- Fikremarkos Merso Birhanu, Ethiopia's World Trade Organization Accession and Maintaining Policy Space in Intellectual Property Policy in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Era: A Preliminary Look at the Ethiopian Patent Regime in the Light of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Obligations and Flexibilities
- Nefissa Chakroun, Improving Patent Information Quality: Development and the Disclosure Requirements
- Fuxiao Jiang & Daniel Gervais, Collective Management Organizations in China: Practice, Problems and Possible Solutions
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Kelsall: Culture under Cross-Examination: International Justice and the Special Court for Sierra Leone
The international community created the Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute those who bore the greatest responsibility for crimes committed during the country's devastating civil war. Tim Kelsall examines some of the challenges posed by the fact that the Court operated in a largely unfamiliar culture, in which the way local people thought about rights, agency and truth-telling sometimes differed radically from the way international lawyers think about these things. By applying an anthro-political perspective to the trials, he unveils a variety of ethical, epistemological, jurisprudential and procedural problems, arguing that although touted as a promising hybrid, the Court failed in crucial ways to adapt to the local culture concerned. Culture matters, and international justice requires a more dialogical, multicultural approach.
Lunedi 18 giugno 2012
INDIRIZZI DI SALUTO
Gennaro Masiello, Presidente Camera di Commercio Benevento
Filippo Bencardino, Rettore Università degli Studi del Sannio
Giuseppe Marotta, Direttore Dipartimento SEGIS
Felice Casucci, Università degli Studi del Sannio
Evoluzione storica e modelli di organizzazioni internazionali
Angela Del Vecchio (LUISS Guido Carli Roma)
Niels Blokker (University of Leiden)
Alessandro Polsi (Università di Pisa)
Universalismo e appartenenza nazionale/regionale
nella storia dell’ONU e delle agenzie specializzate
Angela Di Stasi (Università di Salerno)
Vertici e soft International Organizations
Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Cergy-Pontoise)
L’organisation intergouvernementale et l’institutionnalisation des relations internationales: la fin d’un modèle
Piero Pennetta (Università di Salerno)
Il contributo delle organizzazioni regionali allo studio dell’organizzazione internazionale
Vittorio Mainetti (Université de Genève)
L’evoluzione delle immunità giurisdizionali delle organizzazioni internazionali nel periodo tra le due guerre mondiali
Elisa Tino (Università di Salerno)
La soluzione giurisdizionale delle controversie nelle organizzazioni regionali
Martedi 19 giugno 2012
Profili generali del diritto delle organizzazioni internazionali
Natalino Ronzitti (LUISS Guido Carli Roma)
Roberto Virzo (Università degli Studi del Sannio)
Gli atti delle organizzazioni internazionali: una proposta di nuova classificazione
Pietro Pustorino (Università di Siena)
Aspetti problematici della responsabilità delle organizzazioni internazionali
Guillaume Le Floch (Université de Rennes I)
Violation des droits de l’homme et responsabilité des organisations internationales
Ivan Ingravallo (Università di Bari Aldo Moro)
La controversa questione della successione tra organizzazioni internazionali
Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati, College of Law)
The Participation of the BRICS Countries in International Organizations
Massimo Orzan (Tribunale dell’Unione europea)
L’immunità delle organizzazioni internazionali nel diritto internazionale odierno
Daniele Gallo (LUISS Guido Carli Roma)
I funzionari delle organizzazioni internazionali: aspetti problematici
L’azione delle organizzazioni internazionali tra universalismo e regionalismo
Ugo Villani (Università di Bari Aldo Moro)
Giovanni Cellamare (Università di Bari Aldo Moro)
Le attività di mantenimento della pace nei rapporti tra Nazioni Unite e organizzazioni regionali
Berta E. Hernández-Truyol (University of Florida, Levin College of Law)
International Organizations and Gender Discrimination
Maria Rosaria Mauro (Università del Molise)
Il ruolo delle organizzazioni economiche nella tutela di valori globali
Susanna Cafaro (Università del Salento)
La crisi finanziaria internazionale e l’evoluzione delle Istituzioni di Bretton Woods
Concetta Brescia Morra (Università degli Studi del Sannio)
The European Financial Supervisory Architecture
Jorrit Rijpma (University of Leiden)
The External Relations of EU Agencies
Victor L. Gutiérrez Castillo (Universidad de Jaén)
Islam et organisations internationales dans la société internationale contemporaine
- Roman Grynberg, Masedi Motswapong & Diana Philimon, Diamond Beneficiation and the WTO
- Eric De Brabandere, The ICSID Rule on Early Dismissal of Unmeritorious Investment Treaty Claims: Preserving the Integrity of ICSID Arbitration
- Liying Zhang & Kuan Shang (Kelly), The Crown in the People’s Republic: Chinese State Entities Enjoying Crown Immunity in Hong Kong
- S. R. Subramanian, Too Similar or Too Different: State of Necessity as a Defence under Customary International Law and the Bilateral Investment Treaty and their Relationship
- Bhawna Gulati, Minimum Resale Price Maintenance Agreements: Economic & Commercial Justifications
This book explores the interplay between sovereignty, politics and law through different conceptualizations of sovereignty. Despite developments such as European integration, globalization, and state failure, sovereignty proves to be a resilient institution in contemporary international politics.
