Saturday, September 27, 2014
Burke: Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal Delimits Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal
Riesenberg: Recent Jurisprudence Addressing Maritime Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Coast
Friday, September 26, 2014
Ambrus, Arts, Hey, & Raulus: The Role of ‘Experts' in International and European Decision-Making Processes
Experts are increasingly relied on in decision-making processes at international and European levels. Their involvement in those processes, however, is contested. This timely book on the role of 'experts' provides a broad-gauged analysis of the issues raised by their involvement in decision-making processes. The chapters explore three main recurring themes: the rationales for involving experts and ensuing legitimacy problems; the individual and collective dimensions of expert involvement in decision making; and experts and politics and the politics of expertise. With contributions from leading scholars and practitioners, they theorize the experts' involvement in general and address their role in the policy areas of environment, trade, human rights, migration, financial regulation, and agencification in the European Union.
The James Crawford Prize of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement
The James Crawford Prize of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS) is an annual prize which awards £500 of OUP books and a subscription to JIDS to the author of the best paper received by the Journal*. The winning papers will also be published in JIDS.
The selections will be made by a Prize Committee composed of the Editor-in-Chief (Thomas Schultz), two of the General Editors (Tom Grant and Andrew Mitchell), and further members of the Editorial Board of JIDS depending on the narrower fields of the papers submitted for the prize. The Committee may choose not to award the prize and hold it over for a subsequent year if, in their view, the papers submitted do not reach the standards required.
Deadline for submissions is Wednesday 17 December 2014, GMT 5pm. Submissions for the 2015 Prize should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
The Editor-in-Chief and Publisher are happy to answer any questions about The James Crawford Prize of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS).
* All contributors are eligible for the award, though preference may be given to young academics or authors at early stages of their careers.
This article argues that the mainstream view according to which the sources of international law constitute a set of rules for the identification of other legal rules is a comforting parable that has eroded international lawyers’ critical attitude, contributing to the general disrepute of the sources of international law. Instead, the sources of international law are better understood as a set of communitarian constraints irreducible to rules. This article concludes that shedding the comforting idea of rules in the sources of international law allows international lawyers to avoid what will be described in the following paragraphs as the pitfalls of infinite regress and circularity inherent in ruleness while simultaneously facilitating the possibility of communication that is required for legal argumentation to take place among professional international lawyers.
Creamer & Simmons: Ratification, Reporting and Rights: Quality of Participation in the Convention Against Torture
The core international human rights treaty bodies play an important role in monitoring implementation of human rights standards through consideration of States parties' reports. Yet very little research explores how seriously governments take their reporting obligations. This article examines the reporting record of parties to the Convention against Torture, finding that report submission is heavily conditioned by the practices of neighboring countries and by a government’s human rights commitment and institutional capacity. This article also introduces original data on the quality and responsiveness of reports, finding that more democratic – and particularly newly democratic – governments tend to render higher quality reports.
- Merle Lassen, Sub-Seabed Storage in the Maritime Zones of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Equitability over Sovereignty?
- Laurent Bordereaux, Seashore Law: The Core of French Public Maritime Law
- Elena Karataeva, Can the Caspian Sea Survive its Own Oil? Environmental Regulation of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in the Caspian Sea
- Roberto Lavalle, The Rights of States over Low-tide Elevations: A Legal Analysis
- Youna Lyons, The New Offshore Oil and Gas Installation Abandonment Wave and the International Rules on Removal and Dumping
- Huaiwen He, Limitations on Patenting Inventions Based on Marine Genetic Resources of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Nathan M. Jensen, Edmund Malesky, Mariana Medina & Ugur Ozdemir, Pass the Bucks: Credit, Blame, and the Global Competition for Investment
- W. Kindred Winecoff, Bank Regulation, Macroeconomic Management, and Monetary Incentives in OECD Economies
- Autumn Lockwood Payton & Byungwon Woo, Attracting Investment: Governments' Strategic Role in Labor Rights Protection
