A recurring debate in foreign affairs law focuses on the appropriate level of congressional and judicial deference to the President. In answering that question, most scholars focus on the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and historical practice for guidance, or evaluate the expertise and strategic incentives of Congress, the President, and the courts. For them, the inquiry exclusively centers on domestic, internal constraints on the President. But this analysis is incomplete. Determination of the appropriate level of deference has consequences for how the President can pursue American interests abroad. If the U.S. wants to be successful in achieving its foreign policy goals, it requires some consideration of the external world in which the President acts. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom by arguing that the appropriate level of constraint on the President requires an evaluation of both internal constraints from domestic sources and external constraints from international politics. It provides a framework to integrate both sets of constraints, develops a theory of external constraints, and describes the normative implications of this approach for foreign affairs law. The Article argues that the failure to account for both internal and external constraints and to recognize their relationship might yield a deference regime that either does not provide the President with sufficient freedom to pursue U.S. interests (over-constrained), or leaves the President free to act without sufficient congressional and judicial oversight (under-constrained). It further explains the conditions under which higher and lower levels of constraints are preferable and moves us closer to determining the appropriate level of deference to the President in foreign affairs.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
The 2011 volume of Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation - The Fordham Papers is a collection of important works in the field written by the speakers at the 2011 Fordham Law School Conference on International Arbitration and Mediation. The 26 papers are organized into the following five parts: Part I: Investor-State Arbitration; Part II: Complex International Commercial Arbitration; Part III: New Rules in International Arbitration; Part IV: Arbitration in the BRIC Countries; and Part V: Mediation
Call for Papers: Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders: An International Rule of Law Perspective
Amsterdam Center for International Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders:
An International Rule of Law Perspective
The Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) is organising a seminar on 14-15 March 2013 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Seminar Theme
The seminar explores the evolving interfaces between international and national legal orders from the perspective of the international rule of law.
In this seminar, the international rule of law concerns international law regulating states, as well as international institutions and other subjects of international law. The international rule of law could be narrowly defined to encompass procedural requirements, or more broadly to include inter alia human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, and/or accountability.
The interfaces between international and national legal orders are the points where the actors, norms and procedures which form and maintain the two legal orders interact with one another. These interfaces have significantly evolved due to the extension of the subject matter of international law and its impact on domestic regulatory policies. International actors, norms and procedures play significant roles in shaping the rule of law, human rights and democracy in the domestic legal order. Because of this substantive influence, the formal dualistic perspective on international and national legal orders has become increasingly mismatched with the reality of inter-order interfaces.
International scholarship has produced extensive studies to capture the inter-order interfaces primarily from the perspective of national rule of law. Much less recognised is the international perspective, namely, the impact of national law on the rule of law within the international legal order. Given that United Nations General Assembly resolutions also support the rule of law at the international level, the question of whether and how the international rule of law develops through interactions with national law and the national rule of law is worthy of examination.
The relationships between these two branches of the rule of law appear multi-faceted. On the one hand, national implementation and compliance with international law may strengthen the international rule of law, as identified by the UN Secretary-General in his March 2012 report (A/66/749) prepared for the high-level meeting of the General Assembly to be held on 24 September 2012. On the other hand, the domestic avoidance and contestation of international law and the decisions of international institutions could also enhance the international rule of law by signalling deficiencies of international law and international institutions in terms of human rights, democracy, accountability, and overall, the rule of law.
Against this background, the seminar will address the query as to how the national rule of law and the national reception of international law influence and develop the international rule of law, particularly from the following three angles:
1. The concept of the international rule of law
The broad endorsement states give to the rule of law at the international level is often offset by the conceptual elusiveness of the international rule of law. One fundamental question concerns the extent to which the international rule of law can be conceptually comparable to the national rule of law. Does the international rule of law only signify compliance and procedural requirements or can it include more substantive norms such as human rights, democracy, and the separation of powers? The conceptual comparison between two branches of the rule of law gives rise to the question about the similarities and differences between the authority regulated by the national rule of law on the one hand, and the authority regulated by the international rule of law on the other. For instance, to what extent could the authority exercised by international institutions be compared with that of national governments? What parameters can we use to assess the comparability?
2. The development of the international rule of law through national practices
The domestic application of international law has traditionally contributed to the development of international law in general. It has formed part of new customary international law and treaty interpretation in the form of state practice. It has also served as a basis for general principles of law. Further, the decisions of national courts have been invoked as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.
