- Caroline Fleay, Transnational activism, Amnesty International and human rights in China: the implications of consistent civil and political rights framing
- Samar El-Masri, Challenges facing CEDAW in the Middle East and North Africa
- Ronagh J.A. McQuigg, What potential does the Council of Europe Convention on Violence against Women hold as regards domestic violence?
- Patrick G. Coy, Nonpartisanship, interventionism and legality in accompaniment: comparative analyses of Peace Brigades International, Christian Peacemaker Teams, and the International Solidarity Movement
- Melissa T. Labonte, Whose responsibility to protect? The implications of double manifest failure for civilian protection
- Hannah Miller, A change in charity law for England and Wales: examining War on Want's foremost adoption of the new human rights charitable purpose
- Diya Uberoi, Maria de Bruyn & Beatriz Galli, Using human rights to address consequences of criminal laws on sexuality and reproductive autonomy
- Mark Findlay, Paradox in preventing and promoting torture: marginalising ‘harm’ for the sake of global ordering. Reflections on a decade of risk/security globalisation
- Claire Garbett, The legal representation of the civilian and military casualties of contemporary conflicts: unlawful victimisation, its victims and their visibility at the ICTY
- Darren O'Byrne, Re-imagining the theory of human rights
- Lana Zannettino, From Auschwitz to mandatory detention: biopolitics, race, and human rights in the Australian refugee camp
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
- Vinai Kumar Singh, India and Internally Displaced Persons: Current Legal Avenues and New Legal Strategies
- Steve Peers, Transfer of International Protection and European Union Law
- Marina Sharpe & Salima Namusobya, Refugee Status Determination and the Rights of Recognized Refugees under Uganda’s Refugees Act 2006
- Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko, Hospitality and Sovereignty: What Can We Learn From the Canadian Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program?
Customary international law is one of the three main sources of international law; lamentably, it has historically received little attention from law and economics scholars, despite providing rich material for economic analysis. In this chapter, we provide a concise overview of recent research on customary international law from a law and economics perspective, summarizing the main results while modestly extending some of the analyses presented.
This article challenges the emerging consensus that arbitrators in investor-state arbitrations should strive for consistency. Greater con-sistency can only be realized by sacrificing accuracy, sincerity, and transparency. For many national and supranational legal systems, this is a price worth paying to achieve other goals, including equality, certainty, predictability, and a perception of legitimacy. The case for privileging the goals served by consistency, however, loses much of its force in the context of investment arbitration. Substantive investment law, currently consisting of approximately three thousand instruments, is fragmented and dynamic. And due to its ad hoc character, arbitration is flawed as a vehicle for harmonization of law.
For these reasons, I argue that investment arbitrators should resist the introduction of precedent in the sense of according deference to earlier awards. Yet arbitrators ought to be mindful that their awards contribute to the development of substantive law in an area of great public importance. I argue, therefore, that the key lessons from precedent lie in its forward-looking aspects, namely the decisionmaking and reason-giving responsibilities that flow from the notion that decisions will have effects beyond the disputes they settle.
Van Harten: Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration
The study examines arbitrator behaviour in the uniquely context of investment treaty arbitration. It employs the method of content analysis to test hypotheses of systemic bias in the resolution of jurisdictional issues in investment treaty law. Unlike earlier studies, the study examines trends in legal interpretation instead of case outcomes and finds statistically significant evidence that arbitrators favour (1) the position of claimants over respondent states and (2) the position of claimants from major Western capital-exporting states over claimants from other states. There is a range of possible explanations for the results and further inferences are required to connect the observed trends to rationales for systemic bias. The key finding is that the observed trends exist and that they are unlikely to be explained by chance. This gives tentative empirical evidence of cause for concern about the use of arbitration in this context.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
- E. Myjer, The succes story of the European Court: The Times they are a-changin’?
