- Ninth report of the American Law Institute project on World Trade Organization Case Law covering 2011
- Chad P. Bown & Petros C. Mavroidis, Introduction
- Michael Hahn & Kirtikumar Mehta, It's a Bird, It's a Plane: Some Remarks on the Airbus Appellate Body Report (EC and Certain Member States – Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/AB/R)
- William J. Davey & Keith E. Maskus, Thailand–Cigarettes (Philippines): A More Serious Role for the ‘Less Favourable Treatment’ Standard of Article III:4
- Geoffrey S. Carlson, Comment on ‘Thailand–Cigarettes (Philippines): A More Serious Role for the ‘Less Favourable Treatment’ Standard of Article III:4’
- Thomas J. Prusa & Edwin Vermulst, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China: Passing the Buck on Pass-Through
- Joost Pauwelyn, Treaty Interpretation or Activism? Comment on the AB Report on United States – ADs and CVDs on Certain Products from China
- Chad P. Bown & Petros C. Mavroidis, One (Firm) Is Not Enough: A Legal–Economic Analysis of EC–Fasteners
- Steve Charnovitz & Bernard Hoekman, US–Tyres: Upholding a WTO Accession Contract – Imposing Pain for Little Gain
- Damien Neven & Joel P. Trachtman, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits: Like Products and Market Definition
- Robert Howse & Philip I. Levy, The TBT Panels: US–Cloves, US–Tuna, US–COOL
- Kamal Saggi & Mark Wu, Yet Another Nail in the Coffin of Zeroing: United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil
- Thomas J. Prusa & Luca Rubini, United States – Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from Korea: It's déjà vu all over again
- Jorge A. Huerta-Goldman, How Easy Is an Easy Case for a Complainant? Comment on US–Zeroing (Korea) DS402
- Tomer Broude & Michael Moore, US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam: A Stir-Fry of Seafood, Statistics, and Lacunae
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
- Special Issue: The UK Supreme Court Annual Review
- Matthew Ryder, Foreword
- Part I: Commentary and Reflections
- Shona Wilson, Judicial Diversity: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Lorne Neudorf, Intervention at the UK Supreme Court
- Brice Dickson, Creativity in the Supreme Court 2011-12
- Chris Hanretty, The Structure of Supreme Court Judgments: Eleven Ways to Leave One's Mark
- William Gummow, The Selection of the Major Premise
- Findlay Stark, ‘A Most Difficult Case': On the Ratio of Gnango
- Lord Drummond Young, Scotland and the Supreme Court
- Part II: Thematic Analysis
- Part III: The 2011–12 Legal Year in Overview
- Part IV: Composition and Statistics
In this new work, Dutton examines the ICC and whether and how its enforcement mechanism influences state membership and the court’s ability to realize treaty goals, examining questions such as:
- Why did states decide to create the ICC and design the institution with this uniquely strong enforcement mechanism?
- Will the ICC’s enforcement mechanism be sufficient to hold states accountable to their commitment so that the ICC can realize its goal of ending impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes?
- Will states view the ICC’s enforcement mechanism as a credible threat and refuse to join unless they already have good domestic human rights practices and institutions that are independent and capable of prosecuting human rights abuses?
- If states that most need to improve their domestic legal practices as relates to protecting against human rights abuses do not join the court, is there any hope that the threat of punishment by the ICC can play a role in bettering state’s human rights practices and deterring individuals from committing mass atrocities?