These classic roles attributed to domestic legal practices, however, may not fully capture their presence in the normative development of the international rule of law. Do national practices, especially those that contest international rules or decisions, have any swing-back effect on the development of the international rule of law? Does national contestation, which appears to undermine the international rule of law, actually facilitate its reform? Also, what impact do national laws and national court decisions have on accountability processes in regard to international institutions, such as the United Nations?
3. Universality, certainty and diversity in the international rule of law
The role of national contestation in the development of the international rule of law gives rise to the further question as to a possible tension between the universality and certainty of the international rule of law on the one hand, and the diversity of national law on the other. The rule of law is traditionally associated with certainty and predictability. But is this a workable standard in light of diversity across legal systems? How does international human rights law, for instance, preserve national diversity while ensuring the universal standards of human rights and their legal certainty? How should the value of relative uniformity and certainty that may be seen as intrinsic in the rule of law be balanced with the value of diversity?
The tension between universality and diversity is related to the question about the legitimacy of international legal principles and rules. Despite the fact that international law has an impact on the domestic rule of law, the international law-making and application processes invite only restricted input from domestic constituencies. If international law and international dispute settlement procedures suffer from legitimacy problems, should they keep a distance by leaving a ‘margin of discretion’ to the national sphere? Could the expansion of the international rule of law undermine the rule of law at the domestic level, as opposed to strengthening it?
Papers are invited to explore these angles from normative and empirical standpoints in a variety of international law disciplines. These three angles are interrelated, and multiple angles can be addressed within one paper.
Submission of Proposals and the Timeline
Paper proposals should include a description of maximum 500 words and the applicant’s curriculum vitae. Submissions should cover work that has not been previously published.
At the time of the seminar, the invited authors should present a paper of 7,000-8,000 words, excluding references. It is the intention of the organisers to publish the papers in an edited volume.
Paper proposals should be sent by email to Ms. Martine van Trigt at email@example.com. The deadline is 1 November 2012. Selected participants will be informed by 1 December 2012. Each participant must submit a paper by 22 February 2013 for distribution to the other participants. The seminar takes place on 14-15 March 2013 at the University of Amsterdam.The sponsoring organisations will cover the speakers’ travelling and accommodation expenses. The seminar is co-sponsored by the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law. For substantive questions, please contact Dr. Machiko Kanetake at M.Kanetake@uva.nl.
- Gaetano Pentassuglia, The Strasbourg Court and Minority Groups: Shooting in the Dark or a new Interpretive Ethos?
- Max Doppelbauer, „Erromintxela“ Die Gruppe der Roma im Baskenland und ihre Sprachen
- Albert F. Reiterer, Minderheiten im postdemokratischen Staat
- Klaus Rier, Das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH vom 22. Juli 2010 – Internationale Tagung in Innsbruck
- Peter Hilpold, Minderheitenschutz im Rahmen der Europäischen Union – Anmerkungen zur jüngeren literarischen Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Thema anhand eigener ausgewählter Werke
For over a century states have co-operated in providing evidence for use in civil trials in other countries. The growth of international crimes such as drug-trafficking, money-laundering, terrorism, and insider-trading now pose a substantial threat to the economies and stability of states, and governments and international organizations have been quick to expand past experience into a variety of responses - both diplomatic and institutional - to the new international crimes.
This book sets out the law applicable to co-operation between states in these areas, and investigates the relevant practice and case law. It discusses both the civil and criminal dimensions of international co-operation. The new edition incorporates the vast number of developments that have taken place since the previous edition published in 2002, including the European Union's resolve to build an area of freedom, security, and justice, and the recent major update of the Commonwealth Scheme.
Now in a third, revised edition, Excessive Maritime Claims by J. Ashley Roach and Robert W. Smith is designed for law of the sea and maritime law specialists. The book draws on published governmental material in the public domain, specifically the U.S., and addresses recent progress in maritime security, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by sea, piracy, and protection of underwater cultural heritage.
As a result of significant developments in the law of the sea, primarily with reference to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Excessive Maritime Claims provides up to date coverage of current affairs as well as introduce new topics such as: submarine cables, polar areas, environmental protection, sovereign immunity and sunken ships, and maritime law enforcement.
