Syring: U.S. Court Issues Writ of Mandamus, Effectively Removing Organization from Terror List: In Re People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Tom Syring (Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board) has posted an ASIL Insight on U.S. Court Issues Writ of Mandamus, Effectively Removing Organization from Terror List: In Re People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

Call for Papers: Transnational Judicial Dialogue: Concept, Method, Extent and Effects

The International Law through the National Prism Project at the Amsterdam Center for International Law and the MultiRights - The Legitimacy of Multi-Level Human Rights Judiciary Project at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law have issued a call for papers for a conference on "Transnational Judicial Dialogue: Concept, Method, Extent and Effects," to take place June 21-22, 2013, in Oslo. Here's the call:

Synopsis

The Conference will explore the practice of transnational judicial dialogue on issues of international law by and between domestic and international courts (and tribunals). It seeks to examine whether, how, when and why courts engage in such dialogues; and what the effects are of this practice. In particular, the Conference aims to clarify the concept and extent of court-to-court dialogue, the process itself, its limits and possibilities, as well as any influence it may have on the international legal order further down the line. The Conference seeks to address how transnational judicial dialogues occur in different regions of the world and in various fields of law, including, but not limited to, human rights.

The organizers of the Conference now invite paper proposals from scholars, adjudicators and practitioners in law and related disciplines.

Background

Domestic and international courts and tribunals across the world play an important and increasing role in giving effect to international law. One method that can be used by judges when interpreting and applying international norms is to look at how their colleagues in other states and/or in (quasi-) judicial bodies at the international level have construed a particular norm or issue of international law. There is evidence that such a transnational judicial dialogue takes place in and between various jurisdictions.

This practice raises questions of both a practical and theoretical nature which form the background for the project ‘International Law through the National Prism: the Impact of Judicial Dialogue.’ This project is funded by the European Science Foundation (ESF) as a European Collaborative Research project in the Social Sciences (ECRP). The main cooperating partners are the universities of Amsterdam, Berlin (Humboldt), Lodz, Oslo and Vienna. The universities of Salamanca, Siena and Tel Aviv are associated partners.

The Oslo Conference follows a conference hosted by the University of Vienna in April 2012 on ‘Transnational Judicial Dialogue of Domestic Courts on International Organizations’. A workshop in Berlin is planned for the autumn of 2013, and a final conference will be organized in Amsterdam in the summer of 2014. The Oslo Conference will be part of the third annual ‘MultiRights’ conference, which starts on 20 June 2013 with sessions concerning the effects of the international and regional human rights judiciary on human rights situations ‘on the ground’. The ‘MultiRights’ project, which is financed by the European Research Council (ERC), is based at the Law Faculty of the University of Oslo, and analyses claims of legitimacy deficits with respect to supervisory human rights organs (e.g. regional courts).

It is noted that the ECRP project builds on earlier work analysing the application of international law by domestic and international courts, including the volume ‘The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-) Fragmentation of International Law’ edited by Ole Kristian Fauchald and André Nollkaemper. Hence, the focus of the Oslo Conference lies on effects of judicial dialogue different from and beyond (de-) fragmentation.

Themes and queries

The themes and queries that conference papers could address include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The Concept and Extent of Judicial Dialogue

When may we speak of transnational judicial dialogue? In addition to dialogues between domestic courts inter se (horizontal dialogue), does the concept cover dialogues between domestic courts and international judicial bodies (vertical dialogue)? Can we speak about ‘dialogue’ when courts oppose each other or only when domestic courts unconditionally take on interpretations by other courts? Next to dialogues between courts (through their judgments), does the concept cover dialogues between judges in other formal as well as informal ways (e.g. judges’ meetings)? Is it limited to the borrowing of substantive law issues or does it have broader application? Are the decisions of certain courts more prone to be considered/used in judicial dialogue; and if so, why? Do courts show a preference for court decisions belonging to the same region or legal system? Does the prevalence of judicial dialogue differ with respect to subject matter; and if so, what are the reasons? Are there any regional differences with respect to judicial dialogue; and if so, how can these be explained?

