L’ouvrage rassemble une vingtaine d’articles que Jean Salmon a écrits au cours des années et qui se consacrent à la place et au rôle de l’argumentation en droit international.
Ces réflexions se situent à la croisée des enseignements du philosophe Chaïm Perelman sur la rhétorique et ceux de l’internationaliste Charles Chaumont sur les contradictions en droit international.
Le droit entend conformer les faits d’existence à du devoir être ; il le fait par un langage, exprimé dans le cadre d’un système et d’institutions, qui, elles-mêmes sont dominées par les contradictions entre les valeurs et les aspirations des États, créateurs par leurs volonté commune ou antagonistes des règles qui les gouvernent.
L’ordre juridique qui en résulte n’est ni clos, ni complet ; il est lacunaire, permet l’esquive. Il est fondé fréquemment sur un langage ambigu, faisant une place importante aux notions confuses La solution des antinomies n’est pas aisée en raison de l’absence d’hiérarchie entre les règles ou entre les organes chargés de les résoudre.
La qualification unilatérale reste majoritaire, l’idéologie affichée ou occultée dominante. Dans un tel contexte, l’argumentation, quoique soumise à ces contraintes et aux rapports de force, est présente à chaque moment de la vie du droit : sa création, son interprétation, son application au cas concret ou son évolution. L’identification de l’auditoire que l’on désire convaincre, le choix des arguments susceptibles d’y parvenir sont essentiels. Néanmoins, la prétention que le raisonnement juridique est présidé par le syllogisme judiciaire est largement illusoire. La motivation du juge international, essentielle pour régler les conflits, étant elle-même une argumentation qui doit convaincre, est un exercice d’autant plus délicat.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Engaging the Writings of Martti Koskenniemi: Introduction to the Symposium
- Martti Koskenniemi, Histories of International Law: Significance and Problems for a Critical View
- Kim Lane Scheppele, The Empire of Security and the Security of Empire
- Tomer Broude, Keep Calm and Carry On: Martti Koskenniemi and the Fragmentation of International Law
- Sean D. Murphy, Deconstructing Fragmentation: Koskenniemi’s 2006 ILC Project
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, From Interdisciplinarity to Counterdisciplinarity: Is There Madness in Martti’s Method?
- Mark A. Pollack, Is International Relations Corrosive of International Law? A Reply to Martti Koskenniemi
- Robert Howse & Ruti Teitel, Does Humanity-Law Require (or Imply) a Progressive Theory of History? (and Other Questions for Martti Koskenniemi)
- Samuel Moyn, The International Law That Is America: Reflections on the Last Chapter of The Gentle Civilizer of Nations
- Jan Klabbers, Towards a Culture of Formalism? Martti Koskenniemi and the Virtues
- Andrew Lang & Susan Marks, People with Projects: Writing the Lives of International Lawyers
- Frédéric Mégret, The Apology of Utopia: Some Thoughts on Koskenniemian Themes, with Particular Emphasis on Massively Institutionalized International Human Rights Law
- Ralf Michaels, Private Lawyer in Disguise? On the Absence of Private Law and Private International Law in Martti Koskenniemi’s Work
The past forty years have seen a wide proliferation of disputes under international law concerning cultural heritage. These have included the restitution of stolen art objects or the protection of monuments. Unlike other fields of international law, international cultural heritage law does not have an ad hoc mechanism of dispute settlement. As a result, controversies are to be settled through negotiation or, if it fails, through existing dispute resolution means. This can result in similar cases being settled in different ways, thereby bringing about an incoherent and fragmentary enforcement of the law.
This book offers a comprehensive and innovative analysis of the settlement of cultural heritage disputes. This examination is two-fold. First, it assesses the existing legal framework and the available dispute settlement means. Second, it explores the feasibility of two solutions for overcoming the lack of a specialized forum. The first is the establishment of a new international court. The second concerns existing judicial and extra-judicial fora and their interaction through the practice of 'cross-fertilization'. The book focuses on the substance of such interaction, and identifies a number of culturally-sensitive parameters (the 'common rules of adjudication'). It argues that existing judicial and non-judicial fora should adopt a cross-fertilizing perspective to use and disseminate jurisprudence containing these common rules of adjudication. It sets out how such an approach would enhance the effectiveness and coherence of decision-making processes and would be conducive to the development of a lex culturalis. This can be defined as a composite body of rules designed to protect cultural heritage by excluding the mechanical application of the norms established for standard business transactions of ordinary goods.
Among the most prominent and significant political and legal developments since the end of the Cold War is the proliferation of mechanisms for addressing the complex challenges of transition from authoritarian rule to human rights-based democratic constitutionalism, particularly with regards to the demands for accountability in relation to conflicts and abuses of the past. Whether one thinks of the Middle East, South Africa, the Balkans, Latin America, or Cambodia, an extraordinary amount of knowledge has been gained and processes instituted through transitional justice. No longer a byproduct or afterthought, transitional justice is unquestionably the driver of political change.