- K. Dzehtsiarou & V. Lukashevich, Informed Decision-Making: the Comparative Endeavours of the Strasbourg Court
- K. Kinzelbach, Will China’s Rise Lead to a New Normative Order?
This paper revives Judith Shklar's "Legalism" (Harvard University Press, 1964) with an eye to its relevance to international criminal law today. It examines her general jurisprudential outlook, and critique of various prominent mid-century positions, before turning to her account of the Nuremberg Trials. Showing that her defense of those trials may fail, the paper concludes by suggesting that the book's failure may make it more relevant to the contemporary enterprise of international criminal law rather than less.
UNCLOS, often referred to as "the Constitution of the Sea", now has over 160 States parties and is still attracting new ones. It sets the legal framework for all matters concerning the world's oceans, including navigation, piracy, maritime jurisdictional boundaries, continental shelf, living and mineral resources and protection of the marine environment. This one and a half day conference will analyse the development of UNCLOS in its first 30 years and look ahead to the challenges of the future.
- Fifty Years Beyond the Brink: Writing the Cuban Missile Crisis
- Len Scott, Should We Stop Studying the Cuban Missile Crisis?
- Peter Catterall, At the End of the Day: Macmillan’s Account of the Cuban Missile Crisis
- Campbell Craig, Testing Organisation Man: The Cuban Missile Crisis and The Limits of Safety
- Don Munton, Hits and Myths: The Essence, the Puzzles and the Missile Crisis
- Sergey Radchenko, The Cuban Missile Crisis: Assessment of New, and Old, Russian Sources
- Len Scott, Eyeball to Eyeball: Blinking and Winking, Spyplanes and Secrets
- Thomas Clay, « Liberté, Égalité, Efficacité » : La devise du nouveau droit français de l’arbitrage (Deuxième partie)
- Marie-Clotilde Runavot, L’oxymore, nouvel exercice de style pour la CIJ : un avis inattendu pour une solution sans surprise
- David Sindres, Vers la disparition de l’ordre public de proximité ?
- Irène Musselli, La régulation des cours et des marchés des produits de base : vers une nouvelle architecture internationale ?
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Treaties will generally set out the substantive rights and obligations of the treaty parties. But treaties are also used to establish institutions for international cooperation. Such institutions may take many forms such as formal international organizations (IOs) or international courts. But treaties may also set up organs that are neither IOs nor international courts in the traditional sense. This paper deals with such ‘treaty bodies’.
En esta ocasión el tema del seminario se nutre de las diversas cumbres que se han realizado en 2012 como la Sexta Cumbre de las Américas y la Cumbre RIO+20, foros en los que los más altos líderes políticos de nuestra región se reúnen con el ánimo de analizar y dar propuestas de solución a conflictos que nos atañen a todos. Es por esto que la comunidad académica, comprometida con la sociedad no puede quedarse atrás, ya que su opinión permite evaluar los efectos de dichas políticas de Estado que redundarán en una afectación en los individuos que pertenecemos a esta región.
Governments seek to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) because it can contribute significantly to sustainable development through the transfer of capital and technology, job creation, linkages with local industries, infrastructure development and capacity building. Firms undertake FDI because it improves their access to markets and resources and increases their international competitiveness. These ostensibly different objectives can give rise to tensions in investor-state relations, especially in the context of allocating risks, responsibilities, and rights. Indeed, centuries ago international law already had norms that sought to minimize such tensions by governing states’ treatment of foreign merchants and traders. Over time, those norms have developed into a rich body of customary international law on the treatment of aliens, treaties governing foreign trade and investment, investment contracts allocating risks and benefits between the parties, and even human rights principles on non-discrimination and protection of property; moreover, these formal norms are supplemented by informal mechanisms and institutions (e.g., cultural norms, administrative procedures, networks).
