The latest issue of the Stanford Journal of International Law (Vol. 49, no. 1, Winter 2013) is out. Contents include:
Florian Franke has published Der personelle Anwendungsbereich des internationalen Investitionsschutzrechts (Nomos 2013). Here's the abstract:Heutzutage spannen circa 3.000 Investitionsschutzabkommen ein dichtes Netz aus hauptsächlich bilateralen Verbindungen um den Erdball. Für effektiven Rechtsschutz ihrer Auslandsinvestitionen sind Investoren auf die Anwendbarkeit eines dieser Abkommen angewiesen.
Die Arbeit liefert erstmals eine detaillierte und systematische Kartographierung der personellen Anwendbarkeit von Investitionsschutzabkommen. Dazu wurden die Bestimmungen von mehr als 1200 Abkommen akribisch ausgewertet und kategorisiert. Aufbauend auf einer umfangreichen Untersuchung der völkerrechtlichen Regeln zur Wirksamkeit einer Staatsangehörigkeit, besonders im Rahmen der Ausübung Diplomatischen Schutzes, wird eine Methodik für die Behandlung von Phänomenen wie Treaty Shopping oder Nationality Planning entwickelt. Vor diesem Hintergrund erfolgt eine Analyse und kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Entscheidungen in Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren zu dieser Thematik.
The latest issue of the Journal of International Economic Law (Vol. 16, no. 2, June 2013) is out. Contents include:
This chapter looks at the relationship between the Security Council and the ICC. It zooms in on the relevance of international criminal law to UN peace enforcement operations, and conversely addresses the question as to the extent to which the Security Council can inform the application of international criminal law by the ICC, either through authorizing the use of force, or otherwise acting under Chapter VII. In this discussion, a distinction must be drawn between the current core crimes of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide on the one hand; and the would-be crime of aggression on the other. The crime of aggression is directly embedded in peace maintenance, and the links to the Security Council for that crime are therefore more pertinent. With this distinction in mind, the chapter surveys the interplay between the relevant regimes at two distinct levels. It starts with an institutional inquiry regarding: (1) the deferral and referral schemes and, (2) the potential for ICC review of Security Council practices in this regard. This inquiry is based on the models presented by both the Darfur, and more particularly, the Libya interventions. From that springboard, the chapter subsequently jumps into broader and more hypothetical substantive questions, which specifically examine the relationship between the Security Council and the ICC in the context of aggression. Given the plethora of academic writing that already exists on this matter, which may remain purely academic given the intricate ratification and jurisdiction schemes, this chapter purports only to zero in on two specific questions. Firstly, can the use of force, in the course of an operation that has been authorized by the Security Council, but that gravely exceeds the Security Council’s mandate, be qualified as aggression despite the authorization? And secondly, how should the ICC respond to a determination by the Security Council that aggression has not occurred. On the basis of the analysis of these questions, some overarching observations are offered on the role of the ICC and international criminal law more broadly, in the context of UN peace enforcement missions. These reflections include some preliminary thoughts on whether the Security Council and the ICC actually can, and are likely to, join forces to execute their shared responsibility to preserve world peace, or whether they are instead bound to operate in a more competitive fashion.
Over the past two decades, cooperation between international law (IL) and international relations (IR) scholars has produced a vibrant, interdisciplinary IL/IR scholarship. Yet such interdisciplinarity has also produced a backlash from some legal scholars. Martti Koskenniemi, in particular, has for decades warned legal scholars about the potentially damaging effects of exposure to international relations. In his writings, Koskenniemi paints a picture of an IR field dominated by realism, in thrall to American policy-makers, and firmly committed to an antiformalism that is corrosive of international law and of the international legal profession, whose American practitioners have become so corrupted as to be unable to distinguish the law from the interests of American imperial power. Koskenniemi’s concerns, I argue, are not without foundation, yet his critique of IR represents at best an anachronism, and at worst a distortion of IR scholars’ attitudes, aims, and influence on the legal profession. IR scholarship is guilty of multiple sins, which can and should be corrected in dialogue with international legal scholars, but these sins are quite different from those imagined by Koskenniemi.