2. The Method and Process of Judicial Dialogue

How do courts go about when engaging in a transnational judicial dialogue, for instance in terms of the selection of the courts with whom they engage in a dialogue? Is it possible to discern any criteria that domestic and international courts employ when deciding whether and when to engage in judicial dialogue; what makes one decision or reasoning more influential than others?

To what extent does transnational judicial dialogue depend on the arguments presented by the disputing parties/legal counsel (jura (non) novit curia)?

Next to possible legal barriers or requirements concerning judicial dialogue, what are the practical barriers to dialogue, such as access to judgments, translations and commentaries, which may prevent judges (and arbitrators) from learning how courts elsewhere treat comparable questions?

Which methods may be used to explore how often and in what situations courts engage in dialogues with judicial bodies of a different legal system? How can changes in the practice of such dialogues be detected? How can dialogues and their influence be traced where there are no explicit references to foreign or international decisions in the respective judgments? How can one best make the practice of domestic courts available to courts elsewhere?

3. The Aims and Effects of Judicial Dialogue

What aims does transnational judicial dialogue seek to fulfil, for instance as a catalyst in developing international law, or justifying the avoidance of the application of international law? How may (selective or the lack of) transnational judicial dialogue affect the interpretation and determination of particular rules of international law?

In the context of the effects judicial dialogue may have on the development of international law, what role do and can domestic court cases play in decisions by international courts and tribunals?

Papers are invited to explore these and other pertinent queries from normative and empirical standpoints in a variety of international law sub-disciplines, including but not limited to human rights. We also encourage submissions from neighbouring disciplines with an interest in international law (such as international relations, philosophy and sociology). The themes are interrelated, and multiple angles can be addressed within one paper.

It is hoped that answers to the queries will help establish best practices, allowing domestic and international courts to arrive at sound responses to shared problems, as well as helping us articulate normative perspectives for assessing judicial dialogues.

Submission of paper proposals

Paper proposals should be no longer than 500 words and include the applicant’s curriculum vitae.

Papers to be presented at the Conference should not have been published elsewhere previously.

At the time of the Conference, the invited authors should present a paper of 7,000-8,000 words, excluding references.

It is the intention of the organisers to publish the papers in an edited volume. Paper proposals should be sent by e-mail to: Dr. Amrei Müller (a.s.mueller@jus.uio.no).

Time line

The deadline is 15 February 2013.

Selected participants will be informed by 22 March 2013.

Each participant must submit a paper by 31 May 2013 for distribution to the other participants.

The Conference takes place on 21-22 June 2013 in Oslo, Norway.

The sponsoring organizations will cover the speakers’ travelling and accommodation expenses.

Questions

For substantive questions, please contact Dr. Amrei Müller at: a.s.mueller@jus.uio.no

For questions about the MultiRights project, please contact Leiry Cornejo Chavez at: l.c.chavez@nchr.uio.no

Goldmann: The Diverging Rationalities of Public Finance and International Law: A Plea for a Deliberative Approach

Matthias Goldmann (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law) has posted an ESIL Reflection on The Diverging Rationalities of Public Finance and International Law: A Plea for a Deliberative Approach.

Handl, Zekoll, & Zumbansen: Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization

Günther Handl (Tulane Univ. - Law), Joachim Zekoll (Goethe Universität - Law), & Peer Zumbansen (York Univ. - Osgoode Hall) have published Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012). Here's the abstract:

Taking “extraterritoriality,” the traditional touchstone for the state-centered allocation of transnational legal authority, as its conceptual starting point the book traces the evolution of transnational legal authority in the course of globalization. It examines various representative transnational legal scenarios, covering issues of, inter alia, the environment, foreign trade and investment, corporate governance, criminal justice, cyberspace, and arms control. The end result is a complex, yet nuanced picture of today’s global governance architecture in which transnational legal authority may be exercised unilaterally or multilaterally; be minimally coordinated internationally or formally institutionalized; reflect a traditional state-centered, a supra-national or “privatized" approach; and be rooted in a single or a multiple-layered normative system.