Yet despite the long-running evolution of the investor-state relationship, the increasingly well-recognized importance of FDI for global sustainable development, and the extensive legal framework that has been constructed, tensions in the relationship remain. Moreover, the question of how to improve the investor-state relationship is still hotly debated. A key component of the question is whether the current ‘regime,’ encompassing all of the norms, laws and institutions, is exceedingly favorable to investors or to host governments. Indeed, during the late 1960s and the 1970s, the dominant approach to improving investor-state relationship was to control MNEs, whereas during the 1990s, a ‘rebalancing’ of sorts swung the trend toward liberalization and investor protection. At various points of time over the past several decades, the legal framework governing the investor-state relationship has been perceived by different stakeholders to be imbalanced and exclusionary of key stakeholders. Attempting to move from such criticism to constructive engagement is crucial for improving the investor-state relationship; and that, in turn, is key to maximizing investment for sustainable development.
This conference will start with a debate and discussion about the current state of investor-state relations and why finding a mutually beneficial framework has been such a challenge. What forces are pushing a re-evaluation of the investor-state relationship? Do governments feel that their interests are not adequately reflected in the existing regime? What challenges are investors facing under the current regime in terms of protecting their rights and interests? What roles are state-owned companies playing in the investor-state relationship? The debate will open the floor to explore the dominant forces pushing for a reformation of the existing regime and will consider how to rebalance the relationship to better protect the rights, interests and obligations of investors and states. The second panel will delve more deeply into one of the fundamental tensions in the investor-state relationship – namely, the tension between the predictability that investors require for long-term investments and the flexibility that host governments require to address issues of public interest and public policy. This panel will include a discussion of potential mechanisms to maintain an equilibrium between predictability and flexibility; in fact, both are in the shared interest of all stakeholders at different times, and finding mechanisms that allow for and anticipate fluctuations in the relationship over its duration would be mutually beneficial.
The third panel takes a closer look at options for mitigating and managing disputes between investors and states that can more efficiently and fairly protect the rights of foreign investors, host governments, and other stakeholders. This panel will explore the desirability and feasibility of adjustments to existing mechanisms, as well as the need for (and reality of) establishing alternatives or new mechanisms, if the current mechanisms are insufficient. Finally, the last panel will take a broader view toward reframing the investor-state relationship, in order to account forthe important roles of other relevant stakeholders as well as to maximize the outcomes of this relationship for sustainable development.
This conference will bring together a wide range of stakeholders in a “Davos-style” discussion without formal presentations, in order to foster a productive and dynamic conversation among all participants. The aim is to use the conference to advance practical solutions and strategies for improving the investor-state relationship and maximize the impact of investment for sustainable development.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
- Clive Schofield & Anastasia Telesetsky, Grey Clouds or Clearer Skies Ahead? Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case
- Barbara Kwiatkowska, Fundamental Principle of "Without Prejudice" in Submissions to the UN CLCS in Northeast and Southeast Asia
- Stacy Fallon, Don't Leave the Sami Out in the Cold: The Arctic Region Needs a Binding Treaty that Recognizes Its Indigenous People's Right to Self-Determination and Free, Prior and Informed Consent
- Jie Huang, Legal Battles over Underwater Historic Shipwrecks in High Seas: The Case of Odyssey
- Hernando Otero, Colombia and Ecuador Agree to Land Boundary Starting Point
Transnational Legal Theory is now receiving submissions that engage with topics in transnational law, international law, transnational jurisprudence, conflict of laws, comparative legal studies, global governance and constitutionalism, global administrative law. We welcome thoughtful and innovative scholarship, also from non-lawyers, as long as the submissions address and engage with themes of transnational legal theory. We also welcome book reviews as well as suggestions for review.
Submissions should be made to firstname.lastname@example.org. All submissions undergo anonymous peer review.
