- Jannika Jahn, Ruling (in)directly through individual measures?: Effect and legitimacy of the ECtHR's New Remedial Power
- Blake Emerson, Equality and federalism in U.S.-American civil rights law: A review of two recent supreme court cases on same-sex marriage and voting rights
- Michael Ioannidis, EU Financial Assistance Conditionality after „Two Pack”
- Bertus de Villiers, The Protection of Dispersed Minorities: Options for Aboriginal People in Australia
- Stellungnahmen und Berichte
- Lina Papadopoulou, Die implizite Änderung der griechischen Verfassung durch das EU-Recht
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
In conflict-affected regions, delays in international response can have life or death consequences. The speed with which international organizations react to crises affects the prospects for communities to re-establish peace. Why then do some international organizations take longer than others to answer calls for intervention? To answer this question and explore options for reform, Time to React builds on contemporary scholarship with original data on response rates and interview evidence from 50 ambassadors across four leading organizations (AU, EU, OAS and OSCE). The explanation for variation in speed ultimately lies in core differences in institutional cultures across organizations. Although wealth and capabilities can strengthen a peace operation, it is the unspoken rules and social networks of peace and security committees at these organizations that dictate the pace with which an operation is established. This book offers a first analysis of the critical importance of and conditions shaping timeliness of crisis response by international organizations.
Call for Papers: Reassessing International Economic Law and Development: New Challenges for Law and Policy
CALL FOR PAPERS
American Society for International Law
International Economic Law Interest Group (IEcLIG)
in partnership with the University of Denver Sturm College of Law Sutton Colloquium
2014 Biennial Research Conference:
REASSESSING INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW AND DEVELOPMENT:
NEW CHALLENGES FOR LAW AND POLICY
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Denver, CO, USA
November 13-15, 2014
I. Conference Theme
Amartya Sen’s call for understanding development not only in terms of gross national product but also “in terms of the substantive freedoms of people” marked an important reframing of the legal and policy discourse around economic development. The resulting Millennium Development Goals focused much academic research in this area towards a more comprehensive understanding of development, one that would recognize economic growth as intrinsically tied to such areas as: environmental sustainability; food security; the reduction of extreme poverty, hunger, and child mortality; access to health; and the promotion of education and gender equality. International economic institutions like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have traditionally been at the center of promoting and managing economic growth; yet, these institutions also face challenges caused by recent financial crises, the need for food security and high energy demand, while preserving natural resources and the environment.
With the approach of the fifteenth anniversary of the Millennium goals and given these new and ongoing challenges, it is time to reassess the role that international economic law (IEL) has played and continues to play in development. How effective is IEL at promoting development, broadly construed? Under what conditions is it effective? In what ways should IEL norms and institutions be adjusted to accommodate growing concerns around climate change, energy demand, food security, and other issues?
II. Proposal Submission & Selection
We encourage IEL scholars, practitioners, and advanced graduate students to submit proposals for paper presentations or panels. Proposals should be no more than one single-spaced page in length. For guaranteed consideration, proposals must be received no later than May 16, 2014.
Paper proposals should include a working title of the paper and an abstract describing the paper’s main thesis, methods, and contribution. You should also include a one-page curriculum vitae (CV) as a separate document.
Panel proposals should be organized around a theme and should include a brief description of the theme and a list of the proposed participants with their anticipated contributions, indicating whether the participants have expressed a willingness to participate in the conference should the proposal be accepted.
Proposals should be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org. Any time-sensitive questions should be addressed to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. The selection process will consist of blind review by the IEcLIG leadership and the 2014 IEcLIG Biennial Selection Committee. We anticipate communicating acceptance decisions by July 18, 2014. Authors of accepted proposals commit to preparing a draft paper on their proposed topic, and submitting the draft paper to the conference organizers by no later than November 1, 2014.
ASIL-IEcLIG 2014 Biennial Selection Committee:
Sungjoon Cho, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Greg Shaffer, Minnesota University School of Law
Michael Ewing-Chow, National University of Singapore
Phil Nichols, University of Pennsylvania Wharton School
Jeff Dunhoff, Temple University Beardsley School of Law
Jurgen Kurtz, University of Melbourne School of Law
Joel Trachtman, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
José Alvarez, New York University School of Law
Rob Howse, New York University School of Law
Gabrielle Marceau, World Trade Organization
Alvaro Santos, Georgetown University Law Center
David Gantz, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Holger Hestermeyer, European Court of Justice
Phoenix Cai, University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Annecoos Wiersema, University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Tomer Broude, Hebrew University School of Law
Jason Yackee, University of Wisconsin Law School
Elizabeth Trujillo, Suffolk University Law School
David Zaring, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Sonia Rolland, Northeastern University School of Law
James Gathii, Loyola University (Chicago) School of Law
III. Possible Topics for Papers and Panels
We have provided an illustrative list of possible paper and panel topics below.
We construe IEL and development broadly, and we are open to a variety of scholarly approaches. We welcome proposals adopting historical, empirical, comparative, theoretical, critical, or normative frameworks. We also encourage submissions that do not necessarily address the conference theme.
Possible theme-related topics
• Development strategies: domestic policies supporting industrialization/structural change; the need for policy space
• Managing financial crises and income policies for employment creation
• Reforms for global economic governance in the context of development: e.g. multilateral, bilateral, regional, plurilateral trade; international monetary and financial system; management of debt crisis
• Implications of mega-regionals for developing countries.
• The role of political institutions for development
• The role of economic institutions such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, the G-8/G-20; international standards organizations, for development
• The WTO's new trade facilitation agreement and development
• Role of public/private partnerships in development
• Climate change and its impact on economic development
• Food security and climate change; sustainable agriculture
• Sustainable development issues such as natural resource extraction and energy
• The interaction of domestic law and politics to development
• The role of hard and soft law in international economic and sustainable development reforms
• Role of technology in transformation of agriculture
• Access to technology for sustainable development
• Micro-finance and development
• Renewable energy and trade and investment
• The labor and development nexus in a global supply chain
• Evaluating trade and development policies: e.g. NAFTA at 20; EU at 20; the WTO at 20; UNCTAD at 50
• Methodological approaches international economic law and development
• Interpretive approaches to international economic law and development: theory vs. practice
• The rise of BRICs and implications for development
• The rise of Africa and international economic law
• The proliferation of trade and investment agreements and their implications for development
We also welcome submissions on any other IEL related topic.
