Saturday, January 28, 2012
- James Flett, From Political Pre-occupation to Legitimate Rule against Market Partitioning: Export Subsidies in WTO Law after the Appellate Body Ruling in the Airbus Case
- Hunter Nottage & Alejandro Sánchez, Navigating Uncharted Waters: A Review of US-Tuna II
- Brian Goldstein, Potential Impact under US Customs Laws of the World Customs Organization Recent Publication of Commentary 25.1 to the WTO Valuation Agreement Relating to the Dutiable Status of Third-Party Royalties and License Fees
- Paul Casuccio, A Modernization of the Incoterms
- Jessica R. Rifkin, No longer Up in the Air: US Court of International Trade Decides Air Filter Media Is Classifiable as Nonwoven, Duty-Free
Friday, January 27, 2012
- James Crawford & Martti Koskenniemi, Introduction
- Gerry Simpson, International law in diplomatic history
- Martti Koskenniemi, International law in the world of ideas
- Frédéric Mégret, International law as law
- Karen Knop, Statehood: territory, people, government
- James Crawford, Sovereignty as a legal value
- Bruno Simma & Andreas Müller, Exercise and limits of jurisdiction
- David Kennedy, Lawfare and warfare
- Hilary Charlesworth, Law-making and sources
- Benedict Kingsbury, International courts: uneven judicialisation in global order
- Jan Klabbers, International institutions
- Dino Kritsiotis, International law and the relativities of enforcement
- Anne Orford, Constituting order
- B.S. Chimni, Legitimating the international rule of law
- Susan Marks, Human rights in disastrous times
- Sarah Nouwen, Justifying justice
- Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Regulating trade, investment and money
- Thomas Pogge, Divided against itself: aspiration and reality of international law
- Sundhya Pahuja, Conserving the world's resources?
Molinuevo: Protecting Investment in Services: Investor State Arbitration Versus WTO Dispute Settlement
International economic relations are governed by two bodies of international law. Trade in goods and services is the domain of international trade law, embodied in the WTO agreements. Foreign investment is governed by international investment law, consisting of a vast network of investment agreements, including bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and preferential trade agreements (PTAs). These two different fields of international law share a large area of overlap: foreign investment in services, around 55% of all global direct investment, is covered by both investment agreements and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Since the rights and obligations featured in the two frameworks are not always compatible, this legal overlap reduces transparency and undermines governments’ regulatory capacity in an unanticipated manner.
This is the first book to tackle investment law and trade law jointly, and to compare the principles, rules, and dispute-settlement mechanisms of investment agreements with the multilateral framework of the WTO/GATS. Among the many invaluable questions the book addresses are the following: What are the substantive rules that apply to investment in services under investment agreements and the GATS? How do these disciplines differ? Which offers the best protection for investors in services and do they affect the governments’ policymaking capacity? Who can gain access to investor-State arbitration and WTO dispute settlement?
The in-depth analysis, supported by an extensive review of existent jurisprudence, provides a thorough explanation of treaty standards like most favoured nation, national treatment, fair and equitable treatment, domestic regulation, and transparency, as well as procedural rules on access to the dispute-settlement mechanisms and enforcement procedures.
Policymakers will find relevant insights in this work, as it provides a thorough review of legal matters that limit policy decisions and bring about possible contradictions between the two bodies of international economic law. Legal practitioners will benefit from the book’s clear guidelines on the pros and cons of the trade and investment legal frameworks, and under what conditions each system is best suited to protect foreign investment in services.
Garcia: Les observateurs auprès des organisations intergouvernementales : Contribution à l’étude du pouvoir en droit international
Si l’expression « Observateurs auprès des Organisations intergouvernementales » est connue de tout un chacun, pour autant il est évident de constater l’absence d’études qui leur sont consacrées. Dès lors, une réflexion dynamique et dialectique sur les rapports noués entre les Observateurs, les Etats membres et les Organisations intergouvernementales (OIG) présente un grand intérêt. L’originalité de cet ouvrage est d’autant plus importante que cette recherche est envisagée sous l’angle du pouvoir en droit international.
La méthode juridique s’avère nécessaire mais insuffisante pour étudier la complexité des rapports entre les Observateurs, les Membres et les OIG : l’analyse historique, les sciences administrative et politique ainsi que la sociologie des Organisations internationales ont été appelées en renfort pour mener parfaitement cette approche globale et synthétique. Il existe une relation tripartite en raison à la fois de la pluralité des sujets du droit international qui bénéficient du statut d’observateur (Etats, OIG, Mouvements de libération nationale, Organisations non gouvernementales), de l’étendue de la politique juridique extérieure des Etats membres et de la diversité des OIG qui attribuent un tel statut (Organisations à vocation universelle et à caractère régional).
