The ICJ’s treatment of US practice translates into one of the most controversial aspects of the Jurisdictional Immunities judgment. The Court’s approach was elusive and patchy. Certain key decisions by US courts in the field of sovereign immunity were patently neglected, while others were addressed in a misleading manner. This article examines the Court’s citations and omissions relating to US practice, with respect to both the jus cogens and tort exception arguments advanced by Italy in defense of its Ferrini jurisprudence denying immunity when the defendant State is accused of egregious breaches of human rights. The article also enquires into the possible reasons at the basis of the Court’s inadequate assessment of US practice. It takes the view that the Court’s dismissive attitude vis-à-vis the anomalous American experience throws doubt into the judgment’s reliability and persuasiveness as an accurate reflection of the contemporary law of State immunity.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Pavoni: The American Anomaly: On the ICJ's Misuse of United States Practice in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State
Friday, September 7, 2012
It is often assumed that the International Criminal Court promotes the rule of law: the ICC is a court and courts enhance the rule of law. It is usually left unspecified how the ICC promotes the rule of law, and which rule of law it promotes: the rule of law at the international level, the domestic level or something in between? And what is that rule of law that it promotes? Is it the rule of law as understood in international development programmes, in which courts, acts and the adoption of international legal jargon are ‘benchmarks’ of the rule of law? Or does the ICC also promote the rule of law in its legal-philosophical meaning as a latticework of ideals?
This chapter uses the ICC intervention in Uganda as a case study to focus on the relationship between the ICC and the promotion of the rule of law at the domestic level. It argues that, seen through the first lens of ‘rule of law promotion’, the evaluation of the ICC’s impact on the rule of law in Uganda can be positive: the ICC’s intervention has spurred the creation of laws and courts and has led to an increase in references to international standards. The legal-philosophical lens, however, reveals that these developments have not necessarily enhanced the aims of the rule of law. Moreover, the ICC’s intervention has unleashed other dynamics that are in synergy with some aims of the rule of law (supremacy of law and accountability) but in tension with others (equality before the law, separation of powers, fairness and legal certainty).
Since the early 1990s, the EU’s trade agreements have included a ‘human rights clause’ requiring the parties to respect human rights and democratic principles. More recently, beginning with the 2008 EU-Cariforum Economic Partnership Agreement, they have also included ‘sustainable development’ chapters, which contain obligations to respect labour and environmental standards. This article considers the extent to which, legally, these two sets of provisions give the EU the means of implementing its obligations to ensure that its external activities respect human rights and pursue the objective of promoting sustainable development. It also considers the differences in the EU’s approach to the human rights and democratic principles, on the one hand, and labour and environmental standards, on the other, and the extent to which these different approaches risk undermining the EU’s obligation to respect the indivisibility of all human rights.
What is the role of economic evidence and arguments in WTO and investor-state dispute settlement? Both regimes epitomize the search for an international rule of law and legal stability. At the same time, both trade and investment agreements are economic contracts. Economics provides insights not only in lawmaking but also in law application, both fact establishment and legal interpretation. The influence of economic evidence and arguments, including quantitative studies, is on the rise in both fields. It spans far beyond damage calculations and decisions on appropriate trade retaliation. In the WTO: like products, less favorable treatment, subsidies and general exceptions. In investor-state arbitration: economic necessity. And in both regimes many more provisions lend themselves to input from economics. Such input can provide more robust, empirically sound and predictable outcomes. This, in turn, can broaden the support and legitimacy of both the trade and investment regimes. At the same time, reliance on economics does not come without risks. Core caveats and limits are: (1) economics must be filtered through legal criteria, (2) methodological discipline, (3) for communication purposes, ‘keep it simple’; (4) due process, (5) avoid or disclose value judgments. The cases and controversies discussed in this contribution indicate progress made but highlight that a lot of work must still be done to conform to ‘best practices’.
The globalisation of financial markets has attracted much academic and policymaking commentary in recent years, especially with the growing number of banking and financial crises and the current credit crisis that has threatened the stability of the global financial system. This major new Research Handbook sets out to address some of the fundamental issues in financial regulation from a comparative and international perspective and to identify some of the main research themes and approaches that combine economic, legal and institutional analysis of financial markets.