- Current Events
- José E. Alvarez, Tadić Revisited: The Ayyash Decisions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
- Andreas Zimmermann, Palestine and the International Criminal Court Quo Vadis?: Reach and Limits of Declarations under Article 12(3)
- Shachar Eldar, Exploring International Criminal Law’s Reluctance to Resort to Modalities of Group Responsibility: Five Challenges to International Prosecutions and their Impact on Broader Forms of Responsibility
- Andrew Trotter, Pre-Conviction Detention in International Criminal Trials
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Hirad Abtahi, Odo Ogwuma, & Rebecca Young, The Composition of Judicial Benches, Disqualification and Excusal of Judges at the International Criminal Court: A Survey
- Janine Natalya Clark, Courting Controversy: The ICTY’s Acquittal of Croatian Generals Gotovina and Markač
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Legislation and Cases
- Antonio Coco, The Mark of Cain: The Crime of Terrorism in Times of Armed Conflict as Interpreted by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in R v. Mohammed Gul
- Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, International Terrorism, Resistance and the Jus in Bello before French Courts: The Case of the Iranian Militant Opposition
- Samantha Salsench i Linares, Francoism Facing Justice: Enforced Disappearances before Spanish Courts
- Brandon J. Kinne & Nikolay Marinov, Electoral Authoritarianism and Credible Signaling in International Crises
- Andrea Ruggeri, Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, & Han Dorussen, Managing Mistrust: An Analysis of Cooperation with UN Peacekeeping in Africa
- Peter Tikuisis, David Carment, & Yiagadeesen Samy, Prediction of Intrastate Conflict Using State Structural Factors and Events Data
- Juan E. Ugarriza & Matthew J. Craig, The Relevance of Ideology to Contemporary Armed Conflicts: A Quantitative Analysis of Former Combatants in Colombia
- Vipin Narang, What Does It Take to Deter? Regional Power Nuclear Postures and International Conflict
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Call for Scholarly Papers
ASIL Research Forum
November 1-3, 2013
The American Society of International Law calls for submissions of scholarly paper proposals for the ASIL Research Forum to be held at the New York University School of Law on November 1-3, 2013.
The Research Forum, a Society initiative introduced in 2011, aims to provide a setting for the presentation and focused discussion of works-in-progress by Society members. All ASIL members are invited to attend the Forum, whether presenting a paper or not.
Interested participants should submit an abstract (no more than 500 words in length) summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the Forum. Papers can be on any topic related to international and transnational law and should be unpublished (for purposes of the call, publication to an electronic database such as SSRN is not considered publication). Authors may only submit one proposal, although an author may be listed as a non-primary co-author on multiple proposals. Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome. Member proposals should be submitted here by Friday, June 14.
Proposals should include 1) the name, institutional affiliation, professional position, and contact information for the author(s), and 2) an abstract. Review of the abstracts will be blind, and therefore abstracts should not include any identifying information about the author. Abstracts containing identifying information will not be reviewed. The Research Forum Committee will announce selections by July 25.
The Research Forum Committee will organize the selected paper proposals around common issues, themes, and approaches. Discussants, who will comment on the papers, will be assigned to each cluster of papers. All authors will be required to submit a draft paper 4 weeks before the Research Forum as a condition for participation. Failure to submit a draft paper may result in disqualification. Drafts will be posted on the Research Forum website.
Kristen Boon (Seton Hall)
Timothy Meyer (Georgia)
2013 Research Forum Co-chairs
- Lars Markert & Elisa Freiburg, Moral Damages in International Investment Disputes – On the Search for a Legal Basis and Guiding Principles
- Debashis Chakraboty, Julien Chaisse, & Jaydeep Mukherjee, Deconstructing Service and Investment Negotiating Stance: A case study of India at WTO GATS and Investment Fora
- Nida Mahmood, Democratizing Investment Laws: Ensuring ‘Minimum Standards’ for Host States
- Jason Haynes, The Evolving Nature of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard: Challenging Its Increasing Pervasiveness in Light of Developing Countries’ Concerns - The Case for Regulatory Rebalancing
- Carrie Lei Cai, Double Remedies in Non-Market Economies
- Shawkat Alam, Pundarik Mukhopadhya, & Md. Rizwanul Islam, The Australia India Proposed Free Trade Agreement and Trade in Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges
- S. R. Subramanian, BITs and Pieces in International Investment Law: Enforcement of Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards in the Non-ICSID States: The Case of India
- Umar A. Oseni, Towards Restructuring the Legal Framework for Payment System in International Islamic Trade Finance
- Adeolu Olusegun Adewuyi & Abiodun S Bankole, Have BITs Driven FDI Between ECOWAS Countries and EU?