Cet ouvrage démontre que les Observateurs sont placés sous l’étroite dépendance des Etats membres, malgré une amélioration de leur statut juridique portant sur leur accès et activité aux OIG.
L’étude des « Observateurs auprès des Organisations intergouvernementales » – traitée sous l’angle du pouvoir – a ainsi été menée sous ces deux aspects primordiaux : l’extension de leur accès aux Organisations intergouvernementales contrôlée par les Etats membres (Partie I) et l’intensification de leur activité au sein de ces institutions internationales encadrée par les Etats membres (Partie II).
Happold: The ‘Injured State’ in Case of Breach of a Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Legal Consequences of Such a Breach
This chapter covers issues of State responsibility for breaches of non-proliferation treaties. It examines firstly which States can react to which breaches of non-proliferation treaties; in particular, which State parties should be considered to be ‘injured States’ and in what circumstances State parties which are not ‘injured States’ can nevertheless advance claims for breach. Secondly, it considers the legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act, in particular the secondary obligations placed on wrongdoing States as a consequence of their breach of their primary obligations under non-proliferation treaties. It demonstrates that the particularities of non-proliferation agreements as regards the question of who is an injured State are already recognised in the international law of State responsibility. However, in most cases, the traditional emphasis placed on the obligation make reparation as the consequence of breach on an international engagement has little importance in relation to non-proliferation agreements.
Finally the chapter examines whether non-proliferation agreements permit State parties to act unilaterally to invoke their treaty partners’ international responsibility, or whether they are restricted to utilising any relevant treaty compliance mechanisms. It is argued that non-proliferation agreements do not establish ‘special regimes’, albeit that in practice the law of State responsibility does not play a major role in ensuring observance of the commitments undertaken by State parties to them.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The chapter examines the use by international investment arbitration tribunals of non-binding documents and literature. It argues that current practice does not adequately reflect the structural realities of international investment arbitration, and that tribunals must make fundamental changes in the approach they take to the citation of non-binding materials.
The chapter divides non-binding materials into those that can legitimately be used as authoritative guides to the content of international investment law and those that can legitimately be used only as persuasive sources of arguments. It argues that although tribunals currently cite to many non-binding writings as though they are authoritative, international investment law is still too substantively conflicted for any writing to be authoritative. As a result, non-binding writings can only be used as persuasive.
In addition, it argues that although international investment arbitration tribunals have sought to model their approach to citation on the opinions delivered by international courts such as the ICJ, this ignores the important distinctions between the two types of body. The ICJ is a norm-adopting body, capable of setting new legal norms through its decisions, while the decisions of international investment arbitration tribunals constitute merely an expression of the views of the authors. Consequently, international investment arbitration tribunals must use non-binding writings differently than do international courts.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of how non-binding materials should be used by international investment arbitration tribunals.
Jacobs: A Shifting Scale of Power: Who is in Charge of the Charges at the International Criminal Court?
One issue that has come to the fore in the early practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the question of who determines the content of the charges against an accused individual and the scope and timing of any amendments that are to be made. The importance of this issue is threefold. First, having a clear framework for the amendment of charges is important from the point of view of the accused. If he or she is to have adequate time for the preparation of the defence, it is important that there be some certainty as to the charges resting against him or her, without running the risk of multiple amendments. Second, the issues are illustrative of the more general concern in the ICC Statute to achieve a balance between legal certainty and judicial efficiency. The former requires that as few amendments as possible be allowed the more advanced the proceedings are, whereas the latter opens to door to some flexibility to avoid acquittals based on a faulty determination of the charges. Third, as will be illustrated in the course of the chapter, it more generally highlights the difficult balance of power to be struck between various organs of the Court, not just between the Prosecutor and the Chambers, but also between the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber, and begs the question as to whether the judges of the ICC ought to have the final say in matters that might seem to relate more to a legislative rather than judicial function.
This book chapter will explore these issues, identifying the current framework at the ICC, and how it was (expansively and creatively) interpreted by the judges of the Court. A large portion of the Chapter discusses whether the Judges of the Court actually have a power to legally recharacterise the facts of the case, in application of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court. The author argues that this Regulation was adopted contrary to the clear content of the Statute, once again illustrating the fact that international criminal judges confuse their judicial role with a legislative one.
