- Hirad Abtahi, Odo Ogwuma, & Rebecca Young, The Judicial Review Powers of the Presidency of the International Criminal Court: Safeguards for the Protection of Human Rights
- Marjorie Beulay, The Action of Legal Persons in the European System of Human Rights Protection – Collective or Individual Interest?
- Giulia D’Agnone, Recourse to the “Futility Exception” within the ICSID System: Reflections on Recent Developments of the Local Remedies Rule
- Christian Schliemann, Requirements for Amicus Curiae Participation in International Investment Arbitration A Deconstruction of the Procedural Wall Erected in Joint ICSID Cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/151
- Inna Uchkunova, Provisional Measures before the International Court of Justice
- Andreas Zimmermann & Jelena Bäumler, Navigating Through Narrow Jurisdictional Straits: The Philippines – PRC South China Sea Dispute and UNCLOS
- Andrés Sarmiento Lamus, Revocation and Modification of Provisional Measures Orders in the International Court of Justice: The Court’s Order Regarding Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the Case Concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River Joint Proceedings
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
- Marcelo Kohen, Original Title in the Light of the ICJ Judgment on Sovereignty over Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
- Dwight S. Mears, Better Off as Prisoners of War. The Differential Standard of Protection for Military Internees in Switzerland during World War II
- Jakob Zollmann, L’affaire Naulilaa entre le Portugal et l’Allemagne, 1914–1933. Réflexions sur l’histoire politique d’une sentence arbitrale internationale
- Anna Su, Woodrow Wilson and the Origins of the International Law of Religious Freedom
- Alternative Perspectives on African Peacekeeping
- Thierry Tardy & Marco Wyss, Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on African Peacekeeping
- Denis M. Tull, When They Overstay Their Welcome: UN Peacekeepers in Africa
- Thierry Tardy, Protecting Civilians in Africa: The Risks of Issue-Linkage between RtoP and Peacekeeping
- Paul D. Williams, Fighting for Peace in Somalia: AMISOM’s Seven Strategic Challenges
- Chin-Hao Huang, From Strategic Adjustment to Normative Learning? Understanding China’s Peacekeeping Efforts in Africa
- Kai Michael Kenkel, Brazil’s Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Policies in Africa
- Diana Felix da Costa & John Karlsrud, ‘Bending the Rules’: The Space between HQ Policy and Local Action in UN Civilian Peacekeeping
- J. Craig Barker, Negotiating the Complex Interface between State Immunity and Human Rights: An Analysis of the International Court of Justice Decision in Germany v. Italy
- Jessica Almqvist, Searching for Common Ground on Universal Jurisdiction: The Clash between Formalism and Soft Law
- Stephen Tully, ‘By Means of its Own Choosing’: Is the Court Refashioning the Remedies of State Responsibility?
- Orfeas Chasapis Tassinis, Preliminary Issues Posed by the Doctrine of Forum Prorogatum and the Case of Djibouti v. France
Thursday, January 16, 2014
- James Crawford (Univ. of Cambridge), The International Law Bar: Essence Before Existence?
- Jérôme de Hemptinne (Special Tribunal for Lebanon), L’Évolution Des Fonctions Du Juge Pénal International Et Le Développement Du Droit International Humanitaire (The Evolution of the Functions of International Criminal Courts and the Development of International Humanitarian Law)
- Sarah McCosker (International Committee of the Red Cross), The Intersecting Professions of the International Law Adviser and Diplomat in a Rising Asia
- Sharon Weill (Univ. of Geneva), National Judges and International Law: To Be (An Independent Judge) or Not to Be?
- Filippo Fontanelli (Univ. of Surrey) & Giuseppe Bianco (Univ. of Oslo), The Inevitable Convergence of the US and the EU on the Protection of Foreign Investments – BITs, PTAs, and Incomplete Contracts
- Pål Wrange (Stockholm Univ.), The Limitations of International Law Expertise – War Amongst Peacemakers: The Juba Peace Process as Battleground for International Lawyer's Biases
- Santiago Villalpando (Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations), The 'Invisible College of International Lawyers' Forty Years Later
- Ingo Venzke (Univ. of Amsterdam), Multidisciplinary Reflections on the Relationship between Professionals and The(ir) International Law
- Gentian Zyberi (Univ. of Oslo), Navigating the Tension between Effective and Efficient Legal Counseling and Respecting the Formal Rules of the Tribunals: What Compass to Use?