- Daniel Levin, Samuel Doran, & Leslie Maria, Megaupload and Criminal Charges
- Rafael García del Poyo, Cloud Computing: Aspectos Jurídicos Clave para la Contratación de Estos Servicios
- Ignacio García-Escorial de León & Antonio Paredes Mancha, Financiación Sindicada Corporativa de Multinacionales Españolas: Una Perspectiva Internacional
- Pilar Trinidad Nuñez, La Evolución en la Protección de la Vulnerabilidad por el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos
Krajewski & Singer: Should Judges Be Front-Runners? The ICJ, State Immunity and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights
The present essay critically analyses the ICJ’s ruling in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy). To contextualize the Court’s judgment the essay begins with a brief reflection on the law of state immunity and recalls the historical and factual background of the case. The essay then discusses the ICJ’s analysis of the claims of the parties. The main focus is not a challenge of the conclusions of the Court based on a positivist approach to customary international law. Instead, it is argued that faced with a methodological challenge and an institutional dilemma concerning the determination of customary international law, the Court opted for an approach which did not serve the progressive development of international law well.
Das Völkerrecht des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts steht nicht mehr im Dienst der Staatsräson, sondern des Gemeinwohls der internationalen Gemeinschaft, zu dessen zentralem Inhalt der Schutz der grundlegenden Rechte des Menschen geworden ist. Der Aufgaben- und Strukturwandel des Völkerrechts manifestiert sich in dessen Hierarchisierung, in der Stärkung der Pflichtenstellung des Individuums, im Zurücktreten des voluntativen Elements in der Begründung der Pflichten der Staaten sowie in der immer größeren Rolle internationaler Organisationen.
Die Beiträge des Bandes werfen aus drei Perspektiven Schlaglichter auf die suprastaatliche Konstitutionalisierung. Untersucht werden Fragen der Legitimität, Effektivität und Kohärenz des Völkerrechts. Darüber hinaus umfasst der Band eine Forschungsbibliographie, die die Konstitutionalisierungsliteratur nach Hauptrichtungen und Gegenständen ordnet und damit den Zugang zu ihr erleichtert.
Announcing a search for clinical faculty hire in international human rights law
The appointment offers a unique opportunity to join a law school that has deep faculty, student and institutional engagement in human rights and international law. Duke Law is home to both a Center for International and Comparative Law, as well as a Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security. It offers a joint JD-LLM in international and comparative law, has a variety of student organizations relating to international law, and publishes the student-edited Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law.
The precise contours of the position, including resources and institutional support, will be tailored to the strengths and interests of the successful applicant. In addition to a strong record of, or demonstrated potential for, clinical teaching, intellectual engagement, and leadership in the field, the ideal candidate will have experience in developing effective clinical programs or practice-oriented courses, working collaboratively with faculty members in law and related fields, and a record of practical engagement in international human rights law.
Teaching obligations will focus on developing and supervising experiential education opportunities for Duke Law students. Courses offered may include some combination of the following—an international human rights law clinic, broadly defined; carefully structured externship courses; and a doctrinal course that could be integrated with the clinic or externship courses.
This is an exciting time for clinical and experiential education at Duke Law School. The Clinical Program, which currently consists of nine clinical courses, is an integral component of the Law School’s curricular focus on professional development and problem solving. The candidate would be encouraged to engage actively with faculty from across the Law School and University to continue to grow and strengthen this key component of the curriculum.
Duke University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Persons of color and women are encouraged to apply.
* * * * * * *
Send a cover letter describing your interest in the position as well as a current curriculum vitae to:
Professor Laurence R. Helfer
Co-Director, Center for International and Comparative Law
Duke University School of Law
Science Drive & Towerview Rd.
Durham, NC 27707
Applicants are encouraged to submit their materials via email to Alison Prince at email@example.com.
Priority will be given to applications received by Monday October 29, 2012.