The paper is organized in three parts. In the first, I briefly summarize Koskenniemi’s indictment of IR, including his provocative claim that IR has corrupted the American international law community. This argument, I argue, is flawed by a series of distortions of the views of IR and legal scholars alike, and does not survive careful scrutiny. In the second part of the paper, I take issue with Koskenniemi’s characterization of the IR field as a realist policy science, drawing on recent data to depict a field that is far more theoretically diverse and less in thrall to American policy-makers than Koskenniemi suggests. This is not to say, however, that IR scholarship is without fault as an approach to the study of international law. In the third and final section, therefore, I consider the real problems with IR scholarship in relation to international law. By contrast with Koskenniemi, who sees IR’s relentless antiformalism and commitment to interdisciplinarity as the field’s original sins, I argue that contemporary IR is characterized by precisely the opposite problems, namely a naïve and unwitting formalism in its treatment of law, and a disciplinary insularity that has prevented IR scholars from learning some basic lessons that are familiar to international legal scholars. These weaknesses of IR scholarship are real, but they are remediable through more, not less, interdisciplinary collaboration.
On June 13-14, 2013, l’université Paris 8 and l’université de Cergy Pontoise will jointly sponsor and host a conference on "Le phénomène institutionnel international dans tous ses états : transformation, déformation ou reformation ?" The program is here. Here's the idea:Les institutions internationales n’ont jamais été autant sollicitées pour assurer la gestion de questions d’intérêt commun ou global. Quelle place est dorénavant faite aux organisations intergouvernementales créées sur la base du modèle onusien ? Ne sont pas concurrencées par des institutions informelles jugées dorénavant plus efficaces ? Le droit international ne doit-il revoir les principes ou les catégories à partir duquel ont été pensées la personnalité et la responsabilité des organisations internationales ? C’est à ces questions très générales liées aux multiplications des formes qu’empruntent les modes internationaux de coopération institutionnalisée que ce colloque organisé en partenariat par l’université Paris 8 et l’université de Cergy Pontoise ambitionne de répondre.
This article examines the widely ignored but important issue regarding the provisional arrest and detention of persons suspected of having committed international crimes by international or internationalized courts. The paper examines the pioneer case law and practice of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as well as the emerging practice of the permanent International Criminal Court, to evaluate how these courts have generally addressed the rights of these individuals to due process and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention before prosecutors seek formal charges against them. The authors argue that while the early international jurisprudence established apparently strong legal standards to preserve the rights of suspects, using doctrines such as abuse of process, these courts have generally failed to offer the meaningful remedies required to resolve manifest violations of such fundamental human rights by the detaining authorities. The article offers preliminary recommendations on how, going forward, the rights guaranteed to suspects allegedly involved in the worst crimes known to law in international(ized) courts may be better protected.
The Italian Society of International Law will host its Eighteenth Annual Conference, on June 13-14, 2013, in Naples. The theme is "Diritto internazionale e pluralità delle culture." The program is here.
This Article develops an understanding of authority as the ability to establish content-laden reference points that participants in legal discourse can hardly escape. Situating authority between coercion by force and persuasion through argument, it carves out recognition and constraint as constitutive elements of authority. Delegation — a conditional grant of authority from principals to agents — is typically taken to account for the authority of international courts and tribunals (ICTs). But the Article argues that delegation is at best only the starting point of ICTs’ authority. The dynamics of the legal discourse stabilize authority and account for its further growth. The conception of authority that emerges from the discussion herein is less one of a command that demands blind obedience than a reference point that redistributes argumentative burdens. Communication is authority’s medium. Taking a step back from immediate normative questions, the Article shows what it takes for ICTs to have authority. It presents the communicative dynamics that build up ICTs’ authority and showcases the discursive resources ICTs themselves use to induce deference. The Article suggests in conclusion that a better understanding of what it takes for ICTs to have authority will also advance questions about such authority’s normative legitimacy.
The latest issue of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 2, no. 2, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The Africa Nazarene University Law Journal (ANULJ) publishes contributions dealing with comparative and international law, with a special focus on topics of relevance to Africa. Principally, ANULJ intends to stimulate scholarly research into the comparative and international aspects of law that is relevant to Africa. It is published under the auspices of the Africa Nazarene University Law School in Nairobi, Kenya. The Journal is published twice in a year, in April and November.