We are in the process of exploring publication opportunities for the 2014 conference. The results of previous biennial IEcLIG conferences have been published as Minnesota Journal of International Law, Symposium: International Economic Law in a Time of Change: Reassessing Legal Theory, Doctrine, Methodology and Policy Prescriptions. Volume XX Summer 2011 Number 2; THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW, Tomer Broude, Amy Porges and Marc L. Busch eds., Cambridge University Press 2010; INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: THE STATE AND FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Colin B. Picker, Isabella D. Bunn and Douglas W. Arner eds., Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008; and TRADE AS THE GUARANTOR OF PEACE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY? CRITICAL HISTORICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVES, Padideh Ala'i, Tomer Broude, & Colin Picker eds., ASIL Press, 2006.
III. Conference Details
The conference will take place at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law located in Denver, Colorado on November 13-15, 2014. Denver is easily accessible via domestic and international airlines. The University of Denver is located in a beautiful part of the city, and is just a short car-ride from the majestic Rocky Mountains. Hotel and other logistical details will be announced later this summer.
For ASIL Members, the registration fee is expected to be $95 ($135, non-ASIL Members), which will cover some meals and a reception. Students currently enrolled in a program of higher education will receive a 50% discount. A reduced rate or a fee waiver may be considered for participants from developing countries.
Please understand that budget constraints prevent us from providing any travel or other financial assistance to conference participants.
Jason Yackee & Elizabeth Trujillo, ASIL IEcLIG Co-Chairs
Sonia Rolland & David Zaring, ASIL IEcLIG Co-Vice Chairs
TDM Call for papers "Dispute Resolution from a Corporate Perspective"
We are pleased to announce a forthcoming TDM special issue on Dispute Resolution from a Corporate Perspective edited by Kai-Uwe Karl (General Electric), Abhijit Mukhopadhyay (Hinduja Group), Michael Wheeler (Harvard Business School) and Heba Hazzaa (Cairo University).
While corporations are one of the key stakeholders in international dispute resolution, they do not often participate in the debate, and if they do, they often speak a language completely different from that of the other stakeholders. There are numerous topics that play a key role in the daily life of corporate dispute resolution lawyers but are rarely discussed outside the corporate world or from a corporate perspective irrespective of having a significant impact on how disputes are managed and resolved, or how corporations expect this to be done.
A TDM special on dispute resolution from a corporate perspective seeks to widen and deepen the debate on issues that are central to the efficient management of disputes from a corporate perspective. We seek contributions related to any of the areas set out below but welcome other relevant contributions as well.
Dispute Management. While companies do not enter into contracts with the expectation of becoming embroiled in litigation, disputes do occur and are part of doing business. The assumption is that disputes should be managed systemically rather than as ad-hoc events.
We seek contributions that focus on dispute management systems and policies, including how they may impact dispute resolution processes, for example:
- There has been a debate on corporate dispute resolution policies and dispute management systems. How do such policies function in practice and what makes them successful? What should they include? How are they implemented? How do they compare for companies headquartered in different parts of the world, or for small versus large corporations? How can their success be measured? Any contribution on corporate dispute resolution policies or dispute management systems, including case studies, academic research, etc., would be welcome.
- There has been significant research on determining which dispute resolution process may be most appropriate for a particular dispute. Moreover, while many arbitral institution now offer mediation services, some are further evolving into "conflict management institutions" where corporation receive advice on which dispute resolution method is most suitable for their dispute. Is this a welcome evolution?
- From the perspective of a corporation, commercial dispute resolution is about managing risks. A judge or arbitrator, on the other hand, is occupied with delivering justice. A corporation will want disputes to be resolved swiftly, ideally within months, with minimum uncertainty as to the outcome. A judge or arbitrator may consider this, at best, unrealistic or simply irrelevant, and typically is careful to avoid any indication as to what the outcome of a dispute may be.
- With the ever increasing speed of doing business, how can the corporate perspective be incorporated into litigation or arbitral proceedings?
- Apart from the general recognition that commercial dispute resolution must be efficient, speedy and inexpensive, is the corporate perspective relevant at all, or is it simply wishful thinking of a business manager with no understanding of court litigation or arbitral proceedings?
- Is there room for a notion of "procedural justice", which incorporates the business' perspective into the arbitration or litigation, or is procedural law only there to serve the purpose of reaching an accurate final judgment?
- "Professional responsibility meets moral hazard". Lawyers who negotiate on behalf of their clients do not bear the costs and benefits of the deals that they reach, at least not directly and certainly not in the same way that their clients do. Are such ethical considerations relevant when designing dispute management systems? How should they impact performance measures?
Commercial Dispute Resolution - The field of negotiation. In order to successfully resolve commercial disputes, lawyers must possess, in addition to their legal, technical, and industry expertise, the skills to understand, predict and manage conflict through negotiation. While discussion of legal concepts and theory among the community of international dispute resolution lawyers is highly sophisticated, there is less of a debate on negotiation and limited exchange with other disciplines researching the field of negotiation.
- How can the study of negotiation processes - including psychological processes such as cognition, emotion and motivation as well as social factors such as communication, cooperation and power - assist parties, counsel and arbitrator in resolving commercial disputes? For example:
- Settlement negotiations v. arbitration: How do decision making processes differ? How do we properly frame risks? How do cognitive biases or social processes impact decision making?
- What role can emotions play in the dispute resolution process (including arbitration and litigation)?
- What is the role of negotiation within arbitration or litigation? Do arbitrators negotiate with the parties to a dispute? How will arbitrators view parties using arbitration to persuade the other side to make concessions?