The responses of governments and international institutions to terrorism raise some of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. In particular, attempts to balance the desire to achieve security with the safeguarding of human rights and other aspects of the rule of law have proved to be highly contentious.
This book is unique, not only in terms of its multinational, multidisciplinary nature, but also due to its truly comprehensive approach. It reviews, and examines, the interrelationship between the four principal elements of the international rule of law framework (international human rights, humanitarian, criminal, and refugee/asylum law) within in which counter-terrorism responses should occur.
It focuses primarily on some of the most pressing, emerging, and/or under-researched issues and tensions. These include policy choices associated with meeting security imperatives; the tensions between the criminal justice, or preventive, approach to counter-terrorism and the military approach; the identification of lacunae within existing legal frameworks; and tensions between executive, judicial, and legislative responses. These matters are examined at the national, regional, and international levels.
The book addresses a wide spectrum of issues, including analysis of key legal principles; emergency and executive measures; radicalization; governmental and institutional impunity; classification, administration and treatment of battlefield detainees; the use of lethal force ; forms of, and treatment in, detention;non-refoulement; diplomatic assurances; interrogation versus torture; extraordinary rendition; discrimination; justice and reparations for victims of terrorist attacks and security responses; (mis)use of military courts, commissions, and immigration tribunals; judicial and institutional developed and emerging rule of law norms on terrorism; non-judicial oversight by means of democratic accountability; and the identification and analysis of best practices, including inter-regional judicial and other forms of cooperation, and developed practices for the handling and use of sensitive information.
Le droit international privé repose traditionnellement sur un paradigme étatique que l'affaiblissement de l'État-Nation est venu ébranler. L'érosion du modèle westphalien de la souveraineté renouvelle les sources de la matière au détriment des intérêts étatiques, alors que, parallèlement, ceux-ci sont de plus en plus présents dans les relations privées internationales du fait de la concurrence législative. L'État doit donc trouver des remèdes à ce paradoxe, sans pour autant infléchir sa politique libérale, car un véritable droit à la mobilité internationale est apparu dont l'autonomie de la volonté constitue le corollaire et la protection des personnes privées l'objectif. Entre intérêts privés et intérêts étatiques, les méthodes du droit international privé doivent se redessiner sur un mode fonctionnaliste. L'État étant largement dépassé par le degré d'internationalité des rapports privés et par les pouvoirs privés, le succès de cette méthode implique qu'il agisse en synergie avec les autres ordres juridiques. Le pluralisme juridique, facteur de déclin, devient alors une force.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
States invoke economic crises and security threats to justify treaty non-compliance. The most dramatic recent examples of this phenomenon include “necessity” defences in international investment law; “emergency” derogations in international human rights treaties; “exceptions” for non-conforming measures in international trade law; and doctrinal misapplications of necessity in jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
Necessity and National Emergency Clauses is the first to trace the doctrine’s genealogy from medieval Christian and Islamic religious history to post-Westphalian practices, the International Law Commission’s codifications, and modern treaty formulations. Recognizing the doctrine’s thematic linkage with the State’s sovereign right to delimit international obligation, the volume proposes analytical criteria to assess the lawfulness and legitimacy of interpretations of necessity and national emergency clauses within specialized treaty regimes.
van den Herik: The Meaning of the Word 'Destroy' and the Implications for the Wider Understanding of the Concept of Genocide
The occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Genocide Convention (the Convention) provides momentum to both commemorate the past and reflect on what the future may bring. A first observation at this juncture is that the Genocide Convention has seemingly not lost any of its relevance over the past sixty years. The continuing relevance of the Genocide Convention for legal purposes is demonstrated by the fact that the crime of genocide has featured and continues to feature in quite some indictments before national and international criminal courts and tribunals. These cases address Second World War crimes, but also — and perhaps even in their majority — other situations of mass crime. Even though the Holocaust has not been repeated in scale, form and character, the qualification of genocide has been invoked in quite a number of situations, ranging from the massacres in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur, to the annihilations of Indians in the Americas and the transfer of Aboriginal children in Australia. The question is: are all these situations truly comparable, and is the qualification of genocide the most adequate one? Phrased in more abstract terms: to what extent is the definition of genocide — as included in the Genocide Convention — applicable to new situations, and what can recent jurisprudence teach us about the future application of the Convention? In this essay, it is argued that the essence of the legal definition of genocide is captured in the word “destroy” — part of the mental element of the crime —, namely, that an act is committed with the specific intent to destroy a group. A review of recent jurisprudence on the meaning of the word “destroy” will indicate to what extent, if at all, the definition of genocide, as applied by international judges, has moved beyond its original conceptualization.