Schoenbaum: Liability for Damages in Oil Spill Accidents: Evaluating the USA and International Law Regimes in the Light of Deepwater Horizon

Thomas J. Schoenbaum (George Washington Univ. - Law) has published Liability for Damages in Oil Spill Accidents: Evaluating the USA and International Law Regimes in the Light of Deepwater Horizon (Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 395-416, Nov. 2012). Here's the abstract:

This article compares the international regime that creates liability for damages for oil spilled into the sea with the most significant national law on oil pollution liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) enacted by the USA, which remains outside the international regime. US law is particularly relevant at this time because the Deepwater Horizon litigation growing out of the 2010 spill by a BP-owned oil concession is the first big case under the OPA 90 law. The US oil liability regime is much broader and more comprehensive than the international regime, which is limited to oil spills from ships carrying oil as cargo in bulk (oil tankers). This deficiency highlights the need for a more comprehensive oil pollution liability regime, since the current international regime would not have covered the Deepwater Horizon incident. The international regime and US law are markedly different also with respect to the types of damages recoverable, the procedure involved to file a claim, and various limitations on liability. The pending Deepwater Horizon case, which is now at an early stage in the US District Court in Louisiana, may last many years and may provide landmark rulings on many controversial and important issues, such as liability for pure economic loss damages and for damages to natural resources.

Freestone: The World Bank and Sustainable Development: Legal Essays

David Freestone (formerly, World Bank) has published The World Bank and Sustainable Development: Legal Essays (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012). Here's the abstract:

The World Bank and Sustainable Development: Legal Essays collects works from the past ten years by David Freestone, former Deputy General Counsel and Senior Adviser at the World Bank. The essays offer a unique perspective founded on the author’s years of experience at the World Bank. They cover a wide-range of topics, including the Bank’s Sustainable Development and its Climate Change agendas as well as its project based Environmental and Social Safeguard policies, highlighting the evolution of the pioneering role of the Bank’s Inspection Panel. Other essays look at the establishment and subsequent evolution of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the design and implementation of the innovative Prototype Carbon Fund – now the basis of a $3 billion greenhouse gas reduction portfolio. Updated by current Bank Staff members, together these seven legal essays represent a seminal body of work from a uniquely qualified voice in international environmental law.

van Verseveld: Mistake of Law: Excusing Perpetrators of International Crimes

Annemieke van Verseveld (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has published Mistake of Law: Excusing Perpetrators of International Crimes (T.M.C. Asser Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

When a perpetrator of an international crime argues in his defence that he did not realise that he had violated the law, is this a reason not to punish him? International crimes constitute serious offences and it could be argued that he who commits such an offence must know his act is punishable. After all, everyone is presumed to know the law. However, convicting someone who is mistaken about the wrongfulness of his act may be in violation of the principle of ‘no punishment without guilt’.

This book investigates what would be the circumstances under which the defence of mistake of law should exculpate the perpetrator of an international crime and whether those circumstances are covered by the current international codification of mistake of law. It demonstrates that the issue of mistake of law goes to the heart of individual criminal responsibility and therewith contributes to the development of a systematic approach toward the structure of international offences.

New Issue: Global Trade and Customs Journal

The latest issue of Global Trade and Customs Journal (Vol. 7, no. 10, 2012) is out. Contents include:

• Michael Lux, Ulrich Schrömbges, & Kristina Vitkauskaite, What a Customs Lawyer Should Know about EU Value Added Tax (VAT) Law
• Michael Sánchez Rydelski & Lars Erik Nordgaard, South Korea’s Free Trade Agreements with the EU and EFTA: How Do They Compare?

