- Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth, Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment
- James K. Sebenius & Michael K. Singh, Is a Nuclear Deal with Iran Possible? An Analytical Framework for the Iran Nuclear Negotiations
- Jeffrey W. Knopf, Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation: Examining the Linkage Argument
- Aaron Rapport, The Long and Short of It: Cognitive Constraints on Leaders' Assessments of “Postwar” Iraq
- Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson & Michael Beckley, Debating China's Rise and U.S. Decline
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
- P. Picone, Il ruolo dello Stato leso nelle reazioni collettive alle violazioni di obblighi erga omnes
- L. Sbolci, L’invalidità degli atti dell’Unione Europea per violazione del diritto internazionale
- G. Bartolini, L’operazione Unified Protector e la condotta delle ostilità in Libia
- Note e Commenti
- S. Tonolo, Principio di uguaglianza e operatività di norme di conflitto in tema di successione
- O. Lopes Pegna, Breach of the Jurisdictional Immunity of a State by Declaring a Foreign Judgment Enforceable?
- S. Migliorini, Immunità dalla giurisdizione e regolamento (CE) 44/2001: riflessioni a partire dalla sentenza Mahamdia
- A. Leandro, Sull’accertamento dell’esistenza di una controversia dinanzi alla Corte internazionale di giustizia
- S. Marino, I diritti del coniuge o del partner superstite nella cooperazione giudiziaria civile dell’Unione Europea
This paper reflects on the possible role of legal positivism in (the cognition of) international law and makes three specific points. First, we need positivism, but only to the extent that it is assigned a few very limited functions. This is the idea of reductionism. Second, positivism should be stripped of all the straw men that are commonly attached to it: voluntarism, state-centricism, rigid and static theories of sources, theories of interpretation and techniques of content determination, etc. This is the idea of emancipation. Third, if restricted to one particular function and emancipated from such approximations, legal positivism can prove to be a useful approach to international law that complements — and can be complemented by — other existing approaches, and which, in that sense, does not claim any monopoly on the cognition of international law. This is the idea of ecumenism. Reductionism, emancipation, and ecumenism are the three prerequisites without which it is not possible to make sense of international legal positivism at all, and short of which international legal positivism cannot make sense of our complex world. They simultaneously constitute three steps that ought to be taken in order to move away from the straightjacket of classical legal positivism. The paper says a few words about each of them.
This is the first scholarly work that addresses comprehensively the rising area of International Disaster Response Law, looking at it from different disciplines that are connected yet discrete (Public International Law, EU Law, Human Rights Law, International Criminal Law, Environmental Law, The law of international Organizations, etc.).
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Pauwelyn: The End of Differential Treatment for Developing Countries? Country Classifications in Trade and Climate Change Regimes
Is China or Russia a developing country? Whether a state gets classified as developed or developing has major consequences for development assistance, trade preferences, climate change commitments and a host of other obligations or privileges under domestic legislation and international treaties. With the rise of emerging countries and the financial crisis in much of the developed world, one of the major challenges for international cooperation is how to rethink the traditional dividing line between developed and developing countries. Such re-think is needed to build regimes that are both effective and equitable. In today’s context, treating all developing countries as a single group for all matters is neither effective nor equitable. Both in trade and climate change regimes, the trend during the last decade is one of further differentiation. This may be the end of differential treatment for developing countries as a single group. It is certainly not the end of differentiation between countries based on their development or other needs. On the contrary, we can expect more, not less, differentiation. Although this is overall a positive development, a number of risks arise, in particular: divide and rule strategies and a race to the bottom or lowest common denominator. These can be mitigated by using objective, evidence-based criteria for differentiation (rather than purely subjective or ad hoc ones) and by providing for a minimum of multilateral control and protection.
This article will examine the United Nations Security Council’s efforts to implement, preserve, and universalize the obligations of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This discussion will lead to questions regarding the Security Council’s role and authority in the international legal system, and ultimately to a consideration of how the international legal system can better guarantee that the Security Council does not exercise an unwarranted degree of legal power at the expense of the member states of the United Nations.
We are witnessing growing calls by States, academics and NGOs for investment arbitral tribunals to recognize that they are engaged in a form of international judicial review and thus should adopt appropriate levels of deference when reviewing the legislative, executive and judicial acts of respondent States. Some draw on domestic public law comparisons, arguing that tribunals should adopt deferential standards of review when adjudicating upon governmental conduct. Others rely on international comparisons, invoking notions such as the margin of appreciation doctrine that some international courts adopt when reviewing State actions for conformity with international obligations. Whether and when investment treaty tribunals should adopt deferential standards of review represents the next battleground for those who conceptualize investment treaty arbitration as a form of global governance.