This book investigates both the continuity and change of sovereignty through an examination of the different ways it is understood; sovereignty as an institution, as identity; as a (language) game; and as subjectivity. In this illuminating book, Aalberts examines sovereign statehood as a political-legal concept, an institutional product of modern international society, and seeks an interdisciplinary approach that combines international relations and international law. This book traces the consequences of this origin for the conceptualization of sovereign statehood in modern academic discourse, drawing on key jurisprudence and international treaties, and provides a new framework to consider the international significance of sovereignty.
Crime contre l'humanité, patrimoine commun de l'humanité, intervention d’humanité, considérations d'humanité, mais aussi dignité humaine, sécurité humaine, développement humain... : l’humanité imprègne désormais le droit. Cette étude se propose d'analyser la portée de ce concept dans l'ordre juridique international. Le but est d'identifier les effets normatifs de l’humanité et d’examiner ses implications institutionnelles. Il s’agit notamment de préciser la manière dont l’humanité s'articule aux autres concepts, en particulier à celui de souveraineté. La présente recherche constitue la première thèse consacrée à l’examen systématique du concept d’humanité en droit international. L'idée défendue dans cet ouvrage est que le concept d’humanité complexifie l’ordre juridique international plus qu’il ne le bouleverse : les effets de ce concepts sont tangibles en droit international mais ils ne sont pas exclusifs. L’humanité n’entraîne pas la disparition de l’État ; en revanche, elle contribue à une redéfinition de la souveraineté. En effet, l'humanité est un principe fondamental du droit international mais elle n'est pas une personne juridique.
Au titre de principe fondamental, l'humanité travaille en profondeur les droits de l'homme, le droit humanitaire, le droit de la bioéthique, le droit pénal international, le droit de l'environnement, le droit des espaces ; elle bouscule également le droit des traités et de la responsabilité internationale. Mais l'humanité reste un sujet passif du droit international public : titulaire de droits, elle est dépourvue d'une représentation qui lui permettrait de les exercer. Il n'est ni possible, ni souhaitable de mettre sur pied une institution centralisée qui incarnerait l'humanité. Les tentatives juridiques en ce sens n’ont pas porté leurs fruits. Aujourd'hui, ce sont les États qui, à titre principal, sont garants des droits de l'humanité. Ce mécanisme, cependant, n'est pas dépourvu d’ambiguïté. Dans l’optique d’une application efficace des droits de l’humanité, la communauté internationale, aujourd’hui communauté d’États, doit s’ouvrir à de nouvelles perspectives pour devenir communauté humaine. La gestion des droits de l’humanité doit être le fait d’une pluralité de mandataires.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Call for Papers
American Society of International Law
International Economic Law Interest Group (IEcLIG)
2012 Biennial Interest Group Conference:
Re-Conceptualizing International Economic Law:
Bridging the Public/Private Divide
George Washington University Law School
Washington D.C., USA
November 29-December 1, 2012
I. Conference Theme
The ASIL International Economic Law Interest Group will hold its next biennial conference on November 29- December 1, 2012 at the George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C. The title of the conference is “Re-Conceptualizing International Economic Law: Bridging the Public/Private Divide.” International economic law purports to regulate and facilitate various cross-border business activities, such as exports and imports, financial transactions, and foreign direct investment. Its architecture, which the Bretton Woods consensus established six decades ago, is based largely on a “state-to-state” framework. However, as both the nature and modalities of the underlying international business transactions transform, the conventional statist model of international economic law needs adjustment, or at least re-examination. For example, widespread global supply chains increasingly challenge the wisdom of traditional customs regulations that were created against the backdrop of a mono-location production model. In the area of foreign direct investment, a host government is often viewed as a mere party to a contract, not necessarily as a sovereign regulator. As was seen in the making of Basel III, private actors (such as bankers) play a critical role in shaping regulations. These recent trends compel us to break away from long-standing principles that separate public actors from private actors. It is fruitless to consider the work of public actors without considering the efforts of the private sector. In this regard, it is high time that scholars, practitioners and policymakers develop new ideas, doctrines, research agendas, and policy proposals to re-conceptualize international economic law to keep abreast of the new regulatory environment.