Larsen, Cooper, & Nystuen: Searching for a 'Principle of Humanity' in International Humanitarian Law

Kjetil Mujezinović Larsen (Univ. of Oslo), Camilla Guldahl Cooper (Norwegian Defence Univ. College), & Gro Nystuen (Univ. of Oslo) have published Searching for a 'Principle of Humanity' in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2013). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

The legal norms of International Humanitarian Law are the product of a compromise between humanitarian considerations and the demands of military necessity. In Searching for a 'Principle of Humanity' in International Humanitarian Law, international legal scholars consider whether humanitarian considerations have an independent legal impact on IHL beyond the formation of these norms. They ask whether a 'principle of humanity' can be said to have legal force in its own right. Moreover, the book investigates whether regional or national differences are emerging regarding the import and emphasis placed on humanitarian considerations. For instance, do states which are not directly affected by armed conflict attach a greater weight to humanitarian considerations when interpreting and applying IHL than those states which are more directly involved in armed conflicts? Specifically, this book examines whether a particular 'Nordic perspective' can be identified, owing to those states' involvement in armed conflicts outside their own territories in the post- Second World War era.

New Issue: Archiv des Völkerrechts

The latest issue of Archiv des Völkerrechts (Vol. 50, no. 3, September 2012) is out. Contents include:

• Abhandlungen
• Matthias Kradolfer, Verpflichtungsgrad sozialer Menschenrechte. Handlungsspielräume der nationalen Sozialpolitik vor dem Hintergrund von Art. 9 UNO-Pakt I
• Sebastian Graf Kielmansegg, An der Nahtstelle der Friedensordnung - Bedeutung und Grenzen des Selbstverteidigungsrechts im System kollektiver Sicherheit
• Beitrage und Berichte
• Kerstin Odendahl, Regimewechsel und Interventionsverbot: die Elfenbeinküste und Libyen als Fallstudien
• Rainer Lagoni, Die Abgrenzung des Küstenmeeres außerhalb der Emsmündung

Foltea: International Organizations in WTO Dispute Settlement: How Much Institutional Sensitivity?

Marina Foltea (Univ. of Bocconi) has published International Organizations in WTO Dispute Settlement: How Much Institutional Sensitivity? (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

This book analyses the role of international organisations in WTO dispute settlement as arising from a number of WTO disputes. In particular, the roles of the IMF, WIPO, WCO and WHO are addressed. The use of the Vienna Convention rules of interpretation framework allows an evaluation of the weight attributed to this material by the WTO adjudicator. This allows specific conclusions to be drawn regarding the level of institutional sensitivity of the WTO adjudicator to each of the organisations. As well as being a valuable source of research, the analysis will appeal to international law scholars, civil servants and law practitioners interested in the WTO and dispute settlement.

Conference: Re-Conceptualizing International Economic Law: Bridging the Public/Private Divide

The International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law will hold its 2012 Biennial Interest Group Conference on November 29-December 1, at George Washington University Law School, in Washington, DC. The theme is: "Re-Conceptualizing International Economic Law: Bridging the Public/Private Divide." The program is here.

New Issue: Goettingen Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Goettingen Journal of International Law (Vol. 4, no. 2, 2012) is out. Contents include:

• Precursors to International Constitutionalism: The Development of the German Constitutional Approach
• Introduction
• Tomer Broude & Andreas L. Paulus, Introduction
• The Historical and Philosophical Background of International Constitutionalism
• Dirk Hanschel, German Federalist Thinking and International Law
• Thomas Kleinlein, Alfred Verdross as a Founding Father of International Constitutionalism?
• Reut Yael Paz, Making it Whole: Hersch Lauterpacht’s Rabbinical Approach to International Law
• Rotem Giladi, Francis Lieber on Public War
• Phillip-Alexander Hirsch, Legalization of International Politics: On the (Im)Possibility of a Constitutionalization of International Law from a Kantian Point of View
• Global Constitutionalism: The Role of International Tribunals and Democracy
• Tomer Broude, The Constitutional Function of Contemporary International Tribunals, or Kelsen’s Visions Vindicated
• Christian Volk, Why Global Constitutionalism Does not Live up to its Promises
• A Fragmented Constitutionalism or a Pluralistic Postnational Order?
• Geir Ulfstein, The Relationship Between Constitutionalism and Pluralism
• Markus Kotzur, Overcoming Dichotomies: A Functional Approach to the Constitutional Paradigm in Public International Law
• Lars Viellechner, Constitutionalism as a Cipher: On the Convergence of Constitutionalist and Pluralist Approaches to the Globalization of Law
• Clemens Mattheis, The System Theory of Niklas Luhmann and the Constitutionalization of the World Society

Proulx: Transnational Terrorism and State Accountability: A New Theory of Prevention

Vincent-Joël Proulx has published Transnational Terrorism and State Accountability: A New Theory of Prevention (Hart Publishing 2012). Here's the abstract:

Every State has an obligation to prevent terrorist attacks emanating from its territory. This proposition stems from various multilateral agreements and UN Security Council resolutions. This study exhaustively addresses the scope of this obligation of prevention and the legal consequences flowing from its violation, so as to provide greater clarity on governments' counterterrorism duties and to enhance State accountability for preventable wrongs. It defines the contents and contours of the obligation while placing critical emphasis on the mechanics of State responsibility. Whether obscured by new technologies like the Internet, the sophisticated cellular structure of some terrorist organisations or convoluted political realities, the level of governmental involvement in terrorist activities is no longer readily discernible in every instance. Furthermore, the prospect of governments waging surrogate warfare through proxies also poses intractable challenges to the mechanism of attribution in the context of State responsibility.

This monograph sets out the shortcomings of the extant scheme of State responsibility while identifying a paradigm shift towards more indirect modes of accountability under international law, a trend corroborated by recent State and institutional practice. Drawing on varied legal and theoretical influences, the study devises and prescriptively argues for the implementation of a strict liability-inspired model grounded in the logic of indirect responsibility with a view to enhancing State compliance with counterterrorism obligations. This shifts the policy focus squarely to prevention, while promoting multilateralism and transnational cooperation. Ultimately, the legal and policy sensibilities underlying the book converge into a new theory of prevention in counterterrorism contexts.

Borg: Conservation on the High Seas: Harmonizing International Regimes for the Sustainable Use of Living Resources

Simone Borg (Univ. of Malta - Law) has published Conservation on the High Seas: Harmonizing International Regimes for the Sustainable Use of Living Resources (Edward Elgar Publishing 2012). Here's the abstract:

This timely book discusses various international norms that qualify the right, which all states have, to access and exploit living resources in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction, in order to promote the conservation of such species.

It highlights current trends and developments which aim at better coherence, and discusses legal techniques that could serve to harmonize both the objectives of these international norms and their scope of applicability. The author also demonstrates that in some cases, gaps and conflicts in the existing legal framework cannot be simply ‘interpreted away’ but require the further development of International law in order to be resolved.

Schwenzer, Fountoulakis, & Dimsey: International Sales Law: A Guide to the CISG (Second Edition)

Ingeborg Schwenzer (Univ. of Basel - Law), Christiana Fountoulakis (Univ. of Fribourg - Law), & Mariel Dimsey have published the second edition of International Sales Law: A Guide to the CISG (Hart Publishing 2012). Here's the abstract:

Written for international trade lawyers, practitioners and students from common and civil law countries, this casebook is an excellent starting point for learning about the CISG, providing an article-by-article analysis of the Convention. The commentary on each article is accompanied by extracts from cases and associated comparative materials, as well as references to important trade usages such as the INCOTERMS® 2010. The book features a selection of the most significant cases, each of which has been abridged to enable the reader to focus on its essential features and the relevant questions arising from it. The case extracts are accompanied by a comprehensive overview of parallel provisions in other international instruments, uniform projects and domestic laws.