The book systematically describes the theory and practice of ICSID annulment proceedings by thoroughly analysing this mechanism in light of the annulment decisions rendered so far as well as the publications on the issue.
Organised to suit the needs of the practitioner, it outlines the recent trends in the area, providing the most up to date analysis of the subject. It also addresses key topics involving ICSID annulment such as the procedural issues which frequently arise in this type of proceedings, for example admissability of new evidence and arguments in annulment proceedings, res judicata in resubmitted cases.
The sections on each ground for annulment include an analysis of the applicable standard as well as a detailed description and study of each annulment decision that addressed the respective ground, creating an authoritative and complete resource.
- Symposium: The International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect
- Pekka Niemelä, The International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect: Synergies and Tensions
- David Chandler, Born Posthumously: Rethinking the Shared Characteristics of the ICC and R2P
- Päivi Kaukoranta, Finnish Perspectives on the ICC and R2P
- Frédéric Mégret, ICC, R2P, and the International Community’s Evolving Interventionist Toolkit
- Sarah M. H. Nouwen, Complementarity in Practice: Critical Lessons from the ICC for R2P
- Anne Orford, From Promise to Practice? The Legal Significance of the Responsibility to Protect Concept
- Kofi Quashigah, The Future of the International Criminal Court in African Crisis and Its Relationship with the R2P Project
- Benjamin N. Schiff, Lessons from the ICC for ICC/R2P Convergence
- Debate: The Law of the Common: Globalization, Property and New Horizons of Liberation
- John D. Haskell & Paavo Kotiaho, Introductory Note
- Gunther Teubner, Societal Constitutionalism and the Politics of the Common
- Antonio Negri, The Law of the Common
- George Rodrigo Bandeira Galindo, Constitutionalism Forever
- Dorota A. Gozdecka, Human Rights, Fundamental Rights and the Common Constitutional Traditions in the Protection of Religious Pluralism and Diversity in Europe – A Study in the Democratic Paradox
- Robert Knox, Strategy and Tactics
- Pamela Slotte, The Religious and the Secular in European Human Rights Discourse
- Stellan Vinthagen, Legal Mobilization and Resistance Movements as Social Constituents of International Law
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
In this article I describe the status quo in the area of foreign judgment recognition, with attention to the tension between domestic interests and international cooperation. Precisely because the future of the status quo is in doubt, I then consider current proposals for change, particularly the effort to implement the Hague Choice of Court Convention in the United States. Prominent among the normative questions raised by my account is whose interests, in addition to the litigants’ interests, are at stake – those of the United States, those of the several states, or those of interest groups waving a federal or state flag. A related question is whether, if the uniformity we seek is to be found in state rather than federal law, we can be, and be seen by other countries to be, serious about international cooperation. I describe in some detail the sequence of events that led to the Uniform Law Commissioners (“ULC”) becoming involved in the process of drafting legislation to implement the Choice of Court Convention. I also explore reasons why the ULC has been successful in securing the lion’s share of attention for its preferred approach to implementation, which the ULC calls “cooperative federalism,” but which has come to resemble cooperative redundancy. Recounting how, and offering suggestions why, the ULC ultimately rejected a package of compromises proposed by the State Department’s Legal Adviser, even though almost all compromises were in favor of the ULC, I conclude with observations about the ULC’s ambitions in the international arena. My argument is that, if the ULC were successful in taking over the negotiation or implementation of private international law treaties, international cooperation would be if not a fortuity, then not a priority, because we would have regressed to a position of privileging not just federal but state law uniformity over international uniformity. And the state law we privileged would be anything but “indigenous.”
- Óscar Maúrtua de Romaña, Las Malvinas
- Luis Delgado-Aparicio Porta, Irán intenta ser nuclear
- Augusto Hernández Campos, Naturaleza jurídica del crimen de agresión en el derecho internacional moderno: los elementos objetivos y subjetivos de la agresión
- Zósimo Morillo Herrada, La diplomacia pública como ars subtilior de la comunicación
- César Recuenco Cardoso, El derecho comunitario en los ordenamientos internos de los Estados miembros de una comunidad de países: la Comunidad Andina. Inconvenientes sobre su aplicación y alternativas para su eficacia
- Cástor Miguel Díaz Barrado, Tratados internacionales y conflictos armados: una cuestión siempre pendiente
- Iván Manzano Barragán, La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre orientación sexual e identidad de género
- Milagros Álvarez Verdugo, ¿Hacia la armonización de los controles nacionales a la exportación nuclear?