- Manfred B. Steger & Erin K. Wilson, Anti-Globalization or Alter-Globalization? Mapping the Political Ideology of the Global Justice Movement
- Benjamin Miller, Does Democratization Pacify the State? The Cases of Germany and Iraq
- Michael Mousseau, Capitalist Development and Civil War
- Yotam Margalit, Lost in Globalization: International Economic Integration and the Sources of Popular Discontent
- Stacie E. Goddard, Brokering Peace: Networks, Legitimacy, and the Northern Ireland Peace Process
- Matthew D. Fails, Inequality, Institutions, and the Risks to Foreign Investment
- Ronald R. Krebs & Aaron Rapport, International Relations and the Psychology of Time Horizons
- Thomas B. Pepinsky, Do Currency Crises Cause Capital Account Liberalization?
- Todd Hall & Keren Yarhi-Milo, The Personal Touch: Leaders’ Impressions, Costly Signaling, and Assessments of Sincerity in International Affairs
- Matthew Krain, J’accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides?
- Prakash Adhikari, The Plight of the Forgotten Ones: Civil War and Forced Migration
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The pendulum of international security law in recent years seems firmly to have swung towards the less restrictive side, both in scholarship and state practice. On the other hand, however, the ICJ’s post-2001 jurisprudence and other state practice have reaffirmed the restrictive reading. Trivially, but crucially, the UN Charter has not been amended. The law - at least Charter law, but perhaps also customary law - seems resilient to change, but perceptions of the law seem to have changed. What has happened and what are the dynamics at play? What is ‘resilience’ when it comes to the ius ad bellum? How can law be resilient vis-à-vis changing circumstance, opinions, interpretation and state practice?
In the following it is proposed to proceed in two steps. Section 2 will cast a glance on the indicators for and against resilience in an as-yet un-theoretical and somewhat phenomenological ‘pathology’ of post-2001 developments. By contrast, Section 3 will engage in a theoretical analysis of what ‘resilience’ can and cannot be and how the law and its perceptions change - or remain static.
Who fills international law’s gaps? Whether over the meaning of bilateral investment treaties, the standards regarding detainee transfer, or the rules of non-international armed conflict, courts and states are increasingly in conflict over the authority to say what the law is. With international law’s increased judicialization, two competing visions of international law have emerged: One, a gap-filled international law, in which law is developed slowly through custom, argument, and negotiation, and a second, gap-less, in which disputes are resolved through a form of common law adjudication.
Drawing on growing literature on the law outside of courts, particularly out-of-court settlements, the social norms of specialized business communities, and constitutional separation-of-powers, along with traditional customary international law, this paper demonstrates that the conflict between these two visions is much deeper than previously assumed. What emerges from these literatures are two radically different models of lawmaking, “negotiated law” and “adjudicated law,” that look different, act differently, rely on different sources of authority and legitimacy, and are to some extent in conflict with one another. Contrary to conventional wisdom, gap-filling by states and gap-filling by courts are not interchangeable.
The unrecognized differences between these two competing models of modern international law lie at the heart of longstanding doctrinal tensions over the nature/sources of customary international law and provide unseen inspiration for the brewing conflicts between courts and states for interpretative supremacy. International law has essentially reached its Erie moment. Only by recognizing the true nature of the conflict, only by recognizing the very different sources of judicial and state authority, only by forcing courts and states to justify their claims to interpretive authority, can we begin to resolve the tensions between these two models and discern the proper roles of courts and states on a modern international law.
- Andrea K. Bjorklund & August Reinisch, Introduction: The ILA Study Group on the Role of Soft Law Instruments in International Investment Law
- Moshe Hirsch, Sources of International Investment Law
- Melaku Geboye Desta, Soft Law in International Law: An Overview
- Andrea K. Bjorklund, Assessing the Effectiveness of Soft Law Instruments in International Investment Law
- Kate Miles, Soft Law Instruments in Environmental Law: Models for International Investment Law?
- Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Soft Law Codifications in the Area of Commercial Law
- Melaku Geboye Desta, GATT/WTO Law and International Standards: An Example of Soft Law Instruments Hardening Up?
- Christian Tietje & Emily Sipiorski, The Evolution of Investment Protection Based on Public International Law Treaties: Lessons to be Learned
- Andreas R. Ziegler, Is the MFN Principle in International Investment Law Ripe for Multilateralization or Codification?
