- October 30, 2012: Discussion of "The Status of the Palestinian Authority under International Law" with Ruth Lapidoth, Sarah Weiss-Maudi, Yuval Shany, Robbie Sabel and Moshe Hirsch
- November 6, 2012: Alexander Morawa, "Reforms to the European Court of Human Rights"
- November 20, 2012: Ziv Bohrer, "Proportionality in War, Protecting Soldiers from Enemy Captivity, and Israel's Cast Lead Operation–'The Soldiers Are Everyone’s Children'"
- December 4, 2012: Victor Peskin, "Selective Justice: The Politics of Prosecutorial Discretion at the ICC and the Problem of Legitimation"
- December 18, 2012: Marcia Harpaz, "Assessing China's WTO Compliance after a Decade in the WTO"
- January 1, 2013: Updates on Recent Developments in International Law
- January 8, 2013: Marcelo Kohen, "Uti Possidetis and Maritime Delimitations"
- January 15, 2013: Michelle Lesh, "The Forms and Limits of Targeted Killing"
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Founded in 2009, the philosophy of Trade, Law and Development has been to generate and sustain a constructive and democratic debate on emergent issues in International Economic Law and to serve as a forum for the discussion and distribution of ideas - with a specific focus on the development perspective of International Economic Law. In keeping with these ideals and to commemorate the fifth year of the Journal, the Board of Editors is pleased to announce India and the World Economic Order as the theme for its next Special Issue (Vol. V, No. 1, Summer 2013).
More than two decades ago, India abandoned its quasi-isolationist position and began implementing radical policy changes in order to fully integrate itself into the world trading system. Through the years India has attempted to strike a balance between its welfare agenda and the compliance necessitated by the prevalent international legal order, by shifting from a quasi-isolationist position in the world economic order, to achieving a considerable amount of trade and investment activity.
Inspired by the role of India in the continuing evolution of the world economic system, the Board of Editors invites original, unpublished submissions for the Special Issue on India and the World Economic Order for publication as 'Articles', 'Notes', 'Comments' and/or 'Book Reviews'. Submissions can deal with any aspect of India's role or policies in the world economic order.
Manuscripts may be sumbitted via e-mail, ExpressO or the TL&D website. For further information and submission guidelines, please visit the journal website or contact us at editors[at]tradelawdevelopment.com.
Last date for Submissions: February 15, 2013.
Public International Law
- Lucius Caflisch (Member, International Law Commission), Inaugural Lecture: National Boundaries, Limits and Delimitations: How Significant are these Today?
- James Crawford (Univ. of Cambridge), General Course: The Course of International Law. Practice and Process of the Law of Nations
- Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ.), The International Law of Global Governance
- Jean-Marc Sorel (Université Paris 1), What Normativity for the Law of International Monetary and Financial Relations?
- Robert Kolb (Univ. of Geneva), Article 103 of the United Nations Charter
- Anna Wyrozumska (Univ. of Lodz), The Role of Domestic Judges in the Development of International Law
- Bruno Nascimbene (Univ. of Milan), The Law of Nationality and the Law of Regional Organisations for Integration: Towards New Types of Status for Residents?
- Ki Gab Park (Korea Univ.), The Protection of Individuals in the Event of Catastrophes
Private International Law
- Herberk Kronke (Heidelberg Univ.), Inaugural Lecture: Transnational Commercial Law and Conflict of Laws: Institutional Co-operation and Substantive Complementarity
- Patrick Kinsch (Univ. of Luxemburg), General Course: The Role of Political Considerations in Private International Law
- Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana Univ., Bloomington), Conflict among Enforcement Regimes in International Economic Law
- Toshiyuki Kono (Kyushu Univ.), Efficiency in Private International Law
- Jan Wouters (Univ. of Leuven), The Legal Status of Public and Private Standards in International Economic Relations
- David John Hayton (Judge, Caribbean Court of Justice), “Trusts” in Private International Law
- Étienne Pataut (Université Paris 1), Methods of Private International Law Put to the Test of Labour Law
- Alexey Kostin (Moscow State Institute of International Relations), International Commercial Arbitration, a Comparative Approach with Special Focus on Russia
- Fabrizio Marrella (Univ. of Venice), International Protection of Human Rights and Activities of Transnational Companies
Friday, October 12, 2012
Can a perspective on the nature of international economic law be integrated with one on governance in economic networks of community? Would it be useful to reconsider international economic law in relation to transnational economic networks that create their own regulatory expectations and practices? This would be to confront a ‘top-down’ law created by states, treaties, conventions and international institutions supported by states, with the more ‘bottom-up’ production of normative understandings in networks of community. This chapter considers how such an approach may clarify the nature of law regulating transnational economic relations, and the bases of its authority and legitimacy. It draws on recent analyses of transnational private law and considers their relevance for international economic law and in highlighting the regulatory significance of networks of community. Familiar dichotomies – public and private, expert and non-expert input in regulation, top-down and bottom-up lawmaking – can be illuminated in such a perspective. The approach also emphasises a major problem for international economic law – how to avoid the remoteness of regulators from the experience and aspirations of the regulated.