- Víctor Luis Gutiérrez Castillo, Estados árabes y derechos humanos: la recepción y aplicación de la norma internacional
- Angel José Rodrigo Hernández, El principio de integración de los aspectos económicos, sociales y medioambientales del desarrollo sostenible
- José Luis Pérez Triviño, La noción de intención en la definición de genocidio
- Artículos académicos
- Alberto Madero Rincón, Hacia la certidumbre jurídica en la determinación de la norma aplicable en el comercio internacional: la congruencia entre los acuerdos comerciales y la Organización Mundial del Comercio
- Luis Armando López Linaldi, La necesidad de crear un Órgano de Apelación para arbitrajes Inversionista-Estado en CIADI
- Francisco F. Villanueva, El artículo XX (e) del GATT, ¿una cláusula social en el sistema jurídico de la Organización Mundial del Comercio?
- Artículo Profesional
- Francisco de Rosenzweig, México y su Ingreso al Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico
- José Manuel Vargas, Comentario sobre Unión Europea – Calzado (China), Informe del Grupo Especial
- Beatriz Huarte, Comentario sobre China – Partes de autos, Informe del Órgano de Apelación
- Miguel Villamizar, Comentario sobre Comunidades Europeas – Productos de Tecnología de la Información, Informes del Grupo Especial
The Legitimation and Delegitimation of Global Governance Organizations
Academic Conference at the Universität Bremen
11-13 September 2013
When international organizations present themselves to their various audiences, they engage in a whole range of activities aimed at legitimizing what the institution is or does. This becomes evident, for instance, in the names given to organizational programmes (e.g. the WHO’s Health for All, UNESCO’s Education for All, the IAEA’s Atoms for Peace or the WWF’s Market Transformation Initiative) and committees (e.g. the United Nation’s Office for Partnerships or FIFA’s Ethics Committee). It also resonates in the public speeches of organizational leaders who recognize a need ‘to improve representation, voice and accountability’ (G20), call for organizational policies that provide ‘growth that lifts all boats’ (IMF), or describe their own organization as ‘open’, ‘rules-based’ and ‘built on democratic values’ (WTO). 
Elsewhere, we observe a broad range of efforts geared at delegitimizing international institutions in the eyes of the general public or particular segments of the latter. Some of these efforts originate from governments; others are driven by business actors, social movements or religious communities. Yet processes of legitimation and delegitimation do not only address the concrete practices and policies of global governance organizations, but also sustain or challenge global power structures (e.g. class, gender or economic structures) and are themselves driven by those structures. Seen in this way, studying legitimation is therefore one way of studying the contested politics of global governance more generally.
Moving beyond the academic preoccupation with legitimacy as a property of actors and institutions, the conference puts the dynamics of legitimation of global governance at the centre stage. Legitimation has a strategic, a normative and a performative dimension. It is instrumental in the sense that a major purpose of legitimation activities is to seek the recognition of those whose support an organization deems important to achieve its goals. It is normative in the sense that a core element of all legitimation activities is the appeal to norms and values shared by the audiences to whom legitimacy claims are voiced. And it has a performative dimension when practices of legitimation change or reproduce norms and strategies of legitimation.
Building on these broad ideas, the conference revolves around the following key themes and questions:
· Legitimation norms: Which norms and values (e.g. legality, justice, democracy, peace, growth) do various actors refer to in order to legitimize the identities and/or activities of global governance organizations? How does the content of such norms and values vary over time, across (types of) global governance organizations and across world regions? How do changes in the international system (e.g. rising powers) affect the set of norms and values against which global governance organizations are conventionally evaluated? And how is the contestation between different norms and values played out?
· The structure of legitimation discourses: Where does (de-)legitimation take place? How are legitimation discourses structured? Whose contributions count and on what terms? How do organization-specific discourses relate to each other? How are they connected to the broader social discourses in which they are embedded? And to what extent do the worldwide expansion of education (referred to by some as a ‘skill revolution’), the revolution in communication technologies and the mediation/mediatization of societies alter the nature, content and processes of legitimacy communication as well as the conditions under which legitimation discourses take place?