Alston & Goodman: International Human Rights

Philip Alston (New York Univ. - Law) & Ryan Goodman (New York Univ. - Law) have published International Human Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

A successor to the widely acclaimed International Human Rights in Context, this book is written by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman who are both world-leading human rights scholars. They have chosen a wide selection of materials from primary and secondary materials to demonstrate and illuminate key themes and carefully guide the reader through each extract with thoughtful and lucid commentary.

New Issue: Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage

The latest issue of Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage (2012, no. 3) is out. Contents include:

• Doctrine
• Juan Fernández-Armesto, The time has come – A plea for abandoning secrecy in arbitration
• Paula Hodges, The perils of complete transparency in international arbitration – should parties be exposed to the glare of publicity?
• Michael Polkinghorne & Pauline Dépinay, Récusation des arbitres et indépendance des barristers : la fin de l’exception anglaise ?
• Walid Benhamida, La participation des personnes publiques subsahariennes à l’arbitrage relatif aux investissements

Onguene Onana: La compétence en arbitrage international relatif aux investissements

Dieudonné Édouard Onguene Onana (Université Laval - Law) has published La compétence en arbitrage international relatif aux investissements: Les conditions d'investissement et de nationalité devant le CIRDI (Bruylant 2012). Here's the abstract:

Le présent ouvrage offre une réelle synthèse de deux notions importantes en droit des investissements : la notion d’investissement et la notion d’investisseur. Il décrit de manière exhaustive la jurisprudence arbitrale développée en la matière.

Au travers de cette synthèse, l’auteur y étudie de manière plus approfondie le processus de qualification de l’investissement étranger devant le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI). Chaque instrument normatif s’applique à un champ précis et limité. Et pour déterminer sa compétence – élément décisif pour connaitre ou non de l’affaire – ,l’arbitre du CIRDI doit, d’une part, différencier les opérations de contrôle des conditions d’investissement et celles des conditions de nationalité, et d’autre part, distinguer les normes à l’origine de la compétence arbitrale, celles issues des Traités bilatéraux d’investissements (TBI) et celles venant de la Convention de Washington, les unes ne supplantant pas les autres.

Gortsos: Fundamentals of Public International Financial Law

Christos Gortsos has published Fundamentals of Public International Financial Law: International Banking Law within the system of Public International Financial Law (Nomos 2012). Here's the abstract:

Diese in drei Kapiteln aufgegliederte Studie zielt auf die Einführung des Lesers in das internationale öffentliche Finanzrecht, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf dem internationalen öffentlichen Bankrecht liegt, das einen seiner Zweige darstellt. Das erste Kapitel gewährt eine Einführung in die Funktionen und Infrastrukturen des Finanzsystems, als Grundlage für das internationale öffentliche Finanzrecht, und enthält auch eine Analyse der Ziele der Regulierung des Finanzsystems. Das zweite Kapitel enthält:

• Eine Definition des internationalen öffentlichen Finanzrechts, seine konzeptionelle Abgrenzung gegenüber anderer Zweige des internationalen öffentlichen Rechts, als auch einen Überblick über seine Zweige.
• Eine Schilderung der geschichtlichen Entwicklung seiner Institutionen.
• Eine Analyse der vier Ebenen seiner Verabschiedung und Durchsetzung, die den vom Autor vorgeschlagenen konzeptuellen Ansatz zu diesem Zweig des internationalen öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrechts darstellt.
• Eine Darstellung der Fora, in deren Rahmen internationale Finanznormen (Standards) entstehen. Das letzte Kapitel beinhaltet:
• Einen Überblick über die Hauptquellen des internationalen öffentlichen Finanzrechts.
• Die Bestimmungen der zwei Hauptquellen des internationalen öffentlichen Bankrechts, einschließlich der „Basel III“-Vorschriften des Basler Ausschusses für Bankenaufsicht.