International law of statehood is marked by two fundamental problems: inadequacy of the statehood criteria and shortcomings of both traditional recognition theories, constitutive and declaratory. Resorting only to the statehood criteria and recognition theories, is it possible to determine whether Kosovo is a state and explain why Somaliland is not? This article makes an inquiry into the theory of statehood and practice of emergence of new states in the postcolonial era. In the contemporary world virtually every territory is an integral part of a sovereign state and, in turn, protected by the principle of territorial integrity. The applicability of this principle does not make the emergence of a new state illegal; its consequence is rather that new states do not emerge automatically upon meeting the statehood criteria. The article demonstrates that the consequences and legal effects of the principle of territorial integrity have not been adequately accommodated in the prevailing doctrines of the law of statehood. Emergence of a new state in contemporary international law is not a matter of meeting or failing to meet the statehood criteria. It is rather a political process of overcoming a competing claim to territorial integrity.
Vol. 5, Issue No. 1 of the Goettingen Journal of International Law will include a focus on the law and politics of indigenous peoples in international law.
Indigenous peoples received increasing public and scholarly attention over the last decades. It has been a unique journey from the colonial history to the beginning of their political presence in the United Nations since the 1970s to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. The UN’s International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples in 1993 as well as the following decades of the world’s indigenous peoples from 1995 to 2004 and 2006 to 2015 prove the ongoing need to attend to indigenous peoples’ interests. Today, discourses of indigenous peoples rights and their claim for self-determination are found beyond International Human Rights law: topics such as intellectual property rights, control over the exploitation of natural resources, the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are on the agenda. Underlying all is the constant debate about a definition and the implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights beyond the Americas, particularly in Asia and Africa. In order to shine a light on the legal and political problems indigenous peoples are facing, we call for authors to submit papers on the topic.
The submission deadline is 1 March 2013. For more information contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Mary B. Ayad, Harmonization of Custom, General Principles of Law, and Islamic Law in Oil Concessions
- Umar A. Oseni & Hunud Abia Kadouf, The Discrimination Conundrum in the Appointment of Arbitrators in International Arbitration
- Christian Tietje & Emily Sipiorski, Offset of Benefits in Damages Calculation in International Investment Arbitration
- Nitish Monebhurrun, The Political Use of the Economic Development Criterion in Defining Investments in International Investment Arbitration
- Mathias Audit & Mathias Forteau, Investment Arbitration without BIT: Toward a Foreign Investment Customary Based Arbitration?
- Michael Rand, Water-Related International Investment Disputes: A Fresh Look at Bayview Irrigation District v. United Mexican States
- Ashutosh Ray, White Industries Australia Ltd. v. Republic of India: A New Lesson for India
Thursday, October 11, 2012
BIICL: The Global Crisis and International Economic Law: Bridging the Gap between World Economic and Legal Integration
Accounts narrating the history of the modern law of occupation display ambivalence to the 1863 Lieber Code. At times, they mark the humanity of its provisions on occupied territories; at others, they find its concept of humanity in occupation limited compared to subsequent developments. A broader reading of the Code against Lieber's published works, teaching, and correspondence reveals a unique – and disconcerting –sense of humanity pervading through its provisions. Lieber's different sense of humanity, not directed at individuals, throws light on the history of the law governing occupied territories today and paves the way for critical reflections on its conceptual bases.
- Sigrun Skogly, The Requirement of Using the ‘Maximum of Available Resources’ for Human Rights Realisation: A Question of Quality as Well as Quantity?
- Daria Davitti, On the Meanings of International Investment Law and International Human Rights Law: The Alternative Narrative of Due Diligence
- Ian Cram, Coercing Communities or Promoting Civilised Discourse? Funeral Protests and Comparative Hate Speech Jurisprudence
- Mathias Möschel, Is the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on Anti-Roma Violence ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’?
- Jasper P. Sluijs, From Competition to Freedom of Expression: Introducing Article 10 ECHR in the European Network Neutrality Debate
- Short Articles and Recent Developments
- Sangeeta Shah, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: Germany v Italy
- Violeta Moreno-Lax, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy or the Strasbourg Court versus Extraterritorial Migration Control?
