- Thomas Koetz, Katharine N. Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- Karen Pittel & Dirk T. G. Rübbelke, Transitions in the negotiations on climate change: from prisoner’s dilemma to chicken and beyond
- John C. Cole, Genesis of the CDM: the original policymaking goals of the 1997 Brazilian proposal and their evolution in the Kyoto protocol negotiations into the CDM
- Sarah Davidson Ladly, Border carbon adjustments, WTO-law and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
- Bernd Hackmann, Analysis of the governance architecture to regulate GHG emissions from international shipping
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Saberi: Love it or Hate it, But for the Right Reasons: Pragmatism and the New Haven School's International Law of Human Dignity
This Article presents a novel understanding of pragmatism in the New Haven School of international law. The New Haven Jurisprudence is wrapped in layers of mystification and the scant accounts of its pragmatism in the literature are either entirely mistaken or only partially helpful, betray a vernacular or truncated understanding of pragmatism, and fail to engage with the internal, epistemic structure of the policy-oriented jurisprudence. In response, this Article uncovers a contradictory form of foundationalist pragmatism in the Yale Jurisprudence in a peculiar relationship between its contextualist and problem-solving promises and its unreflective normative commitments to a set of postulated values of human dignity. In doing so, it foregrounds a 'foundationalist antifoundationalism' and its crippling impact on the pragmatist promises of policy-oriented jurisprudence. Against the worn-out accusations of the New Haven Jurisprudence of U.S. imperialism or disguised affinity with natural law, understanding its foundationalist pragmatism offers a new appreciation of both the genius of Yale’s policy-oriented approach and the promises of pragmatism for policy thinking in international law.
- Elizabeth Cullen Dunn, The Chaos of Humanitarian Aid: Adhocracy in the Republic of Georgia
- Hannah Mintek, Photo Essay: Unsettled
- Moritz Feichtinger & Stephan Malinowski, Transformative Invasions: Western Post-9/11 Counterinsurgency and the Lessons of Colonialism
- Christian A. Williams, Silence, Voices, and "the Camp": Perspectives on and from Southern Africa's Exile Histories
- Nicolas Guilhot, The Anthropologist as Witness: Humanitarianism between Ethnography and Critique
- Violence, Development, and the Making of the WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011: An Interview with Bruce Jones
- Michael J. Watts, Economies of Violence: Reflections on the WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011
Call for Papers: The United Nations ‘Rio+20’ Conference on Sustainable Development: Appraisal and Prospects of a Paradigmatic Concept
The United Nations ‘Rio+20’ Conference on Sustainable Development:
Appraisal and Prospects of a Paradigmatic Concept
1st Joint Workshop of the ESIL Interest Groups on International Environmental Law and on International Economic Law
12th SEPTEMBER 2012
Call for papers- deadline 23rd April 2012
The ESIL Interest Groups on International Environmental Law and on International Economic Law are pleased to announce that the celebration of their First Joint Workshop will take place in the afternoon of Wednesday 12 th September 2012 (between 6-8pm), that is, the night before the opening session of the Fifth ESIL Biennial Conference, to be held in Valencia (Spain) on September 13-15 th 2012. The group convenors hereby invite the submission of abstracts on the theme of « The United Nations ‘Rio+20’ Conference on Sustainable Development: Appraisal and Prospects of a Paradigmatic Concept ».
Websites of the groups available at: www.esilgiel.wordpress.com (Interest Group on International Environmental Law); and http://inteurlaw.uni-goettingen.de/esil-iel/ (Interest Group on International Economic Law).
1) THE TOPIC
Twenty years after the 1992 Rio Summit on Environment and Development and ten years after the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, the international community will again gather on 4-6 June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro (information available at: www.uncsd2012.org). The objective of this major meeting is to renew and secure political commitment on sustainable development, a paradigmatic concept which has driven the exponential normative development of international environmental law and has become the main policy framework for global development in the last decades. As emerges from the preparatory work of the Rio+ 20 Conference, the summit will likely focus on two themes: green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and institutional framework for sustainable development.