II. Possible Topics for Papers and Panels
With this backdrop, the November conference will organize sessions that address the full range of international and transnational economic law. We encourage scholars to 2 submit papers or panel proposals related to trade, investment, international financial regulation, transnational private law, and development law, as well as their intersection with social regulation such as over global warming, labor rights, human rights, and consumer safety. This call for papers welcomes submissions that provide new analytical frameworks, reassess legal theory, evaluate developments in legal doctrine, engage in empirical analysis of how international economic law operates, and provide guidance for policymakers, regulators and adjudicators in this time of international economic change.
The range of possible topics is wide—the list below is provided as a thought-starter of possible topics identified by the conference committee. We welcome, however, quality proposals on any international economic law topic.
- The role of epistemic communities in financial law: closed clubs v. continually evolving centers of change;
- The legitimacy and accountability of private norm-setters;
- Room for private actors in international organizations: how the Bretton Woods institutions and the G20 can (or should) reach out beyond states;
- Are developing countries’ interests advanced by a shift away from statecentered law making?;
- Is soft law an end in itself? Can soft law be the preferred method of operationalizing international standards?;
- Climate change norm-setting: does it lend itself to a non-statist approach?;
- The new dangers of capture outside the statist model;
- Methodological approaches for studying private actors in international economic law and their implications;
- The role of private actors in a fragmented international economic law system;
- The transnational/transgovernmental link between international economic law and domestic law and politics;
- The changing legal and institutional terrain for the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism;
- Global supply chains and the role of private businesses in food and consumer safety regulations;
- International economic law and the reassessment of development policies;
- The rise of the BRICs and a new international economic order?;
- Regional trade and investment agreements and their role in breaking the public/private divide;
- The implications of the Doha Round’s collapse for international economic law governance;
- The role of domestic administrators and courts in the operationalization of international standards;
- The interaction of public and private international institutions;
- The increasing influence of private actors on the development of international legal norms; and
- The role and maturation of civil society's interaction with international economic law.
III. Proposal Submission, Selection and Paper Publication
We encourage proposals for papers from both new and established scholars and practitioners so that they may engage with each other. Paper proposals and all other program-related proposals must be submitted electronically by July 30 2012 to email@example.com. Proposals should include the author's name and full contact information, and an abstract of no more than 300 words. A Conference Committee (TBA) will review and select proposals.
Decisions regarding inclusion in the conference program will be sent by September 1, 2012. Paper contributors will be expected to provide full paper drafts by November 1, 2012.
This conference is being co-sponsored by the George Washington University School of Law.
IV. Conference Details
The conference will take place at George Washington University School of Law at 2000 H Street, NW Washington DC, 20052 on November 29 – December 1, 2012. For ASIL members, the registration fee is expected to be approximately $95 (which will cover some meals). The organizers will provide contact information for a range of hotel accommodations at various price ranges conveniently located in the DC area. We will also be applying for CLE credit for attendance in multiple jurisdictions.
V. About the Interest Group
The International Economic Law Interest Group promotes academic interest, discussion, research and publication on subjects broadly related to the transnational movement and regulation of goods, services, persons and capital. International law topics include trade law, investment law, economic integration law, private law, business regulation, financial law, tax law, intellectual property law and the role of law in development. The group provides a forum for interdisciplinary explorations of public and private international and municipal law, and is particularly interested in promoting the work and interests of new practitioners and scholars in the field. Its activities also include sponsoring panels at the ASIL Meeting and co-sponsoring conferences with allied organizations.
The Group’s major focus of activity is to hold a biennial conference, framed by an open Call for Papers publicized to group members, the ASIL and the public. The group’s conferences address the array of issues in international economic law, including the role and development of the multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization, foreign investment, bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements, international development law, and international financial regulation. The research papers generated by these conferences have regularly been published in prestigious venues and are widely cited in international economic law scholarship.
The results of previous biennial IEcLIG conferences have been published as Minnesota Journal of International Law, Symposium: International Economic Law in a Time of Change: Reassessing Legal Theory, Doctrine, Methodology and Policy Prescriptions. Volume XX Summer 2011 Number 2, available at http://www.minnjil.org/?page_id=1121; THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW, Tomer Broude, Amy Porges and Marc L. Busch eds., Cambridge University Press 2010; INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: THE STATE AND FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Colin B. Picker, Isabella D. Bunn and Douglas W. Arner eds., Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008; and TRADE AS THE GUARANTOR OF PEACE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY? CRITICAL HISTORICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVES, Padideh Ala'i, Tomer Broude, & Colin Picker eds., ASIL Press, 2006.
Lester: The Airbus—Boeing Subsidy Dispute: With Both Parties in Violation, Is There an End in Sight?