- Songying Fang & Randall W. Stone, International Organizations as Policy Advisors
- Tim Büthe, Solomon Major & André de Mello e Souza, The Politics of Private Foreign Aid: Humanitarian Principles, Economic Development Objectives, and Organizational Interests in NGO Private Aid Allocation
- Jack Donnelly, The Elements of the Structures of International Systems
- Tana Johnson & Johannes Urpelainen, A Strategic Theory of Regime Integration and Separation
- Michaela Mattes, Reputation, Symmetry, and Alliance Design
- Emily Beaulieu, Gary W. Cox & Sebastian Saiegh, Sovereign Debt and Regime Type: Reconsidering the Democratic Advantage
Rational choice theory is the dominant paradigm through which scholars of international law and international relations approach treaty design. In this Article, I challenge this paradigm using a combination of empirical observations of state behavior and theoretical insights from behavioral economics. I focus on one aspect of multilateral treaty design: namely, treaty reservations and associated legal mechanisms which allow states to vary the degree of their formal commitments to treaties. I call these mechanisms “treaty options”. I argue that framing matters powerfully for treaty options – and does so in ways inconsistent with rational choice theory but consistent with insights from behavioral economics. This finding has important implications for the theory, law, and practice of treaty-making and for our understandings of state behavior more generally.
- Brendan Rittenhouse Green, Two Concepts of Liberty: U.S. Cold War Grand Strategies and the Liberal Tradition
- Israel's 2008–09 War in Gaza: Two Perspectives
- Jerome Slater, Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza
- Benjamin S. Lambeth, Israel's War in Gaza: A Paradigm of Effective Military Learning and Adaptation
- Omar Shahabudin McDoom, The Psychology of Threat in Intergroup Conflict: Emotions, Rationality, and Opportunity in the Rwandan Genocide
- M.E. Sarotte, China's Fear of Contagion: Tiananmen Square and the Power of the European Example
- Gaurav Kampani, Karthika Sasikumar, Jason Stone, & Andrew B. Kennedy, Debating India's Pathway to Nuclearization
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Konflikte wie in Afghanistan oder Israel und Palästina zeigen, dass staatliche Streitkräfte bei den Kämpfen immer öfter auf Zivilpersonen und zivile Objekte treffen. In diesen asymmetrischen Konflikten reagiert die überlegene Partei auf die zunehmenden terroristischen Methoden des Unterlegenen vermehrt mit gezielten Tötungen und dem Einsatz von Drohnen.
Lars Schmidt zeigt auf, dass alles Notwendige für den Umgang mit Zivilisten in bewaffneten Konflikten den völkerrechtlichen Vertragstexten schon zu entnehmen ist. Er schlägt einen einheitlichen Auslegungsstandard vor, der sich auf vordringende Rechtsansichten stützt. Der Schlüssel ist nicht eine Vertragsanpassung an jede neue Gegebenheit, sondern die Entwicklung von Völkergewohnheitsrecht, was letztlich Einfluss auf die Methoden der Kriegführung haben und sich bis zu den Rules of Engagement der Streitkräfte fortsetzen wird.
- October 11, 2012: Hugh Thirlway (Formerly, International Court of Justice), "Mr. Salomon and M. Diallo: Personality and Protection in International Law"
- October 18, 2012: David Reed (Arnold & Porter LLP), "Are investments still protected under Intra-EU BITs?"
- October 25, 2012: James Crawford (Univ. of Cambridge - Law), "The Independence of Scotland"
- November 1, 2012: Marko Milanovic (Univ. of Nottingham - Law), "Is the Rome Statute Binding on Individuals?"
- November 8, 2012: John Jones (Doughty Street Chambers), "The Legality of the STL’s Establishment and Reviewability of SC Resolutions"
- November 15, 2012: Roger O'Keefe (Univ. of Cambridge - Law), "Immunities and Extradition: The Curious Case of Khurts Bat"
- November 22, 2012: Andrew Lang (London School of Economics - Law), TBA
- November 29, 2012: Zachary Douglas (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies - Law), TBA
- Rashida Manjoo, The Continuum of Violence against Women and the Challenges of Effective Redress
- Ilias Bantekas, Wealth and Growth-based Policies Augment Global Poverty and Erode Human Rights: A Return to Human-Centred Thinking
- Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Tracking Down the Missing Financial Link in Transitional Justice
- Onder Bakircioglu, Germany v Italy: The Triumph of Sovereign Immunity over Human Rights Law
- Solomon T. Ebobrah, Africanising Human Rights in the 21st Century: Gay Rights, African Values and the Dilemma of the African legislator
- Ann Florini, The Peculiar Politics of Energy
- Janina Dill & Henry Shue, Limiting the Killing in War: Military Necessity and the St. Petersburg Assumption
- Ned Dobos, International Rescue and Mediated Consequences
Fernandez & Pacreau: Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale : Commentaire article par article
Le Statut de Rome a été signé le 17 juillet 1998 et est entré en vigueur le 1er juillet 2002. Dix ans après le début de son existence et deux années après la Conférence de révision de Kampala, la Cour a déjà fait oeuvre d’une intense activité judiciaire, et cela même si elle parvient seulement à rendre ses premiers jugements. Qu’elle soit saisie par les Etats, par le Conseil de sécurité ou par le Procureur agissant proprio motu, la première juridiction pénale internationale permanente s’impose déjà comme un acteur incontournable des relations internationales dont le Statut constitutif est opposable à plus de 120 Etats.
