationale et les différents titulaires de droits et d’obligations possédant la capacité de les exercer. Une certaine interdépendance, qu’il a été indispensable d’observer, existe bien entre les sujets de droit et l’OMC.

Assurément, la « saisie » des sujets de droit par l’OMC ne modifie pas leur statut et leurs fonctions dévolus dans la société internationale. Pour autant, une pluralité et des particularités se manifestent, lesquelles tiennent en particulier à la diversité des catégories et à l’hétérogénéité des droits et obligations de ces sujets à l’OMC.

Cette recherche collective démontre que le système de l’OMC confère aux sujets de droit un double rôle. Actif, d’abord, parce qu’ils participent à des degrés variables au processus de décision et au mécanisme de règlement des différends de cette organisation, qu’il s’agisse des Etats grâce à leur statut de Membre ou des personnes privées via la qualité d’amicus curiae qui a pu leur être reconnue par l’Organisation. Passif, ensuite, puisque ces sujets sont destinataires du droit de l’OMC ; soit directement, s’agissant des sujets de droit public – les Etats et l’Union européenne –, soit indirectement, le « relais » étatique demeurant généralement nécessaire, s’agissant des sujets de droit privé – les entreprises et les individus.

Une dichotomie et une approche classique – OMC et sujets de droit international (Partie 1) et OMC et sujets de droit interne (Partie 2) – ont été retenues pour exposer de manière claire et rigoureuse les résultats de ces travaux, et notamment que l’OMC ne fait finalement que dévoiler à nouveau la complexité de la question des sujets en droit international.

New Issue: Arbitration International

The latest issue of Arbitration International (Vol. 27, no. 3, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Thomas W. Walsh & Ruth Teitelbaum, The LCIA Court Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators: An Introduction
• Challenge Digests
• LCIA Reference No. UN97/X11, Decision Rendered 5 June 1997
• LCIA Reference No. 97/X27, Decision Rendered 23 October 1997
• LCIA Reference No. 96/X22, Decision Rendered 22 July 1998
• LCIA Reference No. 8086, Decision Rendered 30 September 1998
• LCIA Reference No. UN9155, Decision Rendered 10 November 1999
• LCIA Reference No. 9147, Decision Rendered 27 January 2000
• LCIA Reference No. UN0239, Decisions Rendered 22 June 2001, 3 July 2001 and 3 October 2001
• LCIA Reference No. 1303, Decision Rendered 22 November 2001
• LCIA Reference No. 0256, Decision Rendered 13 February 2002
• LCIA Reference No. 0252, Decision Rendered 1 July 2002
• LCIA Reference No. 1291, Decision Rendered 1 October 2002
• LCIA Reference No. 3431, Decisions Rendered 3 July 2003, 18 December 2003 and 18 February 2004
• LCIA Reference No. 3470, Decision Rendered 14 August 2003
• LCIA Reference No. UN3476, Decision Rendered 24 December 2004
• LCIA Reference No. 5660, Decision Rendered 5 August 2005
• LCIA Reference No. 5700, Decision Rendered 28 October 2005
• LCIA Reference No. UN3490, Decision and Reconsideration Rendered 21 October 2005 and 27 December 2005 Respectively
• LCIA Reference No. 5665, Decision Rendered 30 August 2006
• LCIA Reference No. 3488, Decision Rendered 11 July 2007
• LCIA Reference No. UN7949, Decision Rendered 3 December 2007
• LCIA Reference No. 81007/81008/81024/81025, Decision Rendered 16 June 2008
• LCIA Reference No. 7932, Decision Rendered 17 June 2008
• LCIA Reference No. 81132, Decision Rendered 15 November 2008
• LCIA Reference No. 81160, Decision Rendered 28 August 2009
• LCIA Reference Nos. 81209 and 81210, Decision Rendered 16 November 2009
• LCIA Reference No. 81224, Decision Rendered 15 March 2010
• LCIA Reference No. 7990, Decision Rendered 21 May 2010 (55 KB)
• William W. Park, Rectitude in International Arbitration

Rodogno: Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914

Davide Rodogno (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies - History) has published Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914 (Princeton Univ. Press 2011). Here's the abstract:

Against Massacre looks at the rise of humanitarian intervention in the nineteenth century, from the fall of Napoleon to the First World War. Examining the concept from a historical perspective, Davide Rodogno explores the understudied cases of European interventions and noninterventions in the Ottoman Empire and brings a new view to this international practice for the contemporary era.