- Sonal S. Pandya, Democratization and Foreign Direct Investment Liberalization, 1970–2000
- Alex Braithwaite, Jeffrey Kucik & Jessica Maves, The Costs of Domestic Political Unrest
- International Law
- Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, Martial Law? Military Experience, International Law, and Support for Torture
- Milli Lake, Organizing Hypocrisy: Providing Legal Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Areas of Limited Statehood
- Democracies and Non-Democracies
- Michaela Mattes & Mariana Rodríguez, Autocracies and International Cooperation
- Courtenay R. Conrad, Justin Conrad & Joseph K. Young, Tyrants and Terrorism: Why Some Autocrats are Terrorized While Others are Not
- Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, Dealing with Dictators: Negotiated Democratization and the Fate of Outgoing Autocrats
- Interstate Conflict
- Sung Chul Jung, Foreign Targets and Diversionary Conflict
- Christopher Darnton, Whig History, Periodization, and International Cooperation in the Southern Cone
- Kristin M. Bakke, John O'Loughlin, Gerard Toal & Michael D. Ward, Convincing State-Builders? Disaggregating Internal Legitimacy in Abkhazia
- Michael Barnett, Songying Fang & Christoph Zürcher, Compromised Peacebuilding
- Susan Hannah Allen & Amy T. Yuen, The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions
- Katya Drozdova & Kurt Taylor Gaubatz, Reducing Uncertainty: Information Analysis for Comparative Case Studies
- Vincent Bernard, Editorial: Multinational Operations and the Law - Great Expectations, Great Responsibilities
- Interview with Lieutenant General Babacar Gaye - United Nations Military Adviser for Peacekeeping Operations
- Ronald Hatto, From peacekeeping to peacebuilding: the evolution of the role of the United Nations in peace operations
- Haidi Willmot & Scott Sheeran, The protection of civilians mandate in UN peacekeeping operations: reconciling protection concepts and practices
- Jérémie Labbé & Arthur Boutellis, Peace operations by proxy: implications for humanitarian action of UN peacekeeping partnerships with non-UN security forces
- Tristan Ferraro, The applicability and application of international humanitarian law to multinational forces
- Dieter Fleck, The legal status of personnel involved in United Nations peace operations
- Frederik Naert, Observance of international humanitarian law by forces under the command of the European Union
- Katarina Grenfell, Perspective on the applicability and application of international humanitarian law: the UN context
- Peter M. Olson, A NATO perspective on applicability and application of IHL to multinational forces
- Eric David & Ola Engdahl, How does the involvement of a multinational peacekeeping force affect the classification of a situation?
- Marten Zwanenburg, International humanitarian law interoperability in multinational operations
- Bruce ‘Ossie’ Oswald, Some controversies of detention in multinational operations and the contributions of the Copenhagen Principles
- Paolo Palchetti, The allocation of responsibility for internationally wrongful acts committed in the course of multinational operations
- Dawood I. Ahmed, Defending Weak States Against the “Unwilling or Unable” Doctrine of Self-Defence
- Ramona Vijeyarasa & José Miguel Bello y Villarino, Modern-Day Slavery?
- Special Issue: Karl Deutsch: A Transformative Social Scientist
- Jan Ruzicka, A transformative social scientist: Karl Deutsch and the discipline of International Relations
- Richard N Lebow, Karl Deutsch and International Relations
- Peter J Katzenstein, Karl Deutsch: Teacher and scholar
- Andrei S Markovits, Working with Karl W. Deutsch: A life-changing experience on the professional and personal level
- Kamila Stullerova, In the footsteps of Karl Deutsch: On nationalism, self-determination and international relations
- Petr Drulák & Radka Druláková, The richness of the liberal tradition in international relations: Karl Deutsch on political community and the European integration
- Ondrej Ditrych, Security community: A future for a troubled concept?
- Jan Ruzicka, A fetish for measurement? Karl Deutsch in the second debate
What legal principles govern the external exercise of the public power of states within common law legal systems? Foreign Relations Law tackles three fundamental issues: the distribution of the foreign relations power between the organs of government; the impact of the foreign relations power on individual rights; and the treatment of the foreign state within the municipal legal system. Focusing on the four Anglo-Commonwealth states (the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), McLachlan examines the interaction between public international law and national law and demonstrates that the prime function of foreign relations law is not to exclude foreign affairs from legal regulation, but to allocate jurisdiction and determine applicable law in cases involving the external exercise of the public power of states: between the organs of the state; amongst the national legal systems of different states; and between the national and the international legal systems.
Call for Papers
2015 ILA-ASIL ASIA-PACIFIC RESEARCH FORUM
Integrating the Asia-Pacific: Why International Law Matters?