Matz-Lück & Hong: Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten im Mehrebenensystem – Konkurrenzen und Interferenzen
Der Band widmet sich in acht Beiträgen den vielfältigen Wechselwirkungen des Schutzes von Grundrechten und Grundfreiheiten im europäischen Mehrebenensystem aus nationalen Verfassungen, Europäischer Menschenrechtskonvention und dem Recht der Europäischen Union. Zu Konkurrenzen und Interferenzen kommt es sowohl innerhalb dieses Mehrebenensystems als auch in seinem Verhältnis zu anderen Staaten und zu internationalen Organisationen wie etwa den Vereinten Nationen. Die Interdependenzen der verschiedenen Ebenen begründen vielgestaltige neue rechtsdogmatische und methodische Herausforderungen. Vor dem Hintergrund der Frage, wie sich die rechtlichen Anforderungen der verschiedenen Ebenen in Einklang bringen lassen, entwickeln die Beiträge zum einen Konturen eines Grundrechtskollisionsrechts für vernetzte Rechtsordnungen. Zum anderen werden die allgemeinen Erkenntnisse durch Untersuchungen von Referenzgebieten bereichsspezifisch konkretisiert.
Schroeder & Mayr-Singer: Völkerstrafrecht, Rechtsschutz und Rule of Law : Das Individuum als Herausforderung für das Völkerrecht
- Andreas Paulus, Erfahrungen mit dem materiellen Völkerstrafrecht im Römischen Statut im Lichte der Überprüfungskonferenz 2010
- Christian Wenaweser, Das Verbrechen der Aggression – der Kompromiss von Kampala
- Walter Gehr, Neue Straftatbestände zur Eindämmung der Proliferation von Massenvernichtungswaffen
- Jelka Mayr-Singer, Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und ad hoc Straftribunale Überlegungen zur Frage möglicher Jurisdiktionskonflikte
- Andreas Th. Müller, Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der frühen Praxis des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes. Self-referrals und Gravitätsanalyse auf dem Prüfstand
- Renate Winter, The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the work of the judges
- Alexander Brenneis & Kirsten Schmalenbach, Rechtsschutz im UN-System
- Konrad G. Bühle, Österreich im Sicherheitsrat und die Rule of Law
Kroll: Normgenese durch Re-Interpretation: China und das europäische Völkerrecht im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert
Gegenstand der Arbeit ist die Übersetzung und Re-Interpretation des europäischen Völkerrechts in China im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Von 1839, dem Ausbruch des ersten Opiumkrieges, bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts, dem Ende des Regimes ungleicher Verträge, untersucht der Autor die Auseinandersetzung mit der in Europa wurzelnden normativen Ordnung des modernen Völkerrechts in China. Eingebettet in den theoretischen Rahmen soziologischer Annahmen zu Weltgesellschaft und Weltkultur leistet das Werk einen Beitrag zum Verständnis global-lokaler Wirkungszusammenhänge in langfristiger historischer Perspektive. Empirisch diskutiert der Autor qualitativ die Ausbreitung und Re-Interpretation des Völkerrechts in China und entwickelt so eine Perspektive auf die außer-europäische Geschichte des Völkerrechts und seiner Wissenschaft.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
This is an extended version of a contribution to the forthcoming Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law. It focuses on the phenomenon of "treaty congestion," which commentators have tied to the rapid expansion of international environmental law in recent decades. Arguably the number of international instruments has hampered implementation. In particular, the lack of coordination in the face of proliferation and the lack of capacity challenge the operationalizing international environmental obligation by necessary and sufficient laws, policies, programs and plans. This contribution considers the issue of treaty congestion, and makes suggestions for how it might be overcome.
States which face non-state actors in military armed conflict tend to claim that changes to IHL/LOAC are required. This study attempts to show that a proper interpretation of the existing principles of IHL might sometimes provide satisfactory answers to the problems posed by non-state actors.
Its main argument involves the principle of proportionality. This principle is best understood as an administrative or institutional principle intended to be based on the reasonable discretion of the commander in the field. This discretion is not unlimited – it is guided by respect for human life and civilian immunity. It should be reviewed in advance to make sure that the proper questions are asked. It should be reviewed after the actions take place in order that mistakes might save future commanders from similar mistakes.