This book comprises contributions by leading experts in the field of international humanitarian law on the subject of the categorisation or classification of armed conflict. It is divided into two sections: the first aims to provide the reader with a sound understanding of the legal questions surrounding the classification of hostilities and its consequences; the second includes ten case studies that examine practice in respect of classification.
Understanding how classification operates in theory and practice is a precursor to identifying the relevant rules that govern parties to hostilities. With changing forms of armed conflict which may involve multi-national operations, transnational armed groups and organized criminal gangs, the need for clarity of the law is all-important. The case studies selected for analysis are Northern Ireland, DRC, Colombia, Afghanistan (from 2001), Gaza, South Ossetia, Iraq (from 2003), Lebanon (2006), the so-called war against Al-Qaeda, and future trends. The studies explore the legal consequences of classification particularly in respect of the use of force, detention in armed conflict, and the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law. The practice identified in the case studies allows the final chapter to draw conclusions as to the state of the law on classification.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
A treaty satisfies what we call International Paretianism if it advances the interests of all states that join it, so that no state is made worse off. The principle might seem obvious, but it rules out nearly all the major proposals for a climate treaty, including proposals advanced by academics and by government officials. We defend International Paretianism, and for that reason urge commentators in the debate over climate justice to abandon efforts to right past wrongs, redistribute wealth, and achieve other abstract ideals through a climate treaty.
- Libor Klimek, European Arrest Warrant: Procedural Instrument for Public Order Enforcement in the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
- Ilona Jančářová & Vojtěch Vomáčka, Transboundary Impact Assessment form the Central European Perspectvive
- Veronika Burketová, At What Price Competition? A View on the Role of Competition in the Development and Stability of Banking Markets with Reference to the EU
- Ihar Martynenka, Public Order and the Protection of Cultural Heritage: Enforcement of UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions in CIS Countries
- Josef Mrázek, Public Order (Ordre Public) and Norms of Jus Cogens
- Natalia Viktorova, Public Order in the Practice of Russian Courts
- Alexander J. Bělohlávek, Public Policy and Public Interest in International Law and EU Law
- Oleksandr Merezhko, Public Policy (Ordre Public), Mandatory Norms and Evasion of Law in Ukrainian Private International Law
- Josef Ostřanský, Tobacco Investment Disputes - Public Policy, Fragmentation of International Law and Echoes of the Calvo Doctrine
- Filip Černý, Short Flight of the Phoenix: A Few Thoughts on Good Faith, Abuse of Rights and Legality in Investment Arbitration
- Études: À quoi sert le droit international?
- Rémi Bachand, Les quatre strates du droit international analysées du point de vue des subalternes
- Frédérick Guillaume Dufour & Michel-Philippe Robitaille, Globalisation capitaliste, discipline néolibérale et souveraineté néoconservatrice : retour sur quelques distinctions conceptuelles
- Marie-Ève Lapointe, Le droit international humanitaire, à la merci des compagnies militaires privées?
- Frédéric Mégret, L'étatisme spécifique du droit international
- Camille Seccaud, La conception de l'enfance en droit international. Illustration par les enfants travailleurs
- Mark Toufayan, Empathy, Humanity and the “Armenian Question” in the Internationalist Legal Imagination
- Études: L'animal souffre-t-il en droit?
- Martine Lachance, Discours d'ouverture du Colloque
- Éric Baratay, La souffrance animale, face masquée de la protection aux XIXe-XXe siècles
- Thierry Aufret Van Der Kemp, Sensibilités à la sensibilité des animaux en France
- Vaughan Black, A Regulated Regard : Comparing the Governance of Animal and Human Experimentation
- Olivier Le Bot, Les grandes évolutions du régime juridique de l'animal en Europe : constitutionnalisation et déréification
- Édith-Farah Elassal, Le régime de réparation de la Cour pénale internationale : analyse du mécanisme en faveur des victimes
- Jean-Michel Marcoux, La recherche d'un équilibre – Évolution des protections et des obligations des sociétés minières canadiennes dans les Amériques
- James Mouangue Kobila, Dixième anniversaire des attaques du 11 septembre 2001 : bilan de la gestion de la lutte contre le terrorisme par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies
- Charles Riziki Majinge, The progressive development of the laws of the African Union : examining the potential contribution of the African Union Commission on International Law
- Werner Scholtz, The day after no tomorrow? Persons displaced environmentally through climate change : AU law to the rescue?