International law speaks in at least two registers. In the first, a technocratic or solemn tone predominates. This is the common language of law: designed to induce an atmosphere of authority. Most of international law (in courts, in books, in journals) is conducted in this language. The second is a language of passion. Sometimes this has a religious or quasi-religious inflection or inspiration e.g. in the call to eradicate evil, or in the rhetorics of repentance or penance and so on. But there are secularized versions of this. Some have a psychoanalytic bearing (reconciliation, catharsis), others are charged with a commemorative imperative (“never forget”, “remember the victims”). And then there are languages of love (Hartley Shawcross’s powerful invocation, at Nuremberg, of the love between a father and child just before they are killed in an Aktionen on the Eastern Front) and hate (characterizations of defendants or suspects as “criminally insane monsters” (Pol Pot prosecutors at the early Vietnamese trials)) or, in a more literary vein, “odious schlumps” (Joseph Heller on Henry Kissinger).
The idea behind this symposium is to get people to talk about or around, what the Eichmann judges worried were, the “discordant notes” of international law and criminal justice. These might be called the “passions of international law” although some of them are tonalities or voices or grammars. In any event, the presiding thought is, as usual, to get beyond the familiar ways of talking and thinking about the things with which we are familiar. To put this in less obscure terms, a group of scholars have been invited to speak to one word that they think of as being associated with this second register. There will be papers on succour, vanity and regret and on mourning, repentance and grace. There might be papers on pity or humiliation or sorrow (and so on).
This overview of the role played by the precautionary principle in international trade law, European law and national law compares how precautionary considerations have been applied in the fields of pesticide regulation and the regulation of base stations for mobile telephones in Sweden, the UK and the US. A number of problems in the current application of the precautionary principle are identified and discussed. For example, it is shown that a firm reliance on a wide and open-ended precautionary principle may lead to problems with the consistency, foreseeability, effectiveness and efficiency of measures intended to reduce environmental or health risks. It is suggested that the precautionary principle indeed may be an important tool, but that in order to be acceptable it must be coupled with strong requirements on the performance of risk assessments, cost/benefit analyses and risk trade-off analyses.
Mills: Normative Individualism and Jurisdiction in Public and Private International Law: Toward a ‘Cosmopolitan Sovereignty’?
This paper examines one aspect of the role of the individual in international law, through analysis of the increasing recognition of individual rights in the context of jurisdiction in both public and private international law. Jurisdiction has traditionally been considered in international law as a right or power of states. The challenge to this traditional approach has arisen both at the international level and also within states, through the rise in theory and practice of doctrines of ‘denial of justice’, ‘access to justice’ and ‘party autonomy’, which reflect the increasing treatment of jurisdiction as a matter of individual right rather than state power. These developments arguably signify a transformation in the status of individuals at both international and national levels, from the passive objects of jurisdictional regulation to active rights-holders.
The analysis in this paper therefore highlights a challenge which cuts across the dual aspects of sovereignty – as international law increasingly recognises the power of legal persons beyond the state, this also provides a challenge to the claims for exclusive legal authority within states. This can also be described as the recognition of the individual, alongside the state, as a ‘sovereign’ actor, or as the recognition of ‘normative individualism’ in international and domestic law. The increased recognition of the individual in international law is a key feature of the arguments of cosmopolitan legal theorists – the challenge of normative individualism may therefore further be described as the question of whether, or to what extent, there is an emerging idea of ‘cosmopolitan sovereignty’ which attempts to accommodate the normative value of both state and individual actors.
The Goettingen Journal of International Law is the first student-run journal in the field of International Law in Germany. Our object is to publish a journal that fosters debate among scholars of diversefields in International Law and related disciplines. Since 2009 the journal has already published four issues.
The backbone of GoJIL is formed by the Editorial Board, a group of enthusiastic students and scholars from various academic disciplines. As we are students ourselves, we want to give young scholars the chance to gain practical experience and make their own professional scientific publication with GoJIL.
To make this possible, the GoJIL hosts an annual International Law Essay Competition on a current topic in International Law. This year’s topic is “The Interplay of International and National Law”.
In our current global political and legal system, international law does not only influence national law, but also depends on it. Can national law set borders for the content of international treaties or does it become more flexible as treaties force interaction with other judicial systems? Can it be used to settle conflicts between national powers? How are treaties, both bi-lateral and multi-lateral, implemented on the domestic level? What is the impact of UN Security Council Resolutions or Human Rights agreements on States' law and politics? These are just a few of the numerous questions you could raise and address in your essay.
The deadline for your submission is 15 August 2012. The maxim word count is 3 000 words (without footnotes).
If you would like to write an article or are already working on the subject, send in your essay! The best article will be published in the Goettingen Journal of International Law - GoJIL Vol 4 No 3. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org! We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this great opportunity and hand in your submissions on the topic.
Conference Call for Papers
The 7th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law
Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement:
A Contradiction in Terms?