- Mediation, a close cousin of negotiation, has become a standard and key dispute resolution tool for many large corporations. What does this mean for the skill-set counsel must possess in order to serve its client? For example, how does the traditionally "rights based" training of lawyers support, or stand in the way, of "interest based" mediation?
- Many corporations now use early case assessments to determine the way forward in case of disputes. What economic concepts should be applied when weighing settlement versus litigation or international arbitration?
- Negotiation changes fundamentally when we move from two-party to multi-party negotiation as coalition-building and sequencing become salient. Arbitration is traditionally a two party dispute resolution process although there are often multiple disputes in parallel relating to the same issue. Can models developed for multi-party negotiations help to more efficiently resolve disputes where, for example, the parties are embroiled in parallel arbitrations with multiple parties?
Managing the cost of dispute resolution. Managing the cost of dispute resolution is key, and discussions between law firms and corporations often center on the subject of how much and how to bill, including for dispute related work. While there is an ongoing debate about whether traditional hourly rate billing creates the wrong incentives, alternative fee arrangements for dispute resolution still appear to be exceptional. We seek contributions addressing issues such as:
- What types of fee arrangements are conceivable for commercial disputes?
- How should risk be allocated between outside counsel and client?
- How should alternative fee arrangements be structured?
- Should there be model agreements or templates for alternative fee arrangements?
The future of commercial dispute resolution - breaking new ground. The arrival of "big data", i.e., the increasing volume, velocity, and variety of data, is likely to catapult us into a world where analytics of very large data sets may allow predictions of outcomes and behavior that currently does not exist.
- How will "big data" shape the future of commercial dispute resolutions?
- We seek contributions on the future of commercial dispute resolution including in relation to case management applications or tools, which anticipate, manage and reduce dispute resolution risks and related costs.
Senior Counsel - Litigation
GE Oil & Gas
Class of 1952 Professor of Management Practice
Harvard Business School
PhD in Law - Cairo University
LL.M Georgetown Law
Please address all questions and proposals to both and , with a copy to email@example.com when you submit material. Publication is expected in October 2014. Proposals for papers should be submitted to the editors by July 31, 2014.
- Michael C. Horowitz & Philip B. K. Potter, Allying to Kill: Terrorist Intergroup Cooperation and the Consequences for Lethality
- Jae-Woo Kim & Robert A. Hanneman, Coevolutionary Dynamics of Cultural Markers, Parochial Cooperation, and Networks
- Nathan Danneman & Emily Hencken Ritter, Contagious Rebellion and Preemptive Repression
- Ana Carolina Garriga & Brian J. Phillips, Foreign Aid as a Signal to Investors: Predicting FDI in Post-conflict Countries
- Brett V. Benson, Adam Meirowitz, & Kristopher W. Ramsay, Inducing Deterrence through Moral Hazard in Alliance Contracts
- Stephen Nemeth, The Effect of Competition on Terrorist Group Operations
- Kyle Beardsley & Nigel Lo, Third-Party Conflict Management and the Willingness to Make Concessions
- Conference Issue: Legal Tradition in a Diverse World
- Jasmine Moussa & Bart Smit Duijzentkunst, Editors' Introduction
- Abdulqawi Yusuf, Diversity of Legal Traditions and International Law: Keynote Address
- H Patrick Glenn, The State as Legal Tradition
- James Crawford, Alain Pellet & Catherine Redgwell, Anglo-American and Continental Traditions in Advocacy before International Courts and Tribunals
- Yaël Ronen, Blind in Their Own Cause: the Military Courts in the West Bank
- Stephen Strickey, ‘Anglo-American' Military Justice Systems and the Wave of Civilianization: Will Discipline Survive?
- Jonathan Hafetz, Diminishing the Value of War Crimes Prosecutions: a View of the Guantanamo Military Commissions from the Perspective of International Criminal Law
- Valerie Oosterveld, The Influence of Domestic Legal Traditions on the Gender Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals
- Ulf Linderfalk, Towards a More Constructive Analysis of the Identity of Special Regimes in International Law: the Case of Proportionality
- Francesco Messineo, Is There an Italian Conception of International Law?
- Geoffrey Gordon, The Innate Cosmopolitan Tradition of International Law
- Rosa Freedman, ‘Third Generation' Rights: Is There Room for Hybrid Constructs within International Human Rights Law?
- Neil Dowers, The Anti-Suit Injunction and the EU: Legal Tradition and Europeanisation in International Private Law
- Freya Baetens & Cheah Wui Ling, Being an International Law Lecturer in the 21st Century: Where Tradition Meets Innovation
- Elihu Lauterpacht, Concluding Remarks
Thursday, March 27, 2014
- Eyal Benvenisti & George W. Downs, Comment on Nico Krisch, “The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods”
- Jacob Katz Cogan, The Changing Form of the International Law Commission’s Work, a comment on Sean Murphy's Report on the Sixty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission
Toppling Qaddafi is a carefully researched, highly readable look at the role of the United States and NATO in Libya's war of liberation and its lessons for future military interventions. Based on extensive interviews within the US government, this book recounts the story of how the United States and its European allies went to war against Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, why they won the war, and what the implications for NATO, Europe, and Libya will be. This was a war that few saw coming, and many worried would go badly awry, but in the end the Qaddafi regime fell and a new era in Libya's history dawned. Whether this is the kind of intervention that can be repeated, however, remains an open question - as does Libya's future and that of its neighbors.
Contemporary discussion of the term jus post bellum has emerged through two key disciplines. The first is that of philosophy, where philosophers, mainly North American, have been provoked by the questions raised by US-led military intervention in Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, to consider how just war theory might apply post international intervention. Here the approach has been to try to locate an articulation of jus post bellum as an obligation of repair and reconstruction that would extend the just war tradition, as typified by the work of Walzer, Orend, and May. The second discipline has been that of international law and engagement with jus post bellum as a legal project that attempts to define and articulate a better international legal regulation of post-conflict landscapes. A holistic approach to this second project has been pursued most notably by Carsten Stahn and the Leiden School, whose stated ambition is to move toward a jus post bellum legal regime that would stand as a third dimension to the current jus ad bello and jus in bellum, so as to regulate the management of post-conflict societies. This legal fashioning of a jus post bellum is conceived as applying across a range of quite different post-conflict contexts: civil wars, other internal conflicts that do not meet the scale of civil war, and the internationalized constitution-making and restructuring processes that have succeeded international military interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
This chapter largely leaves aside the first philosophical project to interrogate seriously the second. I aim to contribute to the discussion of whether a new jus post bellum regime operating across different types of conflict is possible and desirable, and if not, how we should best situate and respond to contemporary developments in international law relating to terminating intra-state conflict.