- David Milne, Pragmatism or what? The future of US foreign policy
- Lee Marsden, Bush, Obama and a faith-based US foreign policy
- Travis Sharp, Over-promising and under-delivering? Ambitions and risks in US defence strategy
- Trevor McCrisken, Justifying sacrifice: Barack Obama and the selling and ending of the war in Afghanistan
- Richard J. Aldrich & John Kasuku, Escaping from American intelligence: culture, ethnocentrism and the Anglosphere
- Mark Bromley, Neil Cooper & Paul Holtom, The UN Arms Trade Treaty: arms export controls, the human security agenda and the lessons of history
- Chad Michael Briggs, Climate security, risk assessment and military planning
- Jasper Humphreys, Resource wars: searching for a new definition
- Richard Milburn, Mainstreaming the environment into postwar recovery: the case for ‘ecological development’
- Discussion: What are the future challenges for humanitarian action?
- New Threats, New Responses
- Elizabeth Ferris, Megatrends and the future of humanitarian action
- Randolph C. Kent, Planning from the future: an emerging agenda
- Claudia McGoldrick, The future of humanitarian action: an ICRC perspective
- Humanitarian Principles Put at Test
- Felix Schwendimann, The legal framework of humanitarian access in armed conflict
- Brad A. Gutierrez, Sarah DeCristofaro & Michael Woods, What Americans think of international humanitarian law
- Jamie A. Williamson, Using humanitarian aid to ‘win hearts and minds’: a costly failure?
- Bruno Pommier, The use of force to protect civilians and humanitarian action: the case of Libya and beyond
- Ajay Madiwale & Kudrat Virk, Civil–military relations in natural disasters: a case study of the 2010 Pakistan floods
- In Folio
- Paul Bouvier, ‘Yo lo vi’. Goya witnessing the disasters of war: an appeal to the sentiment of humanity
- Changing Actors and Evolving Practice
- Andrea Binder & Claudia Meier, Opportunity knocks: why non-Western donors enter humanitarianism and how to make the best of it
- François Audet, What future role for local organizations? A reflection on the need for humanitarian capacity-building
- Pierre Gentile, Humanitarian organizations involved in protection activities: a story of soul-searching and professionalization
- Peter Walker & Catherine Russ, Fit for purpose: the role of modern professionalism in evolving the humanitarian endeavour
- Philippe Régnier, The emerging concept of humanitarian diplomacy: identification of a community of practice and prospects for international recognition
- Patrick Meier, New information technologies and their impact on the humanitarian sector
Monday, September 17, 2012
- Scientific Articles
- Jonathan David Herbach, Into the Caves of Steel: Precaution, Cognition and Robotic Weapon Systems Under the International Law of Armed Conflict
- Anja Wiersing, Lubanga and its Implications for Victims Seeking Reparations under the International Criminal Court
- Diana Contreras-Garduño, Defining Beneficiaries of Collective Reparations: The experience of the IACtHR PDF
- Stephanie Vieille, Transitional Justice: A Colonizing Field?
- Discussion Section
- Adel Maged, Commentary on al-Azhar Declaration in Support of the Arab revolutions
- Effi Lambropoulou, Myths and Realities About Corruption in Public Administration and its Discourse in Greece
- Mini-Symposium on Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Introduction and Overview: A Research Agenda for Making ‘Global Public Goods Theory’ More Policy Relevant
- Pascal Lamy, Global Governance: From Theory to Practice
- Inge Kaul, Global Public Goods: Explaining their Underprovision
- Jan Wouters & Thomas Ramopoulos, The G20 and Global Economic Governance: Lessons from Multi-Level European Governance?
- Daniel C. Esty & Anthony L. I. Moffa, Why Climate Change Collective Action has Failed and What Needs to be Done Within and Without the Trade Regime
- General Articles
- Arwel Davies, Scoping the Boundary Between the Trade Law and Investment Law Regimes: When Does A Measure Relate to Investment?
- Suzanne Zhou, Reassessing the Prospects of a Human Rights Safeguard Policy at the World Bank
- Andreas Heinemann, Government Control of Cross-Border M&A: Legitimate Regulation or Protectionism?