In Globalizing Transitional Justice, Ruti G. Teitel provides a collection of her own essays that embody her evolving reflections on the practice and discourse of transitional justice since her book Transitional Justice published back in 2000. In this new book, Teitel focuses on the ways in which transitional justice concepts have found legal expression, especially through human rights law and jurisprudence, and international criminal law. These essays shed light on some of the difficult choices encountered in the design of transitional justice: criminal trials vs. amnesties, or truth commissions; domestic or international processes; peace and reconciliation vs. accountability and punishment. Transitional justice is considered not only in relation to political events and legal developments, but also in relation to the broader social and cultural tendencies of our times.
- Symposium: Global Climate Governance Without the Us
- Joanna Dafoe & Douglas A. Kysar, Symposium Foreword: ‘Go Ahead Without Us’: Global Climate Change Policy in the Absence of Full Participation
- Stuart Beck & Elizabeth Burleson, Inside the System, Outside the Box: Palau’s Pursuit of Climate Justice and Security at the United Nations
- Daniel A. Farber, Climate Policy and the United States System of Divided Powers: Dealing with Carbon Leakage and Regulatory Linkage
- Kenneth W. Abbott, Strengthening the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change †
- Edward A. Parson, Climate Engineering in Global Climate Governance: Implications for Participation and Linkage
- Michael B. Gerrard & Shelley Welton, US Federal Climate Change Law in Obama’s Second Term
- Andreas Kotsakis, Change and Subjectivity in International Environmental Law: The Micro-Politics of the Transformation of Biodiversity into Genetic Gold
- Uzuazo Etemire, Public Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerian Legislation with International Best Practice
Warfare and boundaries have a symbiotic relationship. Whether as its cause or effect, States historically used war to delineate the borders that divided them. Laws and borders have a similar relationship. Sometimes laws are the product of borders as when national boundaries delineate the reach of States’ authorities. But borders may also be the product of law; laws regularly draw lines between permitted and prohibited conduct or bound off required acts from permissible ones. Both logics are on display in debates over international law in cyberspace. Some characterize cyberspace as a unique, self-governing ‘space’ that requires its own borders and the drawing of tailor-made rules therein. For others, cyberspace is merely a technological medium that States can govern via traditional territorial borders with rules drawn ‘by analogy’ from pre-existing legal regimes.
This chapter critiques current formulations drawing law from boundaries and boundaries from law in cyberspace with respect to (a) its governance; (b) the use of force; and (c) international humanitarian law (IHL). In each area, I identify theoretical problems that exist in the absence of any uniform theory for why cyberspace needs boundaries. At the same time, I elaborate functional problems with existing boundary claims – particularly by analogy – in terms of their (i) accuracy, (ii) effectiveness and (iii) completeness. These prevailing difficulties on whether, where, and why borders are needed in cyberspace suggests the time is ripe for re-appraising the landscape.
This chapter seeks to launch such a re-thinking project by proposing a new rule of IHL – a Duty to Hack. The Duty to Hack would require States to use cyber-operations in their military operations whenever they are the least harmful means available for achieving military objectives. Thus, if a State can achieve the same military objective by bombing a factory or using a cyber-operation to take it off-line temporarily, the Duty to Hack requires that State to pursue the latter course. Although novel, I submit the Duty to Hack more accurately and effectively accounts for IHL’s fundamental principles and cyberspace’s unique attributes than existing efforts to foist legal boundaries upon State cyber-operations by analogy. Moreover, adopting the Duty to Hack could constitute a necessary first step to resolving the larger theoretical and functional challenges currently associated with law’s boundaries in cyberspace.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
- Andrea Pinna, L’autorité des règles d’arbitrage choisies par les parties
- Carlos Alberto Carmona, Considerations on the IBA. Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration: a Brazilian point of view
- Cyrus Benson, The IBA Guidelines on Party Representation: An Important Step in Overcoming the Taboo of Ethics in International Arbitration
- Robert G. Voltera, Dissenting and Separate Opinions in Investment Treaty Arbitration – Revisiting the Debate
- Anthea Roberts, State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority
- János Fiala-Butora, Michael Ashley Stein, & Janet E. Lord, The Democratic Life of the Union: Toward Equal Voting Participation for Europeans with Disabilities
- Monica Hakimi, Unfriendly Unilateralism
- Suzanne Katzenstein, In the Shadow of Crisis: The Creation of International Courts in the Twentieth Century
Targeted killing has become a frequently used and highly controversial tool of operational counterterrorism. This chapter analyzes the international law applicable to targeted killing, both during armed conflict and as a tool of offensive counterterrorism outside of armed conflict. In particular, this discussion highlights key legal and policy debates regarding: the authority to use lethal force, the identification of legitimate targets and enemy personnel, the consequences of civilian participation in such strikes, and the nature and parameters of the rules governing the conduct of strikes. Beyond the legal issues, the practice of targeted killing also raises significant questions regarding the appropriate measures of transparency and accountability that should be provided regarding the legal authority for strikes and the civilian harm caused.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
- Special Issue: Nuclear Posture, Nonproliferation Policy, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
- Erik Gartzke & Matthew Kroenig, Nuclear Posture, Nonproliferation Policy, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
- Robert L. Brown & Jeffrey M. Kaplow, Talking Peace, Making Weapons: IAEA Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Proliferation
- Philipp C. Bleek & Eric B. Lorber, Security Guarantees and Allied Nuclear Proliferation
- Matthew Fuhrmann & Todd S. Sechser, Nuclear Strategy, Nonproliferation, and the Causes of Foreign Nuclear Deployments
- Erik Gartzke, Jeffrey M. Kaplow, & Rupal N. Mehta, The Determinants of Nuclear Force Structure
- Michael C. Horowitz & Neil Narang, Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb? Exploring the Relationship between “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Monday, April 14, 2014
- Sección de Investigación
- Hector Olásolo Alonso, El principio nullum crimen sine iure en Derecho Internacional contemporáneo
- Carolina Anello, Desafíos de la Corte Penal Internacional en torno a la cooperación con los Estados
- Sección de Ensayos de Investigación
- Lucas Nogueira Garcez, Autoria en casos de irresponsabilidad organizada: una propuesta de sistematización del criterio de la Corte Penal Internacional
- Miren Odriozola-Gurrutxaga, La doctrina de la empresa criminal conjunta en los tribunales ad hoc y su ámbito de aplicación en el Estatuto de Roma
- Salvador Cuenca Curbelo, Narcotráfico: ¿Un crimen de lesa humanidad en el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional?