Jerusalem, 3-4 December 2012
The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories are organizing an international conference that seeks to examine the normative relationship and fundamental differences between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) rules on the conduct of hostilities and the rules applicable to law enforcement operations. The conference, the seventh in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on IHL, with the cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, is scheduled for 3-4 December 2012 in Jerusalem. Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of selected proposals will be offered full or partial flight and accommodation expenses.
Submission deadline: 1 June 2012
The 7th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law, on 3-4 December 2012, will address the complex and increasingly significant topic of the interplay between two distinct legal regimes: the conduct of hostilities regime, derived from IHL and the law enforcement regime, derived mainly from human rights law.
The conduct of hostilities regime has been traditionally framed as the field regulating the use of force between belligerent parties in situations of armed conflict; in contrast, law enforcement has been conventionally perceived as the field governing the use of force by the state against individual actors, including rioters and violent demonstrators. However, recent years have witnessed a blurring of these lines. Situations involving the use of force by armed forces and law enforcement officials increasingly lie in a grey zone between military operations, subject to the conduct of hostilities regime, and police action, subject to the law enforcement regime.
Sometimes this occurs because it is not clear whether a given situation of violence constitutes an armed conflict to which conduct of hostilities rules apply. This is the case, for example, when there is doubt whether clashes between State forces and non-State actors have passed the threshold of violence that brings the law of armed conflict into play. In other instances, it is clear that a situation of armed conflict exists, and the difficulty is in determining which of the two regimes regulates a given activity involving the use of force. Indeed, in contemporary armed conflict situations – particularly in non-international armed conflicts and in occupied territories – armed forces are regularly expected to conduct not only combat operations against the adversary, but also law enforcement operations in order to maintain or restore public security, law and order. For example, situations of civilian unrest (such as riots) may arise while combat operations against the adversary are taking place. In such situations enemy fighters might hide among the rioting civilians or demonstrators, making it extremely difficult to distinguish rioting civilians from fighters and to determine which legal regime to apply.
In these and other cases, the scope of permissible action can be quite different when the same or similar security challenges are analyzed under either the law enforcement or conduct of hostilities regime. Notably, the conduct of hostilities regime allows for the killing of legitimate targets, whereas the law enforcement regime strives to protect life demanding to "capture rather than kill" suspected persons, unless they pose an immediate threat to life. Moreover, the conduct of hostilities regime tolerates more incidental loss of life than the law enforcement regime. Determining which regime applies can therefore have crucial implications for the humanitarian consequences of an operation.
The legal ambiguities as to the relations between the two regimes is of both universal and local concern. In several violent situations, including in the Israeli-Palestinian context, conflicting understandings of 'targeted killings' as either belligerent acts or law enforcement measures have emerged. Similarly, there has recently been considerable debate about the interplay between law enforcement and rules governing the conduct of hostilities in military operations taking place in occupied territories and elsewhere, in situations where there is a need to simultaneously use force to enforce the law against civilians and to respond to military threats. Coalition forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq similarly encounter the challenge of shifting between legal paradigms when they fulfill the dual role of law enforcers and fighters in hostilities.
In addition to the challenges presented by concurrent combat and law enforcement campaigns, the question of tackling violent criminality through armed forces applying rules of engagement informed by the conduct of hostilities regime is increasingly being considered - for example, in Latin American countries where the so-called 'wars' against organized crime have led to large scale clashes between state forces and heavily armed criminal groups, and in operations by naval forces against modern-age maritime pirates operating from East Africa.
Because of the dramatic humanitarian implications and significant practical and legal ramifications at stake, it is crucial at this juncture to hold an academic debate over the blurring of boundaries between hostilities and law enforcement operations and to try to clarify, where possible, the relations between the legal regimes regulating them. Such a debate could promote a pragmatic accommodation of competing bodies of law; it could also highlight the theoretical and practical challenges of applying the law in increasingly complex forms of armed violence.
Researchers interested in addressing these and other questions related to the conference topic are invited to respond to this call for papers with a 1-2 page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted by email to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (email@example.com) no later than 1 June 2012.
Applicants should expect notification of the committee's decision by 30 June 2012. Written contributions (of approx. 10-25 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2012. The Israel Law Review (a Cambridge University Press publication) has expressed interest in publishing selected full length papers based on conference presentations, subject to its standard review and editing procedures.
Conference Academic Committee:
Dr. Tomer Broude, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mr. Anton Camen, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Adv. Eitan Diamond, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Dr. Yaël Ronen, Israel Law Review
Mr. Charles Shamas, Mattin Group, Ramallah
Prof. Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Chair)
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
- Artículos académicos
- Nadja Dorothea Ruiz Euler, El Trato Nacional y la Nación Más Favorecida en el Acuerdo General sobre el Comercio de Servicios de la OMC
- Bradly J. Condon, La “polinización cruzada” en la interpretación de los acuerdos de la OMC en los casos de comercio y medio ambiente
- Artículos profesionales
- Fernanda Garza Magdaleno, Breve explicación sobre las propuestas de reforma al mecanismo de solución de diferencias de la OMC
- Kai Ambos, The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v. Lubanga): A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues
- Avitus A. Agbor, The Substantial Contribution Requirement: The Unfortunate Outcome of an Illogical Construction and Incorrect Understanding of Article 6(1) of the Statute of the ICTR
- Dawn L. Rothe & Scott Maggard, Factors that Impede or Facilitate Post-Conflict Justice Mechanisms?