- Panel 1: Trade and Economic Regulation
- David Zaring, “The New Architecture of Global Financial Regulation” - Comment: Tim Meyer
- Evan Criddle, “Humanitarian Financial Intervention” - Comment: William Magnuson
- John Coyle, “Reviving the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation” - Comment: Deepa Badrinarayana
- Panel 2: The Legitimacy of International Law and Adjudication
- Harlan Cohen, “Careening Towards International Law’s Erie Moment” - Comment: Jean Galbraith
- Alexandra Huneeus, “International Criminal Law by Other Means” - Comment: Shahram Dana
- Ziv Bohrer, “Can International Criminal Law Ever Be Just and Effective? Rethinking the Lessons from Sociology and Psychology” - Comment: Margaret M. deGuzman
- Panel 3: New Perspectives on Human Rights, Refugee, and International Humanitarian Law
- Quinn Saunders, “The Integrated Enforcement of Human Rights” Comment: Shana Tabak
- Anna Dolidze, “What Is “Property”? Property Theory in the International Regime on Property Restitution to the Forcibly Displaced Persons” - Comment: Alexandra Harrington
- Alexander K. A. Greenawalt, “Beyond War: Justifying Targeted Killing in Law and Morality” - Comment: Markus Wagner
- Panel 4: Territory and Sovereignty
- Anna Spain, “Contextual Sovereignty” - Comment: Scott Sullivan
- Jennifer Daskal, “The Geography of the Battlefield: A Framework for Detention and Targeting Outside the ‘Hot’ Conflict Zone” - Comment: Robert Knowles
- Milena Sterio, “Piracy off the Coast of Somalia: The Argument for Prosecution in the National Courts of Kenya, the Seychelles, and Mauritius” - Comment: Cymie Payne
- Odette Lienau, “Rethinking Sovereign Debt: The Politics of Reputation in the Twentieth Century” - Comment: Jason Yackee
- Early Stage Paper Workshop
- Session 1: Deepa Badrinarayana, James Coleman, Cymie Payne
- Session 2: Nienke Grossman, Robert Knowles, William Magnuson
- Mark Wu, Antidumping in Asia’s Emerging Giants
- Kevin Jon Heller, A Sentence-Based Theory of Complementarity
- David L. Sloss, Executing Foster v. Neilson: The Two-Step Approach to Analyzing Self-Executing Treaties
- David Landau, The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement
Monday, January 23, 2012
- Janine Natalya Clark, Reflections on trust and reconciliation: a case study of a central Bosnian village
- Elena Katselli, International peace and security, human rights and the courts: a critical re-appraisal
- Milfrid Tonheim, ‘Who will comfort me?’ Stigmatization of girls formerly associated with armed forces and groups in eastern Congo
- Olga A. Avdeyeva, Does reputation matter for states' compliance with international treaties? States enforcement of anti-trafficking norms
- Aimee Kanner Arias & Mehmet Gurses, The complexities of minority rights in the European Union
- Oduntan Jawoniyi, Children's rights and religious education in state-funded schools: an international human rights perspective
- Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Human rights gaps in the Palestinian criminal system: a United Nations role?
- Don Selby, Patronage, face, vulnerability: articulations of human rights in Thailand
- January 19, 2012: Vera Gowlland-Debbas (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies - Law), The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Formulation and Development of Fundamental Norms of International Law
- January 26, 2012: Martins Paparinskis (Univ. of Oxford - Law), Investment Treaty Arbitration: The (New) Law of State Responsibility?
- February 2, 2012: Michael Ming Du (Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong - Law), The Place of National Preferences in International Trade Law
- February 9, 2012: Frank Berman (Univ. of Oxford - Law), Another look at the interpretation of treaties
- February 16, 2012: Tullio Scovazzi (Univ. of Milano-Bicocca - Law), The Restitution of Removed Cultural Properties: a Historical Precedent
- February 23, 2012: TBA
- March 1, 2012: Kimberley Trapp (Univ. of Cambridge - Law), State Responsibility for International Terrorism
- March 8, 2012: Catherine Redgwell (Univ. College London - Law), International Energy Law for the 21st Century
In this article I explore some answers to the question whether there could or ought to be a radical international law, or even, more modestly, a radical approach to international law. Paavo Atiaho has referred to 'the left wing international law project.' My own answer to my investigations is that almost all 'critical' or 'radical' international law is firmly located in the academy, or the 'discipline' or the 'field' as it is often called. It is too often marked by eclecticism and the closely related pragmatism which traditionally emanates from the United States, just as British mainstream thinking is often termed 'empiricism.' I criticise the part of this large corpus of work which I have selected in some detail, on its own terms.In this article I will explore the reasons why the NAIL and even the TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) approaches, and David Kennedy’s curiously unpolitical critique, cannot provide a 'radical international law' in the sense intended by the call for papers to which this article is a response.