- Bryan Mercurio, Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements
- Padraig McAuliffe, Hybrid Tribunals at Ten: How International Criminal Justice's Golden Child Became an Orphan
- L. Rush Atkinson, Knights of the Court: The State Coalition Behind the International Criminal Court
- Saoirse de Bont, Murky Waters: Prosecuting Pirates and Upholding Human Rights Law
- Jennifer M. Allen & George H. Norris, Is Genocide Different? Dealing with Hate Speech in a Post-Genocide Society
One of the major innovations of the World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement Understanding (“DSU”) is the regulation of sanctions in response to violations of trade law. The DSU requires govern- ments to receive multilateral approval before suspending trade concessions and limits the extent of retaliation to prospective damages. In addition, the DSU permits governments to impose only conditional sanctions: sanctions for violations that continue after the dispute resolution process is complete. This enforcement regime creates a remedy gap: governments cannot respond, even to obvious breaches, until the end of the dispute resolution process (and then only to the extent of prospective damages). This gap might not be particularly important if the dispute resolution process were short. In practice, however, the WTO dispute resolution process has proven increasingly time consuming. This Article explores the growth of delays in the WTO dispute resolution process and the increasing significance of the remedy gap. It highlights how the DSU system essentially provides respondent states with an option to violate trade rules for several years without facing trade retaliation. The remedy gap also has counterproductive effects on settlement negotiations: the system gives respondent states few reasons to settle before the end of dispute resolution unless the states are compensated for doing so. Finally, this system may lead frustrated complaining states to subvert the DSU regime by acting outside of the legal framework. This Article discusses several solutions to the remedy gap, most notably creating a procedure where WTO panels can issue preliminary injunctions.
ESIL 5th Research Forum
International Law as a Profession
International law is a normative order created by and guiding (the behavior of) its legal subjects. However it also is a professional activity geared towards the fulfillment of a wide range of different functions. Depending on their respective roles, international lawyers perform a variety of tasks, including making, interpreting, applying, enforcing, or systematizing international rights and obligations.
The nature of these functions differs between the various professional capacities within the profession. For instance, international judges chiefly seek to settle international disputes by applying and interpreting the law. Legal advisers principally advise governments and international organizations on the making, the enforcement, and the use of international law. Academics commonly strive to contribute to the systematization of international law. In that sense, the type of engagement that international lawyers have with international law is determined by their respective roles. This is true even if the professional capacities of international lawyers continuously change, or if they simultaneously assume several professional and institutional functions, or if they switch from one to another.
These different professional capacities may come with different discourses and conceptions about how the making, the application, the interpretation, the enforcement, and the systematization of international law is carried out. Significant differences exist, particularly regarding the way in which international lawyers construe and use international law. Some understand international law as a defined and specific diplomatic vocabulary, while others systematize it as a body of rules that is formally identified and enforceable. For instance, an attorney engaged in public interest litigation will shape and use international law differently from a government lawyer who must largely speak the language of diplomacy. Likewise, the conception of international law as a complex legal system, as classically defended by academics, contrasts with the way in which international law is understood and used by domestic lawyers dealing with the application of international law in domestic legal orders.
As an epistemic community, each role within the profession is affected by institutional and social constraints. These biases inevitably impinge on the manner in which the various roles of international lawyers are understood and carried out, as well as the concept of law which they embrace.
Understanding international law as a profession thus calls for a two-fold evaluation. First, it requires evaluating the different functions which international lawyers fulfill in their various capacities, as well as the challenges faced when conducting them in the 21st century. Second, it calls for an appraisal of the diverging discourses to which they resort when exercising these various functions. Such an appraisal necessitates delving into the multiple underlying concepts of law used by scholars, as well as examining the institutional and social biases of each function within the profession.
The Research Forum will explore four particular roles exercised by international lawyers: the international lawyer as a judge or arbitrator; as a legal adviser, counsel or diplomat; as an academic, researcher, or teacher; and as a domestic lawyer.
