In recent years social scientists have begun exploring the links between democracy and inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI). Researchers have spent somewhat less time examining the relationship between democracy and the kinds of FDI policies that may be thought to more directly drive investment decisions. In this Research Note I present a semiparametric statistical analysis of the relationship between democracy and a variety of subjective indicators of the FDI policy environment, including expert perceptions of expropriation risk. My analysis suggests a relationship that is both weaker and more nuanced than might be implied by the existing literature. Marginal increases in democracy appear to be a relatively poor predictor of FDI policy.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Over the past two decades, human rights language has spread like wildfire across international policy arenas. The activists who sparked this fire are engaged in two different campaigns. The first is comparatively modest, involving the persuasion of tens of thousands of global elites such as journalists, UN officials, donors, and national political leaders. The second is broader and more complex: to make real impact on the behavior of tens of millions of state agents worldwide. While most international relations scholars agree that the first campaign has made real gains, opinions are split on the success - past, present and future - of the second. In part, these divisions fall along methodological lines. With some exceptions, qualitative scholars working in the empirical international relations tradition express more optimism than their quantitative counterparts, whose contributions to the sub-field are relatively new. This article reviews several new books on human rights and shows how their insights engage with these ongoing methodological debates. We argue that both qualitative and quantitative approaches offer important strengths, and that neither has a monopoly on truth. Still, the human rights discourse may be thriving, at least in part, for reasons unrelated to impact. We conclude with suggestions for more systematic and multi-method research, along with a plea for scholarly attention to the potential downsides of international human rights promotion.
Howse & Langille: Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute and Why the WTO Should Permit Trade Restrictions Justified by Non-Instrumental Moral Values
This Article examines the extent to which countries can use animal welfare concerns to justify placing restrictions on international trade, under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). We argue that non-instrumental moral and religious concerns should be a legitimate source of trade policy. To make this claim, we examine a current WTO dispute between the European Union (EU), Canada, and Norway. The EU has banned seal products from being sold in the EU, because of animal welfare concerns regarding how the animals are hunted and skinned. Canada and Norway have challenged this regulation at the WTO, arguing that animal welfare is not a legitimate rationale for restricting trade under the law of the WTO. First, we show that animal welfare has long been a motivation for legislation, both in Europe and elsewhere. Second, we demonstrate that the EU measure was taken because of the moral belief that animal welfare should be protected, a belief related both to avoidance of actual suffering of animals and about the appropriate human attitude toward their treatment. Third, we argue that the EU measure does not violate any WTO provisions and, even if it did, it could be justified under the General Exceptions clause (Article XX) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the primary source of WTO law). Finally, we argue that the WTO should not deny countries the ability to regulate for moral reasons. If the WTO were to do this, it would risk imposing a secular, materialist, instrumentally rational worldview on its member states. Instead, the WTO should permit pluralism – competing notions of righteousness. – and allow countries to regulate for moral reasons. The EU’s seal products ban should be upheld by the WTO. The WTO legal framework, moreover, must be able to accommodate and accept that animal welfare measures may have at the same time both a utilitarian or instrumental aspect (improving animal welfare outcomes) as well as an expressive aspect, indicating moral opprobrium at the inhumane treatment of animals.
One of the major innovations of the World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement Understanding (“DSU”) is the regulation of sanctions in response to violations of trade law. The DSU requires governments to receive multilateral approval before suspending trade concessions and limits the extent of retaliation to prospective damages. In addition, the DSU permits governments to impose only conditional sanctions: sanctions for violations that continue after the dispute resolution process is complete. This enforcement regime creates a remedy gap: governments cannot respond, even to obvious breaches, until the end of the dispute resolution process (and then only to the extent of prospective damages). This gap might not be particularly important if the dispute resolution process were short. In practice, however, the WTO dispute resolution process has proven increasingly time consuming. This Article explores the growth of delays in the WTO dispute resolution process and the increasing significance of the remedy gap. It highlights how the DSU system essentially provides respondent states with an option to violate trade rules for several years without facing trade retaliation. The remedy gap also has counterproductive effects on settlement negotiations: the system gives respondent states few reasons to settle before the end of dispute resolution unless the states are compensated for doing so. Finally, this system may lead frustrated complaining states to subvert the DSU regime by acting outside of the legal framework. This Article discusses several solutions to the remedy gap, most notably creating a procedure where WTO panels can issue preliminary injunctions.
- Björn Arp, Lessons Learned from Spain's Practice bofore the United Nations Human Rights Reporting Mechanisms: Treaty Bodies and Universal Periodic Review
- Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís, International Successions in Spain: The Impact of a New EU Regulation
- Pilar Rodríguez Mateos & Angel Espiniella Menéndez, The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in Spanish Criminal Practice (2003-2009)
- Jaume Ferrer Lloret, Spanish Practice in Respect of Intercountry Adoption
- Carlos Villán Durán, The Human Right to Peace: A Legislative Initiative from the Spanish Civil Society
- William C. Banks, Toward an Adaptive International Humanitarian Law: New Norms for New Battlefields
- Geoffrey S. Corn, Extraterritorial Law Enforcement or Transnational Counterterrorist Military Operations: The Stakes of Two Legal Models
- Gregory Rose, Preventive Detention of Individuals Engaged in Transnational Hostilities: Do We Need a Fourth Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions?