While it is commonly believed that humanitarian interventions are a fairly recent development, Rodogno demonstrates that almost two centuries ago an international community, under the aegis of certain European powers, claimed a moral and political right to intervene in other states' affairs to save strangers from massacre, atrocity, or extermination. On some occasions, these powers acted to protect fellow Christians when allegedly "uncivilized" states, like the Ottoman Empire, violated a "right to life." Exploring the political, legal, and moral status, as well as European perceptions, of the Ottoman Empire, Rodogno investigates the reasons that were put forward to exclude the Ottomans from the so-called Family of Nations. He considers the claims and mixed motives of intervening states for aiding humanity, the relationship between public outcry and state action or inaction, and the bias and selectiveness of governments and campaigners.

An original account of humanitarian interventions some two centuries ago, Against Massacre investigates the varied consequences of European involvement in the Ottoman Empire and the lessons that can be learned for similar actions today.

Stahn & El Zeidy: International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice

Carsten Stahn (Universiteit Leiden - Law) & Mohamed M. El Zeidy (International Criminal Court) have published The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Contents include:

• Carsten Stahn, Bridge over troubled waters? Complementarity themes and debates in context
• Luis Moreno-Ocampo, A positive approach to complementarity: The impact of the Office of the Prosecutor
• Juan E. Mendez, Justice and Prevention
• Silvana Arbia, Proactive complementarity – A Registrar’s perspective and plans
• Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The genesis of complementarity
• Mauro Politi, Reflections on complementarity at the Rome Conference and beyond
• William A. Schabas, The rise and fall of complementarity
• Christoph Burchard, Complementarity as global governance
• Mark A. Drumbl, Policy through complementarity: The atrocity trial as justice
• Carsten Stahn, Taking complementarity seriously: On the sense and sensibility of ‘classical’, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ complementarity
• Payam Akhavan, International criminal justice in the era of failed states: The ICC and the self-referral debate
• Michael A. Newton, The quest for constructive complementarity
• William W. Burke-White, Reframing positive complementarity: Reflections on the First decade and insights from the U.S federal criminal justice system
• Frédéric Mégret, Too much of a good thing? Implementation and the uses of complementarity
• Héctor Olásolo & Enrique Carnero Rojo, The application of the principle of complementarity to the decision of where to open an investigation: the admissibility of ‘situations’
• Rod Rastan, Situations & Case: Defining the parameters
• Darryl Robinson, The inaction controversy: Neglected words and new opportunities
• Jo Stigen, The admissibility procedures
• Ben Batros, The evolution of the ICC jurisprudence on admissibility
• Ignaz Stegmiller, Interpretative gravity under the ICC statute: Identifying common gravity criteria
• Megan A. Fairlie & Joseph Powderly, Complementarity and burden allocation
• Harmen van der Wilt, States’ obligations to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes: The perspective of the European Court of Human Rights
• Jann K. Kleffner, The law and policy of complementarity in relation to ‘criminal proceedings’ carried out by non-state organized armed groups
• Roger S. Clark, Complementarity and the crime of aggression
• Gregory Gordon, Complementarity and alternative forms of justice: A New test for ICC admissibility
• Federica Gioia, Complementarity and ‘reverse cooperation’
• Olympia Bekou, In the hands of the state: Implementing legislation and complementarity
• Cedric Ryngaert, Horizontal complementarity
• David Tolbert & Aleksandar Kontic, The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) and the transfer of cases and materials to national judicial authorities: Lessons in complementarity
• Fidelma Donlon, Positive complementarity in practice: ICTY rule 11bis and the use of the tribunal’s evidence in the Srebrenica trials before the Bosnian War Crimes Chamber
• Tarik Abdulhak, Complementarity of procedures: How to avoid reinventing the wheel Paul F. Seils, Making complementarity work: Maximising the limited role of the prosecutor
• Christopher Hall, Positive complementarity in action
• Morten Bergsmo, Olympia Bekou & Annika Jones, Complementarity and the construction of national ability
• Kai Ambos, The Colombian Peace Process (Law 975 of 2005) and the ICC’s principle of complementarity
• Robert Cryer, Darfur: Complementarity as the drafters intended?
• Sarah Nouwen, Complementarity in Uganda: Domestic diversity or international imposition?
• Marieke Wierda & Michael Otim, Courts, Conflict and Complementarity in Uganda
• Phil Clark, Chasing cases: The ICC and the politics of state referral in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda
• Marlies Glasius, A problem, not a solution: Complementarity in the Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo
• Christine Alai & Njonjo Mue, Complementarity and the impact of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court in Kenya