May 25-26, 2015
Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law – Chinese (Taiwan) Branch of the International Law Association (ILA), in partnership with the Law in the Pacific Rim Region Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University
I. The Theme
The Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law will hold the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum on May 25-26, 2015 at the Regent Taipei Hotel in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. The theme of the Research Forum is “Integrating the Asia-Pacific: Why International Law Matters?” The Research Forum will provide a forum for academics, practitioners, and policy-makers to examine a wide range of international and transnational law issues confronting the Asia-Pacific. The tentative schedule of the Research Forum is as follows:
Monday, May 25, 2015: Registration and Welcome Reception
Tuesday, May 26, 2015: Opening Ceremony and Forum Sessions
II. Submission of Paper Proposals
The organizing committee welcomes proposals on any topic relating to international law with a focus on the Asia-Pacific. Subject areas may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. International Economic Law (e.g., legal and political issues of the TPP, the RCEP, ASEAN, and post cross-straits ECFA agreements)
2. Law of the Sea (e.g., East China Sea and South China Sea disputes) 3. Recognition/Non-recognition in International Law (e.g., law and practice of state and government recognition)
4. Histories of International Law (e.g., the development of international law in Asian countries)
5. International Human Rights Law (e.g., domestic courts’ application of international human right treaties)
Paper proposals must be submitted electronically by January 20, 2015 to email@example.com. A proposal of no more than 500 words should include the following information: 1) the author’s name and full contact information; 2) whether the author is an ILA or ASIL member; and 3) whether the paper will be submitted to the Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs for consideration after the Research Forum. The Yearbook is the official publication of the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law and the editorial board will select papers to be published, subject to peer review. Articles of the Yearbook will also be made available on HeinOnline and Westlaw.
The organizing committee welcomes proposal submissions and forum attendance from ILA and ASIL members, as well as from non-members. The organizing committee will select proposals and announce the outcome by the end of February 2015. Selected paper presenters are required to submit complete, unpublished papers of no more than 15,000 words, inclusive of footnotes, by May 1, 2015.
III. Other Information
Participants of the Research Forum are responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses. The organizing committee is not in the position to provide financial support. However, registration fees will be waived for paper presenters. Registration details will be announced in March 2015. Other inquiries can be directed to Pasha Hsieh, co-chair of the Research Forum, by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The host institution of the Research Forum is the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, which was founded in 1958 with the purpose of promoting research on international law and cross-straits legal issues. The Society, which is also the Chinese (Taiwan) Branch of the ILA, held the ILA’s 68th Taipei Biennial Conference in 1998, the ILA’s Asia-Pacific Regional Conferences in 1995 and 2011, and the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum in 2013. This Research Forum reinforces the ILA-ASIL collaboration in strengthening international law research related to the Asia-Pacific region.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Schultz: How Conceptions of Justice Associated with the Nation-State Obstruct Our View on Possibilities of Transnational Commercial Law
This article discusses axiological interferences of conceptions of justice associated with the nation-state in epistemological projects on transnational commercial law. It argues that the justice beliefs underlying classical legal positivism, which make us see law exclusively in state law, constitute an obstacle in our search for the rules and regimes that best fulfill the fundamental requirements of the rule of law. This is illustrated by focusing on one of the more polemical areas of this field: consumer protection, which provides a particularly clear illustration of the expansion of formal law in the twentieth century. The focus is put more specifically on the resolution of small cross-border consumer disputes. The study shows that international consumer protection requires a strict application of the provisions of a national law, even when the application of transnational non-state law would be more apt to attain the core political ideal that the rule of law seeks to further. This, it is argued, is due to mistaken conceptions of justice.
- Allison Turner, An ICTR Witness Protection Legacy
- Mia Swart, The Relationship Between the Legacy, Legitimacy and Compliance at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Yvonne McDermott, The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Promoting Respect for International Due Process Standards
- Kristin Leefers, Searching for Justice in the Closing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Etienne Mutabazi, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’s Approach to National Reconciliation: More Rhetoric than Reality
- Michael Dafel, Legitimacy, Judicial Legislating and the Sentencing Practices of the ICTR
- Hannah Woolaver, The Immunity of Defence Team Members at the ICTR: Lessons from the Jurisprudence of the ICTR, ICTY and ICC
- Shannon Bosch, Private Security Contractors and Neutral Relief Workers – An Unlikely Marriage?
- Sarah Swart, A New Dawn in the Nuclear Weapons Debate: A Role for Africa?
Investment treaty arbitration is fast becoming one of the most common methods of dispute settlement in international law. Despite having ancient roots, tensions remain between the private interests in international investment relations and the public international law features of the arbitral procedure. This book, which presents an account of investment treaty arbitration as a part of public international law - as opposed to commercial law - provides an important contribution to the literature on this subject. Eric De Brabandere examines the procedural implications of conceiving of investment treaty arbitration in such a way, with regard to issues such as the principles of confidentiality and privacy, and remedies. The author demonstrates how the public international law character of investment treaty arbitration derives from, and has impacted upon, the dispute settlement procedure.