- Chandra Lekha Sriram& Stephen Brown, Kenya in the Shadow of the ICC: Complementarity, Gravity and Impact
- Luke Moffett, The Role of Victims in the International Criminal Tribunals of the Second World War
- Marek Szydło, Extra-Territorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights after Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda
- Hiromi Satō, International Criminal Responsibility Concerning 'Control over an Organization' and Command Responsibility Lato Sensu
- P. Fois, Sulle pretese novità del regionalismo internazionale contemporaneo
- F. Salerno, L’affermazione del positivismo giuridico nella scuola internazionalista italiana: il ruolo di Anzilotti e Perassi
- A. Tanzi, Sull’insolvenza degli Stati nel diritto internazionale
- Note e commenti
- S. Poli, La base giuridica delle misure dell’UE di congelamento dei capitali nei confronti di persone ﬁsiche o giuridiche o entità non statali che appoggiano il terrorismo
- M. Del Chicca, La pirateria marittima di fronte ai giudici di Stati membri dell’Unione Europea
- P. Gaeta, Antonio Cassese
- A. Gianelli, L’incerto destino dell’eccezione di non adempimento dell’accordo
- P. Pustorino, Protezione diplomatica e interesse legittimo dell’individuo
- E. Bonomo, In tema di litispendenza e connessione tra procedimenti penali internazionali e nazionali
- Eighth report of the American Law Institute project on World Trade Organization Case Law covering 2010
- Henrik Horn & Petros C. Mavroidis, Introduction
- Simon A.B. Schropp, Commentary on the Appellate Body Report in Australia–Apples (DS367): judicial review in the face of uncertainty
- Paola Conconi & Robert Howse, Panel Report on EC–IT Products
- Thomas J. Prusa & Edwin Vermulst, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: a cat in the bag
- Donald H. Regan, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China: the fascinating case that wasn't
- Jan Bohanes, Comment: United States – Certain measures affecting imports of poultry from China: the fascinating case that wasn't
- Jeff D. Colgan, Robert O. Keohane & Thijs Van de Graaf, Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex
- Stephen Knack, F. Halsey Rogers & Jac C. Heckelman, Crossing the threshold: A positive analysis of IBRD graduation policy
- Amanda Murdie & David R. Davis, Looking in the mirror: Comparing INGO networks across issue areas
- Rune Jansen Hagen, Certified or branded? A game-theoretic analysis of the IMF’s policy support instrument
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
- Meredith Terretta, "We Had Been Fooled into Thinking that the UN Watches over the Entire World": Human Rights, UN Trust Territories, and Africa's Decolonization
- Claudio Grossman, Challenges to Freedom of Expression Within the Inter-American System: A Jurisprudential Analysis
- Kurt Mills, "Bashir is Dividing Us": Africa and the International Criminal Court
- Susan Dicklitch, Berwood Yost, & Bryan M. Dougan, Building a Barometer of Gay Rights (BGR): A Case Study of Uganda and the Persecution of Homosexuals
- Shannon Kindornay, James Ron, & Charli Carpenter, Rights-Based Approaches to Development: Implications for NGOs
- Reza Afshari, Iran: An Anthropologist Engaging the Human Rights Discourse and Practice
- Tom Zwart, Using Local Culture to Further the Implementation of International Human Rights: The Receptor Approach
- Carsten Stahn, Between ‘Faith’ and ‘Facts’: By What Standards Should We Assess International Criminal Justice?