Rather than discussing the outcome of the Rio+20 Conference, this Joint Workshop will seek to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the concept of sustainable development itself. We therefore invite the submission of abstracts which: 1) appraise the historical process of implementation of the concept of sustainable development, exploring its prospects and future evolutions; and/or 2) propose a critical approach to the notion of sustainable development, reflecting on the inherent and unveiled shortcomings of the concept.
2) APPLICATION PROCEDURE
The event will open with a statement by an invited speaker. This will be followed by three papers selected on the basis of this call for papers. Prominent scholars from both International Environmental Law and International Economic Law will run the Joint Workshop. Papers presented at the workshop will be selected through a competitive process. The selection process will be based exclusively on scholarly merit and priority will be given to unpublished papers and work in progress. We welcome proposals from professionals, academics and graduate students, and remain open to proposals which may challenge the importance given by this workshop to the notion of sustainable development as a central issue in the future development of IEL.
Each submission should include the following:
- An abstract of no more than 400 words in English or French.
- A short CV in English or French.
Applications should be submitted to both Peter-Tobias Stoll at PT.Stoll@jur.uni-goettingen.de and Alejandra Torres Camprubí at firstname.lastname@example.org, in WORD (version 1999-2007) or PDF format. Please write “Proposal 2012 Joint Event Workshop” in the subject of the email.
The deadline for submission of proposals is Monday, 23 rd April 2012. The outcome of the selection process will be notified to all applicants by Monday, 14 th May 2012. After selection, each presenter will be expected to produce a draft paper by Monday, 16 th July 2012 for circulation among the other workshop participants.
We look forward to receiving your contributions!
Further information about the groups’ activities can be found at the following websites. Please do not doubt to contact us should you have more questions or queries:
- Interest Group on International Environmental Law: Alejandra Torres Camprubí (email@example.com); and Mario Prost (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Interest Group on International Economic Law: Peter-Tobias Stoll (PT.Stoll@jur.uni-goettingen.de); Luis Hinojosa Martínez (email@example.com), and Marion Panizzon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Stephanie E Berry, Integrating Refugees: The Case for a Minority Rights Based Approach
- Jennifer Bond, Excluding Justice: The Dangerous Intersection between Refugee Claims, Criminal Law, and ‘Guilty’ Asylum Seekers
- Sarah Craig & Maria Fletcher, The Supervision of Immigration and Asylum Appeals in the UK – Taking Stock
- Maria O’Sullivan, Acting the Part: Can Non-State Entities Provide Protection Under International Refugee Law?
The objective of the Conference is to highlight and discuss the emerging legal concerns in public international law and put on record the Indian scholars' thinking/views on it. In recent years, some core principles and norms of public international law have been challenged and attempts have been made to reformulate norms and institutions to perpetuate hegemonies and other attendant evils associated therewith. The Eighth International Conference plans to reinvigorate themes that have generated lively discourses among policy and opinion makers and academicians such as (I) Intervention and International Law, (II) International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression, (III) Prohibition on Torture and Enforced Disappearances, and (IV) Nagoya Protocol and Access to Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources.
- Greg Grandin, The Liberal Traditions in the Americas: Rights, Sovereignty, and the Origins of Liberal Multilateralism
- Jennifer Pitts, Empire and Legal Universalisms in the Eighteenth Century
- Andrew Fitzmaurice, Liberalism and Empire in Nineteenth-Century International Law
- Anthony Pagden, Comment: Empire and Its Anxieties
Thursday, February 23, 2012
- Gregory Shaffer & Tom Ginsburg, The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship
- Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, David G. Victor, & Yonatan Lupu, Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field
- In Memoriam
- Daniel Halberstam, Steven Ratner, & Mathias Reimann, Eric Stein (1913–2011)
- Editorial Comment
- Stephen M. Schwebel, Celebrating a Fraud on the Court
- Current Developments
- Aaron Fellmeth, U.S. State Legislation to Limit Use of International and Foreign Law
- Catherine Redgwell, 60 Years of Legal Scholarship in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly
- Mihail Danov, EU Competition Law Enforcement: Is Brussels I Suited to Dealing with All the Challenges?