- Shannon Bosch, Relief workers : the hazards of offering humanitarian assistance in the theatre of war
- Dire Tladi, Kampala, the International Criminal Court and the adoption of a definition of the crime aggression : a dream deferred
- Hennie Strydom, Prohibited weapons and the means and methods of warfare in the Rome statute
- Abadir M. Ibrahim, The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and human rights education : much buzzing, still no honey?
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, International Economic Law in the 21st Century: Need For Stronger “Democratic Ownership” and Cosmopolitan Reforms
- Andreas Zimmermann, Abiding by and Enforcing International Humanitarian Law in Asymmetric Warfare: The Case of “Operation Cast Lead”
- Koen Lenaerts, The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Protection of Fundamental Rights
- Patrick C. R. Terry, Afghanistan’s Civil War (1979-1989): Illegal and Failed Foreign Interventions
- Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi, The Law of Military Occupation and the Role of de Jure and de Facto Sovereignty
- Serena Forlati, The Legal Obligation to Prevent Genocide: Bosnia v Serbia and Beyond
- Michał Jan Filipek & Dzmitry Hruzdou, Maritime Delimitation in the Barents Sea and International Practice in Maritime Delimitation
- Adam Bodnar & Irmina Pacho, Domestic Investigation into Participation of Polish Officials in the CIA Extraordinary Rendition Program and the State Responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights
- Karolina Wierczyńska, Some Remarks on Poland’s Potential Responsibility for the Treatment of Detainees in a CIA Prison in Poland
- Aleksandra Mężykowska, Does the Victim of a Crime Have the Right to a Fair Trial? – Remarks on the Protection of Crime Victims in the Light of the Guarantees in the European Convention on Human Rights
- Audrey Patten, “Empty Human Rights Lip Service”: France’s Roma Expulsions and the Failure of the European Union to Exercise its Racial Equality Directive
- Beata Faracik, The Role of the State in Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business with Special Consideration of Poland
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
- Seth Lazar, Introduction
- Cheyney Ryan, Democratic Duty and the Moral Dilemmas of Soldiers
- Yitzhak Benbaji, The Moral Power of Soldiers to Undertake the Duty of Obedience
- David Rodin, Justifying Harm
- John Gardner & François Tanguay-Renaud, Desert and Avoidability in Self-Defense
- Jeff McMahan, Duty, Obedience, Desert, and Proportionality in War: A Response
The macroeconomic policies of states can produce significant costs and benefits for other states, yet international macroeconomic cooperation has been one of the weakest areas of international law. We ask why states have had such trouble cooperating over macroeconomic issues, when they have been relatively successful at cooperation over other economic matters such as international trade. We argue that although the theoretical benefits of macroeconomic cooperation are real, in practice it is difficult to sustain because optimal cooperative policies are often uncertain and time variant, making it exceedingly difficult to craft clear rules for cooperation in many areas. It is also often difficult or impossible to design credible self-enforcement mechanisms. Recent cooperation on bank capital standards, the history of exchange rate cooperation, the European monetary union, and the prospects for broader monetary and fiscal cooperation are all discussed. We contrast the reasons for successful cooperation on international trade policy.
Dawson & Farber: Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement
Forcible displacement transforms cultures and can even lead to their destruction. Beginning with the origins of the human species millions of years ago and ending up in our present day era, this book analyses examples of forcible displacement in order to examine the crime in its many different forms. The legal contours of the crime receive a comprehensive treatment, including the experience of the international tribunals and decades of scholarly work in the area. The authors suggest that a paradigm shift is needed in order to bring development-induced displacement into the mainstream discourse on forcible displacement. The book concludes with a proposal for a new convention for the prevention and punishment of the crime of forcible displacement.