The Journal calls for original unpublished articles on any area of comparative and international law for its second issue to be published in November 2013. All submitted articles will be peer reviewed.
Submission Guidelines
Articles submitted for publication should not have been previously published. Articles should be between 8,000 and 16,000 words (including footnotes) while reviews of cases and books should not be more than 1,500 words. They should be typed in Times New Roman, at 12 point (footnotes 10 point) font size and with 1.5 spacing. Articles should be in conformity with the citation style prescribed in the 4th edition of the Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) which can be accessed here.
Submitted articles should have an abstract of not more than 250 words and should also include a short professional profile of the author(s). The deadline for submission for the current call for articles is 30 July 2013. Articles should be submitted by e-mail in MS Word format to the Editorial Board: anulj@anu.ac.ke
Call for Applications
COST Action PhD Training School
“THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL CONSTITUTIONALISM”
28 -30 August 2013
VU University, Amsterdam (the Netherlands)
Organized by COST Action IS1003 together with CEPT (Centre on the Politics of Transnational Law) and the Faculty of Law, VU University, Amsterdam
Keynote speakers
Prof. dr Jens Bartelson (Department of Political Science, University of Lund)
Prof. dr Nicholas Tsagourias (University of Sheffield, School of Law) (tbc)
Prof. dr Neil Walker (Edinburgh Law School)
Theme
Scholars of international constitutionalism have long discussed how various international legal systems can be characterized as ‘constitutional’, ‘plural’, or ‘fragmented’, the form and content of purported international constitutional norms, the potential legal bases on which these norms might rest and how these might interact with political processes. This PhD training school seeks to further explore and critically reflect upon the interplay between politics and law in these processes from an interdisciplinary perspective.
How can we understand the politics of constitutionalism? How do the various versions of international constitutionalism, pluralism, or fragmentation impact claims to legitimate authority? How does constitutionalism transform the ‘international’, and (re)produce the ‘political’ and the ‘legal’ as separate realms or social practices? What is the role for democracy and the state in a constitutionalizing international system? What actors, what norms, and what institutions and procedures become more or less important as international law is understood as either more constitutional, or more pluralist or more fragmented? How does international constitutionalism relate to basic ideas regarding justice, procedural fairness, and the rule of law beyond the state? The PhD school will address these and related issues regarding the politics of international constitutionalism, and explicitly invites participants to think broadly regarding this theme.
Coordinators
Tanja Aalberts (t.e.aalberts@vu.nl)
Jessica Lawrence (j.c.lawrence@vu.nl)
Wouter Werner (w.g.werner@vu.nl)
Format
Participants must submit a paper for presentation and discussion at the summer school. In addition to keynotes and PhD presentations, there will be workshops on Academic Publishing. In this light, participants are encouraged to submit a draft article, and get specific guidance and prepare their papers for (joint) publication in an internationally refereed journal. Alternatively, candidates can submit a positioning paper. For participants working on a publication, there will be a followup workshop in Amsterdam on January 8-9, 2014, with Prof. dr Jeffrey Dunoff (Temple University), to finalize the articles for submission.
Financial Support
This school is supported by the COST Action IS1003 ‘International Law Between Constitutionalization and Fragmentation: The Role of Law in the Post-National Constellation’ (www.il-cf.eu). A limited number of grants (up to a maximum of €500) are available for students from countries participating in COST IS1003 and who are in need of financial support to attend the PhD training school.
Applications
Applications will be accepted until June 17 2013. These should include
• Contact and institutional details of the applicant
• An outline of the applicant’s PhD project (max. 500 words)
• an abstract of the paper or draft article for the summer school (max. 500 words)
• A request for financial assistance, and explanation of need.