Submission of papers or panel proposals
The Organising Committee of the Research Forum now invites proposals for papers to be presented at the Research Forum, as well as proposals for full panels of speakers. Proposals for papers or panels can relate (but need not be limited) to one of the following topics:
- The adjudicatory, diplomatic, and administrative functions of international dispute
- settlement bodies, including the development of international law
- The interpretation of history by international judges
- Competing loyalties within different professional practices
- Individual accountability of judges, counsel, and legal advisors
- Academics as activists versus activists as academics
- Relations between international lawyers and academics from other disciplines
- The role and influence of scholars in devising, clarifying, systematizing, interpreting, and/or developing international law
- Models of the legal profession used in teaching international law
- (Notions of) independence and impartiality of international and/or national judges
- The (judicial) role of members of accountability mechanisms (non-compliance mechanisms, etc.)
- The role of domestic lawyers
- The impact of new technologies on professional practices
A limited number of papers will be selected for possible inclusion in an edited volume on the theme of the conference and/or in the ESIL Conference Papers Series. The conference fee will be waived for selected panelists that are members of ESIL at the moment of registration.
Panel speakers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted in response to this Call for papers and panel proposals. Both senior and junior scholars (PhD students included), from any part of the world, of any nationality, and of any disciplines are encouraged to apply.
All papers and panel proposals will be selected through a peer-review process from abstracts received in response to this Call.
The following criteria will be used to aid the selection of papers and panels:
- The scientific quality of the research and proposed paper
- The originality of the proposed paper
- In the case of a panel proposal, the overall coherence of the panel
- Links to the conference and panel theme
- The geographical representation of the speakers
Only one abstract per author will be considered.
Papers delivered at the conference must be unpublished.
Submission of an abstract (paper)
Abstracts must be submitted online through the appropriate form.
Abstracts must not exceed 600 words, in English or French.
Abstracts must sufficiently set out the author’s argument and its implications for the general theme of the conference.
In addition, the following information must be provided:
- A short biography including relevant publications;
- The context in which the research is being conducted (e.g. for a forthcoming book, thesis, or article);
- The proposed language to be used (English or French);
- Indication whether the author is an ESIL member and, if so, the date of affiliation.
Submission of a panel proposal
The following information must be provided:
- A description of the overall theme of the panel and of the insights expected from the discussion;
- For each paper, the information required for the submission of an abstract (set out above).
All selected authors must deliver a draft paper of at least 3.000 words to be shared with other panelists.
- Deadline for submission of abstracts and panel proposals: 15 November 2012
- Applicants will be informed of the selection decision by: 20 December 2012
- Deadline for submission of draft papers: 1 May 2013
The page for submission of proposals will be made available on 15 October 2012.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
CALL FOR PAPERS
MELBOURNE JOURNAL of INTERNATIONAL LAW
The Editors of the Melbourne Journal of International Law (‘MJIL’) invite submissions on areas of interest in international law for their 14th volume. Issue 14(1) will be published in June 2013, and Issue 14(2) will be published in November 2013.
MJIL, Australia’s premier generalist international law journal, is a peer-reviewed academic journal run through the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne. MJIL’s objective is to facilitate scholarly research and critical discussion of private and public international law issues.
MJIL publishes articles, commentaries, case notes and book reviews. Articles should be in the vicinity of 10 000 to 20 000 words in length and be an original and detailed contribution to international law scholarship. Commentaries explore recent developments in a specific field of international law and their practical applications, and should be between 5000 and 8000 words in length.
All articles, case notes, commentaries and review essays published in MJIL are subjected to a double-blind refereeing process, involving at least two specialists in the field. Once accepted for publication, submissions will then be edited for compliance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Authors have an opportunity to review the final version of the piece prior to publication. Our publication policy can be accessed here.
All submissions should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org in Word format, together with a signed publication policy.
The submission deadline for 14(1) is 31 January 2013.
The submissions deadline for 14(2) is 1 July 2013.