· Drivers and effects of (de-)legitimation: When and how do efforts at legitimizing global governance organizations succeed? Under which conditions can legitimacy claims be successfully challenged from the inside (e.g. diplomats, recalcitrant bureaucrats or NGO observers) or the outside (e.g. social movements, the business community or states that are not members of an international organizations)? With which repertoires and resources? And what are the major short-term and long-term effects of successful (de-)legitimation efforts for an international organization?
· Institutionalization of legitimacy management: How do global governance organizations internally organize and institutionalize their legitimacy management and how has this changed over time? How are particular legitimation strategies developed internally? How has the emergence and spread of social media changed the ways in which international organizations (seek to) manage their legitimacies?
· Opening up as a legitimation strategy: When and why do global governance organizations pick the specific legitimation strategy of opening up, i.e. increasing their transparency towards the public and opening their governance processes to non-state actors? How are organizations in different policy fields opening up? How is opening up presented as a legitimacy building measure to the organizations’ audiences? What are the micro-processes of opening up? How do changes in transparency and access interact with each other? Which actors are marginalized, which favoured through increasing participation and transparency?
Using a broad definition of global governance organizations, we are primarily interested in papers that deal with the dynamics of legitimation in relation to intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and their private transnational counterparts (e.g. IASB, ICANN, credit rating agencies, social and environmental certification schemes or transnational sports organizations). In addition, papers that focus on traditional international NGOs (e.g. Oxfam, Amnesty International or Greenpeace), on social movement organizations (e.g. Occupy) or on multinational corporations (e.g. WalMart) are also welcome. Contributions may come from a broad range of social science disciplines.
The conference will be organized by the research project Changing Norms of Global Governance and hosted by the Institute for Intercultural and International Studies (InIIS) at the Universität Bremen. We aim at a size of around 30 papers, with a combination of intense and workshop-style panel sessions and plenary sessions with invited speakers. Funds to cover travel reimbursement and accommodation will be available for a small number of participants, with preference given to young scholars and scholars from developing countries.
We invite abstracts of proposed papers (up to 500 words) to be submitted to email@example.com until Friday, 15 February 2013. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by 31 March 2013, with full conference papers to be submitted three weeks in advance of the workshop (23 August 2013).
Workshop organizers: Klaus Dingwerth, Ina Lehmann, Ellen Reichel, Tobias Weise and Antonia Witt
 Citations are taken from Steven Bernstein, ‘Legitimacy in Intergovernment and Non-State Global Governance’, Review of International Political Economy 18 (2011), p. 18; Christine Lagarde, ‘Shared Prosperity in a Globalized Workd’, Public Speech at Universität Zürich, 7 May 2012; and Michael Strange, ‘Discursivity of Global Governance: Vestiges of “Democracy” in the World Trade Organization’, Alternatives 36 (2011), p. 247.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
- Scientific Articles
- Barbora Hola, Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
- Sijie Chen, China's Compliance with WTO Transparency Requirement: Institution-Related Impediments
- Machiko Kanetake, The UN Zero Tolerance Policy’s Whereabouts: On the Discordance between Politics and Law on the Internal-External Divide
- Opinion Articles
- Martijn Dekker, A Monopoly on Responsibility?
- Literary Reviews
- Koen Davidse, Mission Impossible? Kofi Annan's years as UN Secretary-General
Die Arbeit analysiert die Rechte und Pflichten der Schifffahrt in den verschiedenen Seezonen. Dürfen alle Schiffe (auch Kriegs- und Staatsschiffe) die einzelnen Seezonen durchfahren oder gelten bestimmte Rechte nur für Handelsschiffe? Welche Vorschriften haben die Schiffe in den einzelnen Seezonen zu beachten und welche Probleme tauchen in der Praxis regelmäßig auf? Ferner werden aktuelle Probleme, wie die massive Ausweitung der Piraterie und die stetige Zunahme der Ausflaggung von Handelsschiffen in sogenannte «offene Register» zum Zwecke der Kostenersparnis besprochen und Lösungsansätze hierzu aufgezeigt. Die Themen werden in völkerrechtlicher Hinsicht an Hand des Seerechtsübereinkommens durchleuchtet sowie deren Umsetzung in das deutsche Recht herausgearbeitet.