Participants will be selected on the basis of the relevance of their project to the topic of the PhD training school and the research agenda of the COST Action. Successful applicants will be notified by 26 June
For any questions or to submit completed applications, please contact j.c.lawrence@vu.nl
The latest issue of Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional (Vol. 5, no. 1, March 2013) is out. Contents include:
The Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana has issued a call for papers for the Second Contemporary Challenges of International Environmental Law Conference, to take place June 5-6, 2014. Here's the call:CALL FOR PAPERS
This is an opportunity for interdisciplinary academic debate among legal scholars and scientists from various disciplines addressing issues of environmental protection. The topics covered by the conference include, but are not limited to:
- Climate Change
- Air Pollution
- Protection of Oceans
- Access to Water
- Forests
- Biodiversity
- Sustainable Development
- Human Rights and Environment
- Protection of Environment in Armed Conflicts
- Environment and Indigenous Peoples
- Green Energy
- Waste Management
- International Trade and Environmental Protection
Abstracts for papers and posters must be no longer that 350 words in length and should be submitted by Thursday, September 5, 2013 through email to CCIEL@pf.uni-lj.si. The submission must include the name and title of the author, position, name and address of the current institution of employment, and a short biography.
Successful applicants will be informed by October 5, 2012. The authors selected for paper presentation at the conference will be expected to submit completed papers with maximum 8,000 words in length (including footnotes and bibliography) by Saturday, March 1, 2014. The papers presented at the conference will be published in a conference book.
Travel and accommodation costs will have to be carried by the authors of the selected papers and poster presentations themselves. Please address any further enquiries to CCIEL@pf.uni-lj.si.
The latest issue of the Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht (Vol. 23, no. 1, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of the Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (Vol. 65, no. 1, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of International Theory (Vol. 5, no. 2, July 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 24, no. 2, June 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of Europa Ethnica (2013, nos. 1/2). Contents include:
Call for papers for workshop and publication on The Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in Spain
4 to 6 November 2013, University of Seville (Spain), Law School
Deadline for submissions of abstracts: 31 July 2013
The Topic
Recent years have witnessed the crystallization of the social expectation that business corporations, and transnational companies in particular, bear the responsibility to respect the human rights of the individuals and communities that may be adversely affected by their operations and/or value chains.
The adoption of the UN Global Compact, ensued by the process leading towards the endorsement by the Human Rights Council of the Protect, Respect and Remedy United Nations Framework and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, have contributed to clarifying the scope of corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and its interaction with the State’s duty to protect those rights. The UN Guiding Principles reflect the up to date most authoritative expression of the existing international consensus on this issue-area, as reflected in the overall support to the principles by States, companies and international civil society actors at large. Moreover, the conceptual framework “Protect, Respect and Remedy” has contributed to a rapid development of international normative and policy standards, as illustrated by the revised ODCE Guidelines on Multinational Corporations; the revised IFC Sustainability Framework, or the ISO 26000 (Social Responsibility) Norm, among many others.
The UN Framework and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are not a point of arrival, but a point of departure for future developments. In particular the UN framework does not provide an international implementation nor a simple monitoring mechanism. Companies cannot be forced to follow the principles, only encouraged to do so; it rests mainly on their willingness; the only way to go beyond voluntarism is for domestic law to step in. The Framework and Guiding Principles set an agenda for action that simultaneously requires the revision of State legislative and policy frameworks; the establishment or improvement of companies’ human rights policies and due diligence mechanisms, and the opening of new avenues for dialogue and accountability involving duty-bearers, rights-holders, and other stakeholders. In unfolding this complex agenda, there is a pressing need for both academic reflection and policy innovation.
The expansion of the Spanish foreign direct investment sector in recent decades and the ever-growing overseas presence of Spanish transnational companies has been coupled to increased civil society concern and pressure derived from the adverse human rights impact derived from these companies’ operations. Allegations of human rights violations have been particularly significant in relation to extractive industries and renewable energies in Latin America, including in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples. Yet, despite some important CSR initiatives in the past, the business and human rights agenda in Spain remains mostly uncharted.
The conference aims at identifying the implications of implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for the Spanish policy and legal framework.
The Call
The Conference welcomes the submission and presentation of papers falling within its five thematic lines. Following the overarching theme of the conference papers may consider (but are not limited to) the following topics:
- The interaction between the different instruments and standards on business and human rights
- Due diligence mechanisms of companies in human rights
- EU Implementation of the Guiding Principles
- National implementation of the Ruggie framework and Guiding Principles, with special consideration for the Spanish Action Plan and process
- Judicial and non judicial remedies
- The application of the Guiding Principles in conflict or high risk situations
- The application of the Guiding Principles in relation to vulnerable persons and groups
Submission of papers
- Abstracts/paper proposals of approximately 200 words should be sent to Prof. Dr. Carmen Márquez Carrasco, cmarque@us.es by 31 July 2013.