- Jean d'Aspremont, Wording in International Law
- International Legal Theory: Symposium on Foucault
- Tanja Aalberts & Ben Golder, On the Uses of Foucault for International Law
- Anne Orford, In Praise of Description
- Matt Craven, On Foucault and Wolff or from Law to Political Economy
- Stephen Legg, ‘The Life of Individuals as well as of Nations’: International Law and the League of Nations’ Anti-Trafficking Governmentalities
- Susanne Krasmann, Targeted Killing and Its Law: On a Mutually Constitutive Relationship
- International Law and Practice
- Yejoon Rim, Two Governments and One Legitimacy: International Responses to the Post-Election Crisis in Côte d'Ivoire
- Belén Olmos Giupponi, International Law and Sources of Law in MERCOSUR: An Analysis of a 20-Year Relationship
- Hague International Tribunals: International Court of Justice
- Beatrice I. Bonafé, Interests of a Legal Nature Justifying Intervention before the ICJ
- Serena Forlati, Reactions to Non-Performance of Treaties in International Law
- International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Jens David Ohlin, Second-Order Linking Principles: Combining Vertical and Horizontal Modes of Liability
- Jean Galbraith, The Good Deeds of International Criminal Defendants
- Guido Acquaviva, A Conversation with Antonio Cassese
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Society bestows book awards, known as ASIL Certificates of Merit, annually in three categories: a) to a book for its preeminent contribution to creative scholarship; b) to a book which exhibits high technical craftsmanship and is of high utility to practicing lawyers and scholars; and c) to a book in a specialized area of international law, such as business transactions, economic law, environmental law, human rights, humanitarian law or private international law.
Books of any nationality, language, or place of publication that have been published in the 24 months preceding February 1, 2013, are eligible. To nominate works of scholarship, please provide a list of titles to be nominated along with send six (6) copies of them by October 1, 2012, to:
Executive Office & Programs Manager
American Society of International Law
2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
- Adherbal Meira Mattos, Amazon Region, Sovereignty and the New World Order
- Alexandre Lopes Rocha Lima & Carlos Augusto Canêdo Gonçalves da Silva, Legal Basis for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: The Importance of the Certain Expenses Case
- Ana Flávia Velloso, O Caso Battisti
- André Marini, The Limits of Precedential Value in Investment Arbitration
- Arno Dal Ri Júnior, A Nação Contra o Estado. A Ciência do Direito Internacional no “Risorgimento” Italiano
- Bruno Maciel Santos, O Impacto da Unipolaridade no Regime de Utilização do Espaço Exterior
- Carlos Alberto Rohrmann, Technological Barriers to the Right to Vote: Biometrical Data, Electronic Voting Machines and the Dignity of the Electors
- Claudia de Vilhena Schayer Sabino, Hugo Schayer Sabino, Tania Maria Ferreira de Souza, & Wolney Lobato, Universidades, direitos autorais e patentes: os desafios da gestão da propriedade intelectual no âmbito das atividades acadêmicas
- Eric David, Le Médiateur du Comité des sanctions du Conseil de sécurité, un ombudsman?
- Franck Latty, Compétition sportive et droit international des investissements. Quelques élucubrations juridiques à l’approche de la Coupe du monde de football au Brésil et des Jeux olympiques de Rio de Janeiro
- Gabriela Frazão Gribel, As Cortes Domésticas e a Aplicação do Direito Internacional Público
- J. Javier Gorostegui Obanoz & María Teresa Infante Caffaffi, Current developments on State Responsibility and Liability in the Area
- Johannes vana Aggelen, Stocktaking at the evolution of the UN Human Rights Program
- Jorge M . Lasmar, The global war on terror, jus ad bellum and normative change in international law
- Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant & Délber Andrade Lage, A natureza normativa da ordem jurídica internacional
- Liliana Lyra Jubilut & Silvia Menicucci de Oliveira Selmi Apolinário, O artigo 28 da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos e construção de uma nova ordem internacional social
- Luciana Diniz, O Comitê Consultivo do Conselho de Direitos Humanos da ONU
- Marcel Fortuna Biato, Brasil, a Responsabilidade para Proteger e a conformação da ordem global
- Maria Beatriz Pennacchi Dellore, Arbitration and Mediation Procedures at WIPO
- Nuno Piçarra & Francisco Pereira Coutinho, The role of the Member States Courts in the Jurisdictional System of the European Union: the Portuguese case
- Suzana Santi Cremasco & Tiago Eler Silva, The Jurisdictional Character of Arbitration and the Arbitral Precedent
- Tullio Treves, The Law of the Sea System: open challenges
- Soledad Torrecuadrada García-Lozano, La dudosa competencia del Consejo de Seguridad para adoptar algunas medidas decididas a partir de 1990
- Sandra Szurek, La responsabilité de protéger: Mauvaises querelles et vraies questions
- Andrea Camargo García, Medidas interinas de protección en arbitraje CIADI
- Mactar Kamara, De l’applicabilité du droit international des droits de l’homme dans l’ordre juridique interne
- Shalaka Patil, Push button parliament–why India needs a non-partisan, recorded vote system
States are increasingly framing their international investment treaties within multilateral, regional arrangements. The purpose of this ITF public conference is to explore the nature of these arrangements, examine the motivations behind their development, and inquire about their implications for the field of international investment law generally. More broadly, the conference will ask whether regionalization portends a move towards greater global harmonization or whether it suggests a new balkanization of the investment treaty regime.