- Anatol Dutta & Andrea Schulz, First Cornerstones of the EU Rules on Cross-Border Child Cases: The Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Brussels IIa Regulation from C to Health Service Executive
- G. McCormack, Reforming the European Insolvency Regulation: A Legal and Policy Perspective
- Tuula Linna, Actio Pauliana – “Actio Europensis”? Some Cross-Border Insolvency Issues
- Ardavan Arzandeh, Should the Spiliada Test Be Revised?
- Louise Hauberg Wilhelmsen, European Perspectives on International Commercial Arbitration
- Adewale A. Olawoyin, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Nigeria: Statutory Dualism and Disharmony of Laws
- April 25, 2014: Barbara Oomen (Univ. Collge Roosevelt & Utrecht Univ. - Law), Rights for others: the slow home-coming of human rights in the Netherlands
- May 2, 2014: Markus Gehring (Univ. of Cambridge - Law), International Law and the Global Green Economy
- May 9, 2014: Yaël Ronen (Sha'arei Mishpat Law School), Big Brother's Little Helpers: Corporate Responsibility under Human Rights Law and Intelligence Gathering
This article outlines the concept of Global Experimentalist Governance (GXG). GXG is an institutionalized transnational process of participatory and multilevel problem solving, in which particular problems, and the means of addressing them, are framed in an open-ended way, and subjected to periodic revision by various forms of peer review in light of locally generated knowledge. GXG differs from other forms of international organization and transnational governance, and is emerging in various issue areas. The Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances is used to illustrate how GXG functions. The conditions for the emergence of GXG are specified, as well as some of its possible benefits.
21st Century borders are coming under increasing strain with shifting balances of international power. This was seen most dramatically in the recent Russian annexation of the Crimea and its connected repudiation of uti possidetis that underpinned statehood in the former Soviet Union. In East Asia tensions remain high in sovereignty disputes over islands and maritime delimitation. Renewed attempts to reach a settlement between Israel and Palestine similarly turn on the crucial issue of borders. In addition to these, a number of other states have been involved in long-running boundary conflicts. This conference, organised by the Centre for International Law and Human Rights at Lancaster University Law School will explore the causes and dynamics of contemporary territorial disputes as well as mechanisms to resolve them.
We welcome abstracts for papers of no more than one page from both established researchers and early career academics. Please send your proposals to Dr. James Summers email@example.com. The deadline for abstracts is 20th April 2014.
- May 1, 2014: Anastasios Gourgourinis (Univ. of Athens), The Effect of Investment Treaty Arbitration on WTO Dispute Settlement: Tobacco Plain Packaging Disputes and Beyond
- May 8, 2014: Giorgio Gaja (Judge, International Court of Justice), The International Court of Justice's Approach to Injuries Suffered by Individuals
- May 15, 2014: Mads Andenas (Univ. of Oslo), Arbitrary Detention in International Law
- May 22, 2014: Jan Klabbers (Univ. of Helsinki), Controlling International Organizations: Between Function and Virtue?
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The number of cyber "attacks" being carried out by various actors is continually increasing. The vast majority of these cyber activities are not generated by nations, but by individual civilians, hacktivists, organized groups, transnational criminal organizations and other non-state actors. And yet, all of these harmful cyber activities originate and pass through the sovereign territory of individual nations. International law has long held that each nation has a duty to remedy transboundary harm that originates or passes through its sovereign borders and adversely affects another sovereign. Further, modern international law requires nations to solve these potential disputes peacefully, without resort to illegal force. This article analyzes these doctrines of international law, in light of the realities of cyber activities and argues that nations must solve their cyber disputes peacefully, and that they have an emerging duty of due diligence to monitor their networks in order to prevent them from being used to cause transboundary harm to other nations and in some cases, to non-state actors. Further, in the event of transboundary cyber harm, nations have a duty to cooperate with each other in resolving the situation.