- Papers will be subject to peer review by members of the Scientific Committee of the Conference. Within ten days of your submission the Committee will inform you if your paper proposal has been accepted.
- The selected papers will be considered for presentation at the conference and for publication in an edited volume together with the papers of the panelists.
- For further information of the submissions, please consult http://www.congresoempresasddhh.com/.
Timeline
- Deadline for submission of abstracts: July 31, 2013.
- Deadline for submission of papers: September 30, 2013.
Contact
For more information please do not hesitate to contact: marta.congresoddhh@gmail.com.
The latest issue of the Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (Vol. 96, no. 1, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of Ethics & International Affairs (Vol. 27, no. 2, Summer 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of Global Responsibility to Protect (Vol. 5, no. 2, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of the Journal of International Arbitration (Vol. 30, no. 3, June 2013) is out. Contents include:
Call for Papers
The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration
November 8, 2013
World Trade Institute (WTI) – University of Bern
***SUBMISSION DEADLINE: July 15, 2013***
The World Trade Institute (WTI) of the University of Bern invites the submission of papers and abstracts for its conference entitled “The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration”. The conference will examine the development of the concept of the “State” in a field that currently presents an increasing number of controversial disputes: Investor-State Arbitration. However, it is often unclear whether we can attribute conduct to a State or determine its rights and responsibilities.
The essence of this system is something unusual in international law, as controversies between foreign investors and host States are allegedly insulated from political and diplomatic relations between States. In return for agreeing to independent international arbitration, the Host State is assured that the State of the investor’s nationality will not espouse the claim or intervene in a factual controversy and is theoretically relieved of the pressure of having its relations with the Home State compromised.
The Host State plays a dual role in these disputes: it is a party to the arbitration – usually the respondent – the entity that through governmental, legislative or even judicial activity has allegedly breached investor’s rights; and it is also a party to the treaty creating the cause of action for the investor, a kind of agreement that increasingly includes provisions on exceptions, interpretation or even dispute settlement, where another party – usually the Home State – could have a say.
As the use of Investor-State Arbitration has increased spectacularly in recent years, this dispute resolution mechanism has progressively come under more scrutiny. Critics of this regime often point out that it allows private arbitrators to decide the legality of sovereign acts or public policies and there are concerns about “forum shopping”, high costs, transparency and fairness to third parties, lack of predictability and consistency.
Understanding what a State is in this context should therefore be an important object of study, but most research has been focused on the rights of the investor rather than on the analysis of the different components of a State in order to examine the State’s attribution, rights and responsibilities. On the other hand, States do not always consider the possible effects of their actions or public policies under international law.
This conference seeks to discuss some questions about the State in the context of investorstate dispute settlement. What do we refer to when we talk about the “State”? Which entities constitute the “State”? Is every act of a public agency or instrumentality attributed to the “State”? What are the implications of the State’s consent to arbitration in investment treaties? What are the effects of its denunciation? Are States bound when the awards are assigned to a third-party? What is the standard of review of the State’s actions under international law vis-à- vis domestic law? Can we apply Investor-State arbitration when the foreign investor is another State?
The conference aims to answer these questions from an interdisciplinary perspective for a better understanding of intended or unintended effects of State actions. For that purpose the present call for papers is directed to legal practitioners and academics, as well as to economists and political scientists in order to analyse the many facets of State activity.
Potential topics for the conference include:
- State as a single unity or State as a set of institutions
- State Autonomy Theory and investment arbitration
- State-Owned Enterprises or State Agencies as foreign investors
- State attribution in investment disputes
- Effects of denunciation of investment treaties
- State-State Arbitration in investment disputes
- General exceptions in Investment treaties
- States as claimants in investment disputes
- International State responsibility and investment arbitration
- The role of the Home State in investment arbitration
Please submit papers proposals on substantial, original, and unpublished research related to all aspects of the role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration, including but not limited to the topics discussed above. In addition, we encourage submissions of interdisciplinary research including research in economics and political science.