- August Reinisch, Is Expropriation Ripe for Codification? The Example of the Non-Discrimination Requirement for Lawful Expropriations
- August Reinisch & Andrea K. Bjorklund, Soft Codification of International Investment Law
Arato: Treaty Interpretation and Constitutional Transformation: Informal Change in International Organizations
This article presents an argument about the constitutional transformation of international organizations through the judicial interpretation of their constituent instruments. The organizations at issue are public institutions, established by international agreement and charged with the exercise of transnational governmental power. They are, on one view, essentially treaty-based organizations that derive authority from the consent of the Parties. At the same time, these organizations must be understood as constitutional bodies, constituted with substantial delegated powers and varying degrees of independence vis-à-vis their constituent Member States. Some have developed the capacity to evolve over time, informally and autonomously. I argue that the judicial organs of certain organizations have transformed their material constitutions through engaging in particularly liberal approaches to the interpretation of their constituent instruments.
The analysis focuses on one particular technique of interpretation: the doctrine of interpretation on the basis of the subsequent practice of the States Parties. I trace the use of this doctrine by three judicial bodies: the WTO-AB, the ICJ, and the ECtHR. The first organ represents a control, adopting a strict approach to subsequent practice. By contrast, I suggest that the ICJ and ECtHR have each adopted radically expansive approaches to subsequent practice, with the effect of transforming the powers and autonomy of the organizations to which they belong.
In the classic novel, Frankenstein, Doctor Frankenstein creates a living creature in the hope of cheating death. The monster, as the creature is called, horrifies Doctor Frankenstein, turns against him, and kills several people, causing the doctor to regret his decision to make the monster in the first place.
When states establish an international organization (IO), they create an institution with a life of its own on the international stage. Though states can, collectively, control the IO, without unanimity among them the organization can often act on its own. The danger for a state, then, is that its creation, like Frankenstein’s, will become a monster and act contrary to its interests.
In contrast to Frankenstein, however, states are conscious of this risk and are able to guard against it. This Article explains that much of the existing landscape of international organizations has been formed by the state response to this “Frankenstein problem.” The effort by states to avoid creating a monster explains, among other things, why there are so many IOs, why they vary so widely in scope, and the manner in which they are permitted (and not permitted) to affect international law and international relations. The Article also identifies the four types of activities that IOs are allowed to undertake and explains how states choose which activities to place within which organizations. More generally, the Article offers a better understand of why and how IOs are designed and their place within the international legal order.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
- Olga Martin-Ortega, Prosecuting War Crimes at Home: Lessons from the War Crimes Chamber in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Brighton Claire, Avoiding Unwillingness: Addressing the Political Pitfalls Inherent in the Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court
- Ezequiel Malarino, Judicial Activism, Punitivism and Supranationalisation: Illiberal and Antidemocratic Tendencies of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Drone Warfare under International Law: A Preliminary Survey
- Christophe Deprez, Extent of Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Proceedings before the International Criminal Court: On Possible Reductive Factors
- Joris van Wijk, Amnesty for War Crimes in Angola: Principled for a Day?
- Eleni Coundouriotis, Congo Cases: The Stories of Human Rights History
- Ilana Feldman. The Humanitarian Condition: Palestinian Refugees and the Politics of Living
- Nils Gilman, Preface: Militarism and Humanitarianism
- Dena Plemmons & Robert Albro, Practicing Ethics and Ethical Practice: Anthropologists and Military Humanitarians
- Keally McBride & Annick T.R. Wibben, The Gendering of Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan
- Editorial Collective, Photo Essay: Militarism and Humanitarianism
- Colleen Bell, Hybrid Warfare and Its Metaphors
- Ben Oppenheim, Community and Counterinsurgency
- Moshik Temkin, From Black Revolution to "Radical Humanism": Malcolm X between Biography and International History
- Special Issue: Torture Prevention and Disability
- Dorottya Karsay & Oliver Lewis, Disability, torture and ill-treatment: taking stock and ending abuses
- Peter Bartlett, A mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting confinement: examining justifications for psychiatric detention
- Anna Lawson, Disability equality, reasonable accommodation and the avoidance of ill-treatment in places of detention: the role of supranational monitoring and inspection bodies
- Elina Steinerte, Rachel Murray & Judy Laing, Monitoring those deprived of their liberty in psychiatric and social care institutions and national practice in the UK
- Charles O'Mahony, Legal capacity and detention: implications of the UN disability convention for the inspection standards of human rights monitoring bodies
- Nell Munro, Define acceptable: how can we ensure that treatment for mental disorder in detention is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
In the fateful closing days of 1862, three weeks before Emancipation, the administration of Abraham Lincoln commissioned a code setting forth the laws of war for the armies of the United States. The code announced standards of civilized conduct in wartime concerning issues such as torture, prisoners of war, civilians, spies, and slaves. The code Lincoln approved ultimately shaped the course of the Civil War. And when the war was over, the same code reshaped warfare the world over. By the twentieth century, the 157 articles of Lincoln’s code had become the basis of a new international law of war. European powers adopted the American code. International agreements like the Geneva Conventions incorporated and expanded it.