- International Legal Theory
- Yannick Radi, Standardization: A Dynamic and Procedural Conceptualization of International Law-Making
- Symposium on Soft Law
- Jean d’Aspremont & Tanja Aalberts, Which Future for the Scholarly Concept of Soft International Law? Editors’ Introductory Remarks
- Jaye Ellis, Shades of Grey: Soft Law and the Validity of Public International Law
- Matthias Goldmann, We Need to Cut Off the Head of the King: Past, Present, and Future Approaches to International Soft Law
- Jaye Ellis, The King Is Dead, Long Live the King? A Reply to Matthias Goldmann
- Matthias Goldmann, Soft Law and Other Forms of International Public Authority – The View from Discourse Theory: A Reply to Jaye Ellis
- International Law and Practice - Symposium: Fairness in International Environmental Law
- Mario Prost & Alejandra Torres Camprubí, Against Fairness? International Environmental Law, Disciplinary Bias, and Pareto Justice
- Jaye Ellis, Extraterritorial Exercise of Jurisdiction for Environmental Protection: Addressing Fairness Concerns
- Kishan Khoday & Usha Natarajan, Fairness and International Environmental Law from Below: Social Movements and Legal Transformation in India
- Natasha Affolder, Transnational Conservation Contracts
- Hague International Tribunals - International Court of Justice Symposium: The Nicaragua Case 25 Years Later
- Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, The Notion of ‘Armed Attack’ in the Nicaragua Judgment and Its Inﬂuence on Subsequent Case Law
- James R. Crawford, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
- Alain Pellet, The Nicaragua Case: ‘Maﬁosi’s’ and ‘Veteran’s’ Approaches Combined
- International Criminal Court and Tribunals
- Antonio Cassese, The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals and the Current Prospects of International Criminal Justice
- Salvatore Zappala, Personal Remarks on Antonio Cassese and His Vision of International Law and International Criminal Justice along the Road He Walked
- Christine Schuon, The Appeals Decision in the ICC’s Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the Trial Chamber’s ‘Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecution’s List of Evidence’
- Bérénice Boutin, Responsibility of the Netherlands for the Acts of Dutchbat in Nuhanović and Mustaﬁć: The Continuous Quest for a Tangible Meaning for ‘Effective Control’ in the Context of Peacekeeping
- Understanding Armed Groups and the Applicable Law
- Interview with Ali Ahmad Jalali - Distinguished Professor at the National Defense University, Washington, DC.
- Today's Armed Groups: Structure, Actions and Strategic Options
- Arnaud Blin, Armed groups and intra-state conflicts: the dawn of a new era?
- Abdulkader H. Sinno, Armed groups' organizational structure and their strategic options
- Achim Wennmann, Economic dimensions of armed groups: profiling the financing, costs, and agendas and their implications for mediated engagements
- Olivier Bangerter, Reasons why armed groups choose to respect international humanitarian law or not
- Armed Groups and International Law
- Zakaria Daboné, International law: armed groups in a state-centric system
- Marco Sassòli & Yuval Shany, DEBATE: Should the obligations of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law really be equal?
- Jann K. Kleffner, The applicability of international humanitarian law to organized armed groups
- Sandesh Sivakumaran, Lessons for the law of armed conflict from commitments of armed groups: identification of legitimate targets and prisoners of war
- A collection of codes of conduct issued by armed groups
- Selected Articles on International Humanitarian Law
- Eric Stover, Mychelle Balthazard & K. Alexa Koenig, Confronting Duch: civil party participation in Case 001 at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
This article takes issue with Jeff McMahan's well-known argument according to which, morally speaking, some civilians and POWs may be liable to wartime attack, and that in this respect the laws of armed conflict prohibiting such attacks diverge significantly from the deep morality of war. I reject McMahan's suggestion that at the deepest moral level it is sometimes justified to violate these legal protections of non-combatants and prisoners. I argue instead that the rules of war – moral as well as legal – are grounded in an age-old commitment to protect the defenseless and vulnerable, and can go only so deep without rendering them totally inapplicable to belligerent action. Consequently, I argue that there is little divergence between the laws of war and its deep morality. Ultimately, I suggest, this moral commitment to the defenseless supplies us with a significant point of convergence both between the law and morality of war, and between ad bellum and in bello considerations.
- Pierre Thielbörger, The Status and Future of International Law after the Libya Intervention
- Tom Kabau, The Responsibility to Protect and the Role of Regional Organizations: an Appraisal of the African Union’s Interventions
- David Ighojohwegba Efevwerhan, Kosovo’s Chances of UN Membership: A Prognosis
- Current Developments in International Law
- Jens Iverson, The Continuing Functions of Article 98 of the Rome Statute
- Current Sovereign Debt Crisis and Financial Crisis
- Matthias Goldmann, Sovereign Debt Crises as Threats to the Peace: Restructuring under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?
- Maximilian Hocke, Have Measures Adopted by States to Cope With the Global Financial Crisis Been in Accordance With Their Obligations Under International Investment Law?
- GoJIL: Focus "Human Rights and their Impact on Various Fields of the Law"
- Nicolas Klein, Human Rights and International Investment Law: Investment Protection as Human Right?