- Kasaija Phillip Apuuli (Univ. of Sussex), The Government of Uganda, the ICC Arrest Warrants for the LRA Leaders and the Juba Peace Talks: 2006-2008
- Hirad Abtahi (European Univ. Institute), Crimes Against Humanity and the Armed Conflict Nexus: From Nuremberg to the ICC
- Adam S. Harris & Michael G. Findley, Is Ethnicity Identifiable?: Lessons from an Experiment in South Africa
- Courtenay R. Conrad, Divergent Incentives for Dictators: Domestic Institutions and (International Promises Not to) Torture
- Iris Lavi, Daphna Canetti, Keren Sharvit, Daniel Bar-Tal, & Stevan E. Hobfoll, Protected by Ethos in a Protracted Conflict? A Comparative Study among Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem
- Sam Whitt, Social Norms in the Aftermath of Ethnic Violence: Ethnicity and Fairness in Non-costly Decision Making
- Christina J. Schneider & Johannes Urpelainen, Partisan Heterogeneity and International Cooperation: The Case of the European Development Fund
- Emily Hencken Ritter, Policy Disputes, Political Survival, and the Onset and Severity of State Repression
- Jonathan M. Powell, Regime Vulnerability and the Diversionary Threat of Force
- From AJIL's forthcoming October 2013 issue
- Anupam Chander, Unshackling Foreign Corporations: Kiobel's Unexpected Legacy
- Julian G. Ku, Kiobel and the Surprising Death of Universal Jurisdiction Under the Alien Tort Statute
- Ralph G. Steinhardt, Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink
- Robert McCorquodale, Waving Not Drowning: Kiobel Outside the United States
- Caroline Kaeb & David Scheffer, The Paradox of Kiobel in Europe
- Vivian Grosswald Curran & David Sloss, Reviving Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel
- From AJIL UNBOUND (web exclusive)
- Zachary D. Clopton, Kiobel and the Law of Nations
- Geoffrey R. Watson, "Or a Treaty of the United States": Treaties and the Alien Tort Statute After Kiobel
- David H. Moore, Kiobel and the New Battle Over Congressional Intent
- Marco Basile, The Long View on Kiobel: A Muted Victory for International Legal Norms in the United States?
- Austen L. Parrish, Kiobel's Broader Significance: Implications for International Legal Theory
- Andrew Sanger, Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts
- Mahdev Mohan, The Road to Song Mao: Transnational Litigation from Southeast Asia to the United Kingdom
- Nicola Jägers, Katinka Jesse, & Jonathan Verschuuren, The Future of Corporate Liability for Extraterritorial Human Rights Abuses: The Dutch Case Against Shell
- Anne Herzberg, Kiobel and Corporate Complicity—Running with the Pack
- Justine Nolan, Michael Posner, & Sarah Labowitzf, Beyond Kiobel: Alternative Remedies for Sustainable Human Rights Protection
For most of the past sixty years, the United States and Europe have led, independently and collectively, the international legal system. Yet, the rise of the BRICs over the past decade has caused a profound transformation of global politics. This paper examines the implications of this redistribution of power for international law. While international lawyers have long debated the ability of law to constrain state behavior, this paper shifts the debate from the power of law to the role of power within international law. It first advances a structural argument that the diffusion, disaggregation, and issue-specific asymmetries in the distribution of power are giving rise to a multi-hub structure for international law, distinct from past structures such as bipolarity and multipolarity. This multi-hub structure increases pluralism within the international legal system. It also creates downward pressure on international legal processes to migrate from the global level toward a number of flexible, issue-specific subsystems. The paper then proceeds to demonstrate that the anticipated pluralism is emerging at three substantive tension points as some rising powers articulate distinct preferences with respect to sovereignty, legitimacy, and the role of the state in economic development. At each of these tension points, rising powers are reasserting the preeminence of the state in international law, leading to a gradual turning away from the individualization of international law championed by the US and Europe back toward the Westphalian origins of the international legal system. Notwithstanding this turn, the United States stands to benefit from the new multi-hub structure of international law.
Jalloh: Reflections on the Indictment of Sitting Heads of State and Government and Its Consequences for Peace and Stability and Reconciliation in Africa
In this essay, the author considers the most recent challenge to the application of international criminal justice in Africa: Kenya's controversial November 2013 proposal to amend the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to exempt from prosecution sitting presidents accused of involvement with international crimes. He examines several legal and practical reasons why such a proposal is untenable. Instead, he contends that much of the African Union's current concerns about the Kenya Situation can be addressed within the confines of existing Rome Law. On the other hand, the author suggests that the International Criminal Court officials, especially the judges and the chief prosecutor, should consider taking a more flexible and nuanced approach to their interpretations of several important provisions contained in their guiding statute.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
- Trevor Buck & Michael Wabwile, The Potential and Promise of Communications Procedures under the Third Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Rashida Manjoo, State Responsibility to act with Due Diligence in the Elimination of Violence against Women
- Mariagiulia Giuffré, An Appraisal of Diplomatic Assurances One Year after Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom (2012)
- Obonye Jonas, Neutering the SADC Tribunal by Blocking Individuals’ Access to the Tribunal
- Manisuli Ssenyonjo, Unilateral Military Action in the Syrian Arab Republic: A Right to Humanitarian Intervention or a Crime of Aggression?
- Triestino Mariniello, International Criminal Court: Selected Developments in 2012
- Nada Ali, Bringing the Guilty to Justice
- Jill I. Goldenziel, Regulating Human Rights: International Organizations, Flexible Standards, and International Refugee Law
- Eve Heafey, Access and Benefit Sharing of Marine Genetic Resources from Area Beyond national Jurisdiction: Intellectual Property - Friend, Not Foe
- Patrick J. Keenan, Conflict Minerals and the Law of Pillage
- Timothy Meyer, From Contract to Legislation: The Logic of Modern International Lawmaking
- Yaad Rotem, Foreign Law as a Distinctive Fact - To Whom Should the Burden of Proof Be Assigned?
Since the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, international criminal law has rapidly grown in importance. This three-volume treatise on international criminal law presents a foundational, systematic, consistent, and comprehensive analysis of the field. Taking into account the scholarly literature, not only sources written in English but also in French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, the book draws on the author's extensive academic and practical work in international criminal law.
This second volume offers a comprehensive analysis of the core international crimes, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. It also assesses relevant treaty crimes. It examines in detail the problem of concours delictorum and the law of sentencing, offering proposals for the development of a more consistent sentencing regime.
The full three-volume treatise will address the entirety of international criminal law, re-stating and re-examining the fundamental principles upon which it rests, the manner it is enacted, and the key issues that are shaping its future. It will be essential reading for practitioners, scholars, and students of international criminal law alike.
- Surya P. Subedi, A Shift in Paradigm in International Economic Law: From State-centric Principles to People-centred Policies
- Xiuli Han & Bo Gao, Export Taxes under the WTO System: China's Way Out of the Dilemma
- Xaun Li, Soft Law-making on Development: The Millennium Development Goals and Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Collins C. Ajibo, Legitimacy Challenges in Investor-State Arbitration Interpretative Principles: Reflecting on a Balancing Tool
- Abhimanyu George Jain, Interpreting the 'Removal' Obligation in Article 7.8 of the WTO SCM Agreement
The relative merits of different arbitral venues are conveyed accessibly and practically in this far-reaching survey. With contributions from prestigious practitioners from every major global seat, the book offers comparative analysis of the relative challenges arising at venues around the world, As a reliable tool during the negotiation and drafting stages, it enables a newly tactical consideration of venue, whilst providing instant answers to those in unfamiliar jurisdictions. Offering detailed analysis of a range of key venues, it addresses not only the practical reality but also the history and development in these seats, making the book both an academic and a practical investment.
Liste: Transnational Human Rights Litigation and Territorialized Knowledge: Kiobel and the ‘Politics of Space’
In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Dutch and British private corporations were accused of having aided and abetted in the violation of the human rights of individuals in Nigeria. A lawsuit, however, was brought in the United States, relying on the Alien Tort Statute - part of a Judiciary Act from 1789. In its final decision on the case, the US Supreme Court has strongly focused on ‘territory.’ This usage of a spatial category calls for closer scrutiny of how the making of legal arguments presupposes ‘spatial knowledge,’ especially in the field of transnational human rights litigation. Space is hardly a neutral category. What is at stake is normativity in a global scale with the domestic courtroom turned into a site of spatial contestation. The paper is interested in the construction of ‘the transnational’ as space, which implicates a ‘politics of space’ at work underneath the exposed surface of legal argumentation. The ‘Kiobel situation’ as it unfolded before the Supreme Court is addressed as an example of a broader picture including a variety of contested elements of space: a particular spatial condition of modern nation-state territoriality; the production of ‘counter-space,’ eventually undermining the spatial regime of inter-state society; and the state not accepting its withering away. The paper will ask: How are normative boundaries between the involved jurisdictional spaces drawn? How do the ‘politics of space’ work underneath or beyond the plain moments of judicial decision-making? How territorialized is the legal knowledge at work and how does territoriality work in legal arguments?
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Call for Papers: 10th Anniversary Conference of the European Society of International Law (Reminder)
What should we call law when it is not the law of one or several states? Does it actually matter what we call law? How can we take into account the consequences of calling something law when we shape the concept of law in the first place? How does international arbitration help to illustrate the problem? This book is an investigation into stateless law, illustrated by international arbitration regimes. It addresses key philosophical questions posed by international arbitration as a potential path to law beyond the state. It ascertains which dimensions of transnational legality arbitral regimes conform to, and what consequences follow from it. The argument of this book is firmly rooted in contemporary legal positivism and is attentive to current debates regarding the rule of law to ponder legality without territory. A theory is suggested regarding the minimal conditions that transnational regimes must fulfil in order to legitimately and appropriately count as law. The theory is tested on various arbitral regimes. The book thus offers reflections on the extent to which legality and the rule of law can serve as a moral and political benchmark for transnational regimes, to assess the political morality of arbitration's current autonomy from states and what arbitration's claim for an increase in that autonomy implies.
Professor Lee argues in this Article that customary international law permits a sovereign state to use armed force to protect civilians facing imminent risk of group extermination in another unconsenting sovereign state without United Nations (UN) Security Council authorization or a self-defence justification as codified in the UN Charter. The legal right to use such force was traditionally limited to protecting the lives of the intervening state’s own civilians or those of its allies for two reasons. First, the bedrock principle of exclusive sovereignty shielded a target state’s treatment of its own civilians; second there was consensus that international law did not permit the use of armed force to enforce the right against death of civilians in another country without its consent absent the nexus of nationality or a treaty authorizing such assistance. But, in the past dozen years, both principles have been fatally undermined by the norm of “the responsibility to protect” civilians, which pierces the veil of sovereignty for states that harm or fail to protect their peoples. Consequently, the present customary international law of war can reasonably be construed as extending the ancient civilian-protection use-of-force easement to all civilians facing state-sponsored mass killings, regardless of nationality. The life-saving easement on sovereign territory logically covers only cases where civilians are facing state-initiated group death -- genocide, massacre killings, or lethal use of atomic, biological, or chemical weapons; and also has strict proportionality and exhaustion-of-other means requirements. UN Security Council authorization or a self-defence justification is still required for military interventions in response to other mass atrocities such as ethnic cleansing, war crimes, non-lethal crimes against humanity (e.g., systemic torture), or the possession (or non-lethal use) of weapons of mass destruction, and to humanitarian crises where deaths are not caused by the state or its agents. Of course, any state’s decision to use armed force to protect foreign civilians in an unconsenting state is ultimately a matter of its own domestic law and policy choice, but international law does not prohibit such a choice in the face of mass killings, even absent UN Security Council authorization or self-defence.
Monday, January 13, 2014
- January 17, 2014: Susan Marks (LSE), on Human Rights
- January 24, 2014: Marko Milanovic (Univ. of Nottingham), Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties
- January 31, 2014: Peter-Tobias Stoll (Georg-August Universität Göttingen), Splendid fragmentation? The emergence of preferential trade agreements and the future of the world economic order
- February 7, 2014: Kate Parlett (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP), Claims under Customary International Law in Investment Arbitration
- February 14, 2014: Penelope Nevill (20 Essex Street), Sanctions: current issues of implementation and enforcement
- February 20, 2014: Mary Ellen O'Connell (Univ. of Notre Dame), Sir Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2014: The Art of Peace - Q&A session
- February 21, 2014: Gregory H. Fox (Wayne State Univ.), Transformative Occupation and Creeping Unilateralism
- February 28, 2014: Christina Binder (Univ. of Vienna), Stability and Change in Times of Fragmentation. The Limits of Pacta sunt Servanda revisited
- March 7, 2014: Ademola Abass (United Nations Univ.), Who may exercise the International Residual Responsibility to Protect?
- March 14, 2014: Tai Ikeshima (Waseda Univ.), The Role and Limits of International Law in Settling the South China Sea Dispute
- Prosecutor v. Perišić (ICTY), with introductory note by Chris Jenks
- Prosecutor v. Karadžić (ICTY), with introductory note by Yvonne McDermott
- AFPS and PLO v. Alstom and Veolia (Versailles Ct. App.), with introductory note by Noah Rubins and Gisèle Stephens-Chu
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 2093 on the Situation in Somalia, with introductory note by Roland Adjovi
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 2094 on Nuclear Nonproliferation in North Korea, with introductory note by Klara Tothova Jordan
Modirzadeh: Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance
This Article argues that the positions many U.S.-based lawyers in the disciplines of international humanitarian law and human rights law took in 2013 on issues of lethal force and framing of armed conflict vis-à-vis the Obama Administration would have been surprising and disappointing to those same professionals back in 2002 when they began their battle against the Bush Administration’s formulations of the “Global War on Terror.” By 2013, many U.S.-based humanitarian and human rights lawyers had traded in strict fealty to international law for potential influence on executive decision-making. These lawyers and advocates would help to shape the Obama Administration’s articulation of its legal basis for the use of force against al Qaeda and others by making use of “folk international law,” a law-like discourse that relies on a confusing and soft admixture of IHL, jus ad bellum, and IHRL to frame operations that do not, ultimately, seem bound by international law. In chronicling the collapse of multiple legal disciplines and fields of application into the “Law of 9/11,” the Article illustrates how that result came about not simply through manipulation by a government seeking to protect national security or justify its actions but also through a particular approach to legal argumentation as mapped through various tactical moves during the course of the legal battle over the war on terror.
Wouters & Meuwissen: The European Union at the UN Human Rights Council. Multilateral Human Rights Protection Coming of Age?
While the European Union (EU) has a strong ambition to be a leading actor in the multilateral human rights system, booking success in UN Human Rights Council (HRC or Council) has proved difficult. This article analyses the functioning of the HRC since its inception in 2006, and the evolution of the EU’s participation in this UN body. Although the HRC has been strongly criticised for working in a polarised and selective manner, recent sessions indicate the emergence of more cross-regional coalitions in the Council. The EU’s external human rights policy, at its turn, has undergone significant changes since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. This article critically assesses the windows of opportunity opening up for the EU at the HRC, and concludes with lessons learned that can guide a further strengthening of the HRC and the EU’s multilateral action in this context.
Call for Papers
The German Society of International Law (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht - DGIR) in cooperation with the Working Group of Young Scholars in Public International Law (Arbeitskreis junger Völkerrechtswissenschaftler/-innen - AjV) will be hosting a joint conference on
Proportionality in International Law
The conference will take place at the Georg-August-University in Göttingen from the 12th until the 13th of September 2014.
The principle of proportionality is an integral part of several areas of Public International Law, which can be illustrated inter alia by the following questions: Which role does proportionality play when military advantages are being assessed compared to the death of civilians? How can international watercourses be used in an equitable and reasonable manner? To what extent can trade restrictions be balanced against environmental protection? Even though proportionality is a widely accepted principle, a lot of controversial questions remain: Can objective requirements be found for the process of balancing interests or does the application of this principle lead to arbitrary or subjective results in international law? Which role do courts play in the application and interpretation of this principle? Is the principle of proportionality interpreted differently in specific areas of international law or can it, on the contrary, be used as a tool to decrease fragmentation in international law? Can the principle of proportionality promote global constitutionalization? Contributions in the field of Public International Law or European Law in German or English are most welcome, especially concerning the following topics:
- Theory, doctrine and history of Public International Law
- European Union Law
- Human Rights, especially the European Convention on Human Rights
- International Humanitarian Law, questions of international peace and security and selfdefence
- World Trade Law and International Investment Law
- International Environmental Law
This event is supposed to provide a forum for dialogue between young as well as experienced scholars. Therefore, senior scholars will comment on the contributions of junior researchers. Interested participants are asked to submit their abstracts by 15 February 2014 to: firstname.lastname@example.org. The abstract should not exceed 500 words and needs to be anonymized. Please submit your contact details (name, institution, email address) only in the email itself. You will be notified about the acceptance of your proposal by 15 March 2014. Please note that invited speakers will need to submit their papers by 31 July 2014. We aim to provide for the possibility of publication for selected papers. It is expected that travel and accommodation expenses will be covered to a certain extend.
Please find further information at www.uni-goettingen.de/ajv-tagung.
Organizing committee: Sebastian Ehricht, Matthäus Fink, Torsten Stirner (Georg-August- Universität Göttingen); Björnstjern Baade (Freie Universität Berlin); Robert Frau (Europa- Universität Viadrina Frankfurt/Oder); Geoffrey Juchs, Isabella Risini (Ruhr-Universität Bochum); Mirka Möldner (MPI Heidelberg)
Call for Papers
Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht (DGIR) und der Arbeitskreis junger Völkerrechtswissenschaftler/-innen (AjV) laden zu einer gemeinsamen Tagung unter dem Titel
Verhältnismäßigkeit im Völkerrecht
ein. Die Veranstaltung wird vom 12. – 13. September 2014 an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen stattfinden.
Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit ist Bestandteil vieler Bereiche des Völkerrechts: Auf welche Weise wird das Verhältnis von militärischem Vorteil und dem Tod von Zivilisten bestimmt? Wann ist die Nutzung internationaler Wasserläufe ausgewogen und angemessen? Inwieweit sind Handelsbeschränkungen zum Tier- und Pflanzenschutz einer Abwägung fähig? Auch wenn der Grundsatz im Prinzip allgemein anerkannt ist, wirft er vielfältige Fragen auf. Führt er im Völkerrecht zu subjektiv-willkürlichen Ergebnissen oder gibt es objektive Parameter für solche Abwägungsprozesse? Welche Rolle spielen Gerichte bei der Auslegung und Anwendung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes? Entwickeln sich in unterschiedlichen Bereichen des Völkerrechts verschiedene Verhältnismäßigkeitsmaßstäbe oder kann der Grundsatz, im Gegenteil, Fragmentierungstendenzen entgegenwirken und Konstitutionalisierungsprozesse vorantreiben? Es sind völker- und europarechtliche Beiträge in deutscher und englischer Sprache willkommen, etwa mit Bezug zu den folgenden Themenkomplexen:
- Völkerrechtstheorie, -dogmatik und -geschichte
- Recht der Europäischen Union
- Menschenrechte, insbesondere zur Rechtsprechung des EGMR
- Friedenssicherungsrecht, Selbstverteidigung und Humanitäres Völkerrecht
- Welthandelsrecht, Internationales Investitionsschutzrecht
Die Veranstaltung soll Nachwuchswissenschaftler/-innen ebenso wie etablierten Wissenschaftler/- innen ein Forum zum völkerrechtlichen Dialog bieten. Die Beiträge der Nachwuchswissenschaftler/-innen werden von etablierten Wissenschaftler/-innen kommentiert. Abstracts werden bis zum 15. Februar 2014 an folgende Adresse erbeten: ajvdgir2014@unigoettingen. de. Das Abstract sollte 500 Wörter nicht überschreiten und anonymisiert sein. Bitte teilen Sie uns Ihre Kontaktdaten (Name, ggf. Institution, E-Mail-Adresse) nur in der E-Mail mit. Am 15. März 2014 erhalten Sie Nachricht über die Annahme. Angenommene Abstracts müssen als ausformulierte Beiträge bis zum 31. Juli 2014 eingereicht werden. Eine Möglichkeit zur Veröffentlichung ausgewählter Beiträge wird angestrebt.
Die Reise- und Übernachtungskosten der Referentinnen und Referenten können voraussichtlich übernommen werden.
Aktuelle Informationen auf: www.uni-goettingen.de/ajv-tagung
Organisationskomitee des AjV: Sebastian Ehricht, Matthäus Fink, Torsten Stirner (Georg-August- Universität Göttingen); Björnstjern Baade (Freie Universität Berlin); Robert Frau (Europa- Universität Viadrina Frankfurt/Oder); Geoffrey Juchs, Isabella Risini (Ruhr-Universität Bochum); Mirka Möldner (MPI Heidelberg)
This Chapter analyses the legal regime governing transfers, deportations and forcible displacements of civilians in times of armed conflicts. It does not only provide an in-depth commentary of the relevant provisions under international humanitarian law; it also details the role of other applicable branches of international law, such as international refugee law, human rights law and criminal law. This inclusive approach offers a comprehensive and systemic overview of the international protection against forcible displacement in armed conflicts.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
- David Stevenson, Learning from the past: the relevance of international history
- Ian Hall, ‘Time of Troubles’: Arnold J. Toynbee's twentieth century
- Harold James, Cosmos, chaos: finance, power and conflict
- Margaret MacMillan, 1914 and 2014: should we be worried?
- Barry Buzan & George Lawson, Capitalism and the emergent world order
- Paul Rogers, A century on the edge: from Cold War to hot world, 1945–2045
- William Walker, International Affairs and ‘the nuclear age’, 1946–2013
- Donald E. Abelson, Old world, new world: the evolution and influence of foreign affairs think-tanks
- Richard Reid, Horror, hubris and humanity: the international engagement with Africa, 1914–2014
- Yongjin Zhang, The idea of order in ancient Chinese political thought: a Wightian exploration