Ce commentaire collectif du Statut de Rome, article par article, complété par plusieurs contributions préalables transversales qui abordent des aspects ne pouvant être traités de façon exhaustive dans le corps de l’ouvrage, doit permettre de combler une lacune en langue française – l’absence d’un ouvrage de référence sur la Cour pénale internationale. Celui-ci se veut autant au service de la recherche que de la pratique. A cette fin, il rassemble les contributions de nombreux universitaires, de membres des différents organes de la Cour, de conseils et de membres d’autres organisations internationales dont l’activité est liée à l’action de la Cour.
- Alexandre Job, Designing and Drafting Arbitration Clauses in International Shipping and Offshore Contracts : Some Practical Considerations
- Olivia Murray, Fair Treatment of Seafarers : International Law and Practice
- R. Bhanu Krishna Kiran, Maritime Perils in Marine Insurance Law : Indian Practice
Fragmentation of international law is a phenomenon that has been discussed ever since the ILC in 2000 decided to add to its programme of work the topic ‘Risks ensuing from the fragmentation of international law’. The proliferation of international criminal courts and tribunals sparked this debate on fragmentation. The development of a specialist regime of international law was perceived as posing a risk to the coherence and homogeneity of international law. Much of the anxiety over fragmentation stems from the collision between the ICJ and the ICTY over the ‘overall control-test’ in Tadic where the ICTY departed from settled ICJ law on attribution of liability and on qualification of the nature of an armed conflict (employing a standard of ‘effective control’). Twenty years since the establishment of the ICTY, the fragmentation/pluralism debate has entered a new phase. With a well-developed body of ad hoc Tribunal case law, an emerging body of case law at the ICC, hybrid systems like the Cambodia Tribunal, and more and more domestic prosecutions, pluralism has become an issue within the branch of ICL. While there are those who express concern over heterogeneity in ICL, recent scholarship acknowledges ICL’s pluralistic nature and, instead of striving for unity, calls for ways of managing pluralism.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
De par leur présence dans la plupart des conflits armés récents ou actuels, les groupes armés non étatiques représentent incontestablement un défi majeur pour le droit international. Partant de ce constat, l’objectif de cet ouvrage est d’offrir une étude approfondie et globale des groupes armés non étatiques en droit international.
En application de critères issus du droit international public façonné par l’étatisme, l’ouvrage définit ainsi les notions de groupe armé non étatique et de membre de celui-ci dans un contexte marqué par la multiplicité des entités non étatiques. Sur la base des notions de sources du droit, de responsabilité, de jus in bello, de jus ad bellum et des droits de l’homme, il permet de saisir la nature et l’intensité des rapports entre le droit international public et les groupes armés non étatiques. Il met ainsi en lumière le conflit gouvernant lesdits rapports qui illustre la tension entre l’intérêt humain et l’intérêt étatique.
- Special Issue: Academics Stand Against Poverty
- Thomas Pogge & Luis Cabrera, Outreach, Impact, Collaboration: Why Academics Should Join to Stand Against Poverty
- Onora O'Neill, Global Poverty and the Limits of Academic Expertise
- Simon Caney, Addressing Poverty and Climate Change: The Varieties of Social Engagement
- Roger C. Riddell, Navigating Between Extremes: Academics Helping to Eradicate Global Poverty
- Martin Kirk, Beyond Charity: Helping NGOs Lead a Transformative New Public Discourse on Global Poverty and Social Justice
- Keith Horton, How Academics Can Help People Make Better Decisions Concerning Global Poverty
CALL FOR PAPERS AND POSTER PRESENTATIONS
Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana invites abstract submissions for consideration for a two day international conference entitled Responsibility to Protect in Theory and Practice Conference. This is an opportunity for scholars and practitioners from a range of disciplines (legal, political science, military and security studies…) to engage in an interdisciplinary academic debate on the concept of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). The conference will be held at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, Slovenia on April 11-12, 2013. The topics covered by the conference include, but are not limited to:
- Lessons learned from the current application of RtoP in practice;
- Interconnection of RtoP with the UN Charter;
- Veto in the UN Security Council – Other avenues for action to protect civilian populations;
- The RtoP and international criminal court – A partnership? Role of civil society in implementation of RtoP;
- Other examples of the need to protect the civilian population – is extension of the RtoP concept possible/desirable?
Abstracts for papers must be no longer than 350 words in length. We also encourage individuals at an earlier stage of their career to send abstracts for poster presentations at the conference, which should be no longer than 200 words in length.
All abstracts should be submitted by Wednesday, October 31, 2012 through email to R2P@pf.uni-lj.si. The submission must include the name and title of the author, position, name and address of the current institution of employment, and a short biography.