The editors of EYIEL invite contributions from prospected authors with unpublished articles or working papers for EYIEL Volume 5 (2014) to be published at the end of 2013. The contributions should discuss subjects which fall into one of the following fields:
1. The Global Monetary and Financial System 70 Years After Bretton Woods
2. The Global Trading Order 20 Years After Marrakesh
Authors are requested to submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to the one of the editors of the EYIEL (see below). The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 28 February 2012.
The selection of papers will take place by the end of April 2012; the deadline for submission of the final version of the paper is 28 February 2013.
Final submissions should follow the house style (to be distributed with a letter of acceptance) and should not exceed 15.000 words (footnotes included).
The EYIEL especially encourages younger scholars to consider this call for papers and welcomes contributions from outside the EU.
Abstracts and further enquiries should be directed electronically (PDF) to one of the editors of the EYIEL.
Prof. Dr. Christoph Herrmann, LL.M.
Prof. Dr. Jörg-Philipp Terhechte
Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski
The Sixth Annual Joint Conference of Ono Academic College and Columbia University, June 5-6, 2012
National Security and Criminal Justice
The School of Law at Ono Academic College invites submissions for the Sixth Annual Joint Conference of Ono Academic College and Columbia University, which will take place on June 5-6, 2012, in Kiryat Ono, Israel.
This year's conference will examine questions at the intersection of national security and criminal justice, through comparative and international perspectives. In particular, we would like to examine the following topics:
Special Courts and Tribunals:
Special "national security" courts were always in existence, and still exist today in many countries. The goal of the conference in this context is to provide a comparative overview of such special tribunals in western democracies. What current justifications are brought for establishing and using such courts? How are such courts comprised? What is the nature of the criminal procedure in these courts? How are the defendants' due process rights ensured? What is the quality of the legal representation afforded to defendants, and how much does international law come into play in the decisions of these courts?
Special Rules and Procedures Applied in Regular Courts:
In some instances, suspected terrorists and defendants tried for national security offences are tried in regular state courts. The conference will explore, with regard to these instances, the special rules and procedures applied in such instances, including any procedural and substantive differences between national security cases and "regular" criminal cases, the special challenges faced by attorneys representing such defendants and the implications of classifying offences as security offences.
The Role of International Law:
In an era of global terrorism, international cooperation in fighting terrorism is viewed as inevitable, and international law has been enlisted to facilitate cooperation and thus strengthen states' national security. International criminal law, on the other hand, is viewed by some as preventing state officials from employing measures used in the past due to fears of being subject to future prosecution. The conference would like to explore the interrelationship between national security and international law and to examine the ways international law can be employed to strengthen national security as well as the ways in which it limits states' actions in fighting security threats.
Candidates interested in participating in the conference are invited to submit abstracts of up to 500 words, along with a brief cv, to Tamar Hostovsky Brandes (tamar_brandes[at]ono.ac.il) by February 30, 2012. Participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
- Juan Manuel Medina Amador, Examen del acuerdo ADPIC desde la perspectiva del acceso a los medicamentos
- Björn Arp, La inmunidad de jurisdicción de los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo. Análisis de la práctica de los Estados Unidos de América
- José Elías Esteve Moltó, La persecución de las violaciones del derecho internacional humanitario en el contexto de los conflictos armados internos: el caso de Birmania ante la jurisdicción universal en España
- Rosa Ana Alija Fernández, Las quejas intestatales ante órganos judiciales o cuasi-judiciales de garantía de los derechos humanos: ¿Un mecanismo útil en situaciones de crisis?
- Hernán Olmedo González, Diez años de la Carta Democrática Interamericana: un régimen internacional para la defensa de la democracia
- Miguel-Ángel Michinel Álvarez, El cobro de deudas en el proyecto OHADAC: Seis propuestas en busca de autor
- Antonia Durán Ayago, El derecho a la asistencia jurídica gratuita en los litigios transfronterizos
- Miguel Ángel Martín López, El sometimiento de la especulación al derecho a la alimentación
- José Pablo Alzina de Aguilar, Human dignity according to international instruments on human rights
- Nuria González Martín, Alejandro León Vargas, & Marisol Cuevas Tavera, México y la Convención de La Haya de 30 de junio de 2005 sobre acuerdos de elección de foro