The maintenance of international peace and security has always provided a fertile ground for disputes both in doctrine and in the field. Today, nearly seven decades after the adoption of the UN Charter, voices are often heard claiming that the Charter’s regime is obsolete and that greater autonomy is needed for regional organizations. In reality, few if any of these claims seek to establish valid mechanisms for the maintenance of international peace and security. Rather, they try to guarantee national or collective interests at the expense of the rule of law. This book, part of the habilitation thesis being prepared by the author, focuses on the changes, factors and activities that have appeared in the sphere of regional organizations’ operations during the last few decades, and tries to determine the face of collective security at the universal and regional levels.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
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.
- Hugh Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 Supplement, 2011: Parts Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen
- Paul Behrens, Diplomatic Interference and Competing Interests in International Law
- Patrick Capps, Lauterpacht’s Method
- Zachary Douglas, State Immunity for the Acts of State Officials
- Campbell McLachlan, The Allocative Function of Foreign Relations Law
- Federica I Paddeu, A Genealogy of Force Majeure in International Law
After two decades of fragmentation discourse, international courts and other bodies cross reference each other, and emphasise international law as a single, unified system of law one cannot break up into separate specialist fields. This applies to treaty interpretation, as the ICJ underlined recently in Diallo (Compensation). The same basic approach to the formation and identification of customary international law applies regardless of the field of law under consideration. This bilingual seminar asks, What are the consequences for the principles of treaty interpretation and the formation of customary international law?
- January 22, 2013: David Sloss (Santa Clara Univ. - Law), The Constitution and Treaty Compliance: The Story of an Unknown Constitutional Revolution
- February 5, 2013: David Law (Washington Univ. in St. Louis - Law), Sham Constitutions
- February 19, 2013: Jean Galbraith (Rutgers Univ., Camden - Law), International Law and the Domestic Separation of Powers
- March 5, 2013: Alex Somek (University of Iowa - Law), Constitutionalism 3.0: The National Constitution Beyond the Nation State
- March 26, 2013: Ashley Deeks (Univ. of Virginia - Law), The Observer Effect: National Security Litigation, Executive Policy Changes, and Judicial Deference
- April 9, 2013: David Pozen (Columbia Univ. - Law), Congressional Sclerosis and Constitutional Countermeasures
- April 23, 2013: Jacqueline Bhabha (Harvard Univ. - Kennedy School of Government), tba
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Trade remedies, namely anti-dumping, countervailing measures and safeguards, are one of the most controversial issues in today's global trading environment. When used, such measures effectively close the markets of the importing countries to competition from outside for a certain period of time. Exporters that are faced with such measures can either try to convince their government to bring a case against the government of the importing country in the WTO or to use, themselves, the judicial review mechanism of the importing country. This second path has been, until now, largely unexamined. Domestic Judicial Review of Trade Remedies is the first book of its kind to examine in detail how the judicial review process has functioned and considers the experiences in the domestic courts of the twenty-one WTO members that are the biggest users of trade remedies.
Maritime Border Diplomacy, edited by Myron H. Nordquist and John Norton Moore, examines critical issues in international maritime boundary disputes together with the important global role of Indonesia, whose maritime boundaries are imperative to its sovereign status identity. Stressing the seminal importance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to world order, international experts analyze root causes of boundary disputes including historical claims and competition for natural resources. Issues of preventative diplomacy and activism in maritime affairs are explored, as are legal issues arising in the context of creating zones of cooperation in the oceans. Practical issues in fisheries and environmental management, and the volatile questions involved in the South China Sea, are detailed. The volume concludes with a substantive presentation on dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Michael J. Boyle, The costs and consequences of drone warfare
- Nicolas Bouchet, The democracy tradition in US foreign policy and the Obama presidency
- Sten Rynning, Coalitions, institutions and big tents: the new strategic reality of armed intervention
- Sophie Harman & William Brown, In from the margins? The changing place of Africa in International Relations
- Alex Vines, A decade of African Peace and Security Architecture
- Chris Alden & Maxi Schoeman, South Africa in the company of giants: the search for leadership in a transforming global order
- George Kassimeris, Greece: the persistence of political terrorism
- Alexander Kelle, The Third Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention and beyond: key themes and the prospects of incremental change
This chapter examines third party participation in contentious cases in international courts and tribunals. Section II discusses third party participation serving a personal interest in the outcome of the case or in the law that emerges from the case. Section III examines a discrete category of interveners, namely victims of human rights violations and international crimes in international criminal or other proceedings. Section IV concerns third party participation in pursuit of a public interest, commonly referred to as amicus curiae participation.