Successful applicants will be informed by November 15, 2012. The authors selected for presentation of their papers at the conference will be expected to submit completed papers with maximum 8,000 words in length by Friday, February 1, 2013. The selected papers and poster abstracts will be published in the conference journal.
Please address any further enquiries regarding the conference and the call for papers and poster presentations to R2P@pf.uni-lj.si.
The 1970s are remembered in the Global North as a time of stagflation, malaise, and political drift. But from the point of view of much of the Global South, this same epoch was a time of unprecedented economic prosperity and political ambition. Particularly for primary producers in the wake of the OPEC oil price hikes, the 1970s were a time of unparalleled hopes for a rebalancing of global power relations and institutional authority. One manifestation of the new global mood was a profound shift in the understanding of global responsibilities for achieving development in the South.
Drawing on anticolonial thought and dependency theory, the UN General Assembly in 1974 proposed the creation of a "New International Economic Order" that offered a new interpretation of both the moral imperatives and global mechanisms of development. While Robert McNamara's World Bank spent the 1970s moving away from funding big infrastructure projects toward programs designed to meet the "Basic Needs" of the global poor, the NIEO constituted a more aggressive set of proposals for the global redistribution of wealth and technology transfers from North to South, with the objective of building a kind of welfare state at the scale of humanity itself. Although many in the North, and particularly in the United States, dismissed this agenda, there were others who gave it a sympathetic hearing, notably former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who chaired an international commission that in 1980 would endorse much of the global redistributionist agenda.
The Brandt Report arrived, however, at the very moment when the ideological and political mood in the North had begun to shift decisively against such ideas, replaced instead by a neoliberal agenda spearheaded politically by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The Third World debt crisis that erupted over the next two years would provide the impetus to move the developmental agenda away from global redistribution and the provisioning of Basic Needs, and toward the "structural adjustment" of national economies. Imposed as conditions in exchange for financial bailouts, these programs involved the downsizing of the state-provided social protections and the diminishment of state control over national economies. Across the South, financial austerity and global economic integration would emerge as the developmental leitmotifs of the rest of the twentieth century. While the themes of the NIEO would get refigured in terms of a "right to development," the idea that states in the North somehow bore a moral and perhaps even legal responsibility to enable and fund the development of the South largely withdrew into the realms of non-binding UN resolutions and the utopian discourses of politically marginalized nongovernmental organizations.
The journal Humanity is issuing a call for papers to explore this episode in the history of development. We welcome papers that explore the philosophical, legal, economic, political, and institutional contexts in which calls for global redistribution were articulated, as well as ones that assess how those calls were eventually marginalized. Successful proposals will lead to papers presented at a fully funded conference in fall 2013 and published in a subsequent dossier of the journal. Send a proposal of no more than 400 words to [email protected] by October 20, 2012.
Drawing upon a number of important recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and other dispute settlement bodies, this paper sets forth what can best be described as the international law of negotiation. It shows that although the forms of this diplomatic means of dispute settlement are varied and diverse, the essential embeddedness of negotiation within a framework of legal evaluation means that a party’s failure to comply with its obligations can result in an internationally wrongful act and, in response, countermeasures and other responses by the victim party. This paper proceeds in three parts. Firstly, it looks at the relationship between negotiation and other means of dispute settlement, both diplomatic and legal. Secondly, it explores the modalities that govern when it can be said as a matter of law that negotiation has been tried and has been exhausted. Finally, it looks at the not uncommon situation of a negotiation that has broken down due to the commission of an internationally wrongful act by one of the parties under the law of negotiation and the potential for the victim party to adopt countermeasures and other responses to facilitate compliance with law and vindication of rights.
Henckels: Balancing Investment Protection and the Public Interest: The Role of the Standard of Review and the Importance of Deference in Investor-State Arbitration
International investment tribunals have not yet developed a coherent approach to the standard of review in relation to disputes relating to the exercise of host state public power. In particular, tribunals have not generally approached the question of deference to host state authorities in a principled manner where disputes engage the competing values of investment protection and the right of host states to regulate and take other actions in the public interest. Decisions of some investment tribunals have been characterized by a stringent standard of review, substituting tribunal members’ own views for those of host state authorities in relation to issues such as the importance of the host state’s regulatory objective and the necessity or reasonableness of the challenged measure itself, resulting in host states being held liable to pay damages to foreign investors in of respect measures taken in the public interest. However, a number of tribunal decisions indicate an increasing awareness of the desirability of deference where host state authorities’ greater democratic legitimacy and proximity to their populations or authorities’ greater expertise and institutional competence renders them better placed to assess or determine the relevant matter. This emerging approach to deference echoes the jurisprudence of other international and supranational courts and tribunals performing similar functions. Investment tribunals should adopt a standard of review that reflects their role as international adjudicators of disputes concerning the exercise of public power and should, cognizant of the desirability of deference in certain circumstances, exercise restraint in their assessment of matters that are more appropriately the province of national authorities.