- Christopher Stephen, International Criminal Law: Wielding the Sword of Universal Criminal Justice?
- Uglješa Grušić, Jurisdiction in Employment Matters Under Brussels I: A Reassessment
- Melaku Geboye Desta & Moshe Hirsch, African Countries in the World Trading System: International Trade, Domestic Institutions and the Role of International Law
- Helen Anderson, Michelle Welsh, Ian Ramsay & Peter Gahan, The Evolution of Shareholder and Creditor Protection in Australia: An International Comparison
- Vaughan Lowe, The Function of Litigation in International Society
- Mavluda Sattorova, Denial of Justice Disguised? Investment Arbitration and the Protection of Foreign Investors from Judicial Misconduct
- Luke Glanville, The Responsibility to Protect Beyond Borders
- Gamze Erdem Türkelli & Wouter Vandenhole, The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Repertoires of NGO Participation
- Brenda Hale, Argentoratum Locutum: Is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court Supreme?
- Marny A. Requa, A Human Rights Triumph? Dictatorship-era Crimes and the Chilean Supreme Court
- Lorne Neudorf, Promoting Independent Justice in a Changing World
- Ronagh J. A. McQuigg, Domestic Violence and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v United States
- Petr Muzny, Bayatyan v Armenia: The Grand Chamber Renders a Grand Judgment
- Christopher Michaelsen, ‘From Strasbourg, with Love’—Preventive Detention before the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights
- Sasha Lowes, The Legality of Extraterritorial Processing of Asylum Claims: The Judgment of the High Court of Australia in the ‘Malaysian Solution’ Case
- Carlo Santulli, L’Euro : analyse juridique de la « crise de la dette »
- Sabrina Robert-Cuendet, Les investissements intracommunautaires. Entre droit communautaire et accords internationaux sur l’investissement : concilier l’inconciliable ?
- Muriel Ubeda-Saillard, La diversité dans l’unité : l’arrêt rendu par la Cour internationale de Justice le 30 novembre 2010 dans l’affaire Ahmadou Sadio Diallo
- Mariette Todorova, Coopération judiciaire avec la Cour pénale internationale : premières précisions Note S/ Cass. crim., 4 janvier 2011, N° de pourvoi : 10-87760
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
- Coralie Pison Hindawi, The Controversial Impact of WMD Coercive Arms Control on International Peace and Security: Lessons from the Iraqi and Iranian Cases
- Cedric Ryngaert & Anneleen Van de Meulebroucke, Enhancing and Enforcing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by Non-State Armed Groups: an Inquiry into some Mechanisms
- Gabrielle Simm, International Law as a Regulatory Framework for Sexual Crimes Committed by Peacekeepers
- Isaac Terwase Sampson, The Responsibility to Protect and ECOWAS Mechanisms on Peace and Security: Assessing their Convergence and Divergence on Intervention
- Francis Grimal & Graham Melling, The Protection of Nationals Abroad: Lawfulness or Toleration? A Commentary
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the Second Circuit’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) over claims against corporations. Although the parties have focused on issues of corporate liability under the ATS, there is a logically antecedent question of subject matter jurisdiction that the Court should decide before considering corporate liability. All of the parties in Kiobel — whether corporate or individual — are aliens. Understood in its full legal and historical context, the ATS was a jurisdictional statute that did not apply to suits between aliens. The First Congress enacted the ATS as a species of foreign diversity jurisdiction to satisfy the United States’ obligation under international law to redress violence by U.S. citizens against foreign citizens. Accordingly, the ATS was originally understood to give federal courts jurisdiction only over claims by aliens against U.S. citizens for intentional torts to person or personal property. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court sought to interpret the ATS in accordance with the expectations of the First Congress. If the Court adheres to this goal in Kiobel, then it should conclude that it lacks statutory subject matter jurisdiction over the case. If the Court decides that the ATS does not apply to suits between aliens, then the Court likely will never have occasion to decide the thorny question of corporate liability under the ATS. Under the express terms of 28 U.S.C. §1332, federal courts already have jurisdiction over suits by aliens against U.S. corporations provided that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00 — a condition easily met in cases against large corporations.