- Research Articles
- Jessica Chen Weiss, Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and Nationalist Protest in China
- Thomas M. Dolan, Unthinkable and Tragic: The Psychology of Weapons Taboos in War
- Bernd Beber & Christopher Blattman, The Logic of Child Soldiering and Coercion
- Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study
- Matthew Kroenig, Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes
- Research Note
- Todd S. Sechser & Matthew Fuhrmann, Crisis Bargaining and Nuclear Blackmail
- Robert Urbatsch, A Referendum on Trade Theory: Voting on Free Trade in Costa Rica
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
- Colin de la Rue & Charles B. Anderson, Environmental salvage - Plus ca change . . .?
- Norman A. Martinez Gutierrez, New European rules on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents
- Ling Zhu, Adolf K, Yng, & Ming Zhao Zhang, Some thoughts on civil liability for maritime piracy-caused oil pollution
- Werner Wenger, Ein Kontrapunkt: Die neue Schiedsgerichtsordnung der Handelskammer Deutschland-Schweiz
- Marc Iynedjian, Gas Sale and Purchase Agreements under Swiss Law
- Sandrine Giroud, Enforcement against State Assets and Execution of ICSID Awards in Switzerland: How Swiss Courts Deal with Immunity Defences
- Konstantin Pilkov, Recognition of international arbitration in Ukraine in figures
Principles of International Economic Law gives a comprehensive overview of the central topics in international economic law, with an emphasis on the interplay between the different economic and political interests on both the international and domestic levels. The book sets the classic topics of international economic law, WTO law, investment protection, commercial law, and monetary law in context with human rights, environmental protection, good governance, and the needs of developing countries. It thus provides a concise picture of the current architecture of international economic law.
Topics covered range from codes of conduct for multinational enterprises, to the human rights implications of the exploitation of natural resources. The book demonstrates the economic foundations and economic implications of legal frameworks. It puts into profile the often complex relationship between, on the one hand, international standards on liberalization and economic rationality and, on the other, state sovereignty and national preferences. It describes the new forms of economic cooperation which have developed in recent decades, such as the growing number of transnational companies in the private sector, and forms of cooperation between states such as the G8 or G20. Providing a perfect introductory text to the field of international economic law, the book thoroughly analyses legal developments within their wider political, economic, or social context.
Questo libro esamina il Fondo monetario internazionale e la Banca mondiale quali si presentano oggi, in base al dettato normativo e alla luce della prassi e delle dinamiche politiche più recenti, ma anche dei primi, parziali, interventi di riforma.
Il tema centrale è l’assetto di governo e soprattutto quello che appare esserne il nocciolo: il processo decisionale, di cui si tenta una valutazione in termini tanto di efficacia ed efficienza quanto di democraticità.
A seguito della crisi finanziaria globale scoppiata nel 2008, ciascuna delle due istituzioni di Bretton Woods ha convocato gruppi di saggi e commissioni di esperti. Documenti sono stati prodotti da governi e altri organismi internazionali, ONG, centri di ricerca e think tank per prospettare riforme e spunti di riflessione. La gran parte di tali suggerimenti non si è tradotta in pratica. Il cuore di questo lavoro è la sistematizzazione di spunti e proposte, il bilancio di quel che è stato fatto e di quel che ancora si potrebbe fare.
Sebbene le istituzioni di Bretton Woods siano al centro di questo studio non si potrà tuttavia non fare riferimento all’insieme degli attori che compongono il quadro della global economic governance, in quanto è in questo ambito che le due organizzazioni si collocano, in cui ricevono e rimandano input e condizionamenti. Uno specifico capitolo dedicato alla prospettiva di adesione dell’Unione europea appare in questo contesto inevitabile.
- Ryan Goodman, Derek Jinks, & Andrew K. Woods, Introduction: Social Science and Human Rights
- Deborah A. Prentice, The Psychology of Social Norms and the Promotion of Human Rights
- Robert C. Hornik, Why Can't We Sell Human Rights Like We Sell Soap?
- Margaret Levi, Tom Tyler, & Audrey Sacks, The Reasons for Compliance with Law
- Paul Slovic & David Zionts, Can International Law Stop Genocide When Our Moral Intuitions Fail Us?