- Andreas Glaser & Lorenz Langer, Die Institutionalisierung der BilateralenVerträge: Eine Herausforderung für die schweizerische Demokratie
- Matteo Sarzo, La giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo sull’articolo 10, o della difficile relazione fra diritto internazionale e diritto interno
- Noemi Corso, A propos de l’applicabilité du droit de l’occupation militaire aux forces des Nations Unies
In this article, I address the question of the grounds on which an international court that is asked to determine the responsibility of a state and the possible consequences thereof should attach weight to prior judicial findings by different courts in relation to other actors that have contributed to the same harm and who on that ground can be considered co-responsible parties.
The paper argues that in situations where multiple parties contribute to an indivisible harm, there are good reasons for a court that adjudicates claims against one contributing actor to consider and attach weight to judgments of other courts in relation to other contributors. This will allow the court to get a fuller factual account of the various contributions to the harm and their interrelationship, and to better assess the scope of shared responsibilities. In this respect, that concerted judicial action is a proper response to the concerted state action that results in shared responsibility. However, the paper also indicates that international law provides little guidance as to the role and weight of determinations made by other courts in the construction of shared responsibility. The procedural uncertainty of the role and weight of cross-judging reflects a more fundamental uncertainty on, and tension between, the underlying principles of shared responsibility, from which procedural law should derive its direction.
- Nico Krisch, The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods
- Current Developments
- Sean D. Murphy, Immunity Ratione Personae of Foreign Government Officials and Other Topics: The Sixty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission
- International Decisions
- Charles Chernor Jalloh, Prosecutor v. Taylor
- Borzu Sabahi & Kabir Duggal, Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay
- Sadie Blanchard, Republic v. High Court Accra, ex parte Attorney General
- Alexia Solomou, Smith v. Ministry of Defence, Ellis v. Ministry of Defence & Allbutt v. Ministry of Defence
- Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, “Bridge of Varvarin”
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Kristina Daugirdas & Julian Davis Mortenson, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- Ingrid Wuerth, International Law, Domestic Law, and the United States, reviewing International Law in the U.S. Legal System, by Curtis A. Bradley
- Yuval Shany, reviewing The Quest for World Order and Human Dignity in the Twenty-First Century: Constitutive Process and Individual Commitment, by W. Michael Reisman
- Jean Galbraith, reviewing International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: Continuity and Change, edited by David L. Sloss, Michael D. Ramsey, and William S. Dodge
- John H. Knox, reviewing Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights, and the Law of the Commons, by Burns H. Weston and David Bollier
- Dukgeun Ahn, reviewing International Law in Financial Regulation and Monetary Affairs, edited by Thomas Cottier, John H. Jackson, and Rosa M. Lastra
- Anna Spain, reviewing Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement, edited by Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Marcelo G. Kohen, and Jorge E. Viñuales
- James D. Fry, reviewing Non-proliferation Law as a Special Regime: A Contribution to Fragmentation Theory in International Law, edited by Daniel Joyner and Marco Roscini
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
- Special Issue: Legal Perspectives on Contingencies and Resilience in an Environment of Constitutionalism
- Clive Walker, Legal perspectives on contingencies and resilience in an environment of constitutionalism - An overview
- Catherine Appleton, Lone wolf terrorism in Norway
- Michael Eburn, Managing ‘civil contingencies’ in Australia
- John Lindsay, The power to react: review and discussion of Canada's emergency measures legislation
- Rebecca Moosavian, ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’: informing the public under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004
- Andrew Blick, Emergency powers and the withering of the Royal Prerogative
- Clive Walker, The governance of emergency arrangements
- John Mueller & Mark G. Stewart, Terrorism and counterterrorism in the US: the question of responsible policy-making
- Amos N. Guiora, Homeland security: definitions and accountability
This course introduces the international and domestic laws, institutions, and legal and political theories that protect basic liberties of all human beings. The course provides an overview of the internal law of human rights and the principal mechanisms and strategies for holding governments accountable for violating those rights. Students engage with thought-provoking issues of human dignity, state sovereignty, and internal justice. Cutting-edge topics include: genocide and humanitarian intervention, the right to life and capital punishment, the right to health and HIV-AIDS, and counterterrorism and human rights. Students also learn about the different mechanisms available to redress for human rights violations, such as United Nations political and expert bodies, international litigation, domestic criminal prosecutions, and truth commissions. The course is intended for anyone interested in learning about human rights, including undergraduate and graduate and professional students. No prior knowledge of law, international relations or human rights is required, although the course will be of interest to those who have studied or worked in these areas.
- Daniel H. Joyner, Nuclear power plant financing post-Fukushima, and international investment law
- Michael LaBelle & Andreas Goldthau, Escaping the valley of death? Comparing shale gas technology policy prospects to nuclear and solar in Europe
- Richard Temple & Isabelle Desgranges, Liberian production sharing contracts: a new model for West Africa?
- Luciana P. Braga & Alexandre S. Szklo, The recent regulatory changes in Brazilian petroleum exploration and exploitation activities
- James Baily & Rachel Lidgate, LNG price reviews: a sign of the times
- David B. Kultgen, Saudi Aramco: a look ahead
- Rudolf Adlung & Hamid Mamdouh, How to Design Trade Agreements in Services: Top Down or Bottom-Up?
- Wenwei Guan, How General Should the GATT General Exceptions Be?: A Critique of the ‘Common Intention’ Approach of Treaty Interpretation
- Teoman M. Hagemeyer, Tied Aid: Immunization for Export Subsidies against the Law of the WTO?