Notwithstanding China’s endorsement of investor-state arbitration more than a decade ago, few investor claims have been initiated against it and none has concluded with an award. This does not necessarily mean that foreign investors will not make such claims in the future, but rather that proceeding against China, from an economic rationalist perspective, is likely to be contentious, costly and dilatory. However, these concerns are not peculiar to China. Economically and politically powerful states, not least of all the United States, are less frequently subject to investor-state arbitration than poorer states for much the same reason.
What is increasingly likely is that China is preparing itself and its investors abroad for investor-state proceedings in the future. This is evident, for example, in China’s growing interest in the functioning of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’), among other institutions, in its inclusion of investor-state arbitration in its Model Bilateral Investment Agreement and in various regional and bilateral agreements it has concluded.
China is also aware that the price of attracting global investment is the prospect that investor claims will inevitably be lodged against it in the future. However, China is also aware that the benefits may well outweigh the costs. After all, China has grown into the second largest economy in the world. It is the second largest recipient of foreign investment. It is sixth in outward direct foreign investment. It appreciates the economic rationalist reasons for promoting foreign direct investment, as well as the risks.
This paper has three primary purposes. The first purpose is to explore these developments primarily in relation to China’s history and practice in concluding bilateral investment agreements (‘BITs’) with foreign countries. The second purpose is to examine China’s limited experience with investor-state arbitration under such BITs. The third purpose is to identify how China is likely to develop its investor-state agreements and dispute resolution regime through strategic investment alliances with other states without sacrificing its distinctive national interests including those of its investors abroad.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The chapter looks at when arms transfers to armed groups will be illegal under international law, when the use of certain arms by armed groups will be illegal and what are the factors which allow us to consider armed groups bound by these prohibitions at the international level. The situation in Syria is highlighted and there are references to the ongoing negotiations at the United Nations for an Arms Trade Treaty. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the obligations of armed groups under human rights law and recent developments which suggest that such groups are bound by international law even where, as in the early stages of the Syria fighting, the militia or armed group are not necessarily in control of territory or in a situation of armed conflict.
Call for Papers: Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law
2nd Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law (PEPA/SIEL)
Göttingen (Germany), 25th & 26th January 2013
Organised by SIEL in cooperation with the Institute of International and European Law of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
SIEL was founded in 2008 to act as an umbrella organisation to foster coordination, collaboration and debate between International Economic Law (IEL) scholars, practitioners and national or regional IEL organisations around the world. SIEL’s Postgraduate and Early Professional/Academics Group (PEPA/SIEL) is, among other things, interested in fostering collaboration and mentoring opportunities for emerging academics and professionals in IEL. PEPA/SIEL fulfils these goals through various activities such as the organisation of a conference where emerging IEL academics and professionals can present and discuss their research in a supportive and welcoming environment. We are pleased to announce that the second conference will take place 25 and 26 January 2013 in Göttingen (Germany), with others anticipated in the future, especially in other regions of the world.
Call for Papers
This conference offers postgraduate students (students enrolled in Masters/PhD) and early professionals/academics (generally within five years of graduating) studying or working in the field of IEL an opportunity to present and discuss their research. It also provides a critical platform where participants can test their ideas about broader issues relating to IEL. One or more senior practitioner or academic will comment on each paper, followed by a general discussion.
We invite submissions on any IEL topic including, but not limited to:
- trade, investment and monetary/financial policies;
- the interaction of, for example, international trade law, investment law and competition law with other branches of law governing intellectual property, human rights, environment and sustainable development;
- regional economic integration and multilateral trading system;
- comparative economic law, focussing on how international economic law interacts with laws, institutions and actors at the domestic level;
- the roles of law and legal practices in international economic governance and international organizations and
- the philosophy, sociology, politics and economics of international economic law.
How and when to submit
Submissions should include a CV and a research abstract (no more than 400 words). They are to be sent no later than 31st October 2012 to email@example.com. Papers will be selected based on a double blind review conducted by a senior practitioner or academic and a conference organiser. Successful applicants will be notified by 30th November 2012; after which they are expected to submit a conference paper (no more than 4000 words) by 31st December 2012. Papers will be made available online in a special section at the SIEL website (www.sielnet.org).
General practical information about participating and attending the Conference
The deadline for registration is 7th December 2012. Registration has to be done online at the SIEL website (the registration page will be available shortly).
Registration costs 45 GBP for non-SIEL Members, and 35 GBP for SIEL Members. SIEL Membership details may be found at the SIEL website (student membership is 5 GBP). The Registration fee covers conference materials and coffee breaks on both days.
Cancellations of participation must be made in writing to firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for cancellation is 4th January 2013. The registration fee minus an administrative fee of 5 GBP will be refunded if the cancellation is done before or on the given date. Later cancellations will not be refunded.