- Azmat Gani, The Effect of Trade and Institutions on Pollution in the Arab Countries
- Joseph Lee, Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism in the UK Bribery Act 2010: A UK-Taiwan Anti-corporate Bribery Perspective
- David Robitaille, Pour une théorie de la justiciabilité substantielle et processuelle des droits économiques et sociaux
- Béatrice Pastre-Belda, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme - Entre promotion de la subsidiarité et protection effective des droits
- Marie-Françoise Valette, Le droit international des droits de l’homme esquisse-t-il un lien complémentaire à celui de la nationalité
- Thomas Hochmann, Chronique des arrêts de la Cour suprême des États-Unis en matière de droits fondamentaux (octobre 2010 – juin 2012)
- Benoit Frydman, L’arrêt RTBF c. Belgique : un coup d’arrêt au contrôle judiciaire préventif de la presse et des médias (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., RTBF c. Belgique, 29 mars 2011)
- Steve Gilson & France Lambinet, La liberté d'expression syndicale (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Palomo Sanchez e.a. c. Espagne, 12 septembre 2011; Cour eur. dr. h., Vellutini et Michel c. France, 6 octobre 2011)
- Dimitri Yernault, Expropriation déguisée, impôt et droit de propriété : l’affaire Yukos, un épisode de la guerre des oligarques russes devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos c. Russie, 20 septembre 2011)
- Valérie Junod, Transparence contre confidentialité (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde. Ch., Gillberg c. Suède, 3 avril 2012)
- Nicolas Hervieu, Le droit de vote des détenus : histoire sans fin pour un contentieux décisif (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Scoppola (n° 3) c. Italie, 22 mai 2012)
- François Finck, L’application de sanctions individuelles du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Nada c. Suisse, 12 septembre 2012)
- Michel Puéchavy, Une amnistie générale ne peut couvrir les crimes de tortures et de traitements inhumains et dégradants (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Margus c. Croatie, 13 novembre 2012)
- Richard M. Buxbaum, Back to the Past: Old German Bonds and New U.S. Litigation
- Anja Seibert-Fohr, Die völkerrechtliche Verantwortung des Staats für das Handeln von Privaten: Bedarf nach Neuorientierung?
- Armin von Bogdandy & Matthias Goldmann, Die Restrukturierung von Staatsschulden als Ausübung internationaler öffentlicher Gewalt: Zur Möglichkeit der inkrementellen Entwicklung eines Staateninsolvenzrechts
- Altana Filos, Der mühsame Prozess der Dezentralisierung in Griechenland: Das neue Programm „Kallikratis”
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Strong: Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. §1782: Distinguishing International Commercial Arbitration and International Investment Arbitration
For many years, courts, commentators and counsel agreed that 28 U.S.C. §1782 – a somewhat extraordinary procedural device that allows U.S. courts to order discovery in the United States “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” – did not apply to disputes involving international arbitration. However, that presumption has come under challenge in recent years, particularly in the realm of investment arbitration, where the Chevron-Ecuador dispute has made Section 1782 requests a commonplace procedure. This Article takes a rigorous look at both the history and the future of Section 1782 in international arbitration, taking care to distinguish between requests made in the context of international commercial arbitration and requests made in the context of international investment arbitration. In so doing, the Article considers issues relating to grants of jurisdiction, state interests and standard interpretive canons.
The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of International Criminal Tribunals Conference
PluriCourts, University of Oslo, August 30-31 2014
Call for Papers
The establishment of International Criminal Tribunals (including the ICTY, ICTR, and the ICC), and hybrid or internationalized tribunals (including the SCSL, ECCC, East Timor and Kosovo Panels and others) has been hailed as a great achievement within international law. They are characterized as institutions which promoted peace and reconciliation by seeking to prevent and deter war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Legal scholars cite the substantial normative evolution within the field as proof of the value of these institutions. Nevertheless, there is a need for multi-disciplinary evaluation to assess legitimacy and effectiveness of these tribunals. Legitimacy may be assessed by examining the institutions in terms of their origins, function, or output. Aspects include their fairness, selection and composition of judges and staff, prosecutorial discretion, etc., by their upholding legal standards such as methods of interpretation and due process, by assessing the role and interaction with institutional and individual stakeholders, such as victims, communities, states, IOs, and NGOs. Effectiveness may be assessed by contrasting the stated purpose of the international criminal tribunals (ICTs) with their outcomes.
This conference seeks papers pursuing empirical, normative, comparative or theoretical approaches. We welcome contributions from law and social science, including philosophy, sociology, criminology, psychology and history.