- Brian D. Kelly, The Pass-Through of Subsidies to Price
- Marios C. Iacovides, Marginal Consumers, Marginalized Economics: Whose Tastes and Habits Should the WTO Panels and Appellate Body Consider When Assessing ‘Likeness’?
- Gabrielle Marceau & Joel P. Trachtman, A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods: The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
- Dylan Geraets & Bregt Natens, The WTO Consistency of the European Union Timber Regulation
Haeck et al.: The Realisation of Human Rights: When Theory Meets Practice: Studies in Honour of Leo Zwaak
Human rights are not aspirational, rather they are meant to be realised. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a growing number of treaties, declarations, resolutions and other materials has been produced and a wide array of international institutions have been created to monitor the implementation of human rights. Through these documents and institutions the realisation of human rights begins. However, the struggle to ensure the rights and freedoms of individuals is never an easy one. It requires the commitment of those who believe in the core nature of human rights. One such person has been Leo Zwaak. The idea behind The Realization of Human Rights: When Theory Meets Practice is that throughout Leo Zwaak’s professional life he dedicated himself to the realisation of human rights. Whether acting as an encylopaedia of knowledge when teaching human rights at the university or providing judicial trainings on the five continents, Leo Zwaak has impacted the world of human rights in many ways. This book is organised into six parts: International Human Rights Law in General; European Human Rights Law; Inter-American and African Human Rights Law; International Human Rights Law, International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law; International Human Rights Law, Extraordinary Rendition and Forced Disappearances; and the International and National Protection of Human Rights. As the book reflects, Leo Zwaak’s work has touched on a wide range of fields, spanning the universal, regional and national levels.
- F. Méndez Powell, Auctioning Spectrum Access to Commercial Broadcasters – a Human Rights Perspective
- E. Webster, Medical-Related Expulsion and Interpretation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- E. Rivera López, Conception, Fertilization and the Onset of Human Personhood: A Note on the Case Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica
- J.J. García Blesa & V.L. Gutiérrez Castillo, The Euro-American Human Rights Dialogue and the Crimes of the Francoist Regime
- N. Van Belle, The Judicial Protection of Human Rights in Europe after the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights
- J.A.E. Vervaele, Delitos internacionales: del ius (non) puniendi del Estado-nación a un deber puniendi imperativo de ius cogens?
- M. De Las Mercedes López Alduncin & P.D. Moyano Ilundain, El alcance del derecho al recurso en la jurisprudencia internacional y su recepción en el ámbito doméstico argentino
- C. Burbano Herrera, How Does the European System of Human Rights Protect Detainees in Bad Health?
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Nollkaemper: The Court and Its Multiple Constituencies: Three Perspectives on the Kosovo Advisory Opinion
This paper assesses the Kosovo Advisory Opinion as an attempt by the ICJ to maintain its authority vis-à-vis multiple constituencies on which the Court to some extent is dependent. The Court controversial interpretation of SC Resolution 1244 and its neglect of questions of secession and self-determination allowed it to protect the interests of key constituencies. The fact that Kosovo appeared to benefit most is best understood as a side-effect of the Court´s decision to serve its longer-term interests. However, this strategy came with a price. The Opinion may fuel secessionist attempts, and moreover could jeopardize future international arrangements to stabilize war-torn societies if the relevant actors were to realize that they can always unilaterally pull out of such arrangements, even if they have been blessed by the Security Council.
Sari: Deployed Operations and the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Because It's Judgment that Defeats Us'
Although few would challenge the idea that Britain’s armed forces should abide by the rule of law, concerns have been expressed for a number of years that legal constraints are diminishing the freedom of action of the British military to an ever greater extent and are thereby undercutting its operational effectiveness on the battlefield. The subject has attracted renewed attention, including in the House of Lords, following the publication of 'The Fog of Law' report by the Policy Exchange in October 2013. The report offers one of the most detailed assessments of the threat posed by the 'legal encirclement' of the British armed forces and must be commended for re-invigorating the debate on this subject. Notwithstanding these achievements, 'The Fog of Law' is first and foremost a policy paper and as such lacks nuance in places. Regrettably, it runs the risk of perpetuating certain misconceptions about the applicable law and may present policy makers with false strategic choices.
The legal framework governing the conduct of British armed forces in deployed operations is complex. Despite what 'The Fog of Law' seems to suggest, there is no easy solution to safeguard the operational effectiveness of the British military from legal constraints in such circumstances. Rather than hoping for a quick fix, this paper argues that what is required is a concerted effort to maintain an appropriate balance between the competing considerations involved. The argument for special treatment of the armed forces will not be won if it does not demonstrate convincingly why such special treatment is in fact necessary. To this end, we need a better understanding of what constraints the law actually imposes on the armed forces and of the means and methods available to reduce any adverse effects on their operational effectiveness to an acceptable level. In addition, we may need a more strategic approach to lawyering than is currently the case.
'THE REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE'
University of Granada, 9-10 October 2014
Organized by the Research Project "International Law and the New Governance after the Economic Crisis" and the Department of Public International Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
I. Conference Content
The Conference Theme will be “The Reform of International Economic Governance”. The two main sessions will cover, respectively, reform of the trading regime and reform of the monetary and financial architecture.
The multilateral trading system is regarded as a major legal achievement and many agree that the WTO has performed as expected with respect to the 2008 crisis. By contrast, the recent financial crisis has demonstrated the difficulties for the international financial architecture to ensure financial stability. We will review the strength of the multilateral trading system and the challenges that it now faces regarding its two main goals (the stability and the liberalisation of trade relations). Similarly, we will analyse the current structure of the international financial system as well as the elements that would need to be changed in order to achieve the aim of financial stability. This conference seeks to encourage research and papers addressing these issues. Questions such as the appropriate level of national regulatory autonomy, the need for more international harmonization, or the opportunity for the strengthening of existing international organizations will arise within the Conference.