- Herbert Gintis, Human Rights: An Evolutionary and Behavioral Perspective
- John Mikhail, Moral Grammar and Human Rights: Some Reflections on Cognitive Science and Enlightenment Rationalism
- Jonathan Baron, Parochialism as a Result of Cognitive Biases
- David Lazer, Networks and Politics: The Case of Human Rights
- Byron Bland, Brenna Powell & Lee Ross, Barriers to Dispute Resolution: Reflections on Peacemaking and Relationships between Adversaries
- William F. Schulz, The Difference It Makes
As the focus of the international legal effort to prevent terrorism shifts to addressing the social processes leading to terrorism, focusing on preventing the spread of terrorist ideology, tension arises between counter-terrorism measures and freedom of expression. This chapter focuses on the principal legal measure adopted in this context, namely the criminalization of incitement to terrorism, as manifest in two international instruments, UN Security Council Resolution 1624(2005) and the Council of Europe's Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
Bekker: The World Court Awards Sovereignty Over Several Islands in the Caribbean Sea to Colombia and Fixes a Single Maritime Boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The international post-westphalian order is traditionally founded on the notion of State territory. Territory is a basic element of the very existence of a State and is generally understood as justification and limit of State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Even so, the expanding scope of territoriality issues is still controversial and central to the concerns of international legal theories. Indeed, the relevant changes occurred over the last decades throughout the international community have challenged the very idea of territory, as well as its primordial meanings and functions in international law. The normative and institutional “global order” has gone through complex evolutions and the territory as a crucial factor of international ruling is gradually loosing its key role. Both writers and international practice confirm that international law increasingly tends to be applied in a “de-territorialised” way, moving beyond the material or legal preconditions of territoriality.
Room is left for ongoing debates on these trends, undertaking analysis and renewed elaborations of a general theory of territorial regimes from the viewpoints of both public and private international law and of EU law.
Mit Inkrafttreten des Vertrags von Lissabon am 1. Dezember 2009 wurde die Europäische Union (EU) zu einer internationalen Organisation mit Rechts- und Handlungsfähigkeit. Gleichzeitig folgte die EU der Europäischen Gemeinschaft nach und übernahm deren Rechte und Pflichten. Seither tritt die EU als eigenständiges Rechtssubjekt im Völkerrecht auf, erwirbt Rechte, übernimmt Pflichten und gestaltet die Entwicklung des Völkerrechts maßgeblich mit.
Im EuR-Beiheft 2-2012 beleuchten fünfzehn namhafte ExpertInnen aus Theorie und Praxis diese neuen Entwicklungen. Dabei geht es zunächst um die Stellung der EU als Völkerrechtssubjekt, deren Bindung an das allgemeine Völkerrecht sowie die Vertragsschlusskompetenzen und die außenvertretungsbefugten Organe. Im Anschluss daran wird die Stellung der EU in den Vereinten Nationen und der WTO untersucht. Der dritte Schwerpunkt ist das Verhältnis zum Europarat und insbesondere der angestrebte Beitritt zur EMRK. Schließlich geht es um die Rolle der EU im diplomatischen und konsularischen Verkehr.
- John Gaffney & Cedric Soule, Sur la question des traités intra-européens et l’arrêt Eureko
- Massimo V. Benedettelli, Cross-Border Insolvencies and International Arbitration in the EU: a Playing Field for Regulated Forum Shopping?
- Georges Decocq, Sur les sentences déclaratoires
- Antonio Crivellaro, The Failure to State Reasons in ICSID Awards
The wave of revolutions in the Middle East, beginning in Tunisia and culminating in the Egyptian Revolution in 2011, has been dubbed the “Arab Spring.” This dynamic series of events is currently witnessing its bloodiest period in Syria, while circumstances in Egypt, among other states, remain tenuous and dynamic. Particularly with the civil war intensifying in and potentially beyond Syrian territory, and with no resolution to Iranian nuclear standoff in sight, the global community remains on tenterhooks about the prospect of regional chaos or a catastrophe of global proportions.
Given the oil wealth of the region and the troublesome history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Middle East has long held a significant position in global politics and accordingly occupied a special place on the political agendas of Western governments and in the international community in general. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has also continued to grapple with the challenges of understanding and responding appropriately and effectively to the ideological opposition and deterring threats to its national security.