An aim of this conference is to assess the legitimacy of the ICTs, and pursue identification of lessons learned from comparative studies of the tribunals: best practices that may be applied by ICTs and other relevant mechanisms. Below are some suggested topics, but we welcome submission of abstracts addressing other related issues.
Fairness, Application of Legal Standards, and the Relationship to the Security Council
Crucial to the legitimacy of criminal justice is procedural fairness. Are international prosecutions fair? To what extent do ICTs ensure due process or transparency?. Is there need to improve the qualification of judges and staff appointed to ICTs?
We are interested in papers discussing prosecutorial independence and discretionary powers. There have been charges of selective geographical engagement; hence we seek papers examining the selection of situations and cases before ICTs. Are the ICT judges finders or makers of ICL and how dynamic should they be in their interpretation? In particular, ICTs are considered to have contributed to the identification of sexual violence as war crimes, what is the impact of this jurisprudence in practice? How can we streamline the process of indictment, arrest, and prosecution while upholding fair trial standards? What is the impact of UN regulations on arrests in practice? How can we improve support and protection of witnesses and evidence? We welcome papers that examine the perceived legitimacy of the tribunals in relation to other political institutions, such the UN Security Council.
We are also interested in papers exploring and contrasting the purpose and effects of hybrid and ad-hoc tribunals with ICC. Further, we welcome studies comparing the differing degrees of democratic control of ICTs. What is the regional representation within ICT staff?
Evaluating the Effectiveness of ICTs
The measure of the legitimacy of international criminal tribunals is complex. We seek empirical studies which assess compliance with ICT decisions and others that measure impact upon victims, relatives, and society. What impact have these tribunals had in relation to the societies which experienced violations? Different constituents have different perspectives. Have ICTs improved the lives of those directly affected by the crimes? Have they contributed to the healing and reconciliation of post-conflict societies? Have they prevented or deterred international crimes from being committed? Do ICTs promote the preservation of history, the right to the truth, or restoration of peace? Or are ICTs primarily symbolic markers of shared values? Do the prosecutions produce an adequate historical record of gross human rights violations? Or is the framework of a trial too narrow to allow an in-depth analysis of the events? How does geographic/national background affect output? And what about victims of crimes not prosecuted; what impact do the tribunals have upon them? Whose justice does ICTs serve? What are the key dilemmas with respect to compliance with ICTs?
Are ICTs agents of social change? Are they dispassionate dispensers of criminal justice? Are they neither, or both, as the case may be? Should they be?
We seek studies exploring the perception of ICTs in national legislatures, courts, and executive agencies- how does this affect funding, support, and compliance?
Cross-Fertilization of ICT with Other Regimes and Complementarity
To what extent have the ICTs impacted each other in terms of procedure and substantive outcomes? We also invite comparative studies that discuss whether the ICTs have impacted other areas of international law, is there harmonization or competition with human rights courts or other courts(including between different ICTs)? What is the relationship between ICTs and other institutional stakeholders, such as the UN Security Council, General Assembly, and regional organizations, including the EU, AU, and NATO.
We also welcome papers which will analyze the relationship between ICTs and national courts via the principle of complementarity. What is the impact of ICTs on national penal systems? Do national courts influence the reasoning of ICTs? Are ICTs and national courts functioning as if they are integrated? Is there migration of legal reasoning, concepts, principles, etc. between the different levels?
Further, we welcome perspectives exploring whether other mechanisms – such as truth and reconciliation commissions – may prove more effective or legitimate? Have ICTs diverted attention from these institutions?
Towards the Future: Facing Funding and Legitimacy Challenges
There is a need to review how procedures and staffing may be amended to improve effectiveness and quality. Should ICTs be strengthened? The international criminal tribunals currently face funding challenges. What is the impact of funding on the design and function of ICTs? How can we improve the qualifications of judges and staff members of the ICTs while facing funding cuts? What is the role of NGOs vis-à-vis ICTs?
Finally, we are interested in studies examining compliance with ICT decisions in different geographic regions. Is ICL viewed as a type of “legal imperialism”?