In this pathbreaking and deeply original book, John Fabian Witt tells the hidden story of the laws of war in the first century of the United States–and of the extraordinary code that emerged from it to change the course of world history. Lincoln’s Code is the haunting and inspiring story of an idea in American history: the idea that conduct in war can be regulated by law. For many, the very idea of a law for war has seemed like an oxymoron. But with sweep and vitality, Witt unfolds the story of the cast of characters who invented the modern laws of war. Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin championed Enlightenment rules for civilized warfare.
James Madison went to war in 1812 to vindicate them. Indian conflicts challenged and distorted them. The Mexican War quietly revolutionized them. In the Civil War, Lincoln and a small band of now forgotten figures helped remake those same laws to support Emancipation and advance the Union war effort. Three decades later, a new generation of Americans went into a war of American empire in the Philippines equipped with the very rules Lincoln had laid down.
In beautifully crafted prose, Witt brings to life the soldiers and the presidents, the war makers and the pacifists, the Indians and the slaves, the cynics, the utopians, and the pragmatists who struggled with enemies and with one another to shape the United States’ vision of the laws of war. A narrative of expansive range and significance, Lincoln’s Code depicts the drama of armed conflict and the anguish of human beings grappling with such vexing questions as whether prisoners could be executed; whether there were rules in Indian wars; whether military commissions could try unlawful combatants; whether torture might ever be justified; and whether slaves could be freed in wartime. The code Lincoln issued prohibited cruelty and the infliction of pain for its own sake but left room for vast destruction in the name of a just cause. It condoned the devastation inflicted in Sherman’s march to the sea. Yet it also provided a moral foundation for Emancipation and insisted that doing the right thing in situations of grave crisis was indispensable to the legitimacy of modern armies.
Witt’s engrossing exploration of the dilemmas at the heart of the laws of war is a prehistory of our own era. Today the world once again confronts raging legal and moral controversy over the conduct of war. Lincoln’s Code reveals that the controversies of the twenty-first century have roots going back to the beginnings of American history. In a time of heated controversy about the nation’s conduct in wartime, Lincoln’s Code is a compelling story of ideals under pressure and a landmark contribution to our understanding of the American experience.
- Robert E. Kelly, A ‘Confucian Long Peace’ in pre-Western East Asia?