In this short article, data is presented on the striking lack of women arbitrators in investment treaty arbitrations.The author argues for a mandatory roster system to ensure a more publicly accountable and deliberative merit-based appointments process while also enhancing arbitrator independence.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The global financial crisis of 2008 has given way to a proliferation of international agreements aimed at strengthening the prudential oversight and supervision of financial market participants. Yet how these rules operate is not well understood. Because international financial rules are expressed through informal, non-binding accords, scholars tend to view them as either weak treaty substitutes, or by-products of national power. Rarely, if ever, are they cast as independent variables that can inform the behavior of regulators and market participants alike. This book explains how international financial law "works" – and presents an alternative theory for understanding its purpose, operation, and limitations. Drawing on a close institutional analysis of the post-crisis financial architecture, it argues that international financial law is often bolstered by a range of reputational, market, and institutional mechanisms that make it more coercive than classical theories of international law predict. As such, it is a powerful, though at times imperfect tool of financial diplomacy, and poses novel opportunities and challenges for the evolving global economic order.
This Article examines how concepts designed to regulate state-to-state interaction apply to conflicts involving nonstate actors - be they members of guerilla groups, terrorist organizations, or private military contractors. "Reciprocity” in international law refers to the expectation by a belligerent state that other state parties to a conflict will respect similar legal and behavioral norms - non-use of prohibited weaponry, minimization of collateral damage, and humane treatment of prisoners of war. The “principle of distinction” holds that civilians and combatants are clearly distinguishable protagonists on or near the battlefield. I focus on reciprocity and distinction because they constitute meta-issues whose resolution determines the applicability of accepted legal principles to virtually all modern conflicts. A close examination of these topics suggests that reciprocity and the principle of distinction are of central importance in conflicts involving nonstate actors. On the issue of distinction, I argue for a more expansive understanding of the notion of combatant - an understanding that allows for the greater application of international humanitarian law to nonstate actors, an easier implementation of the principle of distinction, and improved protection of civilian populations. On the issue of reciprocity, I argue that most of international humanitarian law is binding in most conflicts on most actors (whether or not the parties behave reciprocally). The only situation in which a state may not be bound by all of humanitarian law is when an opposing nonstate party repeatedly violates international humanitarian law in an international armed conflict.
Call for Papers:
ASIL–ESIL International Legal Theory Workshop
“Transatlantic Debates in International Legal Theory”
The International Legal Theory Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), in partnership with the European Society of International Law (ESIL) Interest Group on International Legal Theory, will hold a joint works-in-progress workshop at the University of Cambridge’s Lauterpacht Centre for International Law on September 27–28, 2012.
The workshop’s theme is “Transatlantic Debates in International Legal Theory.” On many levels, the interaction between North American international legal scholarship and its European counterpart(s) is working very well. Time and again, however, one finds that the underlying theoretical or philosophical framework is radically different. In this workshop we would like to explore that difference without letting ourselves be defined by it. Contributions analyzing, criticizing, denying or celebrating the difference are welcome, as well as papers exemplifying the various theoretical approaches to international law, be they “American,” “European” or neither. The most important function of this workshop is to intensify the transatlantic theoretical debate by bringing together scholars with diverse disciplinary, philosophical, and methodological perspectives to discuss cutting-edge research on international legal theory.
Up to twelve papers will be selected for presentation. Although discussants will be assigned to introduce the papers, all workshop participants will be expected to read all of the contributions in advance and come prepared to contribute to the discussion. Interested participants should submit an abstract (1,000 words maximum) summarizing the ideas they propose to develop for presentation at the workshop. Submissions on all topics related to international legal theory are encouraged, but preference will be given to proposals that engage the workshop’s theme. Papers that have been accepted for publication prior to the workshop are eligible for consideration, provided that they will not appear in print before the workshop.