The aim is to disseminate information and to stimulate constructive scientific discussion with legal researchers, economists, political scientists, diplomats and representatives of governmental institutions regarding the consequences of State activity and the role of the State in the light of recent developments in Investor-State Arbitration. Rather than following the format of a typical panel, the discussion group will be a less structured session that will allow both experts and participants to engage in a lightly moderated but productive conversation.
Abstract submissions must be between 300-500 words in length and should be accompanied by a short resume. Please submit your documents to Shaheeza Lalani (Shaheeza.Lalani@wti.org) or Rodrigo Polanco (Rodrigo.Polanco@wti.org). Papers that are selected for the conference are expected to be published as part of an edited volume on the subject.
Scholars who have their abstracts accepted are expected to have a final draft submitted by October 15, 2013. Each paper submitted should be an original that has not been published in a prior work. Authors selected for presentation of their papers at the conference are expected to submit completed papers with a maximum close to 5,000 words in length (without considering footnotes).
This conference will be the first WTI Doctoral Programme Conference, and it will be jointly organised with the International Investment Initiative (I3 ) of the WTI.
Important Dates
Abstract Submission Deadline: July 15, 2013
Notification of Acceptance of a Paper: August 15, 2013
Final Submission of an Accepted Paper: October 15, 2013
Conference Date: November 8, 2013
Alison Brysk (Univ. of California, Santa Barbara - Global & International Studies) has published The Politics of the Globalization of Law: Getting from Rights to Justice (Routledge 2013). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:How does the globalization of law, the emergence of multiple and shifting venues of legal accountability, enhance or evade the fulfillment of international human rights? Alison Brysk’s edited volume aims to assess the institutional and political factors that determine the influence of the globalization of law on the realization of human rights.
The globalization of law has the potential to move the international human rights regime from the generation of norms to the fulfillment of rights, through direct enforcement, reshaping state policy, granting access to civil society, and global governance of transnational forces. In this volume, an international and interdisciplinary team of scholars explores the development of new norms, mechanisms, and practices of international legal accountability for human rights abuse, and tests their power in a series of "hard cases." The studies find that new norms and mechanisms have been surprisingly effective globally, in terms of treaty adherence, international courts, regime change, and even the diffusion of citizenship rights, but this effect is conditioned by regional and domestic structures of influence and access. However, law has a more mixed impact on abuses in Mexico, Israel-Palestine and India. Brysk concludes that the globalization of law is transforming sovereignty and fostering the shift from norms to fulfillment, but that peripheral states and domains often remain beyond the reach of this transformation.
Workshop on International Legal Theory
Politics and Principle in International Legal Theory
Call for Papers
On November 14–15, 2013, the University of Michigan Law School will host the Second Annual ASIL–ESIL–Rechtskulturen Workshop on International Legal Theory. It is a collaboration between Michigan Law School, the Interest Groups on International Legal Theory of the American and European Societies of International Law, and the Rechtskulturen Program, an initiative of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin at Humboldt University Law School. The principal aim of this collaboration is to facilitate frank discussion among legal scholars from diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the fundamental theoretical questions that confront the discipline today.
American and European legal scholars often approach international legal theory with different assumptions about the relationship between law and politics, as well as the relationship between normative theory and positive jurisprudence. Positivist, realist, natural-law, critical, feminist, TWAIL and policy-oriented approaches are present in both American and European international legal scholarship, yet the prevalence and salience of these approaches for international lawyers on either side of the Atlantic differ. In an effort to both better understand and move beyond these regional dynamics, workshop participants will discuss the role of “politics” and “principle” in international legal discourse from a variety of perspectives. Examples of topics that might be relevant include:
- How should scholars and practitioners of international law negotiate the competing demands of “politics” and “principle”? How do they actually negotiate such demands?
- What role does politics (or the study of international relations) play in law and international legal scholarship? What role should it play?
- How does law inform politics (or the study of international relations)? What role should law play?
- What role remains for principle(s) in an era of post-modern value-relativism and global legal pluralism?
We anticipate that the workshop will generate new perspectives on these enduring theoretical questions, as well as intensify transatlantic engagement on emerging debates within international legal theory. Addressing a variety of topics in constructive confrontations beyond comparison, we will seek to overcome transatlantic divides and to open new avenues in global international law scholarship.