Brown & Miles: Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration

Chester Brown (Univ. of Sydney - Law) & Kate Miles (Univ. of Sydney - Law) have published Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Contents include:

• Chester Brown & Kate Miles, Introduction: evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration
• Philippe Sands, Conflict and conflicts in investment treaty arbitration: ethical standards for counsel
• David Williams & Simon Foote, Recent developments in the approach to identifying an 'investment' pursuant to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention
• Martins Paparinskis, Investment treaty interpretation and customary investment law: preliminary remarks
• Alex Mills, The public-private dualities of international investment law and arbitration
• Jonathan Bonnitcha, Outline of a normative framework for evaluating interpretations of investment treaty protections
• Daniel Kalderimis, Investment treaty arbitration as global administrative law: what this might mean in practice
• Markus Burgstaller, Sovereign wealth funds and international investment law
• Andrew Newcombe, Investor misconduct: jurisdiction, admissibility, or merits?
• Paul James Cardwell & Duncan French, The European Union as a global investment partner: law, policy and rhetoric in the attainment of development assistance and market liberalization
• Nick Gallus, The fair and equitable treatment standard and the circumstances of the host state
• Avidan Kent & Alexandra Harrington, The plea of necessity under customary international law: a critical review in light of the Argentine cases
• Suzanne Spears, Making way for the public interest in international investment agreements
• Andrea Bjorklund, The participation of sub-national government units as amici curiae in international investment disputes
• Christina Knahr, The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: blessing or curse?
• Sergio Puig, The role of procedure in the development of substantive law: the case of Section B of Chapter 11 of NAFTA
• Judith Levine, Navigating the parallel universe of investor-state arbitrations under the UNCITRAL rules
• J. Romesh Weeramantry & Claire Wilson, The scope of 'amount of compensation' dispute resolution clauses in investment treaties
• Andrew Stephenson, Lee Carroll & Jonathon DeBoos, Interference by a local court and failure to enforce: actionable under a bilateral investment treaty?
• Sam Luttrell, Bias challenges in investor-state arbitration: lessons from international commercial arbitration
• Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Protecting intellectual property rights under BITs, FTAs, and TRIPS: conflicting regimes or mutual coherence?
• Antony Crockett, Stabilisation clauses and sustainable development: drafting for the future
• Anastasia Telesetsky, A new investment deal in Asia and Africa: land leases to foreign investors
• Emma Truswell, Thirst for profit: water privatisation, investment law and a human right to water
• Omar García-Bolívar, Economic development at the core of the international investment regime
• Kyla Tienhaara, Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: a view from political science
• M. Sornarajah, Evolution or revolution in international investment arbitration? The descent into normlessness
• Franklin Berman, Evolution or revolution?

New Volume: Asian Yearbook of International Law

The latest volume of the Asian Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 15, 2009) is out. Contents include:

• Sergey Sayapin, International law, the Use of Force and the Crime of Aggression: From the Charter of the United Nations to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
• Chen Yifeng, The Treaty-Making Power in China: Constitutionalisation, Progress and Problems
• Dik Dik Sodik, Post-LOSC Legal Instruments and Measures to Address Illegal IUU Fishing
• Amin Ghanbari Amirhandeh, An Examination of the Plea of Self-Defence vis-à-vis Non-State Actors (Sata Award 2009)
• Rishav Banerjee, Destruction of Environment During an Armed Conflict and Violation of International Law: A Legal Analysis
• Miyoshi Masahiro, The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Revisited: Implications for the Boundaries in the Northeast Asian Seas

Hebrew University of Jerusalem International Law Forum

Here's the schedule for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law International Law Forum for the first semester 2011-2012:

• November 1, 2011: Sigall Horovitz, Shai Dothan, & Gilad Noam, “Updates on recent developments in international law”
• November 8, 2011: Guy Harpaz (Hebrew Univ. - Law), “The Dispute over the Sovereignty of Jerusalem: EU Policies and the Search for Internal Legal Coherence and Consistence with International Law”
• November 22, 2011: Tim McCormack (Univ. of Melbourne - Law), “The 10th Anniversary of the ICC: What Difference Has the Court Made?”
• December 6, 2011: Maria Varaki, “The Interests of Justice under Article 53 of the Rome Statute: Legal and Policy Implications”
• December 13, 2011: TBA, “Updates on recent developments in international law”
• December 20, 2011: Oren Gross (Univ. of Minnesota - Law), TBA
• January 3, 2012: Kai Ambos (Goettingen Univ. – Law), “The legality of the killing on bin laden”
• January 10, 2012: TBA, “The ‘Year in Review’ – Special event to conclude the year 2011 in international law”
• January 17, 2012: Rotem Giladi, “Rites of Affirmation: Progress and Immanence in IHL Historiography”
• January 24, 2012: TBA, “Updates on recent developments in international law”

Wählisch: Israel-Lebanon Offshore Oil & Gas Dispute - Rules of International Maritime Law

Martin Wählisch has posted an ASIL Insight on Israel-Lebanon Offshore Oil & Gas Dispute - Rules of International Maritime Law.

Call for Papers: The Lubanga Trial: Lessons Learned

The International Criminal Court Student Network has issued a call for papers for its 2012 Hague Conference, which will take place March 8-9, 2012. The theme is: "The Lubanga Trial: Lessons Learned." Here's the call:

The International Criminal Court Student Network (ICCSN) invites submissions for its 2012 Hague Conference: The Lubanga Trial: Lessons Learned, March 8-9, 2012, Den Haag Netherlands.

This conference offers undergraduate, graduate and law students, and early professionals/academics (generally within five years of terminal degree) studying or working in the field of International Criminal Law an opportunity to both present and discuss their research. Submissions should be focused on the Lubanga Trial or the International Criminal Court. Invited speakers will be asked to prepare comments or a paper. A number of papers will be selected for publication in the ICCSN's journal, Issues in International Criminal Justice.

Full details are available here.

Conference: Legal Interoperability and Ensuring Observance of the Law Applicable in Multinational Deployment

The 19th Congress of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War will be held in Québec City, May 1-5, 2012. The theme is "Legal Interoperability and Ensuring Observance of the Law Applicable in Multinational Deployment." The draft program is here.

Conference: Inspiration and Innovation in International Law and Politics

This Friday, December 9, 2011, the T.M.C. Asser Instituut will host a conference on "Inspiration and Innovation in International Law and Politics." The program is here. Here's the idea:

The conference marks the 100th anniversary of the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize by the Dutch lawyer, Mr. Tobias Asser. Asser was the first, and until now the only, Dutch citizen to be honoured with this prestigious prize. Asser was a pragmatic lawyer who, in his day, participated in and contributed to numerous developments in the then rising ‘internationalisation’ of the world. Economic and technological developments caused many cross border activities that had to be regulated, not only by state actors, but increasingly also by non-state actors. These developments asked for daring initiatives by creative, innovative and sometimes unconventional thinkers and doers. Asser was such a person.

The aim of the conference is to reflect on Asser’s legal and political heritage and at the same time to address the lessons to be learned from Asser in dealing with contemporary global challenges.

Sciences Po Law School Workshop on "Private International Law as Global Governance”

This academic year, the Law School at Sciences Po is hosting a workshop on Private International Law as Global Governance. Here's the schedule:

• October 21, 2011: Horatia Muir Watt & Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo, Introduction to the PILAGG research project)
• October 28, 2011: Ivana Isailovitch, “Recognition and legal pluralism”
• November 17, 2011: Robert Wai, “Private v. Private: Models of Private Governance in Private International Law”
• November 18, 2011: Kerry Rittich, Robert Wai, & Horatia Muir Watt, “Tools for distributional analysis in law”
• November 25, 2011: Veronica Corcodel, “What room for comparative law in the governance debate?”
• November 29, 2011: Martti Koskenniemi (Julie Saada, Jean Matringe, debaters)
• December 2, 2011: Geoffrey Samuel, “Comparative Law as Resistance”
• December 9, 2011: Ralf Michaels, “Post-critical Private International Law: From Politics to Technique”
• December 16, 2011: Tomaso Ferrando, “Sovereignty abuse, homogeneization of legal orders and land grabbing”
• January 20, 2012: Mads Andenas, “External effects of national ECHR judgments”
• January 26, 2012: Shotaro Hamaoto (title forthcoming)
• January 27, 2012: Ingo Venzke, “On words and deeds: How the practice of interpretation develops international norms”
• February 9, 2012: Benoit Frydman (title forthcoming)
• February 11, 2012: David Kennedy
• February 16, 2012: Michael Waibel, “Privatizing the adjudication of sovereign defaults”
• March 8, 2012: Michael Karayanni, “The extraterritorial application of access to justice rights: The case of Palestinian plaintiffs seeking civil justice before Israeli courts”
• March 9, 2012: George A. Bermann (title forthcoming)
• March 22, 2012: Jeremy Heymann, “Jurisdiction: A discourse on method”
• March 23, 2012: Alex Mills, “Variable geometry and peer governance in private international law”
• April 12, 2012: Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo, “Does global governance require arbitral precedent?”
• April 13, 2012: Michael Hellner (title forthcoming)
• May 4, 2012: Jodie Kirshner (title forthcoming)

Nollkaemper: Joint Responsibility between the EU and Member States for Non-Performance of Obligations Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements

André Nollkaemper (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has posted Joint Responsibility between the EU and Member States for Non-Performance of Obligations Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements (in The EU and International Environmental Law, Elisa Morgera & Gracia Marín Durán eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This chapter explores the basis and manifestations of joint responsibility between the European Union (EU) and its Member States for non-performance of obligations contained in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).

Joint responsibility has often been advanced as an attractive solution where two or more actors contribute to damage and it is unclear what part of the damage is caused by whom. Such proposals seem to be inspired by domestic law, where joint (or 'joint and several') liability is frequently used to solve liability questions involving multiple tortfeasors.

However, the conditions, contents and consequences of joint responsibility in international law remain uncertain. One of the rare situations where the principle actually has found application concern cases of non-performance of obligations under MEAs by the EU and its Member States. The relevance of the principle in this context stems from the fact that while the EU and Member States have shared (external) competences in environmental law, for third States the allocation of competences between the EU and Member States can be unclear and it may be difficult or even outright impossible to identify who is responsible for what. Indeed, the ILC recognized in the Commentary on the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations that such mixed situations indeed may call for the application of the principle of joint responsibility, but left it undefined what this means.

This paper examines the possible foundations and meanings of the principle in this context and explores the (limited) practice.

Call for Papers: Le contentieux à l’OMC

The Institut du Droit de la Paix et du Developpement at l'Université Nice - Sophia Antipolis has issued a call for papers for a conference on "Le contentieux à l’OMC," to take place in late June 2012 (precise date not yet set). Here's the call:

Le contentieux à l’OMC

Appel à propositions

Dans le cadre de ses orientations thématiques, le laboratoire GEREDIC (Groupement d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Droit International et Comparé) de l’Institut du Droit de la Paix et du Développement (Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis) mène, depuis 2009, un programme pluriannuel de recherches sur le droit de l’OMC.

Trois colloques ont été organisés, dont les actes sont publiés ou en voie de publication : « L’OMC et les sujets de droit », en juin 2009 (Th. Garcia, V. Tomkiewicz, L’OMC et les sujets de droit, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2011, 375 p.), « Les sources et les normes et le droit de l’OMC » en juin 2010 (sous presse), « OMC et responsabilité en juin 2011 (actes en cours).

Le prochain colloque se tiendra à la fin du mois de juin 2012 sur le thème Le contentieux à l’OMC (dates à préciser), organisé sous la direction scientifique de Vincent Tomkiewicz, maître de conférences. La conception du colloque s’opèrera selon un format destiné à maximaliser la participation et l’interaction entre les spécialistes issus des milieux académiques et professionnels. La conférence comporte plusieurs sessions ainsi qu’une table ronde. Aussi, une publication des actes du colloque dans les mois suivants la tenue de ce dernier sera assurée, afin notamment de rendre compte des débats qui auront eu lieu dans ce cadre.