A limited number of conference fee waivers is available for applicants facing financial hardship. Applicants for a conference fee waiver are kindly invited to add a short letter to their conference application, stating the reason for their waiver request no later than 31st October 2012. Successful applicants will be notified by 30th November 2012.
Unfortunately, the organisation cannot cover travel, accommodation or any other expenses.
Subject to space availability, registration of participants not presenting a paper will be accepted. The regular fee will be applied.
If you should have any (further) questions regarding participation, please feel free to contact Alper Taşdelen (email@example.com).
SIEL Executive Council: Freya Baetens and José Caiado
PEPA Conference Committee: Matthäus Fink, Jan-Carl Lüers, Christian Maurer, Alper Taşdelen
- Marel Katsivela, Ocean Carrier's Loss of Liability Limitation : Interpretation of Article IV.5(e) of the Hague-Visby Rules in French, Greek, Italian and German Law
- Daryl Y.H. Lee, The Straight Bill of Lading : Past, Present, and Future
- Matteo Tondini, The Legality of Intercepting Boat People Under Search and Rescue and Border Control Operations : With Reference to Recent Italian Interventions in the Mediterranean Sea and the ECtHR Decision in the Hirsi Case
The book revolves around the public international law aspects of the destructive use of cyberspace by state actors and non-state actors, encompassing cyberwar, cyberterrorism, and hacktivism, but excluding cybercrime. For the purpose of delimitation, it also addresses cyberespionage and political activism in cyberspace. By providing an overview of the technical background, the book explains the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure. It outlines notable cyberincidents occurred so far and analyzes pertinent state practice and policies. Turning to the legal analysis, it primarily focuses on the contemporary jus ad bellum and jus in bello, exploring whether concepts like the use of force or self-defense, are applicable to cyberattacks, despite their lack of physicality, or whether state responsibility and the principles of International Humanitarian Law are applicaple to cyberspace, in particular in the light of an evident civilianization of battlespace in this area. Furthermore, the book encompasses destructive cyberterrorism and opposes it to the use of cyberspace for terrorist purposes, and puts this into context with human rights aspects of political activism in cyberspace. It also looks into jurisdictional pitfalls borne in cyberspace. After a brief summary of the research results, the final chapter is dedicated to providing recommendations to the international community, in order to address cyberthreats in a political process.
This book examines, from the perspective of public international law, various issues and difficulties faced by human rights advocates in their effort to seek redress transnationally for victims of human rights abuses through the means mainly of bringing legal action against alleged violators of human rights. The central concern is whether and how remedies can be obtained in respect of human rights violations committed by foreign nationals outside the territory of the forum State, especially where the State in whose territory such offences were committed, or the national State of the alleged offender, is unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction.
The book examines the core issues involved in such type of transnational human rights litigation including: the extent and limitations of universal jurisdiction in current international law; the scope of individual criminal liability and how far current international law has allowed such liability to be canvassed and enforced in various fora. It goes on to discuss the current exclusion of criminal proceedings from the law on State immunity, absolute immunity for senior State officials even where international crimes are involved and the failure as yet of national courts to give judicial cognizance to the argument of jus cogens. Before finally considering the issue of immunity before international tribunals with a view to seeing how far international tribunals can provide a viable alternative avenue for solving the difficulties envisaged.
In showing how current international law is inadequate in dealing with the type of extra-forum-State human rights violations, Xiaodong Yang demonstrates that a fundamental change in current international law is needed before the protection of human rights can truly achieve an international dimension.
- Björn Arp, La integración de los derechos humanos en la labor del Banco Mundial: el caso del Ombudsman y asesor en materia de observancia
- Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Acción pauliana e integración europea: una propuesta de ley aplicable
- Inmaculada Marrero Rocha, Los actores internacionales en el ámbito de la no proliferación y el desarme nuclear: características e impacto
- Sagrario Morán Blanco, El largo camino de la protección medioambiental y la lucha contra el cambio climático
Il volume intende affrontare, partendo dal caso specifico del bombardamento aereo, alcuni tra i temi generali e più problematici del diritto internazionale di guerra, come l'obbligo di distinguere tra gli obbiettivi militari e quelli civili, scartando i secondi, e il principio della proporzionalità tra il vantaggio militare che un attacco può produrre e il pregiudizio sofferto dai civili. Il bombardamento aereo è preso in considerazione anche per il suo aspetto emblematico, come lo strumento di guerra che, secondo quanto insegna la storia del XX secolo, ha avuto conseguenze più devastanti sulla vita e la sopravvivenza delle popolazioni civili. Questo non esclude altri effetti negativi del bombardamento aereo, come la distruzione di beni culturali o il deterioramento di equilibri ambientali, che però non sono oggetto di specifica considerazione nelle pagine che seguono.