- David M. Crane & Daniel Reisner, "Jousting at Windmills": The Laws of Armed Conflict in an Age of Terror - State Actors and Nonstate Elements
- Eric Talbot Jensen, Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Concept Broad Enough for Today's Targeting Decisions
- Daphné Richemond-Barak, Nonstate in Armed Conflicts: Issues of Distinction and Reciprocity
- Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Children as Direct Participants in Hostilities: New Challenges for International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law
- Renée de Nevers, Private Military Contractors and Changing Norms for the Laws of Armed Conflict
- Robert P. Barnidge Jr., The Principle of Proportionality Under International Humanitarian Law and Operation Cast Lead
- Corri Zoli, Humanizing Irregular Warfare: Framing Compliance for Nonstate Armed Groups at the Intersection of Security and Legal Analyses
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Transnational litigation and procedure is an important and timely topic - it is now taught as a first-year course in several law schools, prominent law firms have established transnational litigation practices and national courts have emerged to play a significant role in responding to cross-border challenges. Several recent high-profile cases have involved international elements, and just last term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first personal jurisdiction case involving international elements in over 25 years. From personal jurisdiction, forum non coveniens and conflicts of laws to interjurisdictional preclusion and enforcement of foreign judgments, a number of important procedural issues now commonly arise in transnational civil litigation cases.
- Special Issue: The Fortieth Anniversary of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
- Anada Tiéga, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: 40 Years of Biodiversity Conservation and Wise Use
- C. Max Finlayson, Nick Davidson, Dave Pritchard, G. Randy Milton & Heather MacKay, The Ramsar Convention and Ecosystem-Based Approaches to the Wise Use and Sustainable Development of Wetlands
- Nick Davidson & David Coates, The Ramsar Convention and Synergies for Operationalizing the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecosystem Approach for Wetland Conservation and Wise Use
- Ruth Cromie, Nick Davidson, Colin Galbraith, Ward Hagemeijer, Pierre Horwitz, Rebecca Lee, Taej Mundkur & David A. Stroud, Responding to Emerging Challenges: Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1
- Ornella Ferrajolo, State Obligations and Non-Compliance in the Ramsar System
- Marcela Bonells & Monica Zavagli, National Ramsar/Wetlands Committees Across the Six Ramsar Regions: Diversity and Benefits
- Matthew McCartney, Lisa-Maria Rebelo, Everisto Mapedza, Sanjiv de Silva & C. Max Finlayson, The Lukanga Swamps: Use, Conflicts, and Management
Feichtner: The Law and Politics of WTO Waivers: Stability and Flexibility in Public International Law
Despite being an important legal instrument in the law of the WTO, the waiver has hitherto been the subject of little scholarly analysis. Isabel Feichtner fills this gap by challenging the conventional view that the WTO's political bodies do not engage in significant law-making. She systemises the GATT and WTO waiver practice and suggests a typology of waivers as individual exception, general exception and rule-making instruments. She also presents the procedural and substantive legal requirements for the granting of waivers, deals with questions of judicial review and interpretation of waiver decisions, and clarifies the waiver's potential and limits for addressing the need for flexibility and adaptability in public international law and WTO law in particular. By connecting the analysis of waiver competence and waiver practice to the general stability/flexibility challenge in public international law, the book sheds new light on the WTO, international institutions and international law.
Le principe de légalité des peines, formulé par les Philosophes des Lumières en référence à des critères formels, est un principe fondamental du droit pénal. Aujourd’hui défini en fonction de critères matériels (prévisibilité, accessibilité et qualité du droit), il a toujours pour objectif de garantir les libertés individuelles et la sécurité juridique. Le droit international pénal tel qu’appliqué par les juridictions internationales pénales (Tribunaux pénaux internationaux pour l’ex-Yougoslavie et pour le Rwanda et Cour pénale internationale) n’échappe pas à l’obligation de respecter la légalité des peines ; et ce d’autant plus que la seule sanction prononçable au niveau international (l’emprisonnement) atteint un bien juridique protégé des plus essentiels : la liberté. Le présent ouvrage démontre, dans une première partie, le non-respect de la légalité des peines par ces juridictions internationales. L’auteur explique dans une seconde partie que ce manquement est dû à plusieurs causes, notamment au silence des sources du droit international pénal sur les peines, à l’incohérence jurisprudentielle, mais aussi aux objectifs inadéquats attribués à l’heure actuelle à ce droit. Dès lors, s’impose une nécessaire redéfinition des objectifs et finalités que le droit international pénal entend atteindre et la mise en place d’un code international pénal énonçant les peines encourues pour chacune des infractions. Ces aménagements essentiels découlent du fait que l’outil pénal appliqué en droit international a parfois servi non pas les buts qui devaient être les siens, mais ceux que certains voulaient lui donner.
Until recently, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been an effective framework for cooperation because it has continually adapted to changing economic realities. The current Doha Agenda is an aberration because it does not reflect one of the biggest shifts in the international economic and trading system: the rise of China. Even though China will have a stake in maintaining trade openness, an initiative that builds on but redefines the Doha Agenda would anchor China more fully in the multilateral trading system. Such an initiative would have two pillars. First, a new negotiating agenda that would include the major issues of interest to China and its trading partners, and thus unleash the powerful reciprocal liberalization mechanism that has driven the WTO process to previous successes. Second, new restraints on bilateralism and regionalism that would help preserve incentives for maintaining the current broad non-discriminatory trading order.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
- Thierry Berger & Mark Robertson, 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
- 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
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.
- 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
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.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
- 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
- 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?
- 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
- 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”
Monday, December 5, 2011
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 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.
- 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
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.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Le contentieux à l’OMCAppel 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 différendsLes propositions doivent être remises avant le 15 janvier 2012 au plus tard par mail à l’adresse (email@example.com). 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: firstname.lastname@example.org