Among the regional arrangements to be examined at this conference are:
- 2012 China-Japan-Korea Trilateral Investment Treaty
- 2009 ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement
- 2009 ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
- 2007 Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area
- 2006 Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America Peoples' Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP)
- 2004 Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)
- Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations
- Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) negotiations
- Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Das Zusammenspiel von Rechtsquellen und Institutionen bei internationalen Kindesentführungen
- Peter McEleavy, Judicial Communication and Co-operation and the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
- Estelle Gallant, Coopération d’autorités et recouvrement international des aliments
- Chiara Besso, Cooperation in the Taking of Evidence: the European Attitude
- Ma Pía Calderón Cuadrado, Espacios comunes, contradicciones no asumibles y fórmulas de racionalización. Sobre el diálogo entre Tribunales
- Pascale Deumier, La question prioritaire de constitutionnalité et le dialogue primordial des juges français
Monday, July 30, 2012
- Joanne Gowa & Raymond Hicks, The most-favored nation rule in principle and practice: Discrimination in the GATT
- Paul Clist, Alessia Isopi & Oliver Morrissey, Selectivity on aid modality: Determinants of budget support from multilateral donors
- Liam Clegg, Global governance behind closed doors: The IMF boardroom, the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, and the intersection of material power and norm stabilisation in global politics
- Julia Gray & Jonathan B. Slapin, How effective are preferential trade agreements? Ask the experts
The strengths of international investment law – above all, a strong focus on investor interests and an effective adjudication and enforcement system – also entail its weaknesses: it runs the danger of impeding or even sanctioning the host states' legitimate regulatory interests and ignoring other fields of public international law. How does it cope with public interest concerns such as human rights, the environment or the fight against corruption? At the heart of this book lies a fresh approach towards a general theory of such global public interest considerations in the investment realm. Delineating how and why those considerations matter, and why the current system does not accommodate them properly, Andreas Kulick fleshes out general principles and customary international law as defences the host state may raise against alleged investor rights infringements and promotes proportionality as the appropriate balancing mechanism.
The information revolution has transformed both modern societies and the way in which they conduct warfare. Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War analyses the status of computer network attacks in international law and examines their treatment under the laws of armed conflict. The first part of the book deals with the resort to force by states and discusses the threshold issues of force and armed attack by examining the permitted responses against such attacks. The second part offers a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of international humanitarian law to computer network attacks. By examining the legal framework regulating these attacks, Heather Harrison Dinniss addresses the issues associated with this method of attack in terms of the current law and explores the underlying debates which are shaping the modern laws applicable in armed conflict.
Philosophers generally agree that justified self-defense must meet four conditions. First, the defender must face an unjustified threat. Second, there must be some grounds to prefer the defender's interests to those of his target (“Attacker,” though in some cases that name is not apposite). Third, the force used must be proportionate to the threat averted: the threat must be of sufficient magnitude to justify that much force. And fourth, the force used must be necessary to avert the threat. Much has been written on the first three conditions, each of which is subject to widely varying interpretations. The necessity constraint, however, has been generally neglected.
This neglect would be less troubling if necessity were either immediately perspicuous, or peripheral to the ethics of self-defense. Unfortunately, closer examination proves the simple, pretheoretical account of necessity to be inadequate. And if defensive harm can be justified only if it is necessary, this constraint could hardly be more important. Nor is this only a problem in self-defense: necessity plays a crucial role in both popular and philosophical thinking about the ethics of war. We standardly think that, regardless of whether the other criteria for permissible harm in war are met, unless force is necessary to avert an unjustified threat, we should refrain. Indeed, for one prominent school of just war theorists, necessity underpins the principle of noncombatant immunity, perhaps the single most important moral constraint on the use of force in war. These philosophers think that permissible killing in war is identical to permissible killing in self- and other-defense, indeed, that justified wars reduce to justified acts of self- and other-defense. They argue that, even if the other conditions that would make noncombatants legitimate targets of lethal force were satisfied, since killing noncombatants will never satisfy the necessity constraint, they are immune from attack on those grounds alone.