- Laurens Lavrysen, European Asylum Law and the ECHR: An Uneasy Coexistence
- Maria Victoria Cabrera Ormaza, Re-thinking the Role of Indigenous Peoples in International Law: New Developments in International Environmental Law and Development Cooperation
- Sebastiaan Vandenbogaerde, They Entered without any Rumor. Human Rights in the Belgian Legal Periodicals
- Herman Voogsgeerd, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Impact on Labor Law: a Plea for a Proportionality-Test "Light"
Monday, May 7, 2012
- Symposium: In Search of a Global Ethic
- Michael Ignatieff, Reimagining a Global Ethic
- Christian Barry, Local Priorities, Universal Priorities, and Enabling Harm
- Nicholas Rengger, A Global Ethic and the Hybrid Character of the Moral World
- David Rodin, Toward a Global Ethic
- Cheyney Ryan, The Dialogue of Global Ethics
- Michael Joseph Smith, A Brief Response to Michael Ignatieff
- Roundtable: The Political Ethics of the International Criminal Court
- Antonio Franceschet, Introduction
- Kenneth A. Rodman, Why the ICC Should Operate Within Peace Processes
- Benjamin Schiff, The ICC's Potential for Doing Bad When Pursuing Good
- Michael J. Struett, Why the International Criminal Court Must Pretend to Ignore Politics
- Antonio Franceschet, The International Criminal Court's Provisional Authority to Coerce
- Ian Hurd, Almost Saving Whales: The Ambiguity of Success at the International Whaling Commission
- Scott Wisor, After the MDGs: Citizen Deliberation and the Post-2015 Development Framework
- George A. Lopez, In Defense of Smart Sanctions: A Response to Joy Gordon
- David Laborde, Will Martin, & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, Implications of the Doha market access proposals for developing countries
- Lauren Henschke, Going it alone on climate change A new challenge to WTO subsidies disciplines: are subsidies in support of emissions reductions schemes permissible under the WTO
- Patrick A. Messerlin, Climate and trade policies: from mutual destruction to mutual support
- Weihuan Zhou, The role of regulatory purpose under Articles III: 2 and 4 – toward consistency between negotiating history and WTO jurisprudence
- Saadia Pekkanen, Investment regionalism in Asia: new directions in law and policy?
- Ann E. Towns, Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion “From Below”
- Marc Flandreau & Juan H. Flores, The Peaceful Conspiracy: Bond Markets and International Relations During the Pax Britannica
- Todd L. Allee & Jamie E. Scalera, The Divergent Effects of Joining International Organizations: Trade Gains and the Rigors of WTO Accession
- Paul Poast, Does Issue Linkage Work? Evidence from European Alliance Negotiations, 1860 to 1945
- Benjamin O. Fordham & Katja B. Kleinberg, How Can Economic Interests Influence Support for Free Trade?
- Axel Dreher & Martin Gassebner, Do IMF and World Bank Programs Induce Government Crises? An Empirical Analysis
Ratner: Behind the Flag of Dunant: Secrecy and the Compliance Mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross
In the world where most NGOs see their role in the international legal process as public advocacy, often through naming and shaming, the International Committee of the Red Cross stands apart. Much of its work consists of confidential visits and secret communications to warring parties. It rarely identifies violators publicly; it leaves its legal position on many issues ambiguous; and at times it avoids legal discourse entirely. This aversion to transparency is not only at odds with the assumptions of the naming and shaming strategy regarding the most effective means to induce compliance. It also makes it almost impossible for outsiders to know the ICRC’s legal characterization of specific cases. As a result, its approach to protection of victims, even if successful in individual cases, seems to undermine its self-professed role as the "guardian" of IHL.
This tension between the roles of the ICRC, and the ICRC’s approach to it, should interest scholars and concerned with the proper role for transparency in encouraging compliance with law. It also calls into question the assumption of many international lawyers that transparency is always beneficial for the promotion of international law. This paper describes three different dimensions of the ICRC's secrecy; offers an explanation for the ICRC's choices in this regard; inquires as to possibility of gauging the effectiveness of secret strategies; suggests the implications of secret strategies for our understandings of compliance; and analyzes the ethical challenges of working in secret.
- Studying International Organizations
- Armağan Emre Çakır, Applying Contingency Theory to International Organizations: The Case of European Integration
- Lasse Steiner & Bruno S. Frey, Correcting the Imbalance of the World Heritage List: Did the UNESCO Strategy Work?
- Spencer R. Weart, The Evolution of International Cooperation in Climate Science
- Insider's View
- Dorota Gierycz, Human Rights in the UN System Since the Demise of the Three Pillars Approach
Sunday, May 6, 2012
- Jianjun Gao, The Seafloor High Issue in Article 76 of the LOS Convention: Some Views from the Perspective of Legal Interpretation
- Torbjørn Pedersen, Debates over the Role of the Arctic Council
- Mary George & Stefano G.A. Draisma, A Note on and a Proposal with Respect to the Transportation of Nuclear Cargoes in International Straits
- Ho-Sam Bang & Duck-Jong Jang, Recent Developments in Regional Memorandums of Understanding on Port State Control
- Paul Hallwood & Thomas J. Miceli, The Economics of International Cooperation in the Apprehension and Prosecution of Maritime Pirates