Baik: Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia

Tae-Ung Baik (Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa - Law) has published Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

Asia is the only area in the world that does not have a human rights court or commission covering the region as a whole. However, a close look at recent developments in the region, especially in East Asia, shows that a human rights system is emerging. Various activities and initiatives for human rights cooperation are developing in Asia at the regional, sub-regional and national levels. Since the establishment of the ASEAN human rights body (AICHR) in 2009, the need for a review of the regional human rights mechanisms in Asia is stronger than ever. With a primary focus on twenty-three East Asian states, Tae-Ung Baik highlights the significant changes that have taken place in recent decades and demonstrates that the constituent elements of a human rights system (norms, institutions and modes of implementation) are developing in Asia.

Pedersen: An International Environmental Court and International Legalism

Ole W. Pedersen (Newcastle Univ. - Law) has published An International Environmental Court and International Legalism (Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 547-558, Nov. 2012). Here's the abstract:

This essay offers an assessment of the most recent attempt lead by the International Court for the Environment (ICE) Coalition to garner support for an international environmental court. The essay argues that the concept of legalism, as developed by Judith Shklar and more recently advanced by Eric Posner, offers us a conceptual background against which to view this campaign. In doing so, the essay argues that a narrow focus on legal solutions, which emphasise legal responsibility and blameworthiness, is likely to prove insufficient. Despite this, it is argued that the ICE Coalition’s contribution to the debate on how to best address collective action problems harming the environment may in the long run assist us in developing viable solutions.

New Volumes: Recueil des Cours

Volumes 351 and 352 of the Recueil des Cours, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law are out. Contents include:

• Volume 351
• W. Michael Reisman, The Quest for World Order and Human Dignity in the Twenty-first Century: Constitutive Process and Individual Commitment. General Course on Public International Law
• Volume 352
• Angelo Davì, Le renvoi en droit international privé contemporain

Conference: New Directions in Global Thought: IGLP at Five

The Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School has issued a call for papers for a conference on "New Directions in Global Thought: IGLP at Five," to take place June 3-4, 2013. Here's the call:

On June 3-4, 2013, the Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP) at Harvard Law School will convene its first biannual international conference on New Directions in Global Thought. The Conference is made possible by a generous grant from our Leading Sponsors, Santander Universities and Sovereign Bank.

In celebration of IGLP’s first five years, we invite new and returning members of the IGLP network to present and discuss innovative research in the Institute’s core areas. The 2013 IGLP Conference will be held directly following the 2013 Law and Society Association conference, which will be convened in Boston.

Founded in 2009, the Institute is an international, interdisciplinary, and collaborative center working to foster innovative research and policy dialogue about the modes and structures of global governance. Scholars associated with the Institute are working to understand the levers of political, economic and legal authority in the world today. Global poverty, conflict, injustice, and inequality are also legal regimes. The IGLP explores the ways they are reproduced, sustained by professional practices, and reinforced by a common sense of expertise. In addition, we ask what might be done in response. We are particularly focused on the relationship between the transnational regulatory environment and the potential for sound economic development. A core aim going forward will be to interrogate the distinction between global and local as an idea, as the effect of professional practice, and as an institutional structure for global governance.

Over the past five years, the Institute has encouraged academic collaboration among young scholars from across the world, aiming to support a network of scholars and policy makers who share our belief that ideas matter, and our commitment to new voices and viewpoints for thinking about global governance, social justice and economic policy. More than 500 scholars from scores of nations have participated in our activities. Our annual IGLP Workshop offers junior scholars from around the world the opportunity to share their research and reflect together on new thinking in the fields of international law, political economy, and global governance.

In June 2013, we invite all those who have participated in our network – and those who would like to join with us – to return to Cambridge and share your ideas. The 2013 Conference will offer the opportunity to meet others who share your intellectual passions, to present your research and to engage with innovative scholars from around the world.