The necessity constraint, then, is at the heart of the ethics of both self-defense and war, and yet we know little about it. This article seeks to remedy that defect. It proceeds in two stages: first, an analysis of the concept of necessity in self-defense (Sections II and III); second, an application of this analysis to war, looking at both its implications for just war theory (Section IV) and its application in the laws of war (Section V).
Call for Papers – Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law
The first conference on Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law, organised by the University of Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice, will take place on Thursday 6th December and Friday 7th December 2012.
The field of International Criminal Law (ICL) has recently experienced a significant surge in scholarship, in institutions, and in the public debate. The contemporary debate is predominantly focussed on ICL’s contribution to projects of justice, peace, legality, addressing impunity and accountability. While there are individual sites of critique, they are largely limited to effectiveness arguments: If the International Criminal Court is not functioning as well as it could be, then it must be made more effective; if peace is not yet achieved through tackling impunity, then there must be more accountability. This limited critique has fostered a seemingly self-congratulatory, uncritical, and over-confident area of international law which has marginalised deeper critical approaches.
What is missing from the mainstream debate are the possible complicities of ICL in injustice, conflict, exclusions, and biases. Arguably, the numerous conferences this year on the topic of the 10-year anniversary of the coming into force of the Rome Statute are largely a testament to this limited critique. In this conference, we hope to shift the debate towards such complicities and limitations in the contemporary understanding of ICL. We hope to question some of the assumptions which inform the field and which may cause injustice, conflict, exclusion and bias.
Tentative sites of critique, which are envisaged as central to an idea of Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law (CAICL), are:
- ICL and the political
- ICL and individualism
- ICL and neo-liberalism
- ICL and ideology
- ICL and gender
- ICL and afrocentricism
- ICL crowding out other disciplines
- ICL and the emergence of a judiocracy
The first day of the conference is open to all and will take place at the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool. The second day will be a closed session including a writing workshop and an exchange of ideas on teaching CAICL; participation of this requires an invitation.
More information will be online shortly here.
Please send abstracts of 500 words (max.) and a short bio (100 words max.) to C.Schwobel@liverpool.ac.uk by 01 September 2012. Selected speakers will be contacted by 28 September 2012. Draft papers will be due by 01 December 2012. A number of papers will be selected for an edited collection and/or a special issue. Completed papers will be due by end January 2013. The manuscript will be sent for consideration by March 2013.
A registration fee of £50 for academics and £100 for practitioners will be incurred. The registration fee income will go towards a travel grant for postgraduate students.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
- Stefania Bariatti, Multiple Nationalities and EU Private International Law – Many Questions and Some Tentative Answers
- George A. Bermann, Parallel Litigation: Is Convergence Possible?
- Patrick Kinsch, Private International Law Topics Before the European Court of Human Rights – Selected Judgments and Decisions (2010-2011)
- Jonathan Hill, The Powers of the English Court to Support an Arbitration in “Foreign Seat” and “No Seat” Cases
- Christa Roodt, Border Skirmishes between Courts and Arbitral Tribunals in the EU: Finality in Conflicts of Competence
- Koji Takahashi, Conflict of Laws in Emissions Trading
- Thomas Kadner Graziano, The CISG Before the Courts of Non-Contracting States? Take Foreign Sales Law as You Find It
- European Family Private International Law
- Cristina González Beilfuss, The Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships
- Ilaria Viarengo, The EU Proposal on Matrimonial Property Regimes – Some General Remarks
- Andrea Bonomi, The Interaction among the Future EU Instruments on Matrimonial Property, Registered Partnerships and Successions
- Beatriz Campuzano Díaz, The Coordination of the EU Regulations on Divorce and Legal Separation with the Proposal on Matrimonial Property Regimes
- Simone Marinai, Matrimonial Matters and the Harmonization of Conflict of Laws: A Way to Reduce the Role of Public Policy as a Ground for Non-Recognition of Judgments