- Jamie Gaskarth, The virtues in international society
- Leonardo Baccini, Democratization and trade policy: An empirical analysis of developing countries
- Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Cosmopolitan politicization: How perceptions of interdependence foster citizens’ expectations in international institutions
- Shiping Tang & S.R. Joey Long, America’s military interventionism: A social evolutionary interpretation
- Alex J. Bellamy & Paul D. Williams, On the limits of moral hazard: The ‘responsibility to protect’, armed conflict and mass atrocities
- Aysegul Aydin & Patrick M. Regan, Networks of third-party interveners and civil war duration
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
- September 6, 2012: Derek Jinks (Univ. of Texas, Austin - Law), "Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law"
- September 20, 2012: Brian Greenhill (Dartmouth College - Government), "Norm Transmission in International Organizations: The Case of Gay Rights and Women's Rights"
- October 4, 2012: Steven R. Ratner (Univ. of Michigan - Law), "The Thin Justice of International Law"
- October 18, 2012: Emilie M. Hafner-Burton (Univ. of California, San Diego - School of International Relations & Pacific Studies), "Making Human Rights A Reality"
- October 25, 2012: Judith Kelley (Duke Univ. - Sanford School of Public Policy), "Human Trafficking and US Diplomatic Efforts to Promote Criminalization Around the World"
- November 8, 2012: Karen Alter (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science) & Laurence Helfer (Duke Univ. - Law), "A New International Human Rights Court for West Africa: The Court of Justice for the Economic Community of West Africa States"
- November 15, 2012: Tom Ginsburg (Univ. of Chicago - Law), "Constitutions, International Law and War"
- November 29, 2012: Katerina Linos (Univ. of California, Berkeley - Law), "Benchmarks from Abroad"
- September, 6 2012: Marko Milanovic, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties and Shared Responsibility"
- October 4, 2012: Tobias Lock, "The EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Co-responsibility Mechanism"
- November 15, 2012: Robert McCorquodale, "Allocation of Responsibility between States and Multinational Corporations"
- December 6, 2012: Andrea Bianchi, "My difficulties with sharing – A critique of shared responsibility"
- January 10, 2013: Vera Gowlland, "Shared Responsibility between Member States and UN"
- February 14, 2013: Olivier de Schutter, "Shared Responsibility in relation to the Right to Food"
- March 7, 2013: Pierre-Marie Dupuy, "The deficiencies of the International Law of State Responsibility relating to breaches of 'Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole': Suggestions for avoiding the obsolescence of aggravated responsibility"
- April 11, 2013: Giorgio Gaja, "Concurrent responsibility in relation to international organizations"
- May 6, 2013: Michael Faure, "Joint and several liability in tort law: lessons for international law"
- June 6, 2013: Samantha Besson, "Allocation of human rights duties (and responsibilities) to multiples duty-bearers"
Finnin: Elements of Accessorial Modes of Liability: Article 25 (3)(b) and (c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
This volume continues the work of the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court by developing ‘elements’ for ordering, instigating and aiding and abetting the commission of international crimes under Article 25(3)(b) and (c) of the Rome Statute. The development of proposed elements for these accessorial modes of liability is necessary because while detailed elements for the substantive crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court were identified in the ‘Elements of Crimes’, no such elements were elaborated for the modes of liability in those crimes. The proposed elements in this volume break new ground and are designed to assist the ICC in applying the provisions of the Rome Statute to the cases before it for trial with consistency and accuracy.
Bisaz: The Concept of Group Rights in International Law: Groups as Contested Right-Holders, Subjects and Legal Persons
The Concept of Group Rights in International Law offers a critical appraisal of the concept of group rights in international law on the basis of an extensive survey of existing group rights in contemporary international law. Among some of its findings is the observation that an ideological way of arguing about this legal category is widespread among scholars as well as practitioners; it sees this ideological framing as one of the main reasons why international law has so far been very reluctant to provide group rights and to call them by their name. Accordingly, the book re-evaluates the concept based on the experience with existing group rights in international law and pleads for a more pragmatic approach. Despite limitations with the concept, the overall thesis is that there is a role for group rights as a pragmatic tool allowing for a principled approach to substate groups through international law. Such an approach could turn group rights into an arguably minor, but nevertheless, highly relevant legal category of international law.
The Conference will bring together participants from across Asia and the Pacific, and beyond, to discuss topical issues relating to the broad theme of international law and justice. Most simply, to what extent can international law be an instrument of justice? Do we all share a common perception of justice and how does justice at an international level relate to other goals such as peace, equality, or development? Has the expansion of international law enhanced international justice and if so, for whom? To what extent has international law embraced the concept of intergenerational justice?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Pérez González: Lucha contra el terrorismo, Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derecho Penal Internacional
Entre las distintas perspectivas de análisis del fenómeno terrorista, se ha elegido en esta obra una perspectiva jurídica centrada en el Derecho internacional. Se examina, pues, en ella el terrorismo como realidad -realidad criminal- que hay que combatir mediante la cooperación internacional, sin perjuicio de tener en cuenta las diversas causas, sociales y políticas, generadoras de situaciones de frustración y descontento generalizado que son el caldo de cultivo para la propagación de los extremismos militantes. A lo largo de estas páginas se abordan aspectos relevantes para una lucha antiterrorista respetuosa del Derecho, entre ellos la búsqueda de un consenso universal sobre la definición de terrorismo, la responsabilidad del Estado por hechos ilícitos, la delicada cuestión de la participación directa en las hostilidades de quienes no tienen derecho a ello según el Derecho de los conflictos armados, el deslinde y las posibles sintonías entre los enfoques de Derecho humanitario y de derechos humanos, el papel de los órganos judiciales nacionales (sobre todo desde la óptica del due process) en la respuesta a los desafíos que plantea la "guerra contra el terrorismo", la cooperación judicial entre Estados, y otros de indudable interés.