Die Studie untersucht die Frage nach rechtlichen Vorgaben der Transparenz völkerrechtlicher Investitionsschiedsverfahren unter der ICISD-Konvention und den UNCITRAL-Schiedsregeln. Die Transparenz völkerrechtlicher Investitionsschiedsverfahren ist in den vergangen Jahren häufig Gegenstand sowohl der Analyse durch Schiedsgerichte wie auch der Debatte in juristischer Literatur und Zivilgesellschaft gewesen.
Die Diskussion konzentriert sich dabei jedoch zumeist auf die Abwägung von Vor- und Nachteilen vermehrter Verfahrenstransparenz. Das Werk erläutert die Möglichkeiten, Verfahrenstransparenz herzustellen, wie den möglichen Zugang zu Anhörungen durch Dritte und die Veröffentlichung von Verfahrensdokumenten und Schiedssprüchen durch die Parteien.
Eingehend wird behandelt, ob die in diesem Zusammenhang häufig angeführte Beteiligung von Amicus Curiae die Transparenz dieser Verfahren tatsächlich erhöht. Untersucht wird zudem, ob seitens IPbpR, EMRK oder Unionsprimärrecht ein Gebot besteht, welches die transparente Behandlung dieser Verfahren erfordert.
There is continued discussion in International Relations surrounding the existence (or not) of the 'democratic peace' - the idea that democracies do not fight each other. This book argues that threats to homeland territories force centralization within the state, for three reasons. First, territorial threats are highly salient to individuals, and leaders must respond by promoting the security of the state. Second, threatened territories must be defended by large, standing land armies and these armies can then be used as forces for repression during times of peace. Finally, domestic political bargaining is dramatically altered during times of territorial threat, with government opponents joining the leader in promoting the security of the state. Leaders therefore have a favorable environment in which to institutionalize greater executive power. These forces explain why conflicts are associated with centralized states, and in turn why peace is associated with democracy.
- Alan Scott Rau, The Errors of Comity: Forum Non Conveniens Returns to the Second Circuit
- Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Mandatory Rules and International Arbitration
- Stefan Kröll, The Non-Enforceability of Decisions Rendered in Summary Arbitral Proceedings Pursuant to the NAI Rules Under the New York Convention
- Jack Graves, Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time for a Default Rule?
- Matthew T. Parish & Charles B. Rosenberg, Investment Treaty Law and International Law
This book studies the interpretation and application of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings before several international criminal courts. The coming of age of these institutions merits an evaluation of the application of one of the fundamental principles underlying a criminal procedure. The practice of these courts presents some substantial challenges to achieving a meaningful equality of arms in the context in which these courts operate.
Before studying the law and jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the International Criminal Court, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the historical roots and the meaning of the principle of equality of arms are examined from two perspectives: the human rights perspective and the criminal process perspective.
Subsequently, four themes that are central to understanding the principle of equality of arms in the international criminal context are discussed. First, the focus is on the investigation stage of the criminal process and the ability of the parties to prepare for trial. Next, the study takes a closer look at the system of disclosure of materials that were collected during investigations. Third, attention is paid to the issue of the perceived inequality in resources and facilities between the parties and the institutionally unequal positioning of the defence. Last, issues concerning the presentation of the case at the trial stage, such as the time and the number of witnesses the parties are allowed to present and the issues relating to the examination of witnesses and the admissibility of evidence, are examined. The book concludes with general observations on the scope and proper understanding of the principle of fairness, the right to a fair trial and the principle of equality of arms.
- G.L. Tosato, L’integrazione europea ai tempi della crisi dell’euro
- L. Gradoni, Consuetudine internazionale e caso inconsueto
- F. Lenzerini, Il principio del non-refoulement dopo la sentenza Hirsi della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo
- D. Russo, L’armonizzazione della politica sociale attraverso prescrizioni minime internazionali ed europee
- Note e Commenti
- M.E. Bartoloni, Sulla partecipazione del Parlamento europeo alla formazione di accordi in materia di politica estera e di sicurezza comune
- A. Bufalini, La rilevanza del diritto interno ai fini del rispetto del principio nullum crimen sine lege nel diritto internazionale penale
- B.I. Bonafè, L’esistenza di rimedi alternativi ai fini del riconoscimento dell’immunità delle organizzazioni internazionali: la sentenza della Corte suprema olandese nel caso delle Madri di Srebrenica
- M. Evola, La Corte internazionale di giustizia e l’ammissione alle organizzazioni internazionali: la controversia relativa alla Macedonia
Monday, December 10, 2012
- Nicolaj Kuplewatzky & Davide Rovetta, The Divergence in Theoretical and Practical Use of Combined Nomenclature Explanatory Notes and Tariff Classification Regulations in the EU
- Ali Ibn AbiTalib A. Elgindi & Peter Lunenborg, The WTO Accession Process and Non-economic Considerations
- Suhail Nathani & James J. Nedumpara, India Back among WTO Disputes: An Update on India’s Current and Potential WTO Disputes
- Simon Lacey, Multilateral Disciplines on Rules of Origin: How Far Are We from Squaring the Circle?