L'appel à contribution, ouvert aux chercheurs confirmés (maîtres de conférences, professeurs, professionnels) ainsi qu'aux jeunes chercheurs (doctorants), est ouvert jusqu’au 15 janvier 2012 (date limite de remise des propositions). Les réponses doivent s’inscrire dans l’un des deux ateliers suivants:

- le règlement juridictionnel des différends

- le règlement non juridictionnel des différends

Les propositions doivent être remises avant le 15 janvier 2012 au plus tard par mail à l’adresse (david.pavot@unice.fr). La proposition n’excèdera pas 1500 mots, retournée au format word (.doc ou .rtf) et accompagnée d’un CV.

Après examen par un comité d’évaluation, les candidats sélectionnés recevront une réponse par courriel le 15 février au plus tard. Les contributions finales seront à rendre pour le jour du colloque dans une optique de publication rapide dans un ouvrage collectif.

Pour tout renseignement complémentaire: david.pavot@unice.fr

Call for Submissions: Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law

The Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law has issued a call for submissions for its two forthcoming issues. Here's the call:

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 loupis@rhodes.aegean.gr 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.

Nollkaemper: Inside or Out: Two Types of International Legal Pluralism

André Nollkaemper (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has posted Inside or Out: Two Types of International Legal Pluralism (in Normative Pluralism and International Law: Exploring Global Governance, Jan Klabbers & Touko Piiparinen eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

ASIL International Criminal Law Interest Group Works-in-Progress Workshop

On December 9, 2011, the International Criminal Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law will hold a works-in-progress workshop at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Here are the papers being presented and their commentators:

• 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)

New Issue: Perspectives on Federalism

The latest issue of Perspectives on Federalism (Vol. 3, no. 2, 2011) is out. This is a special issue on "Rethinking (EU) Citizenship." The issue can be downloaded here.

Cannizzaro, Palchetti, & Wessel: International Law as Law of the European Union

Enzo Cannizzaro (Univ. of Rome ‘La Sapienza’), Paolo Palchetti (Univ. of Macerata), & Ramses A. Wessel (Univ. of Twente) have published International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011). Contents include:

• 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

Lewis: Dissent as Dialectic: Horizontal and Vertical Disagreement in WTO Dispute Settlement

Meredith Kolsky Lewis (Victoria Univ. of Wellington - Law) has posted Dissent as Dialectic: Horizontal and Vertical Disagreement in WTO Dispute Settlement (Stanford Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

Sellers: Parochialism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Foundations of International Law

M.N.S. Sellers (Univ. of Baltimore - Law) has published Parochialism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Foundations of International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Contents include:

• 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

Shaffer: Assessing the Advisory Centre on WTO Law from a Broader Governance Perspective

Gregory Shaffer (Univ. of Minnesota - Law) has posted Assessing the Advisory Centre on WTO Law from a Broader Governance Perspective. Here's the abstract:

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.

New Issue: Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The latest issue of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (Vol. 44, no. 4, October 2011) is out. Contents include:

• 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

Stephan: Privatizing International law

Paul B. Stephan (Univ. of Virginia - Law) has published Privatizing International Law (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 97, no. 7, p.1573). Here's the abstract:

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.

Call for Nominations: Ciardi Prize 2012

The Prof. Gisuseppe Ciardi Foundation will has issued a call for nominations for its 2012 prize for a substantial and original study dealing with military law, law of war or any matter connected with or related to the aforementioned. Here's the call:

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.

McNeal: The U.S. Practice of Collateral Damage Estimation and Mitigation

Gregory S. McNeal (Pepperdine Univ. - Law) has posted The U.S. Practice of Collateral Damage Estimation and Mitigation. Here's the abstract:

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.

New Issue: Journal of World Trade

The latest issue of the Journal of World Trade (Vol. 45, no. 6, December 2011) is out. Contents include:

• 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

Barboza: The Environment, Risk and Liability in International Law

Julio Barboza has published The Environment, Risk and Liability in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). Here's the abstract:

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.

New Issue: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

The latest issue of The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (Vol. 10, no. 3, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• 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