Paper proposals should be e-mailed to email@example.com by 1 November 2013, with an abstract no longer than 500 words. Please include your CV. All proposals will be answered by 1 December 2013. Draft papers should be submitted by May 31st 2014. Conference papers will be selected for publication in a comprehensive anthology on the legitimacy of international criminal tribunals.
The article engages in an ideology critique of international criminal law texts and discourse, drawing on a theoretical framework developed by critical legal studies scholars in order to interrogate, in a different jurisprudential context, the assumptions undergirding contemporary international criminal law (ICL) scholarship. It argues that the triumphalism surrounding ICL and its adequacy to deal with conflict and violence ignores the factors and forces — including specific international legal interventions in countries’ political-economies — that shape or even help establish the environment from which such conflict and violence emanates. In uncritically celebrating ICL and equating it with a pacific international rule of law, ICL scholarship risks shaping passive acquiescence in the status quo and discouraging more through-going efforts to address the systemic forces underlying instances of violence, including political-economic forces shaped by international legal institutions.
Through the life of one extraordinary man, this biography reveals what the term human rights meant to the men and women who endured two world wars, and how this major political and intellectual movement ultimately inspired and enshrined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. René Cassin was a man of his generation, committed to moving from war to peace through international law, and whose work won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1968. His life crossed all the major events of the first seventy years of the twentieth century, and illustrates the hopes, aspirations, failures and achievements of an entire generation. It shows how today's human rights regimes emerged from the First World War as a pacifist response to that catastrophe and how, after 1945, human rights became a way to go beyond the dangers of absolute state sovereignty, helping to create today's European project.
Broude & Hestermeyer: The First Condition of Progress? Freedom of Speech and the Limits of International Trade Law
Can international trade law be utilized to promote the freedom of speech in the face of repressive censorship? Even before Google’s abrupt departure from China, associated with Chinese restrictions on speech, academics and advocates were arguing that WTO dispute settlement can be used to promote freedom of speech and access to information in China and elsewhere by targeting internet censorship as an illegal trade barrier. If this were indeed one area in which international trade law might protect a human right in the face of adverse political restrictions, it could serve as a powerful vindication of economic liberalization that is otherwise often considered to contradict or compromise human rights. Through careful analysis of the gaps between human rights and international trade law we take a skeptical perspective towards this line of thinking, arguing instead that international trade disputes relating to censorship (such as a potential "Google" case) are indifferent towards the freedom of expression and ultimately promote economic interests with little, if any, impact on restricted speech.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
At a time when diplomatic practices and the demands imposed on diplomats are changing quite radically, and many foreign ministries feel they are being left behind, there is a need to understand the various forces that are affecting the profession. Diplomacy remains a salient activity in today's world in which the basic authoritative actor is still the state. At the same time, in some respects the practice of diplomacy is undergoing significant, even radical, changes to the context, tools, actors and domain of the trade. These changes spring from the changing nature of the state, the changing nature of the world order, and the interplay between them. One way of describing this is to say that we are seeing increased interaction between two forms of diplomacy, "club diplomacy" and "network diplomacy". The former is based on a small number of players, a highly hierarchical structure, based largely on written communication and on low transparency; the latter is based on a much larger number of players (particularly of civil society), a flatter structure, a more significant oral component, and greater transparency.
The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy is an authoritative reference tool for those studying and practicing modern diplomacy. It provides an up-to-date compendium of the latest developments in the field. Written by practitioners and scholars, the Handbook describes the elements of constancy and continuity and the changes that are affecting diplomacy. The Handbook goes further and gives insight to where the profession is headed in the future. Co-edited by three distinguished academics and former practitioners, the Handbook provides comprehensive analysis and description of the state of diplomacy in the 21st Century and is an essential resource for diplomats, practitioners and academics.
- Anja Wiesbrock, An Obligation for Sustainable Procurement? Gauging the Potential Impact of Article 11 TFEU on Public Contracting in the EU
- Ramón Vidal Puig, The Scope of the New Exclusive Competence of the European Union with Regard to ‘Foreign Direct Investment’
- Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, EU Member State Enforcement of ‘Mixed’ Agreements and Access to Justice: Rethinking Direct Effect
The insightful book contributes to developing the architecture for a post2012 global climate agreement and, in doing so, seeks and proposes new approaches to climate change mitigation by linking it to the international trade system. The author suggests the adoption of a bottom-up approach to climate change negotiations by using the evolution of multilateral trade agreements as a model for reaching a global climate treaty. He discusses the innovative approach of inserting climate goals within regional trade agreements, given their proliferation – especially bilateral – in the international trading system. He explains the trade implications of climate change mitigation policies by analyzing a couple of areas where the international regimes for trade and climate change mitigation may potentially clash.