- Gilles Muller, Liberalization of Legal Services in India: The Role and Consequences of the Free Trade Agreements EU-India
- Yves Melin, Market Economy Treatment in EU Anti-dumping Investigations Following the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU in Xinanchem
- Michael Lux, EU Initiative on Modernization of Trade Defence Instruments
- Carsten Weerth, New Countries are Applying the Harmonized System Nomenclature – Update 2012
Die zunehmende Bedeutung der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit und die damit verbundene weltweite erhöhte Aufmerksamkeit für die durchgeführten Strafverfahren erfordern eine strikte Einhaltung rechtsstaatlicher Prinzipien. Elisa Hoven unterzieht die Prozessordnungen des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, der Ad-hoc-Tribunale sowie der hybriden Gerichte einem umfassenden Vergleich am Maßstab der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Nach einer Untersuchung der institutionellen und normativen Grundlagen internationaler Straftribunale widmet sie sich einer komparativen Analyse der Gewährleistung wesentlicher Verfahrensmaximen.
Prozessuale Garantien wie die Unschuldsvermutung, das Recht auf Verteidigung oder der Beschleunigungsgrundsatz erörtert die Autorin unter dem Blickwinkel von Fairness und Effektivität des Strafverfahrens. Die Bewertung der rechtlich-theoretischen Voraussetzungen wird um eine Darstellung gegenwärtiger Herausforderungen in der Praxis der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit ergänzt. Ausgehend von den identifizierten Stärken und Schwächen der Verfahrensmodelle entwickelt die Autorin Vorschläge für mögliche Verbesserungen der geltenden Prozessordnungen.
Intellectual Property and Human Rights
Conference and Roundtable Discussion
February 21-22, 2013
American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave NW
Sean Flynn, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University College of Law
Laurence Helfer, Center for International and Comparative Law, Duke University Law School
Molly Land, Institute for Information Law and Policy, New York Law School
Peter Yu, Intellectual Property Law Center, Drake University Law School
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, American University College of Law
Intellectual Property Law Center, Drake University Law School
Center for International and Comparative Law, Duke University Law School
Institute for Information Law and Policy, New York Law School
Committee on International Intellectual Property, American Branch of the International Law Association
This meeting will bring together scholars who are working to map the doctrinal and strategic intersections of intellectual property and human rights, and will include publication opportunities in a forthcoming book.
On Thursday, February 21, there will be a public conference on intellectual property and human rights, which will be webcast live and archived. The event will focus on three distinct sets of issues being explored as part of a forthcoming book project edited by Molly Land and Peter Yu: (1) the right to free expression and enforcement of copyright on the internet; (2) the intersection of intellectual property laws and rights to benefit from culture and scientific progress; and (3) the right to health and access to patented medications. The conference welcomes presentations from participants who not wish to be involved in the project and on topics outside these three main themes. Papers selected for presentation may also be considered for the book project. There will be no requirement to present or submit a paper in order to attend.
On Friday, February 22, registered participants are invited to a half-day roundtable discussion (under Chatham House Rule) on developing a working group of scholars and advocates engaged in work at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights. This forward-looking discussion will identify opportunities and priorities for collaboration on research, teaching and advocacy in the coming year(s). Topics may include discussion of new ideas and late-breaking developments that a HRs-IP network or consortium should explore as part of its agenda. The group will also discuss developments in other forums where intellectual property and human rights issues are being or will be considered.
If you are interested in participating in either or both events, please register by January 22, 2013, here. To be considered for a presentation slot on February 21, please fill out the abstract section with a submission of no more than 500 words. No abstract is required to attend, including to attend the roundtable discussion on February 22.