The workshop’s organizers will undertake to secure outside funding to cover the costs of travel and accommodation for all scholars who present papers at the workshop, but they cannot, at this stage, guarantee its availability.
Abstract submissions should be sent to asil.esil.theory[at]gmail.com by April 20, 2012. Successful applicants will be notified by May 11, 2012. Papers must be fully drafted and ready for circulation to participants by August 31, 2012. Questions regarding the workshop may be directed to Evan Criddle (ecriddle[at]law.syr.edu) or Jörg Kammerhofer (joerg.kammerhofer[at]jura.uni-freiburg.de).
Monday, February 20, 2012
Informal international lawmaking (IN-LAW) is an important and increasingly common phenomenon of contemporary international life. IN-LAW, however, has not replaced formal lawmaking, but exists alongside it, with multiple, overlapping formal and informal procedures often addressing the same substantive issues in world affairs. Why would states choose to address any given issue through formal or an informal lawmaking – and why might they do both simultaneously? Furthermore, once two or more formal and informal lawmaking processes are underway, how do they interact in practice? To get at these questions theoretically, we develop two distinct theoretical models, one functionalist and the other distributive, and derive predictions about the conditions under which formal and informal procedures interact in complementary or antagonistic fashion. Moving from theory to empirics, we apply the theory to a series of cases, including the regulation of genetically modified foods, the protection of cultural diversity, climate change, humanitarian intervention, intellectual property rights and the legality of nuclear weapons, exploring in each case the motivations of states in establishing formal and informal law-making systems, as well as the complementary or antagonistic interaction of these systems in practice.
For most Americans, the Revolution’s main achievement is summed up by the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet far from a straightforward attempt to be free of Old World laws and customs, the American founding was also a bid for inclusion in the community of nations as it existed in 1776. America aspired to diplomatic recognition under international law and the authority to become a colonizing power itself.
As Eliga Gould shows in this reappraisal of American history, the Revolution was an international transformation of the first importance. To conform to the public law of Europe’s imperial powers, Americans crafted a union nearly as centralized as the one they had overthrown, endured taxes heavier than any they had faced as British colonists, and remained entangled with European Atlantic empires long after the Revolution ended.No factor weighed more heavily on Americans than the legally plural Atlantic where they hoped to build their empire. Gould follows the region’s transfiguration from a fluid periphery with its own rules and norms to a place where people of all descriptions were expected to abide by the laws of Western Europe—“civilized” laws that precluded neither slavery nor the dispossession of Native Americans.
- Mohamed Shahabuddeen, The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: The Third Wang Tieya Lecture
- Keiichiro Okimoto, The Cumulative Requirements of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Context of Self-Defense
- Frank Hoffmeister, The European Union and the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes
- Bing Bing Jia, Effect of Legal Issues, Actual or Implicit, upon the Work of the CLCS: Suspensive or without Prejudice?
- Meagan S. Wong, Targeted Killings and the International Legal Framework: With Particular Reference to the US Operation against Osama Bin Laden
- Henry Gao, Judicial Review of Trade Remedy Determinations in China: An Untested Theoretical Possibility?
- Notes on Courts and Tribunals
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, A New Phase of the Temple of Preah Vihear Dispute before the International Court of Justice: Reflections on the Indication of Provisional Measures of 18 July 2011
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) litigation has emerged as a focal point in the field of corporate responsibility over the past decade, as foreign plaintiffs alleging violations of international law argue their cases in federal court. For corporations doing business abroad, liability under this statute is controversial and has the potential for substantial effects on human rights outcomes, environmental effects, foreign investment and human development, and business practices in general. The Supreme Court will hear an Alien Tort Statute case this term, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, to consider the question of corporate liability under the statute. This symposium will provide a critical examination of the role of the Alien Tort Statute as it relates to corporate responsibility.