We expect many of the discussions at the Conference to continue thinking spawned in streams of investigation begun at our annual Workshops or in the Pro-Seminars we have sponsored. Details on these areas of thematic focus can be found on our website at www.iglp.law.harvard.edu. They include: Comparative Legal Studies; the Corporation in Global Society; Human Rights and Social Justice; Global Science and Technology Studies; Law and Economic Development; International Economic Law and Regulation; Revitalizing Arab and Islamic Legal Traditions; Globalization and Labor; Legal Architecture of Monetary Integration; Private International as Global Governance; and Global Law and Political Economy.

We welcome proposals for individual paper presentations or panel presentations.

Travel Grants: The IGLP is pleased to be able to offer a number of modest travel grants based on need to conference participants who are unable to secure home institution or external funding.

Accommodation: The IGLP is able to offer modest, dormitory housing at a reasonable cost to conference participants.

Please submit paper or panel proposals (abstracts should not exceed 500 words) HERE

If you wish to be considered for a modest travel grant and/or dormitory housing at a reasonable cost, please indicate this in your submission.

Workshop: Doing Law Beyond the State: Research Methodologies in Comparative, EU and Public and Private International Law

On January 18-19, 2013, the University of Sheffield School of Law will host a workshop on "Doing Law Beyond the State: Research Methodologies in Comparative, EU and Public and Private International Law." The program is here. Here's the idea:

Project Workshop Overview

Doing Law Beyond the State:

Research Methodologies in Comparative, EU and Public and Private International Law

An initial, “scoping workshop” brings together established and early-career scholars to have a “cross-generation” and cross-specialisation dialogue. We will adopt a ‘what have we learned?’ approach, considering how the growing interest in method and importance of theory among traditional approaches to legal scholarship has important impacts on the academy and on legal practice. We have asked participants to frame their papers around the workshop themes:

Workshop Themes

• Learning from experience: what is/should be the role of the international/EU academic lawyer? What do recent crises (economic, military, etc.) reveal about previous disciplinary assumptions? How should we respond to the critical challenge? What do older debates have to tell us about contemporary problems (e.g. does the monism and dualism debate have any contemporary relevance in the light of the fragmentation of international law/relationship between legal orders)? How have methodological innovations in our disciplines changed over time?

• Learning from each other: How should European and international lawyers talk to each other? What can we learn from our shared legal cultures? What role for comparative method in public international law? What can private international law teach European and international public lawyers about normative coherence versus dissonance?

• Learning from outside: What can international and EU lawyers learn from other disciplines? What should they learn? Does interdisciplinarity undermine legal autonomy?

Call for Papers: ESIL 5th Research Forum (Reminder)

As noted previously, the European Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for its 5th Research Forum, which will take place May 23-25, 2013, in Amsterdam. The conference will be hosted by the Amsterdam Center for International Law of the University of Amsterdam and the Department of Transnational Legal Studies of the VU University Amsterdam. The conference theme is "International Law as a Profession." The call is here (English/French). The deadline for the submission of abstracts and panel proposals is November 15, 2012.

Darcy: Retaliation and Reprisal

Shane Darcy (National Univ. of Ireland, Galway - Irish Centre for Human Rights) has posted Retaliation and Reprisal (in Oxford Handbook on the Use of Force, Marc Weller ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This book chapter explores the evolution of the law on the use of force as it relates to armed reprisals and retaliation, particularly since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. While the preponderance of scholars, and indeed States, view armed reprisals or countermeasures involving force as prohibited under international law, the doctrine would seem to retain appeal for those seeking to legitimize force not falling within the Charter’s exceptions. The counterpart applicable in times of armed conflict, belligerent reprisal, has been restricted but not completely outlawed under international humanitarian law. The chapter examines the development of international law on the use of force relating to reprisals and consider claimed instances of State practice, as well as judicial and scholarly consideration of the lawfulness of such reprisals. It concludes with a look at calls for the revival of reprisals or retaliation as permitted exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force.