BU School of Law and the BU International Law Journal will host this conference to further understanding of the momentous legal and political challenges that continue to develop in the Middle East. Evelyn Mary Aswad, current Assistant Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State for Human Rights and Refugee Affairs, will deliver an address entitled, "A View from the U.S. State Department," at lunch, and panelists will consider the challenges faced by the United States, Europe and the international community in general in navigating the rapidly evolving political upheaval in the Middle East. Understanding these challenges is a necessary first step to designing effective policies to promote resolution within states and to achieve peace and stability globally.
Kaye: Human Rights Prosecutors? The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Justice, and the Example of Syria
This draft essay explores the relationship between the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and international justice. I devote a substantial portion of this essay to the ongoing crisis in Syria (as of October 2012), in which the Security Council and international justice have played limited roles while the High Commissioner has taken on increasingly visible tasks as investigator, reporter, advocate, and voice of outrage. Though the Syria experience sits at the center of this essay, ultimately I have broader questions: What are the origins of this relationship and how are these different actors meant to interact? How should OHCHR, and the High Commissioner in particular, engage with international justice? What opportunities exist for the High Commissioner to advance the goals of international justice? What might the framework of a High Commissioner-International Justice relationship look like? Are there any risks involved in the increasing association of OHCHR with international justice? If so, are those acceptable risks? How may those risks be managed? Finally, I conclude with some thoughts about key priorities over the coming years.
Monday, January 14, 2013
The external relations of the European Union include all the EU activities versus third countries and intergovernmental entities, together with the involvement of physical and legal persons in these intense and extensive international relations. The European external relations have expanded and evolved over time, also thanks to the action of the EU Court of Justice, thus making the Union a full subject of the International Community, in which it operates not only in terms of the completion of its internal competences, but also and mainly to take a leading role on the international scene as a stabilizing factor and a guide for many countries and peoples, affirming its values and taking up its responsibilities in the governance of globalization. In order to enable the Union to perform at their best these tasks, the Lisbon Treaty has reorganized the EU external competences, placing them in a more unifying logic and institutional framework, and targeting them to the pursuit of objectives and the protection of common values: democracy, respect for fundamental rights, sustainable development and solidarity, promotion of international law and multilateral cooperation for the solution of common problems. The present volume aims to provide the overall picture together with the analysis of the individual components of this articulated, rich and complex set of multilateral, bilateral and transnational relations, taking into account the methodological and decision-making differences that still persist between economic and political-strategic external competences of the Union. Each section combines the critical presentation of the topic with documents and materials allowing to “touch” the action of the European institutions and in particular the Court of Justice.
Despite recent attempts by scholars to examine the absolute prohibition of threats of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, threats remain a largely un-chartered area in international law when compared with actual uses of force. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach and utilising strategic literature and international relations theory, this book examines the theoretical nature behind a threat of force, which, helps to inform and explain why and how the normative structure operates in the way that it does. In addition to considering the normative rules regarding threats of force, this book focuses heavily on understanding the theory of threats of force or "threat theory". Drawing on strategic studies for an insight into practical workings of international law, the heart of the book examines whether international law, or indeed the international community, should distinguish between a threat of force which is little more than mere "sabre rattling" and one that is serious enough to send a state to DEFCON 1. Finally, the book considers the point at which a state pursuing nuclear capabilities may breach Article 2(4) with particular reference to both North Korean and Iranian efforts to pursue nuclear technology.
During the Cold War, international relations and international law were dominated by the struggle for global leadership between the United States and the Soviet Union. The resulting clashes reverberated in legal issues relating to the functioning of the United Nations, the use of force, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, etc. The third world countries, caught in the middle, repeatedly made claims for reform and initiated rule-making initiatives, but with limited results. After the end of the Cold War, the United States, its Western allies, and their shared economic and geopolitical interests remained largely unchallenged in the international arena.
While the United States is arguably still the only superpower and the European Union remains the largest economy, the world is undergoing major change. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and other States in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa are increasingly active voices in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, and have started questioning the dominance of the West in these organizations. These countries are forming alliances in the major international organizations and establishing new institutions to assert their authority and pursue their interests. In short, a new set of actors is moving onto center stage. In the process, these actors are seeking to reshape international rules governing trade and finance, military force, the environment, and beyond.
How will the international legal order evolve to reflect this new multipolar world? Will the international legal order undergo significant change as the global balance of power and influence shifts? Are there barriers preventing these actors from having a full voice in the international legal order? Can the major international organizations adapt adequately? Will new organizations emerge? How will human rights law, environmental law, trade law, the law of armed conflict, the law of the use of force, and other bodies of law reflect the interests and influence of a new set of actors? Are trends emerging already? How should the legal profession and nonlegal experts—in the fields of technology, finance, trade, climate science, arms conflict, and arms control—respond?