Selection Procedure and Workshop Organization
Interested participants should submit an abstract (800 words maximum) summarizing the ideas they propose to develop for presentation at the workshop. Submissions of all proposals that engage the workshop’s theme are encouraged. Papers that have been accepted for publication prior to the workshop are in principle eligible for consideration, provided that they will not appear in print before the workshop. Papers will be chosen for presentation by peer review, taking into account not only the need for a balance of topics and viewpoints, but also for geographic diversity among the participants.
Although discussants will be assigned to introduce the papers at the workshop, all participants will be expected to read all of the contributions in advance and come prepared to contribute to the discussion. The organizers hope that the event will serve as a showcase for innovative research on international legal theory, while at the same time strengthening personal and professional ties between scholars on either side of the Atlantic, and beyond.
Abstract submissions should be sent to asil.esil.rechtskulturen@gmail.com by July 21, 2013. Successful applicants will be notified by August 12, 2013. Papers must be fully drafted and ready for circulation by October 14, 2013. Applicants are strongly encour-aged to assess all possible options with regard to receiving funding from the institutions with which they are affiliated. If funding cannot be obtained in this way, they should indicate as part of their submission whether they will require financial assistance to cover the costs of travel and accommodation for the event.
Questions regarding the workshop may be directed to:
Evan Criddle ejcriddle@wm.edu
Jörg Kammerhofer joerg.kammerhofer@jura.uni-freiburg.de
Alexandra Kemmerer alexandra.kemmerer@wiko-berlin.de
Julian Davis Mortenson jdmorten@umich.edu
Kristina Daugirdas kdaugir@umich.edu
Dominik Steiger has published Das völkerrechtliche Folterverbot und der "Krieg gegen den Terror" (Springer 2013). Here's the abstract:Seit dem 11. September 2001 ist die Welt nicht mehr so, wie sie vorher war. Dass heute von der "Rückkehr der Folter" gesprochen wird, wäre noch ganz zu Beginn des neuen Jahrtausends unvorstellbar gewesen, ebenso wie die Rede von einem "Krieg gegen den Terror". Angesichts der neuen Bedrohungen durch den Terrorismus finden sich Stimmen in Politik, Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft, die die Folter in Ausnahmefällen zur Rettung von Menschenleben gutheißen, legalisieren wollen oder gar für schon legal erachten - trotz eines absolut geltenden völkerrechtlichen Folterverbots. Die Hauptfrage, die in dieser Arbeit gestellt und affirmativ beantwortet wird, ist, ob auch in diesen bedrohlichen Zeiten das Folterverbot zu jeder Zeit, an jedem Ort und unter allen Umständen zu befolgen ist.
It is a mantra amongst international lawyers that the field of international law is expanding, exponentially. This trend, also referred to as the legalization of world politics, may have been true until a decade ago. It is highly questionable today. International law is stagnating both in terms of quantity and quality. Drawing on a two-year research project on “informal international lawmaking” (involving over forty scholars and thirty case studies), this paper offers evidence in support of the stagnation hypothesis, evaluates the likely reasons for it and weighs possible options in response. It illustrates with a historical account that the international legal order has radically transformed in the past – on all three axes of actors, processes and outputs – so that the conceptual boundaries of how international law may look in the future are wide open. The paper next assesses the legitimacy of both new forms of cooperation and traditional international law, tackling also the question of whether new forms benefit powerful actors and how to keep activity accountable, both domestically and internationally, toward internal and external stakeholders, through ex ante, ongoing and ex post control mechanisms, involving not only managerial or administrative checks and balances but also political and judicial oversight. Finally, focusing on the short to medium term, the paper questions whether some of the new outputs of international cooperation could already be seen as part of traditional international law and how traditional and new forms are (or could be) interacting before international courts and tribunals. In this respect, it proposes certain procedural meta-norms against which new cooperation forms ought to be checked, which we refer to as “thick stakeholder consensus” imposing limits in respect of actors (authority), process and output. Intriguingly, this benchmark may be normatively superior (rather than inferior) to the validation requirements of traditional international law, coined here as “thin state consent”. In this sense, international law is stagnating not only in quantity but also quality.