- Issue Focus: International Legal Cooperation against Somali Piracy
- Manjiao Chi, Finding out the 'Achilles' Heels': Piracy Suppression under International Law and Chinese Law
- Eric Yong Joong Lee, Military Rescue Operation for the Hostages Taken by Somali Pirates: Was the Korean Navy's "Daybreak in the Gulf of Aden" Legitimate?
- Akiko Sugiki, Piracy in a Failed State: How State-Building Can Stabilize the Situation off the Somali Coast?
- Zhengxin Huo, Reshaping Private International Law in China: The Statutory Reform of Tort Conflicts
- Jaemin Lee, A Clash between IT Giants and the Changing Face of International Law: The Samsung vs. Apple Litigation and Its Jurisdictional Implications
- Notes & Comments
- Shun-liang Hsu, Border Enforcement of Plant Variety Rights: A Comparison between Japan and Taiwan
- Regional Focus & Controversies: Maritime and Territorial Dispute in the South China Sea
- Vietnam: Hong Thao Nguyen
- China: Junwu Pan
Strothmann: Das ASEAN Regional Forum: Chancen und Grenzen regionaler Sicherheitskooperation in Ostasien
Das ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) ist seit seiner Gründung 1994 zu einer wichtigen Form institutionalisierter Sicherheit in Ostasien geworden. Die sicherheitspolitischen Rahmenbedingungen mit der drohenden Machtkonkurrenz zwischen den USA und der Volksrepublik China haben sich indes nicht wesentlich verändert und die neuen Herausforderungen des Terrorismus tragen dazu bei, dass die Sicherheitsregion Ostasien dynamisch und unvorhersehbar bleibt. Dirk Strothmann analysiert den Stabilitätsbeitrag des ARF für die regionale Sicherheit. Er diskutiert den Einfluss multilateraler Kooperation auf inner- und zwischenstaatliche Konflikte, Rüstungskontrolle und nicht-traditionelle Sicherheitprobleme sowie den Beitrag der Track-Two-Diplomatie und die Folgen normativer Strukturen.
Thomas Koenen untersucht Art und Ausmaß staatlicher Pflichten zum Schutz von natürlichen Personen vor menschenrechtsbeeinträchtigenden Aktivitäten privatwirtschaftlicher Unternehmen. Bezugnehmend auf die Arbeit des UN-Sonderbeauftragten für Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte analysiert er nebst Vertragstexten einschlägige Urteile und Entscheidungen zu den regionalen und internationalen Menschenrechtsverträgen. Neben inländischen Schutzpflichten überprüft der Autor Schutzpflichten mit Blick auf extraterritoriale Aktivitäten transnationaler Unternehmen. Die Analyse ergibt ein differenziertes Bild über den Entwicklungsgrad staatlicher Schutzpflichten. Dynamische Interpretationen regionaler wie internationaler Menschenrechtsverträge in den vergangenen Jahren begründen demnach eine bemerkenswerte Entwicklung von reinen Abwehrrechten hin zu umfassenderen staatlichen Schutzpflichten, die zunehmend auch die Aktivitäten privater Unternehmen umfassen.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Human rights have transformed the way in which we conceive the place of the individual within the community and in relation to the state in a vast array of disciplines, including law, philosophy, politics, sociology, geography. The published output on human rights over the last five decades has been enormous, but has remained tightly bound to a notion of human rights as dialectically linking the individual and the state. Because of human rights’ focus on the state and its actions, they have very seldom attracted the attention of legal pluralists. Indeed, some may have viewed the two as simply incompatible or relating to wholly distinct phenomena. This collection of essays is the first to bring together authors with established track records in the fields of legal pluralism and human rights, to explore the ways in which these concepts can be mutually reinforcing, delegitimizing, or competing. The essays reveal that there is no facile conclusion to reach but that the question opens avenues which are likely to be mined for years to come by those interested in how human rights can affect the behaviour of individuals and institutions.