CONVOCATORIA PARA PRESENTACIÓN DE ENSAYOS
Volumen 1, Número 2, 2013.
Estamos actualmente recibiendo ensayos para nuestro próximo número por lo que alentamos la presentación de ensayos que se ocupen de los problemas actuales y sus soluciones, así como temas en boga sobre:• Arbitraje Comercial Internacional • Arbitraje de Inversión • Derecho y Política de Inversión Extranjera • Derecho Económico Internacional La Revista está abierta a contribuciones en inglés y/o español, pues ésta se enfoca en el estudio y promoción de ideas relacionadas al derecho comercial internacional, en una base bilingüe (inglés-español). La Revista se divide en tres secciones en las que las contribuciones son bien recibidas: 1. Artículos académicos. Esta sección contendrá aquellas contribuciones relacionadas con trabajos académicos que se ocupen de temas de actualidad y problemas legales que su autor considere puedan servir para la discusión de dichos temas. 2. Resúmenes de casos. En esta sección se publicarán aquellas contribuciones cuya finalidad sea resumir casos recientes, mismas que podrán contener breves opiniones sobre la decisión del tribunal estatal o tribunal arbitral de que se trate. 3. Notas sobre libros, conferencias y actualizaciones legislativas. Notas relacionadas con libros, conferencias y actualizaciones legislativas de cualquier jurisdicción, incluyendo una breve opinión sobre el asunto comentado. Para mayor información sobre los criterios para presentar contribuciones, favor de hacer clic aquí.
Fecha límite para presentar ensayos
31 de julio de 2013.
* * * *
CALL FOR PAPERS
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2013.
We are currently considering the submission of contributions for our next issue. We encourage submission of manuscripts dealing with current problems and their proposed solutions as well as trendy topics on:
• International Commercial Arbitration
• Investment Arbitration
• Investment Law & Policy
• International Economic Law
The Journal welcomes contributions in English and/or Spanish, since it focuses on the study and fostering of ideas regarding international trade law on a bilingual basis (English-Spanish).
The Journal is divided into three sections on which contributions are welcomed:
1. Academic Articles. This section will contain those contributions related to academic works dealing with current topics and legal problems its author considers relevant for the discussion of such topics.
2. Case Law Reviews. This section includes contributions summarizing recent case law, which may contain brief opinions on the holding of the relevant court or arbitral tribunal.
3. Books, Conferences & Legislative Up-Date Notes. All notes related to books, conferences and legislative updates from any jurisdiction containing a brief opinion on the matter summarized. For the criteria on the submission of contributions, please click here.
Deadline to submit contributions
July 31, 2013.
Carter & Pocar: International Criminal Procedure: The Interface of Civil Law and Common Law Legal Systems
The emergence of international criminal courts, beginning with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and including the International Criminal Court, has also brought an evolving international criminal procedure. In this book, the authors examine selected issues that reflect a blending of, or choice between, civil law and common law models of procedure. The topics include background on civil law and common law legal systems; plea bargaining; witness proofing; written and oral evidence; self-representation and the use of assigned, standby, and amicus counsel; the role of victims; and the right to appeal.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Outside the setting of self-defence, unilateral regime change is highly disfavoured in international law. Forcibly deposing a foreign government strikes at the heart of State autonomy protected by Art. 2 (4) UN Charter. Although the Security Council has not responded to the vast majority of cases of regime change in the post-war era, the fundamental nature of non-intervention norms places a heavy burden of justification on proponents of regime change. For the most part the asserted claims cannot surmount this burden. Claims based on democracy promotion rest on uncertain developments in the law of recognition and a logically appealing but normatively weak connection between a regime’s democratic bona fides and its standing to object to external intervention. Claims based on regional democracy promotion regimes incorrectly understand diplomatic sanctions against anti-democratic usurpers to legitimize forcible measures. In fact, those regimes specifically disclaim a reliance on military force. Invitations to intervene by deposed democratic regimes find more support in international law, though only two cases — Haiti and Sierra Leone — appear clearly on point. Critically, the UN played a central role in all stages of those cases. Their precedential value outside that factual setting is unclear. Finally, the claim that regime change is a necessary component of humanitarian intervention rests on the generally weak legal status of such interventions.
The argument that regime change can be a proportional response by a State acting in legitimate self-defence finds more support in the UN Charter and State practice. The US ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which elicited virtually no criticism from other States and certainly no efforts at formal condemnation, stands as the most recent example of a proportionality calculus that takes into account the threat posed by a regime’s continued exercise of power.
Regime change authorized by the Security Council faces few contemporary legal objections. The Security Council regularly connects principles of governance (specifically democratic governance) to its Chapter VII authority over matters of international peace and security. And it has twice used those powers explicitly to approve regime change - the cases of Haiti and Sierra Leone. The Libya intervention is a more ambiguous case, with members of the Security Council sharply disagreeing over whether Resolution 1973 permitted strategic assistance to the rebels as a means of protecting Libyan civilians.
- Pierre Lambert, Une justice décriée est-elle encore crédible ?
- Sandrine Turgis, La coexistence d’internet et des médias traditionnels sous l’angle de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
- Nathalie Mathieu, Séparation des parents et garde d’enfant – Le point sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
- Geoffrey Willems, La vie familiale des homosexuels au prisme des articles 8, 12 et 14 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme : mariage et conjugalité, parenté et parentalité
- Olivier Peter, Alimentation et droits des personnes détenues : analyse dans la perspective du droit européen
- Alain-Didier Olinga, Pratique de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples au cours de l’année 2011
- Anne Weyembergh, Vers une approche maximaliste du droit à l’assistance d’un avocat (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Stojkovic c. France et Belgique, 27 octobre 2011)
- Thierry Bontinck, Priorité à la défense (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Mor c. France, 15 décembre 2011)
- Thomas Hochmann, Discours de haine et préjugé (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Aksu c. Turquie, 15 mars 2012)
- Bertus de Villiers, Codification of „Intergovernmental Relations” by Way of Legislation: The Experiences of South Africa and Potential Lessons for Young Multitiered Systems
- Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor, Die Herausforderung der medizinischen Entwicklung für das internationale soft law am Beispiel der Totalsequenzierung des menschlichen Genoms
- Matthias Hartwig, Völkerrechtliche Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahre 2009
- Santiago Villalpando, On the International Court of Justice and the Determination of Rules of Law
- International Legal Theory
- Janina Dill, Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War?
- Henry Shue, Laws of War, Morality, and International Politics: Compliance, Stringency, and Limits
- Larry May, A Hobbesian Approach to Cruelty and the Rules of War
- David Luban, Military Necessity and the Cultures of Military Law
- International Law and Practice
- Kenneth Keith, ‘International Law is Part of the Law of the Land’: True or False?
- Christian Henderson & Noam Lubell, The Contemporary Legal Nature of UN Security Council Ceasefire Resolutions
- Maarten den Heijer, Diplomatic Asylum and the Assange Case
Hague International Tribunals: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Daniel Nsereko, The ICC and Complementarity in Practice
- Vaios Koutroulis, And Yet It Exists: In Defence of the ‘Equality of Belligerents’ Principle
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Goldmann: A Matter of Perspective: Global Governance and the Distinction between Public and Private Authority (and Not Law)
This paper seeks to make the case for the necessity and feasibility of a clear-cut distinction between public and private authority on the international level. While the significance of the distinction between the public and the private had long been under dispute between individualistic (or liberal) and holistic (or republican) approaches to the relationship between state and society, discourse theory reconceptualizes the relationship between state and society and confirms the necessity for such a distinciton. The emergence of global governance requires shifting the focus of discourse theory from public law to public authority, and from a single society to a pluralistic order. On this basis, the distinction between public and private authority becomes one of perspective: "public" is the authority exercised within a certain self-defined group, and "private" the authority affecting those who are not part of that group. The operationalization of this approach leads to some unexpected insights about international legal phenomena.