International investment law (IIL) is unlike any other sub-field of international law. Its unique features continue to puzzle observers. Two general themes recur. First, why did countries ever agree to so substantially limit their sovereign powers over foreign investors and, most strikingly, to open themselves up to direct claims in investor-state arbitration? Second, how does one best classify or analogize the "hybrid" of IIL and how can IIL survive in its current constellation of 2'833 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), without a controlling multilateral treaty or institution or appellate court? This article draws on complexity theory and the notion of complex adaptive systems to offer an alternative, richer account of IIL. Approaching IIL as a complex adaptive system (CAS) allows us to better understand how IIL (i) emerged out of small, incremental and often accidental steps, (ii) operates as a largely self-organizing, decentralized system made up of many interacting components and (iii) stabilizes but also changes and evolves through a series of local, sub-optimal quasi-equilibria, highly sensitive to initial conditions that can be disturbed by both seismic events or major crises and minor mutations. The insights thus provided should also help participants in IIL to develop interventions or reforms that are more likely to be effective, in casu relatively small tweaks or adaptations which may have major repercussions. Seeking the edge of chaos, therefore, is not seeking disorder or randomness but the right balance between order and flexibility. This perspective should give pause to lawyers, generally critical of fragmentation and decentralisation, and intuitively in search of order and central authority. Through the lense of complexity theory, IIL, with all its imperfections, and contrary to conventional wisdom, may not be international law’s most pathological sub-field in need of top-to-bottom reform. Though far from optimal, it may be an organizational life form more similar to species that have survived evolutionary biology and, in this sense, be a model that other legal regimes may want to copy from.
International claims and compensation bodies are a recurring and politically significant form of international adjudication. Sitting at the space between a terrible upheaval that shreds lives and relations and an unknown future, they recur because these spaces are regrettably common. They are politically significant because States often seek ways to settle the complaints resulting from such upheavals in order for their relations to renew, to go forward. Despite the great significance of these bodies for both international relations and the compensation of those harmed by the upheaval, the scholarly literature examining them is limited. Moreover, while international courts at large have attracted the attention of scholars outside the legal field, as this Handbook illustrates, literature on these commissions is still overwhelmingly legal, being mostly concerned with jurisprudence rather than institutional design. As a consequence, many fundamental questions await further investigation. Why are compensation commissions created in some instances and not others? Why are compensation commissions, rather than lump sum settlements, chosen? What factors drive the variations seen in the structures of such commissions, and what factors influence their effectiveness and operations? This chapter addresses this gap in literature. This chapter introduces claims commissions by discussing (1) the functions they play, and (2) the ways in which they differ both from international arbitration and international courts. The chapter then proceeds to consider (3) the factors that appear to affect the particular structures and claims processes of such commissions, and (4) their future trajectories.
This is an extended review (26 pages) of Jean d'Aspremont's monograph - The Formalism of Sources in International Law. This version appears in the 2013 paperback edition of the book. An amended and extended paper is forthcoming in a leading UK journal.
This paper is primarily constructed to analyse the narrative structure of theories - with a view to commenting on the politics of theory within the academy. In this regard I look at the rhetorical and intellectual manoeuvres used by theories and theorists so that they may appear to posit coherent visions of the world. These include: intellectual specialisation, the appropriation (and politicisation) of Kuhn's paradigmatic structure to theory in order to immunise oneself against critique and the elevation of coherence in thought (over time and different pieces of work) to be highlighted over rupture in a theorists thinking.
In the context of this first purpose, the paper then analyses the turn to formalism within Europe and the fragilities of d'Aspremont's (and generally, Hartian) approach to this turn. Here I look at how this turn is rooted in the rise of the law & economics movement and how formalism is rooted in a pathological desire for (relative) determinacy and methodological empiricism. I spend the largest part of the piece demonstrating how a Hartian approach cannot succeed on its own terms, as well as due to what it methodologically excludes and finally, how d'Aspremont's later work highlights a rupture in method which can only undermine the book's important thesis.
The latest issue of the European Journal of International Relations (Vol. 19, no. 2, June 2013) is out. Contents include:
