Justice among Nations tells the story of the rise of international law and how it has been formulated, debated, contested, and put into practice from ancient times to the present. Stephen Neff avoids technical jargon as he surveys doctrines from natural law to feminism, and practices from the Warring States of China to the international criminal courts of today.
Ancient China produced the first rudimentary set of doctrines. But the cornerstone of later international law was laid by the Romans, in the form of natural law—a universal law that was superior to early laws and governments. As medieval European states came into contact with non-Christian peoples, from East Asia to the New World, practical solutions had to be devised to the many legal quandaries that arose. In the wake of these experiences, international legal doctrine began to assume its modern form in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
New challenges in the nineteenth century encompassed the advance of nationalism, the rise of free trade and European imperialism, the formation of international organizations, and the arbitration of disputes. Innovative doctrines included liberalism, the nationality school, and solidarism. The twentieth century witnessed the formation of the League of Nations and a World Court, but also the rise of socialist and fascist states and the advent of the Cold War. Yet the collapse of the Soviet Union brought little respite. As Neff makes clear, further threats to the rule of law today come from environmental pressures, genocide, and terrorism.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
- Joanna Harrington, Exploring the "Canadian" in the Canadian Yearbook of International Law
- Marie Ghantous, Les mesures conservatoires indiquées par la Cour internationale de Justice dans le cadre de conflits territoriaux et frontaliers: Développements récents
- Ryan Liss, The Abuse of Ambiguity: The Uncertain Status of Omar Khadr under International Law
- Véronique Guèvremont, La reconnaissance du pilier culturel du développement durable: vers un nouveau mode de diffusion des valeurs culturelles au sein de l’ordre juridique mondial
- Noemi Gal-Or, Responsibility of the WTO for Breach of an International Obligation under the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations
- Notes and Comments
- Paul David Mora, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict
- Alison Mitchell, Distinguishing Friend from Foe: Law and Policy in the Age of Battlefield Biometrics
Friday, February 28, 2014
This article discusses the potential provisions on national treatment and MFN to be included in a future EU Model BIT against the background of the leaked draft text of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) investment chapter. It concludes that the EU treaty practice seems to be closer to investment protection models influenced by NAFTA, such as those prevalent in the Canada and US Model BITs, and that a future EU Model BIT along these lines will depart significantly from the investment treaty practice of EU Member States.
- Part I Issues
- Cynthia Crawford Lichtenstein, Distinguished Essay: Reﬂections on the Intellectual History of the International Regulation of Monetary Affairs
- Annamaria Viterbo & Francesco Costamagna, Multiregionalism in the Context of the EU Sovereign Debt Crisis: Current Legal Challenges and the Way Forward
- Cornelia Manger-Nestler, Interaction for Monetary and Financial Stability: Central Banks as Main Actors in the Global Financial System
- Chien-Huei Wu, Greater Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking: Progress and Prospect
- Asif H. Qureshi, Distinguished Essay: Reﬂections on the Global Trading Order Twenty Years After Marrakesh: A Development Perspective
- Tilman Krüger, Moving Ahead While Standing Still: Dynamics of Institutional Evolution in a Gridlocked WTO
- Elisa Ruozzi, The Multilateral Trading System and Non-Trade Issues: How the World Trade Organisation Managed to Integrate Environmental Concerns without Integrating International Environmental Law
- Laura Puccio, 20 Years After Marrakesh: Reconsidering the Effects of Preferential Rules of Origin and Anti-Circumvention Rules on Trade in Inputs and Global Production Networks
- Olga Batura, The WTO Legal Framework for Telecommunications Services and Challenges of the Information Age
- Josué F. Mathieu, Settling NAFTA and WTO Disputes: A Net of Parallel and Contradictory Commitments?
- Part II Regional Integration
- Billy A. Melo Araujo, The EU’s Deep Trade Agenda: Stumbling Block or Stepping Stone Towards Multilateral Liberalisation?
- María José Luque Macías, Current Approaches to the International Investment Regime in South America
- Louise E. Mossner, The Multilayered System of Regional Economic Integration in West Africa
- Gerhard Erasmus & Trudi Hartzenberg, The Tripartite Free Trade Area: What Will It Be, and How Will It Come About?
- Anirudh Shingal & Máté Kander, India and Her Trade Agreements: What Lies Beneath?
- Part III International Economic Institutions
- Christopher Dallimore & Hans-Michael Wolffgang, The WCO’s Framework of Standards and the Internationalization of Supply Chain Security
- Andrea Wechsler, WIPO’s Policy Priorities in a World of Global Legal Pluralism: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) and the Protection of Audiovisual Performances
- Marc Bungenberg & Catharine Titi, Developments in International Investment Law
- Daniel Alejandro Casella, Inmunidad Soberana y el Embargo de un Buque de Guerra el Caso A.R.A. Libertad
- Fernando Villamizar Lamus, La Bioprospección Antártica: Indefiniciones e Incompatibilidades con el Sistema del Tratado Antártico
- William Guillermo Jiménez, Papel De La Jurisprudencia Del Tribunal De Justicia De La Comunidad Andina, En Decisiones Judiciales De Los Países Miembros
- Miguel Castro−Riberos, Colombia’s Policy Space for Prudential Regulation: An Analysis from Its International Trade Commitments
- Asier Garrido Muñoz, No Dédoublement Fonctionnel? Eluding Avant−Garde International Human Rights Law In Spain: Strategies And Judicial Parallelisms
- Natalia Restrepo Ortiz Y Camila Uribe, Could The Interamerican Human Rights System Have Prevented The Existence Of False Victims In The Mapiripan Case?
- René Marc Da Costa Silva, A Constituição de 1988 e a Discriminação Racial e de Gênero No Mercado de Trabalho No Brasil
- Silvia Delgado Maldonado, Political Participation: An Implied Condition for Enduring Peace In Colombia
- Maria Teresa Palacios, Los Derechos de los Extranjeros Como Límite a la Soberanía
Böhringerz: Die Kooperationsvereinbarungen der Sekretariate multilateraler Umweltschutzübereinkommen
Ayse-Martina Böhringer thematisiert die Kooperationsvereinbarungen von Sekretariaten multilateraler Umweltschutzübereinkommen aus völkerrechtlicher Perspektive und ordnet diese in den "Global Environmental Governance"-Prozess ein. Das Umweltvölkerrecht ist aufgrund der zahlreichen, nebeneinander existierenden multilateralen Übereinkommen durch eine dezentrale und fragmentierte Struktur geprägt. Die Kooperationsvereinbarungen der Sekretariate multilateraler Umweltschutzübereinkommen haben sich vor dem Hintergrund eines Bedürfnisses nach mehr Kohärenz und Rechtssicherheit in ganz spezifischen Bereichen des Umweltvölkerrechts und zur Überwindung von Fragmentierung herausgebildet. Die Kernfrage - nämlich die rechtliche Beschreibung und Einordnung dieser Kooperationsvereinbarungen - führt zu folgenden wesentlichen Untersuchungsschritten: Erstens zu der Frage der völkerrechtlichen Stellung der Sekretariate multilateraler Umweltschutzübereinkommen; zweitens zu einer möglichst repräsentativen Bestandsaufnahme der mit diesen Sekretariaten getroffenen Kooperationsvereinbarungen; drittens zu der Frage des normativen Potentials dieser Kooperationsvereinbarungen. Schließlich erfolgt eine funktionale Einordnung dieser Vereinbarungen. Dabei werden auch die Grenzen dieses eigendynamischen institutionellen Rechts(norm)setzungsprozesses und die tatsächliche Wirkmacht der Staaten als "Herren der Verträge" aufgezeigt, auch wenn - oder gerade weil - sich die Vereinbarungen weit überwiegend den traditionellen Rechtsnormkategorien nicht eindeutig zuordnen lassen.
En protégeant les investisseurs étrangers contre l’« expropriation indirecte » sans définir précisément cette notion, les traités de protection des investissements ont pu apparaître comme une menace pour la liberté normative de l’État et son pouvoir d’agir dans le sens de l’intérêt général. en effet, une « expropriation indirecte » peut être constituée par toute mesure générale (loi, décret…) et n’est licite que si elle s’accompagne d’une compensation financière. L’enjeu de l’identification de la notion est donc de taille, mais en l’absence d’une définition, la réponse à cette question est très délicate. Il ne faudrait pas que les États se trouvent tenus de « payer pour réglementer ». D’un autre côté, la protection des investisseurs étrangers est une nécessité pour leur développement économique. Cette étude propose donc de mettre en lumière un critère d’identification de l’expropriation indirecte qui permettrait de fonder cet équilibre.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
In this chapter forthcoming in Ben Saul (ed), Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism, I consider the compatibility of counter-terrorist detention with international human rights law from the starting point that what is protected in international law is not a right to be free from detention per se but rather a right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of one’s liberty. This is clearly rooted in international human rights law, which is the main focus of this chapter (acknowledging that it interacts with international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict).
The chapter demonstrates that counter-terrorist detention can be compatible with the standards of international human rights law as they have been interpreted and applied in the past decade, but that in the process of such interpretation and application those standards have at times been diluted to a worrying extent.
How should international courts distinguish between principals and accessories? The ICC answered this question with Roxin’s Control Theory of Perpetration; defendants should be convicted as principals if they control the crime individually, jointly with a co-perpetrator, indirectly via an organized apparatus of power, or as indirect co-perpetrators (via a combination of the previous doctrines). As the ICC adopted the control requirement, however, some of its decisions have allowed lower mental states such as recklessness or dolus eventualis to meet the standard for principal perpetration under the Control Theory. Other decisions have asserted that intent or knowledge is required, though their definitions of knowledge include a risk of future events -- a definition uncomfortably similar to recklessness. The following Essay argues that the ICC should reverse its approach: instead of combining the ‘essential contribution’ element with a weak mental requirement (its current doctrine), the ICC should deemphasize control by lowering the essential contribution requirement and reinvigorating the required mental state. In short, the ICC should take a second look at subjective theories of perpetration that define principals as those with the intention to carry out the crime (or joint intention in the case of co-perpetrators) and who contribute to the effort. The ICC’s Control Theory represents an over-correction to the perceived excesses of the subjective approach -- excesses that could be fixed without resorting to the ICC’s current ersatz-Control Theory.
Call for Papers
European Society of International Law
Interest Group on International Human Rights Law Roundtable
on the occasion of the ESIL 10th Anniversary Conference
on ‘International Law AND . . .’
4–5 September 2014
International Law Human Rights Law AND . . .
On the occasion of the ESIL 10th Anniversary Conference in Vienna, the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law invites submissions for a roundtable on the relationship of international human rights law to other bodies of international and domestic law.
This roundtable will address the relationship and interactions between international human rights law and other bodies of international law and domestic law. International human rights law is a dynamic body of international law that is interpreted and applied in diverse fora, including dedicated regional courts, international quasi-judicial mechanisms, inter-state courts and domestic courts. As a consequence, international human rights law comes into frequent contact with other bodies of international and domestic law either through specialized or non-specialized courts and other judicial interpretive mechanisms. How does international human rights law relate to and interact with other bodies of law? Under what conditions does international human rights law have an overriding, displacing, expanding or narrowing effect on other bodies of law? In return, when do other bodies of law displace or modify international human rights law?
The Interest Group is particularly interested in receiving proposals that examine less-well explored relationships, for example, international human rights law and the law of the sea; international human rights law and the international law of the environment; and international human rights law and the international law of investment and international human rights law interpretation by domestic courts. Equally, it welcomes fresh examinations of the relationship of international human rights law to areas of law such as international criminal law, international humanitarian law, general public international law and at the domestic level, public and constitutional law.
The Application Process
We invite submissions of abstracts of no more than 400 words. Selection will be based on scholarly merit, and with regard to producing an engaging roundtable.
Each submission should include the following:
(a) a short curriculum vitae containing the author’s name, institutional affiliation, contact information and e-mail address;
(b) an abstract of no more than 400 words; and
Applications should be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com and Ivana.Radacic@pilar.hr by 1 April 2014. All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 1 May 2014. Accepted full papers are due by 15 August 2014.
Please note that the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law is unable to provide funds to cover the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation costs.
To join or for further information about the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law, please visit here.
Anton: The Timor Sea Treaty Arbitration: Timor-Leste Challenges Australian Espionage and Seizure of Documents
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
- Veronika Daurer & Richard Krever, Choosing between the UN and OECD Tax Policy Models: An African Case Study
- Sylvester Oscar Nliam, International Oil and Gas Environmental Legal Framework and the Precautionary Principle: The Implications for the Niger Delta
- Dominic N. Dagbanja, Privacy in Context: The Right to Privacy, and Freedom and Independence of the Media under the Constitution of Ghana
- Eghosa O. Ekhator, Improving Access to Environmental Justice under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Roles of NGOs in Nigeria
- William Daniel Nartey, A REDD Solution to a Green Problem: Using REDD plus to Address Deforestation in Ghana through Benefit Sharing and Community Self-empowerment
- Lydia A. Nkansah, Justice within the Arrangement of the Special Court for Sierra Leone versus Local Perception of Justice: A Contradiction or Harmonious?
- K. I. Vibhute, Non-Judicial Review in Ethiopia: Constitutional Paradigm, Premise and Precinct
- Special Issue: Global Value Chains and Global Production Networks in the Changing International Political Economy
- Jeffrey Neilson, Bill Pritchard & Henry Wai-chung Yeung, Global value chains and global production networks in the changing international political economy: An introduction
- Gary Gereffi, Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world
- Jeffrey Neilson, Value chains, neoliberalism and development practice: The Indonesian experience
- Henry Wai-chung Yeung, Governing the market in a globalizing era: Developmental states, global production networks and inter-firm dynamics in East Asia
- Yong-Sook Lee, Inhye Heo & Hyungjoo Kim, The role of the state as an inter-scalar mediator in globalizing liquid crystal display industry development in South Korea
- Chun Yang, Market rebalancing of global production networks in the Post-Washington Consensus globalizing era: Transformation of export-oriented development in China
- Matthew C. Mahutga, Global models of networked organization, the positional power of nations and economic development
- Stefano Ponte & Timothy Sturgeon, Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort
- Neil M. Coe, Missing links: Logistics, governance and upgrading in a shifting global economy
- Leonard Seabrooke & Duncan Wigan, Global wealth chains in the international political economy
- John Ravenhill, Global value chains and development
Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law
22nd Annual Conference
Canberra, 3-5 July 2014
Towards International Peace through International Law
The 22nd Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) will take place from Thursday, 3 July 2014 to Saturday, 5 July 2014 at University House, The Australian National University, Canberra, hosted by the Centre for International and Public Law, ANU College of Law. The Conference Organising Committee now invites proposals for papers to be presented at the Conference.
Call for Papers - Deadline 7 March 2014
The theme of ANZSIL’s 22nd Annual Conference has been chosen to resonate with the commemorations taking place around the world in 2014 to mark the centenary of the beginning of World War 1. The conference will provide an opportunity to reflect upon the project of achieving international peace through international law that has shaped the past century. Horror at the scale and destructiveness of World War 1 spurred a new political commitment to preventing future wars. The League of Nations Covenant signed in the war’s aftermath expressed the commitment of the High Contracting Parties to achieving international peace and security through accepting obligations not to resort to war, establishing international law ‘as the actual rule of conduct among Governments’, and maintaining ‘justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations’. The dream of achieving perpetual peace was an old one, but the emphasis on doing so through international law and international institutions was new. Despite the subsequent disenchantment with the failures of the League, reflected famously in the skeptical reactions of realists such as EH Carr and Hans Morgenthau to the ideal of achieving ‘peace through law’, the United Nations Charter expressed an ongoing determination ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ through the maintenance of international peace and security and the peaceful settlement of international disputes in conformity with international justice and international law. Today the commitment to settling disputes by peaceful means continues to underpin many developments in international law. Public and private international law initiatives in the fields of trade, investment, and financial regulation aim to secure peace through economic stability and commercial relations, while the language of security continues to inform internationalist projects, from the maintenance of collective security to human security, food security, energy security, climate security, and cyber security.
The conference will explore the role that international law and international lawyers have played in the pursuit of international peace and security over the past century, and the role that they might play in the century to come. How have changing definitions or visions of peace and security informed the development of international law? How do the trauma and memory of war shape international law as an ideal, a set of institutions, a commitment, or a project? What contribution have Australians and New Zealanders made to the realisation of peace through law, whether on the Security Council, in peace operations, as judges and arbitrators at the Peace Palace and beyond, as civil society activists, as scholars, or as ‘norm entrepreneurs’? How do international legal doctrines and practices respond to changes in the nature of war and new threats to peace and security? What happens when the pursuit of peace and security comes into conflict with other values, such as justice, equality, or self-determination? What mechanisms and techniques for achieving the peaceful settlement of disputes have been developed by international lawyers, and what innovations are today being developed to address contemporary disputes and potential conflicts?
The Conference Organising Committee invites paper proposals on a broad range of international legal issues. Possible topics for papers and panels specifically related to the conference theme include:
• the relationship of international law to pacifist traditions
• the legacy of World War 1 and the development of international law
• the role of trauma and memories of war in shaping international law
• shifting visions of peace and security in international law
• utopianism in international law – and its realist critics
• international institutions as guardians of peace: from the League of Nations to the International Criminal Court
• mechanisms, techniques, and conditions for the peaceful settlement of disputes
• trade, investment, and environmental agreements as vehicles for achieving peace
• the relation of human rights to peace and security
• defining aggression and threats to peace and security
• international criminal law and the ‘peace versus justice’ debate
• the role of Australia and New Zealand in the maintenance of peace and security
• assessing the expanding mandate of the Security Council: civilian protection; counter-terrorism; women, peace and security; the responsibility to protect
• international law and revolution
• new wars and international law
• disarmament and international law
• proliferating forms of security and the ‘securitisation’ of international law – state security, collective security, human security, energy security, food security, systems security, climate security, cyber security
In the tradition of ANZSIL Conferences, the Organising Committee also invites and welcomes proposals on international law topics not connected to the conference theme.
Submission of Paper Proposals
Those proposing papers for presentation at the Conference should submit
• a one page abstract
• and brief one page curriculum vitae
• 150-200 words of bio-data (for possible inclusion in the conference program)
by email to the Conference Organising Committee [firstname.lastname@example.org] no later than Friday, 7 March 2014. Please include the heading on your email message ‘ANZSIL Conference 2014 Paper Proposal: [Your Name]’. The Conference Organising Committee will inform applicants of the outcome of their proposals by late March 2014. Further information about the Conference, including program and registration details, will be available on the ANZSIL website (http://law.anu.edu.au/anzsil/conferences.html).
* * * *
POST GRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS WORKSHOP
CANBERRA, WEDNESDAY 2 JULY 2014
CALL FOR PAPERS: Deadline: 7 March 2014The Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Postgraduate Research Students Workshop will be held on Wednesday, 2 July 2014, from 9.30am until 5.00pm. The Workshop will take place at the ANU College of Law, The Australian National University in Canberra. The aims of the Workshop are to provide postgraduate degree research students with an opportunity to present their research to their peers, to discuss their experiences of postgraduate research and to make academic and professional connections. There is no registration fee. Morning tea, lunch, and afternoon tea will be provided.
Postgraduate Students undertaking research in international law are encouraged to submit a one-page abstract and brief one-page curriculum vitae by email to email@example.com (marked ‘2014 PG Research Workshop’) by no later than Friday, 7 March 2014. Successful applicants for the Workshop will be offered free registration at the Conference. Participants will be asked to provide a brief contribution on their work for a report on the Workshop, for inclusion in the ANZSIL Newsletter.
The Coordinators of the Postgraduate Workshop are Dr Adam McBeth (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australia).and Dr Petra Butler (Law Faculty, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
This contribution explores the role of individuals in the law of treaties. Individuals besides being beneficiaries or duty bearers under treaty regimes (something evident in human rights treaties and international criminal law treaties) have slowly started to play other roles as well. In some instances they can be seen as users of the law of treaties. They are also emerging, in a rather narrow setting for the time being, as participants. The chapter, after positioning the individual in the international legal system using the concept of capacity, analyses the various roles of the individual under the aforementioned categorization.
In this paper, I focus on the transcultural nature of interpretation in some areas of international law, a topic which encompasses both institutional and normative dimensions. Much of international law, still today, is centered on the state. While Governments are all different, all states do share in a culture rooted in the idea of sovereignty, such that the transcultural dimensions of these norms is much more limited. International criminal law is one area of international law that stands as radically different in that respect, reflecting the fact that it seeks to alter the behaviour of individuals who may not share a common culture of any kind. What’s more, the culture of those individuals to whom international criminal law is applied is often markedly different from the culture of those by whom these norms are applied, or that of the institutions administering international criminal responsibility. Building on previous work on the application of the doctrine of superior responsibility to a witch-doctor by the Sierra Leone Special Court, I consider the appropriate stance of the SCSL with respect to allegations of cannibalism. I proceed by first analysing how legal interpretation unfolds in the international legal order, focusing on actors, process and object, to then turn to consider the impact of cultural difference on the interpretive exercise. The interpretation of international law and the interpretation of local culture emerge as ineluctably interwoven, with international law acting as a tool and a justification to reinterpret local culture through the prism of legal norms devoid of any local rootedness. The danger is an outcome whereby international law fails to be perceived as legitimate by agents whose behaviour it seeks to regulate and, as a result, fails to trigger the kind of normative engagement required to make law real.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Twelve-country negotiations towards the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (‘TPP’) are drawing to a close. The treaty has an ambitious agenda and could radically reshape trade in the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, the TPP obligations have the potential to significantly restrict the ability of governments to regulate in the interests of public health. This article examines the impact that the TPP could have on two areas of public health regulation — tobacco control and access to medicines. It concludes that a number of legitimate concerns arise from the known content of the TPP, that the inclusion of a general health exception would be the preferable means of safeguarding the regulatory space of governments in relation to public health, and that United States proposals for stronger intellectual property protections that could restrict affordable access to medicines should be resisted. With negotiations shrouded in secrecy, TPP parties’ desires to promote international trade and investment must not overshadow the need of governments to be able to implement sensible and effective public health policy.
- Dominic D.P. Johnson & Monica Duffy Toft, Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict
- Kathleen M. Vogel, Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism
- Peter Krause, The Structure of Success: How the Internal Distribution of Power Drives Armed Group Behavior and National Movement Effectiveness
- Burak Kadercan, Strong Armies, Slow Adaptation: Civil-Military Relations and the Diffusion of Military Power
- Yuen Foong Khong, Primacy or World Order? The United States and China's Rise—A Review Essay
- Dingding Chen, Xiaoyu Pu, & Alastair Iain Johnston, Debating China's Assertiveness
- William G. Nomikos, Alexander B. Downes, & Jonathan Monten, Reevaluating Foreign-Imposed Regime Change
This paper, part of a larger work on international law theory, sketches some early lines of inquiry towards a theoretical understanding of international environmental law.
As the body of international law regulating human interaction with the natural world, one might expect this branch of law to be a cornerstone of the international system. Yet in practice, international environmental law’s reach is strikingly circumscribed. Little of the governance of natural resources, for example, is ‘environmental’. Subsisting at the periphery, environmental law focuses on conserving particular (rare, exotic) species and ‘ecosystems’, and curbing certain kinds of pollution. Its principles are vague, peppering the margins of rulings within other judicial fora: it is quintessential soft law.
In this paper, we suggest that international environmental law’s dilemmas are due to two competing heritages. On one hand, this law enshrines the peculiar pantheism of the European romantic period, positing the ‘natural world’ as sacred, inviolable, redemptive. On the other, its main antecedents are found in colonial era practices, which provided the data for the earliest environmental science and a laboratory for prototypical attempts at conservation and sustainable development. Caught between irreconcilable demands, international environmental law struggles today to avoid utopian irrelevance or nugatory paralysis.
International human rights law offers an overarching international legal framework to help determine the legality of the use of any weapon, as well as its lawful supply. It governs acts of States and non-State actors alike. In doing so, human rights law embraces international humanitarian law regulation of the use of weapons in armed conflict and disarmament law, as well as international criminal justice standards. In situations of law enforcement (such as counterpiracy, prisons, ordinary policing, riot control, and many peace operations), human rights law is the primary legal frame of reference above domestic criminal law. This important and timely book draws on all aspects of international weapons law and proposes a new view on international law governing weapons. Also included is a specific discussion on armed drones and cyberattacks, two highly topical issues in international law and international relations.
Job Opening: Post-Doc on "Energy, Law of the Sea, International Responsibility, and International Environmental Law"
Post-Doc for the Programme Aristeia II-University of Athens
Advertiser: National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of Law
Deadline: 3 March 2014
One (1) post-doctoral research associate position funded by Action ARISTEIA II – 3730 - ENERGYATSEA, “Energy, Law of the Sea, International Responsibility, and International Environmental Law” is available in the Faculty of Law of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The Action ARISTEIA II is co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) and National Resources under National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013. The ENERGYATSEA project duration extends to 31/7/2015. The monthly remuneration (payable sum) for the post-doctoral researcher shall not exceed the amount of €1.600. Furthermore, during the employment and funding from this project, the post-doctoral position is considered as full-time and exclusive employment (i.e. the post-doctoral researcher should not hold any other position).
The post-doctoral researcher is expected to conduct extensive research on the legal regime of offshore energy and to contribute to the objective of the present research as well as to engage in dissemination exercises, presenting the findings of the research in international conferences. Qualifications:
• First Degree in Law
• LL.M. in Public International Law
• Ph.D. in Public International Law, specialization in International Law of the Sea
• Publications in leading international law journals, with emphasis on the law of the sea and international responsibility
• Fluency in English
Additional Desirable Qualifications:
• Teaching Experience in Public International Law
• 3 years (minimum) of post-doctoral research experience in renowned research institutes in Greece or abroad
Applicants should send their application including a letter of intent outlining their specific interests and areas of expertise, a detailed CV (including list of publications) along with a complete list of justification documents (certified degrees, PhD, proof of professional experience, etc.) and publications in electronic format to Special Account for Research Grants of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, 15784, Athens, Att. Mr. Kanelis, referring also the acronym of the grant “ARISTEIA II – 3730 – ENERGYATSEA” by March 3, 2014.
For more information applicants can contact Professor Maria Gavouneli (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The present job advertisement was first published on 18 February 2014 here.
- Volume 366
- David Hayton, “Trusts” in Private International Law
- Kaj Hobér, Res Judicata and Lis Pendens in International Arbitration
Monday, February 24, 2014
This paper analyses the role of consensus among states in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It first presents a brief overview of the origins and the development of the present approach to consensus analysis before discussing the diverging concepts and theoretical explanations of European consensus. The focus of the paper is then on the normative and dogmatic bases of consensus analysis, reaching from European and extra-European domestic legal systems to treaties, judgments of international courts, and soft law. This is followed by a brief inquiry into how binding consensus ought to be. The final parts of the analysis set out the results of our survey of the mechanics of consensus analysis as practised by the ECtHR. We conclude that consensus analysis has a sound basis in both principle and pragmatism.
Call for Papers: ‘Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach Integrating Maritime Security with Human Rights
‘Boat Refugees’ and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach
Integrating Maritime Security with Human Rights
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Refugee Law Initiative, University of London, and the Law Department of Queen Mary, University of London, with the financial support of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) and the Human Rights Consortium (HRC), organises a Conference titled '"Boat Refugees" and migrants at sea: a comprehensive approach - integrating maritime security with human rights'.
The conference will be held at Senate House in London on 23 and 24 June 2014.
This conference aims to comprehensively address the contemporary phenomenon of ‘boat migration’ with a holistic approach. We will consider its multiple facets, combining knowledge from several disciplines and regions of the world, with a view to making a decisive contribution to our understanding of current trends, against the background of the fragmentary responses adopted and innumerable tragedies occurred thus far.
The final goal is to unpack the tension between security concerns and human rights in this context. Therefore, our joint reflections will build on recent developments in law and case law regarding the applicability of human rights at sea and take account of past and present policy experiences to help placing on-going discussions within a comprehensive framework. The objective is to trigger an inter-regional and multidisciplinary dialogue with contributions from Law of the Sea, maritime security, migration and refugee studies, and human rights, to address the position of ‘migrants at sea’ from an integrated perspective, bridging current gaps in knowledge and policy responses, ranging from how to conceptually categorise ‘boat migrants’, to how to respond to differing needs and entitlements, and how to reconcile them with State obligations and security constraints.
The conference is projected following a logical flow, which starts with the joint identification of the subjectmatter, moving on to the analysis of core issue-areas and policy initiatives adopted in the EU and beyond, and closing with the identification of outstanding problems, pointing the way ahead in which research should move to contribute to the development of sustainable policy, mindful of both State interests and the rights of refugees and migrants. Attention will be drawn to the instruments, actors and institutions involved to yield insights on how migration by sea has been and should be governed. To this end, each session will regroup panellists from a variety of backgrounds, who will be asked to deal with a common question.
Confirmed speakers include Prof. Guy Goodwin-Gill (University of Oxford) and Prof. François Crépeau (UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants), as keynote speakers, together with distinguished world-class scholars, policy-makers and representatives from inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations.
In addition to the invited experts, we would like to provide the opportunity to early-career researchers concerned with the issue of ‘boat migration’ to participate and contribute to the discussion. Speakers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted in response to this call for papers. The organisers will contribute to their travel and accommodation expenses with a flat rate for EU and overseas participants.
Junior scholars (including PhD students) are particularly encouraged to submit an abstract on the following or closely related topics for inclusion in the conference panels:
1) Who is the ‘boat migrant’? (multi-disciplinary approaches are particularly welcome).
2) The ‘boat migrant’ and illegality at sea: security and law-enforcement issues.
3) Needs and entitlements of refugees and migrants at sea: Human rights and protection obligations.
4) Policy responses to ‘boat migration’: Inter-agency and multi-purpose mechanisms.
5) Identifying gaps and challenges: Indicating the way forward.
Abstracts, not exceeding 300 words, should be addressed to both convenors by 20 March: Dr Violeta Moreno-Lax (email@example.com) and Dr Efthymios Papastavridis ( papastavridis@Academyofathens).
In addition, the following information must be provided with the submission:
• The author’s name and affiliation, indicating contact details, including an email address.
• The author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications.
A selection of the best papers will be published after the conference with a world-class publisher.
• The deadline for submissions is 20 March 2014
• Successful applicants will be informed by 31 March 2014
• The deadline for the submission of conference papers is 1 June 2014
• The deadline for the submission of revised papers for publication is 1 October 2014
- Cécile Fabre & Seth Lazar, Introduction
- Seth Lazar, National Defence, Self-Defence, and the Problem of Political Aggression
- Patrick Emerton & Toby Handfield, Understanding the Political Defensive Privilege
- David Rodin, The Myth of National Self-Defence
- Cécile Fabre, Cosmopolitanism and Wars of Self-Defence
- Jeff McMahan, What Rights may be Defended by Means of War?
- Yitzhak Benbaji, Distributive Justice, Human Rights, and Territorial Integrity: A Contractarian Account of the Crime of Aggression
- Margaret Moore, Collective Self-Determination, Institutions of Justice, and Wars of National Defence
- Anna Stilz, Territorial Rights and National Defence
- Christopher Kutz, Democracy, Defence, and the Threat of Intervention
Schultz & Dupont: Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-Empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study
The increased used of investment arbitration raises questions about the functions it effectively exerts. This paper seeks to shed light on this question by examining the empirical manifestations of three simple functions that investment arbitration allegedly fulfills. The first hypothesis is that investment arbitration acts as a tool to empower investors from developed states over governments of developing host states. The second is that investment arbitration is a replacement for dysfunctional domestic courts in countries with a weak rule of law tradition. The third is that investment arbitration serves to promote international investment law. Our empirical investigation uses an original data set that compiles over 500 investment arbitration claims from 1972 to 2010.
Fouchard: Crimes internationaux : Entre internationalisation du droit pénal et pénalisation du droit international
L’actualité regorge malheureusement d’exemples de crimes contre l’humanité, de génocides, d’actes de piraterie maritime, de prises d’otages et autres crimes de terrorisme international, à travers le monde. Ces crimes sont souvent englobés sous le qualificatif de « crimes internationaux » alors même qu’ils correspondent à des actes et à des régimes juridiques très différents. L’objectif de cet ouvrage est d’analyser les interactions normatives entre droit international et droits pénaux étatiques afin de démontrer que coexistent deux processus normatifs différents - l’internationalisation du droit pénal interne et la pénalisation du droit international. Ces processus ont donné naissance à deux corpus de droit relevant d’ordres juridiques différents :
– le droit pénal international réglementant les crimes transnationaux (dont la piraterie maritime, le détournement d’avion, le financement du terrorisme ou encore la corruption internationale)
– le droit international pénal encadrant les crimes supranationaux (limités pour l’heure au crime d’agression, au génocide, au crime contre l’humanité et aux crimes de guerre les plus graves).
Les premiers sont dits transnationaux car dépassant les frontières étatiques, ils ont fait l’objet de conventions internationales de coopération pénale visant à renforcer l’efficacité de leur prévention et répression. Ils demeurent néanmoins des crimes de droit commun incriminés par les droits pénaux internes et jugés par les seules juridictions nationales. Les seconds sont qualifiés de supranationaux parce qu’ils constituent des violations graves de normes fondamentales du droit international et sont directement encadrés par le droit international, indépendamment des droits pénaux nationaux. Leur régime juridique présente des spécificités propres, à commencer par la compétence de juridictions pénales internationales pour en juger.
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
Transnational Standards in the Domestic Legal Order:
Authority and Legitimacy
The research project Architecture of Postnational Rulemaking at the University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law, is organizing a workshop on 24 October 2014 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Workshop Theme
The workshop explores the evolving interactions between transnational standards and the domestic legal order from the perspectives of authority and legitimacy.
The decline of sovereign states in global governance was accompanied by the expansion of transnational standard-setting bodies, which are not part of treaty-based institutions. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) develops industrial standards; the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) provides capital requirements; the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) formulates accounting standards; the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) establishes principles and criteria for forest products; and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends radiological protection standards. The standard-setting in these bodies is led not only by governmental regulators, but also by industry representatives and scientific experts.
These bodies’ transnational standards permeate national standards, domestic statutes, administrative instruments, and judicial decisions. The interactions between transnational standards and the domestic legal order have significantly evolved, and reduced regulatory fragmentation across states without the rigidity of concluding any formal international treaties. The evolving interactions between transnational standards and the domestic legal order give rise to the fundamental questions about authority and legitimacy. In this workshop, authority broadly concerns an entity’s claims and others’ deference to them. Legitimacy concerns a broad normative perspective to evaluate the authority of transnational standard-setting bodies and their standards.
Authority appears to be a multi-faceted notion when it is cast against transnational standards. On the one hand, the authority of standard-setting bodies seems to be strongly supported by the expertise of transnational bodies, the industry and scientific “consensus” they formulate at the transnational level, and pressure for regulatory harmonization across states. On the other hand, the authority of standard-setting bodies and their standards appears to be contextual, and constituted by domestic politics and legal contexts.
The authority of transnational standards further gives rise to a multi-faceted question of legitimacy. At the transnational level, standard-setting processes may not allow any formal governmental representation, as contrasted with the conclusion of treaties and the decision-making processes in international organizations. At the domestic level, transnational standards are not subject to parliamentary approval required for the conclusion of formal treaties. The executive organs may defer to transnational standards and avoid domestic deliberation. The technicality of industry or scientific standards makes it difficult for the wider public to review the governmental reliance on transnational standards. Overall, there is a strong indication that transnational standards may escape domestic scrutiny at multiple levels.
Extensive studies have already been produced on the role of transnational standard-setting bodies. Much less recognized are the interactions of transnational standards with the domestic legal order. Given that the regulatory significance of transnational standards often depends on domestic acceptance, it is important to examine the queries of how the authority of transnational standards is constituted at the domestic level, and whether the authority is legitimate.
Against this background, the workshop will address the evolving interactions between transnational standards and the domestic legal order, particularly from the following three angles:
1. Transnational standards in domestic legal practices
Transnational standard-setting bodies actively promote, if not oblige, the domestic permeation of their standards in order to achieve regulatory convergence across states. National legislatures, ministries, judges, industries, and the general public invoke transnational standards in statutes, administrative instruments, judicial decisions, and wider legal practices. What argumentative bases do relevant domestic actors invoke in adopting transnational standards in domestic legal practices? Which legal instruments are used for the domestic adoption of transnational standards? Who has invited the standards into the domestic legal order?
2. Authority of transnational standards
The concept of authority has been traditionally associated with a sovereign state and its binding domestic laws and regulations. The concept has also been employed in relation to international organizations, such as the UN, the World Bank, and the WHO, which are established by sovereign states. Is authority a useful notion to understand the regulatory relevance of transnational standards? How can we theoretically understand the authority of transnational standards at the domestic level? What constitutes authority? How is the expertise of transnational standard-setting bodies relevant to their authority? How does the authority of transnational standards vary according to the domestic legal order in which the standards are applied? What conditions lead to the varied domestic amenability to transnational standards?
3. Legitimacy of transnational standards
Despite the fact that transnational standards have an impact on domestic legal practices, transnational standard-setting processes and domestic legal processes appear to invite only restricted input from domestic constituencies. Is the domestic permeation of transnational standards normatively problematic, and if so, in what sense? On what basis have transnational standards, and standard-setting bodies, been challenged at the domestic level? Could the expansion of transnational standards undermine domestic democracy? What role do domestic courts play in reviewing and contesting the governmental use of transnational standards? Does national contestation have any feedback on the development of transnational standards? Papers are invited to explore these angles in a variety of legal disciplines. These three angles are interrelated, and multiple angles can be addressed within one paper.
Submission of Proposals and the Timeline
Paper proposals should include a description of maximum 500 words and the applicant’s curriculum vitae. Submissions should cover work that has not been previously published.
At the workshop, the invited authors should present a paper of 7,000-8,000 words, excluding references. It is the intention of the organisers to publish the papers in a special journal edition.
- Paper proposals should be sent by email to: Ms. Angela Moisl at firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline is 18 May 2014.
- Selected participants will be informed by 18 June 2014.
- Each participant must submit a paper by 3 October 2014 for distribution to the other participants.
- The workshop takes place on 24 October 2014 at the University of Amsterdam.
The sponsoring organizations will cover the speakers’ travelling (economy class) and accommodation expenses (2 nights).
For substantive questions, please contact Dr. Machiko Kanetake at M.Kanetake@ uva.nl.
- Daniel D. Bradlow & Andria Naudé Fourie, The Operational Policies of the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation
- Ronald Janse, Entering the Forbidden Zone
- Francis Maupain, The ILO Regular Supervisory System: A Model in Crisis?
- Bruce Oswald, Informal Justice and United Nations Peace Operations
- Maria Canto Lopez, Towards Dual or Multiple Attribution
- Tamara Cummings-John, Cooperation Between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court
Sunday, February 23, 2014
The University of Missouri is issuing a call for proposals for an upcoming works-in-progress conference as well as a call for papers for a student writing competition. Both of these calls are affiliated with a symposium that is being convened at the University of Missouri's Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution on Friday, October 10, 2014.
The symposium is entitled "Judicial Education and the Art of Judging: From Myth to Methodology" and addresses a number of issues relating to the role of judges and the goals and methods of judicial education. The symposium features the Honorable Duane Benton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as keynote speaker as well as an accomplished group of judges, academics, and judicial education experts from the United States and Canada as panelists.
The day before the symposium (Thursday, October 9, 2014), the University of Missouri will be hosting a works-in-progress conference relating to the subject matter of the symposium, broadly interpreted. Presentation proposals should be no more than one page in length and can include analyses that are practical, theoretical or interdisciplinary in nature. Participants can discuss judges at the state, federal or international level. Proposals for the works-in-progress conference should be directed to Professor S.I. Strong (email@example.com) and will be accepted until May 26, 2014. Decisions regarding accepted papers will be made in June 2014. Prospective attendees should note that there is no funding available to assist participants with their travel expenses.
The University of Missouri is also organizing a student writing competition in association with the symposium. Papers will likely be due in August 2014, although precise details (such as the due date and the amount of any prize money associated with the competition) are still being finalized.
More information about the symposium, works-in-progress conference and student writing competition is available at the symposium website, located here. People may also contact Professor S.I. Strong (firstname.lastname@example.org) with any questions.
This chapter explores how international law may regulate large-scale leases and acquisitions of land (“land grab”) that have accelerated in pace and scope in recent years. We start by identifying why the land grab phenomenon concerns food security. In particular, we observe that the lessor countries (those where the land is located) are almost invariably states plagued by corruption, lack of democracy, dependence on food aid, and weak property rights. Where agents (state leaders) have conflicts of interests with their principals (citizens) it cannot be assumed that these transactions will work to the local population’s advantage. After examining why international investment law is not equipped to police these transactions, we turn to sources within trade law. Because trade law concerns the cross border flow of products, it has the potential to de-incentivize food from leaving land grabbed states and deter similar transactions in the future. The central question, then, is whether World Trade Organization (WTO) law accommodates strategies that are designed specifically to discourage particular categories of free trade. Drawing on recent WTO jurisprudence, we propose labeling laws and import restrictions as potential regulations that may be adopted by third party states.
- Jane McAdam, Rethinking the Origins of ‘Persecution’ in Refugee Law
- Anna Lise Purkey, Questioning Governance in Protracted Refugee Situations: The Fiduciary Nature of the State-Refugee Relationship/li>
- Marcelle Reneman, Speedy Asylum Procedures in the EU: Striking a Fair Balance Between the Need to Process Asylum Cases Efficiently and the Asylum Applicant’s EU Right to an Effective Remedy/li>
- Rebecca MM Wallace & Karen Wylie, The Reception of Expert Medical Evidence in Refugee Status Determination