There will be two main discussions devoted, respectively, to the reform of the trading regime and reform of the monetary and financial architecture. Both discussions will be preceded by key lectures where leading academics from these fields will present their views on the issue. The confirmed key note speakers are:
1) The reform of the financial architecture, October 9, 2014: Professor Rosa M. Lastra (Queen Mary University of London), Professor Charles Goodhart (London School of Economics), and Professor Kern Alexander (University of Zurich & Member of the European Parliament's Expert Committee on Financial Services).
2) The reform of the trading regime, October 10, 2014: Professor Dan Sarooshi (Oxford University), Professor Andrew Lang (London School of Economics), and Professor Friedl Weiss (University of Vienna).
After the key lectures, those papers selected from the call for papers will be briefly presented by the authors. A debate will follow these presentations, moderated by the organizers.
II. Submission Procedure and Instructions
Paper proposals must be submitted by 1 June 2014 via email to firstname.lastname@example.org in accordance with the following instructions.
Please write ‘Granada Conference 2014 CfP’ in the subject of the email, followed by ‘paper’ proposal, and then the subfield of IEL which should be one of the following: ‘trade’ or ‘finance’.
Paper proposals should include a cover e-mail with full institutional affiliation and contact details of the proposer, and a word attachment with an abstract of no longer than 600 words. The abstract must not include any details identifying the proposer but should contain the title of the paper, along with a line indicating ‘trade’ or ‘finance’.
The conference committee anticipates announcing the results of this call for papers and panel proposals by the end of June 2014.
Conference papers will be made available to conference participants prior to the conference. Accepted papers must be submitted by 1 September 2014, in order to ensure the dissemination of papers among conference attendees.
III. Conference Fees, Costs and Financial Support
All conference participants must cover their own travel, accommodation and attendance costs.
Conference fees and associated attendance costs will be kept as low as possible.
Please submit enquiries to the Conference organizers: email@example.com
IV. About the Conference organizers
The Research Project “International Law and the New Governance after the Economic Crisis” (DER 2011-24111) is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. This Project is developed within the Public International Law Department at the University of Granada.
Professor of International Law and European Law
Luis M. Hinojosa-Martínez
Chair of International Law and European Law
States have frequently justified interventions in internal armed conflicts by claiming they were invited to assist one of the belligerent parties. In most cases the invitation is said to come from the government. Much less frequently states rely on an invitation from a rebel group fighting against the government. As a general matter, invitations from governments provide a lawful basis for intervention and invitations by rebel groups do not. The ICJ affirmed this dichotomous view of intervention by invitation in its 1986 Nicaragua opinion and has not been contradicted by any leading authority since.
But the Nicaragua formulation is rife with problems. Some are of long-standing. In a situation where rebels control a substantial portion of national territory, can the government still issue an invitation on behalf of the state? The traditional effective control principle is of little help in that situation. Are the two sides then equivalent to two states at war, meaning third parties can give assistance to either? Or must third parties abstain from aiding either side on the theory that neither can legitimately speak for the state?
More recently, the question has arisen whether there should be a qualitative evaluation of the party issuing the invitation. This follows on the rise of democratic legitimacy principles in disputes over recognition of governments. Should an invitation by a government or rebel group be judged, at least in part, by the democratic bona fides of the issuing party? The Security Council’s experiences with invitations in the Haiti, Sierra Leone, Côte D’Ivoire and Malawi suggest that such qualitative determines are entering international law for the first time. But the precedents have important limitations, notably the presence of the Security Council at virtually every stage. Invitations untethered from collective determinations about the merits of the requesting party carry a real danger of rampant unilateralism, especially if they come from rebel forces. This is perhaps the reason the Nicaragua opinion set out a rule devoid of any nuance. AS the Court warned, “it is difficult to see what would remain of the principle of non-intervention in international law if intervention, which is already allowable at the request of the government of a state, were also to be allowed at the request of the opposition. This would permit any state to intervene at any moment in the interna1 affairs of another state.”
Hilpold: 'And with Success Comes Pardon Hand in Hand': Some Essential Features of R2P and Humanitarian Intervention Drawn from History of International Law
Humanitarian intervention and R2P are two concepts intimately related and yet so far apart. R2P seems to be a concept without history and all about the future, while humanitarian intervention appears to be all history and with not future. At the same time, the impression is given that the humanitarian intervention community and the R2P community are speaking essentially about the same thing using a different language. How to bridge this communicational gap? It is to be shown here that both concepts can be brought together by the adoption of a historical perspective. Thereby it becomes clear that R2P has a far longer history than commonly held, even though the terminology was widely different. On the other hand, many elements of the idea of humanitarian continue to live on in the concept of R2P. It will be shown that the present idea of protection is not only the result a discussion lasting a little bit more than a decade but finds its roots in ancient history. What has changed is the way we define a community, how we develop a feeling of belonging and how human beings find the resolve to intervene in favour of others. These changes have to do with fundamental alterations in the relationship between the individual and society as a whole as well as with broader technological modifications that contribute to make the international human society a real life experience. Behind all these mutations in human society an array of truths become apparent if we look at specific situations in which men intervened in favour of other people abroad. If we look far back at such situations we see that the present discussion about the need for intervention and its limits has a long history. We see that next to no problem that haunts the relevant discussion today is really new and the same is true for the solutions proposed. The relevant discussion presents a surprising modernity and this is not only the case for academic writings of the 19th century but also for a variety of contributions that date back to the Middle Ages and even to ancient history.
Kleine: Informal Governance in the European Union: How Governments Make International Organizations Work
The European Union is the world’s most advanced international organization, presiding over a level of legal and economic integration unmatched in global politics. To explain this achievement, many observers point to its formal rules that entail strong obligations and delegate substantial power to supranational actors such as the European Commission. This legalistic view, Mareike Kleine contends, is misleading. More often than not, governments and bureaucrats informally depart from the formal rules and thereby contradict their very purpose. Behind the EU’s front of formal rules lies a thick network of informal governance practices.