During the 2013 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss the evolution of international law in a multipolar world.
- Eri Saikawa, Policy Diffusion of Emission Standards Is There a Race to the Top?
- Daniel Yew Mao Lim & James Raymond Vreeland, Regional Organizations and International Politics: Japanese Influence over the Asian Development Bank and the UN Security Council
- Kimberly J. Morgan, Path Shifting of the Welfare State: Electoral Competition and the Expansion of Work-Family Policies in Western Europe
- Rahsaan Maxwell, The Geographic Context of Political Attitudes among Migrant-Origin Individuals in Europe
- Joshua Eastin & Aseem Prakash, Economic Development and Gender Equality: Is There a Gender Kuznets Curve?
Melischek: The Relevant Market in International Economic Law: A Comparative Antitrust and GATT Analysis
This book provides what international trade law has hitherto lacked: a coherent analysis of 'product likeness' under Article III of the GATT. Christian A. Melischek develops an economic approach to the interpretation of 'like' products on the basis of a comparative analysis with antitrust theories on market definition. Not only does he propose a specific substantive economic test to render the notion of product likeness operational, but he also examines the institutional and procedural frameworks for expert economic evidence necessary to implement an economic approach to the interpretation of product likeness. On a methodological level, the book adds a new interdisciplinary dimension to the legal debate by exploring the use of quantitative and econometric methods for the implementation of the proposed economic test.
Conflict of interest occurs at all levels of governance, ranging from local to global, both in the public and the corporate and financial spheres. There is increasing awareness that conflicts of interest may distort decision-making processes and generate inappropriate outcomes, thereby undermining the functioning of public institutions and markets. However, the current worldwide trend towards regulation, which seeks to forestall, prevent and manage conflicts of interest, has its price. Drawbacks may include the stifling of decision-making processes, the loss of expertise among decision-makers and a vicious circle of distrust. This interdisciplinary and international book addresses specific situations of conflict of interest in different spheres of governance, particularly in global, public and corporate governance.
- January 17, 2013: Jean d’Aspremont (Univ. of Manchester - Law), The Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: Magnifying the Fissures in the Law of International Responsibility
- January 24, 2013: Efthymios Papastavridis (Academy of Athens), Transnational Organized Crime at Sea
- January 31, 2013: Daniel Bethlehem (Formerly, Principal Legal Adviser, U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office), tba
- February 7, 2013: Federico Ortino (King’s College London - Law), The Investment Treaty System as Judicial Review: Some Remarks on its Nature, Scope and Standards
- February 14, 2013: Philip Allott (Univ. of Cambridge), International Law as Law at Last
- February 21, 2013: Payam Akhavan (McGill Univ. - Law), Reducing Genocide to Law: Definition, Meaning, and the Ultimate Crime
- February 28, 2013: Robert Cryer (Univ. of Birmingham - Law), tab
- March 1, 2013: Kenneth Keith (Judge, International Court of Justice), Judging At Home and Abroad
- March 7, 2013: Miša Zgonec-Rozeij (SOAS, Univ. of London - Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy), Aut Dedere, Aut Iudicare
Sunday, January 13, 2013
By what right, or under whose authority, do you try me? This is a common challenge raised by defendants standing trial in front of international criminal courts or tribunals. The challenge comes from the fact that traditionally criminal law is justified as a response of the state to wrongdoing that has been identified by the state as a crime. Nevertheless, since the early 1990's we have seen the development of international criminal tribunals that have the authority to judge certain crimes. This article examines the moral foundation for the authority of international tribunals, arguing that it can be grounded on delegation of powers from the states with primary jurisdiction. The first part of the article examines whether there is any problem, as a matter of principle, in founding the courts' jurisdictional authority on delegation of powers. It will argue that contrary to David Luban's view, there is no inherent problem with states delegating their power to punish to other states or to international tribunals. Nevertheless, in making such a decision the ability of the court to provide fair process — a necessary requirement for the court's ability to issue authoritative decisions — should be taken into account. The second part of the article takes the ICC as a case study and examines whether its jurisdiction can be grounded on delegation of powers. It will be shown that the court's jurisdiction can indeed be founded on both direct and indirect delegation of jurisdiction from states with primary jurisdiction. This conclusion suggests that other international tribunals created by either multilateral treaties or by Security Council decisions may also be founded on similar grounds.