International Courts and Tribunals: Between Globalisation and Localism examines the proliferation of international courts and tribunals at the global, regional and local level. Topics covered range from the reasons for their marked specialisation to the demand for international justice and the growing confidence in international judicial bodies and their functions. The choice of courts and tribunals covered in this book has been based on the distinctive character of each of them in the context of globalisation or localism. At the global level the establishment of new international courts and tribunals with global jurisdiction, such as the ICJ, ICC and ITLOS, is considered. At the regional level courts and tribunals operating under the auspices of regional organisations in the field of economic integration and regional systems covering human rights are examined. Finally, as regards the phenomenon of localism, the book analyses the proliferation of new local courts and tribunals with differing jurisdiction ratione materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci. The myriad of courts and tribunals poses new challenges to the international order: how should we deal with conflicts of jurisdiction and of divergent interpretations of international law by different dispute settlement institutions? The author offers valuable insights to answer these questions.
- Zheng Sophia Tang, Conflicts of Jurisdiction and Party Autonomy in Europe
- Otto Spijkers, Global Values in the United Nations Charter
- Fabián Raimondo, The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas: What Role for the UN?
- Alfred De Zayas & Áurea Roldán Martín, Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee
- Marina Lostal Becerril, The Meaning and Protection of ‘Cultural Objects and Places of Worship’ Under the 1977 Additional Protocols
- Charles Garraway, Comments on Illegal War and Illegal Conduct: Are the Two Related?
- In Focus – Global Policies and Law
- Antonio Capaldo, Bice Della Piana & Alessandra Vecchi, Managing Across Cultures in a Globalized World. Findings from a Systematic Literature Review
- Gilles Carbonnier & Sijbren de Jong, The Global Governance of Energy and Development
- Benjamin Mason Meier, Global Health Takes a Normative Turn: The Expanding Purview of International Health Law and Global Health Policy to Meet the Public Health Challenges of the 21st Century
- Barbara Kwiatkowska & Alfred H. A. Soons, Some Reflections on the Ever Puzzling Rocks-Principle Under UNCLOS Article 121(3)
- Guiguo Wang, International Trade Law and Development
- Notes and Comments
- Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Compatibility of the 2011 Uwinkindi Case with Human Rights: Comparison with the 2008 Referral Decisions of the ICTR
- Hans Köchler, The Ambiguity of Power in International Relations and the Future of the United Nations Organization
- Anna Oriolo, Optimizing the International Criminal Justice System with a “Positive-Enhanced” Approach
- Françoise Tulkens & Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, The Shadow of Marckx for a Renewed Debate on the Temporal Effects of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
- Forum - Jurisprudential Cross-Fertilization: An Annual Overview
- Module I – CRIMINAL LAW – The Relationship Between Decisions of International Criminal Tribunals and Their Relationship with Decisions of the ICJ or Another International Court or Arbitral Tribunal
- Fausto Pocar & Nicole Rangel, COMMENT AND ANALYSIS, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Collective Criminality: A Comparative Analysis of the Development of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunals
- Module III – HUMAN RIGHTS LAW – The Relationship Between Decisions of the Courts of Human Rights and Their Relationship with Decisions of the ICJ
- Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, COMMENT AND ANALYSIS, Contemporary International Tribunals: Their Jurisprudential Cross-Fertilization Pertaining to Human Rights Protection
- Module VI – INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATING TO DOMESTIC LAW – The Relationship Between Decisions of International Tribunals and National Jurisdictions
- Oreste Pollicino, COMMENT AND ANALYSIS, The Relationship Between the National Legal Order and the European Legal Order in the Case Law of the Italian Constitutional Court: A Selection of the Most Recent Relevant Decisions
- Faten Ghosn & Amal Khoury, The case of the 2006 War in Lebanon: reparations? Reconstruction? Or both?
- Tom Obokata, Maritime piracy as a violation of human rights: a way forward for its effective prevention and suppression?
- Colin Samson & Elizabeth Cassell, The long reach of frontier justice: Canadian land claims ‘negotiation’ strategies as human rights violations
- Philippe Cullet, Right to water in India – plugging conceptual and practical gaps
- Mariya Riekkinen, Russian legal practices of citizens' involvement in political decision-making: legal study of their genesis under the influence of international law
- Teresa Macias, ‘Tortured bodies’: The biopolitics of torture and truth in Chile
- Sara E. Davies & Jeremy Youde, The IHR (2005), Disease Surveillance, and the Individual in Global Health Politics
- Leanne Cochrane & Kathryn McNeilly, The United Kingdom, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review