Franck, Garbin, & Perkins: Through the Looking Glass: Understanding Social Science Norms for Analyzing International Investment Law
When social science methods are being employed in a new context — such as the assessment of international investment law — there is value in exploring the underlying assumptions and normative baselines of the enterprise. This article and response address critiques about the methodology of an article in the Harvard International Law Journal by: (1) describing the value of social science in international investment law; (2) replicating the research using new methodologies to conduct 30 new tests that were still unable to ascertain the existence of a reliable relationship between development status and outcomes on the basis of pre-2007 data, which demonstrates the initial results were robust; (3) identifying social science norms for conducting and describing research; and (4) exploring opportunities for the evolution of social science research on investment. The article explains that, for investment treaty arbitration, statistical power is often low given the nascent nature of the area and that full statistical power will require between 750-1200 cases to rule out the existence of possible small effects. Therefore, in an area of critical normative debate, it is preferable to report results but acknowledge the limitations; this is appropriate as empirical work, just like any other form of acquiring knowledge, has a risk of error. The article concludes that future research can and should replicate the initial scholarship to ascertain whether the pre-2007 historical snapshot continues to be valid as the population grows. In this way, normative debate can be be grounded in reality rather than rhetoric.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
- Australia's New Climate Laws
- Jacqueline Peel, Lee Godden & Rodney J. Keenan, Climate change law and governance from the “bottom up”: Introduction to the special issue
- Aileen McHarg, Climate change constitutionalism? Lessons from the United Kingdom
- Brian J. Preston, The influence of climate change litigation on governments and the private sector
- Nicola Durrant, Legal issues in carbon farming: Biosequestration, carbon pricing, and carbon rights
- Kati Kulovesi, “Make your own special song, even if nobody else sings along”: International aviation emissions and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
- Peter P.J. Driessen & Helena F.M.W. van Rijswick, Normative aspects of climate adaptation policies
- Lisa Caripis, Jacqueline Peel, Lee Godden and Rodney J. Keenan, Australia's carbon pricing mechanism
- Maria Irene Papa, Le autorizzazioni del Consiglio di sicurezza davanti alla Corte europea dei diritti umani: dalla decisione sui casi Behrami e Saramati alla sentenza Al-Jedda
- Andrea Saccucci, Accesso ai rimedi costituzionali, previo esaurimento e gestione “sussidiaria” delle violazioni strutturali della CEDU derivanti da difetti legislativi
- Andrea Bianchi, Il tempio e i suoi sacerdoti. Considerazioni su retorica e diritto a margine del caso Germania c. Italia
- Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, Il rapporto fra norme di ius cogens e la regola sull’immunità degli Stati: alcune osservazioni critiche sulla sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia del 3 febbraio 2012
- Livia Cosenza, Immunità dello Stato e ius cogens nella sentenza del 3 febbraio 2012 della Corte internazionale di giustizia
- Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, La sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia relativa al caso Germania c. Italia: profili di diritto intertemporale
- Francesco Salerno, Gli effetti della sentenza internazionale nell’ordinamento italiano: il caso Germania c. Italia
- Beatrice I. Bonafè, Il caso delle Immunità giurisdizionali dello Stato: verso un ampliamento della partecipazione del terzo davanti alla Corte internazionale di giustizia
- Valentina Rossi, La ‘crisi dei rifiuti’ in Campania dinanzi alla Corte europea dei diritti umani
- Giorgia Bevilacqua, Uso della forza, diritto alla vita e misure di difesa attiva nella legge italiana sul contrasto alla pirateria marittima
- Andrea Caligiuri, La questione della negazione del “genocidio armeno” in una recente decisione del Conseil Constitutionnel
- Serena Forlati, The ECHR and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict – Applications Concerning ‘Historical Situations’ and the Difficult Quest for Legal Certainty
- Federica Musso, L’Unione africana e l’affermazione del principio democratico: osservazioni in merito alla “Carta africana sulla democrazia, le elezioni e la governance”
- Chiara Salamone, Il best interest del minore e gli obblighi internazionali dell’Italia ex art. 117, comma 1, della Costituzione
- Lorenza Mola, Le ‘misure di austerità’ adottate dalla Grecia davanti al Comitato europeo dei diritti sociali
- Ilja Richard Pavone, La situazione in Siria e la risoluzione dell’Assemblea Generale del 16 febbraio 2012
- Francesca Maria Benvenuto, Processo penale in absentia e Tribunale speciale per il Libano: la decisione di procedere in assenza degli imputati nel caso Ayyash et al.
- Nicola Napoletano, La condanna dei ‘respingimenti’ operati dall’Italia verso la Libia da parte della Corte europea dei diritti umani: molte luci e qualche ombra
- Simone Vezzani, Invenzioni biotecnologiche e tutela dell’ordine pubblico e della morale nel diritto europeo dei brevetti: il caso Brüstle