If not the EU’s rules, what accounts for the high level of economic integration among its members? How does the EU really work? In answering these questions, Kleine proposes a new way of thinking about international organizations. Informal governance affords governments the flexibility to resolve conflicts that adherence to EU rules may generate at the domestic level. By dispersing the costs that integration may impose on individual groups, it allows governments to keep domestic interests aligned in favor of European integration. The combination of formal rules and informal governance therefore sustains a level of cooperation that neither regime alone permits, and it reduces the EU’s democratic deficit by including those interests into deliberations that are most immediately affected by its decisions. In illustrating informal norms and testing how they work, Kleine provides the first systematic analysis, based on new material from national and European archives and other primary data, of the parallel development of the formal rules and informal norms that have governed the EU from the 1958 Treaty of Rome until today.
Monday, March 24, 2014
When it comes to foreign relations, the Roberts Court has trust issues. As far as the Court is concerned, everyone — the President, Congress, the lower courts, plaintiffs — has played hard and fast with the rules, taking advantage of the Court’s functionalist approaches to foreign affairs issues. This seems to be the message of the Roberts Court foreign affairs law jurisprudence.
The Roberts Court has been active in foreign affairs law, deciding cases on the detention and trial of enemy combatants, foreign sovereign immunity, the domestic effect of treaties, the extraterritorial reach of federal statutes, the preemption of state laws, and the scope of the political question doctrine, among others. Looking back at those decisions, this Article notes and explores a stark and surprising trend. Across a string of decisions, from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld through Medellin v. Texas, Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., and potentially soon Bond v. United States, the Court has jettisoned its traditional foreign affairs functionalism in favor of formalism.
The shift, as the Article explains, is not merely rhetorical or stylistic. Embedded within these opinions is a deep distrust of the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts. And embraced by a surprising number of Justices across different wings of the Court, this formalism of distrust has brought constraints on the discretion of federal government deeper and more powerful than have been seen in some time. Foreign affairs formalism, with all of its implications, is the new reality — one that must be understood and watched.
- Analytical Essays: Evaluation, Synthesis, Reflections
- Kimana Zulueta-Fülscher, Democracy-Support Effectiveness in “Fragile States”: A Review
- Andrew P. Owsiak, Conflict Management Trajectories in Militarized Interstate Disputes: A Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations
- Tanisha M. Fazal & Ryan D. Griffiths, Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood
Gregorio Bettiza, Civilizational Analysis in International Relations: Mapping the Field and Advancing a “Civilizational Politics” Line of Research
“Business and Human Rights: International Law and …”
Call for Papers - Deadline 31 May 2014
The European Society of International Law (ESIL) Interest Group on Business and Human Rights is calling for papers in view of its 3rd Research Workshop at the 10th ESIL Anniversary Conference, to be held in Vienna, Austria, on 3 September 2014.
Following the overarching theme of the Research Forum, “International Law and …: Boundaries of International Law and Bridges to Other Fields and Disciplines”, we invite papers addressing the interplay between international law and other fields of law or other disciplines from the perspective of business and human rights. Papers may consider (but are not limited to) the following perspectives:
- Public law (including constitutional and administrative law)
- Private law (including company, labour and competition law)
- Research methodologies
- Political Science
- Arts (including literature, aesthetics and film)
Please submit a 500 words abstract proposal via email to Damiano de Felice (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 31 May 2014.
Successful applicants will be informed by 15 June 2014.
The deadline for the submission of final papers is 15 August 2014.
In addition to the abstract, the following information must be provided on the submission:
- The author’s name and affiliation
- The author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications
- The author’s contact details
- Whether the author is an ESIL member
For the sake of blind peer-reviewing, candidates are requested to include their name and affiliation in the email, but NOT in the abstract itself.
Papers will be selected by the co-chairs of the Interest Group (Dr. Olga Martin-Ortega, Mr. Damiano de Felice and Dr. Freya Baetens) on the basis of abstracts submitted. Selection criteria are: originality of the work, links to the panel theme, and geographical representation of the speakers. Only one abstract per author will be considered.
The purpose of the panel is to share cutting-edge research in specific areas of international law, to stimulate debate, and to foster contacts between participants. At the moment of presentation, papers should be unpublished and in an advanced stage of completion. Publication in a book or a special issue of a journal will be considered.
In order to participate in the Interest Group panel, speakers must be members of ESIL. The membership can be formalised once abstracts have been accepted.
Unfortunately, the ESIL Interest Group on Business and Human Rights is not in a position to cover expenses for travelling and accommodation, or to waiver the ESIL conference fee.
Proportionality is intimately linked to the overarching concepts of self-defense, lawful force, and the controlled application of violence. It is one of the most visible facets of humanitarian law designed to reduce unnecessary human suffering and avoid excessive damage to property, and the natural environment. However, its application has come under renewed scrutiny and sustained controversy as a result of wars against non-state actors and from the extensive use of drones, human shields, cyber war techniques, and counterinsurgency tactics.
Proportionality in International Law critically assesses the law of proportionality in normative terms combining abstract philosophical and legal analysis with highly emotive contemporary combat cases. The principle of proportionality permits actions that are logically linked to the intended goal, and thus defines the permissible boundaries for the initiation and conduct of modern wars. The case studies discussed in this book are predominantly from the perspective of those who make decisions in the midst of armed conflict, bringing analytic rigor to the debates as well as sensitivity to facts on the ground. The authors analyze modern usages of proportionality across a wide range of contexts enabling a more complete comprehension of the values that it preserves. This book contrasts the applications of proportionality in both jus ad bellum (the law and morality of resort to force) and within jus in bello (the doctrines applicable for using force in the midst of conflicts). Proportionality in International Law provides the reader with a unique interdisciplinary approach, offering practitioners and policymakers alike greater clarity over how proportionality should be understood in theory and in practice.
Conference: 10th Anniversary Conference of the European Society of International Law (Registration Open)
Call for papers:
8th Annual Conference on the
Political Economy of International Organizations
February 12-14, 2015, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
Submissions are invited for the eighth annual conference on the political economy of international organizations, to be held at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany, on February 12-14, 2015. The conference brings together economists and political scientists to address political-economy issues related to international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Union, and also other international organizations that have as yet received less attention in the academic literature.
Submission of Papers
Both empirical and theoretical papers will be considered. Please submit full papers to email@example.com. The deadline for submission is 30 September, 2014. Decisions will be made by 31 October, 2014. The special issue of the Review of International Organizations will focus on Developing Countries and International Organizations, edited by Eric Werker (Harvard University). Submission to the conference does not require submitting to the special issue.
Conference Format, Attendance, and Registration
The number of participants will be limited to about 70 to allow for in-depth discussion of each paper. Authors of accepted papers are expected to attend the entire conference. There is no registration or conference fee. Travel and accommodation are at the expense of participants.
Conference Venue: Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany. Berlin has several airports which are roughly equidistant from downtown Berlin.
Conference Website: http://www.peio.me/
Thomas Bernauer (ETH Zurich)
Lawrence Broz (UC-San Diego)
Renee Bowen (Stanford)
Chad Bown (World Bank)
Axel Dreher (Heidelberg)
Mark Hallerberg (Hertie School)
Simon Hug (Geneva)
Mark Kayser (Hertie School)
Christopher Kilby (Villanova)
Stephen Knack (World Bank)
Katharina Michaelowa (Zurich)
Helen Milner (Princeton)
Daniel Nielson (Brigham Young)
Peter Rosendorff (NYU)
Randall Stone (Rochester)
Michael Tierney (William and Mary)
James Vreeland (Georgetown)
Eric Werker (Harvard)
We look forward to your submission.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
This chapter looks at how the Kosovo case was argued by the parties appearing before the International Court of Justice in the various stages of its advisory proceedings. My point in doing so is not to establish whether particular arguments were right or wrong, or to re-argue the case in any way. Rather, I am interested in the discursive shift that transpired once the issue of Kosovo’s independence (at least partly) moved from the political arena to the judicial one. In other words, I want to look at how those justifying or opposing Kosovo’s independence had to adjust their arguments, or develop new ones, once the case came before the Court.
The highly formalized setting of the ICJ required significant adjustments to arguments made either in support or in opposition to independence, as lawyers took over from the politicians and tried make their points in a language that the Court could not only understand, but could also adopt as its own when writing its opinion. Some previously deployed lines of argument thus had to be dropped, others transformed, and yet others invented purely for the sake of the advisory proceedings. In other words, arguments that were persuasive in one context did not necessarily work in the other. For instance, the frequent assertion of the supporters of Kosovo’s independence that Kosovo was a special or sui generis case had to be reframed before the ICJ in order to be truly persuasive. Similarly, whereas the interplay between two broad legal and political principles – the territorial integrity of states and the self-determination of peoples – was considered by many as being crucial for assessing Kosovo’s claim to independence before the advisory proceedings were initiated, these principles became increasingly marginalized as the proceedings progressed.
My goal in this chapter, therefore, is to observe the evolution of the argumentative strategies of the parties appearing before the Court, and to establish the driving factors for this evolution. In doing so I will mostly focus on the written and oral pleadings before the Court, their structure and the nature of the arguments made; the advisory opinion itself will generally be of interest to me only to the extent that it reflects the pleadings and the opposing litigation strategies. What concerns me here, in other words, is not what the Court decided, but how and why it got there.
How can critical legal feminists find a way to respond, truthfully and ethically, to the horrors of wartime sexual slavery institutionalized in the Japanese military’s system of “Comfort Women,” while recognizing, at the same time, that claims on behalf of victims of sexual violence are often appropriated by nationalist, imperialist, and capitalist agendas? A first step is to understand how the bewildering range of political, legal, and cultural interventions that constitute the Comfort Women incident collide with one another, refashion one another, and give one another energy. Part of a larger project on the place of multi-situational law in an equally multi-situational politics, this brief presentation, as a very first step, identifies what we term the diplomatic style and analyses its collision with the constitutional law style in a landmark 2011 judgment of the Constitutional Court of Korea.
The Court found the Korean government liable for violating the constitutional rights of former Comfort Women because it has not used the dispute settlement procedure available under a 1965 bilateral treaty to seek compensation from the government of Japan. This result is in marked contrast to a 2010 Philippine decision on the equivalent issue as regards Filipina Comfort Women. In keeping with the reluctance of courts in many countries to intervene in foreign affairs, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the “political question” doctrine in domestic law prevented it from considering the wisdom of the Philippine government’s position that all postwar claims against Japan have been settled, and held, furthermore, that a state has no duty of diplomatic protection under international law.
We show that distinguishing diplomacy from other law/politics concerns that account for courts’ hands-off approach to foreign affairs helps us to think about the implications of the Korean Constitutional Court’s judgment. By injecting itself into diplomacy, and by taking on the responsibility for managing diplomatic tactics, the Court also makes itself relevant — and arguably vulnerable — to the constituencies to which diplomats have long been vulnerable. Whereas scholars often tend to treat law as a funnel for politics, the relationship of law to politics becomes (as with the relationship of diplomacy to politics) more of an eddy than a funnel. It is on this point, more than on the linkage of international rights to constitutional duties, that we perceive a glimmer of feminist hope in the decision.
- Salvatore Zappalà & Roberta Seret, Hannah Arendt and Crimes Against Humanity
- Yaël Ronen, Israel, Palestine and the ICC — Territory Uncharted but not Unknown
- Leora Bilsky, The Eichmann Trial: Towards a Jurisprudence of Eyewitness Testimony of Atrocities
- Tom Gal, Unexplored Outcomes of Tadić: Applicability of the Law of Occupation to War by Proxy
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Elisa Hoven, Civil Party Participation in Trials of Mass Crimes: A Qualitative Study at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
- Barbora Holá & Joris van Wijk, Life after Conviction at International Criminal Tribunals: An Empirical Overview
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Legislation and Cases
- Susan Kemp, Guatemala Prosecutes former President Ríos Montt: New Perspectives on Genocide and Domestic Criminal Justice