The unifying theme for this year’s meeting is International Law in a Time of Chaos. The role of international law in conflict mitigation remains key – whether by building commercial links between states, fighting corruption, improving democratic governance, or providing methods for resolving international and ethnic disputes. International Law Weekend 2014 will seek to address the role of public and private international lawyers in each of these tasks. Panel proposals may concern any aspect of international law, including trade, investment, arbitration, intellectual property, combatting corruption, labor standards in the global supply chain, and human rights, as well as issues of international organizations and international security.
Children are a central concern of international criminal justice. Both the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court have returned convictions for recruitment and use of children in combat. The Rome Statute further lists other international child-related crimes: killings, sexual violence, and other harms to children, their families, and their homes; trafficking; attacks on schools and hospitals; and denial of access to humanitarian aid.
Convened by the University of Georgia School of Law – home institution of the ICC Prosecutor’s Special Adviser on Children in and affected by Armed Conflict – this daylong conference will examine issues related to children and international criminal justice. Experts will be drawn from academia and the practice; from international organizations like UNICEF and the Office of the Special Representative to the U.N. Secretary-General for Children & Armed Conflict; and from nongovernmental organizations like Human Rights Watch, International Center for Transitional Justice, International Committee of Red Cross, No Peace Without Justice, Protect Education in Insecurity & Conflict, Save the Children, and The Carter Center. They will consider legal doctrines, field research, and policy options. These discussions will assist the Special Adviser to advise the Office of the Prosecutor, in the process of its development of a Policy Paper on Children. The morning will feature a public, plenary session, with presentations by an expert panel and a keynote address by the ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda. Then will follow an afternoon of closed workshop sessions, with discussion led by experts who will have prepared two-page topic papers.
- Klaus Dieter Wolfe, The non-existence of private self-regulation in the transnational sphere and its implications for the responsibility to procure legitimacy: The case of the lex sportiva
- Steven Slaughter, Transnational democratization and republican citizenship: Towards critical republicanism
- Danielle Hanna Rached, Doomed aspiration of pure instrumentality: Global Administrative Law and accountability
- Kai Möller, From constitutional to human rights: On the moral structure of international human rights
- Liesbeth Casier, Robin Fraser, Mark Halle & Robert Wolfe, Shining a light on fossil fuel subsidies at the WTO: how NGOs can contribute to WTO notification and surveillance
- Louise Eva Mossner, The WTO and Regional Trade: a family business? The WTO compatibility of regional trade agreements with non-WTO-members
- Wusheng Yu & Hans G. Jensen, Trade policy responses to food price crisis and implications for existing domestic support measures: the case of China in 2008
- Sungjoon Cho, How the world trade community operates: norms and discourse
Monday, September 22, 2014
- William W. Park, A Fair Fight: Professional Guidelines in International Arbitration
- Tom Cummins, The IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration – Levelling the Playing Field?
- Alan Scott Rau, Arbitrators Without Powers? Disqualifying Counsel in Arbitral Proceedings
- Jeffrey Waincymer, Regulatory Developments in the Control of Counsel in International Arbitration – The IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration and the New LCIA Rules and Annex
- Scott Vesel, A “Creeping” Violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard? – The Gillis Wetter Prize Winner
- Hanno Wehland, The Transfer of Investments and Rights of Investors Under International Investment Agreements – Some Unresolved Issues – The Gillis Wetter Prize Second Prize
- Derek Roebuck, The London Centre for International Commercial Mediation and Arbitration in the Reign of Elizabeth I
- Thomas Kendra & Anna Bonini, Dealing with Corruption Allegations in International Investment Arbitration: Reaching a Procedural Consensus?
- Giacomo Marchisio, Jurisdictional Matters in International Arbitration: Why Arbitrators Stand on an Equal Footing with State Courts
- Jennifer Kirby, What Is an Award, Anyway?
- Christopher Koch, Is There a Default Principle of Cost Allocation in International Arbitration?
- David Brown, What Steps Should Arbitrators Take to Limit the Cost of Arbitration?
- Andreas Respondek, Five Proposals to Further Increase the Efficiency of International Arbitration Proceedings
This essay addresses the tools by which international lawyers engage in interpretative “boundary crossings” across distinct international regimes, such as those involving trade, investment, and human rights. It distinguishes the traditional tools of treaty interpretation, such as those licensed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCT), that encourage interactions between trade and international investment law (such as the VCT’s Art. 31(3)(c), from some more innovative interpretations now proposed by self-identified “public law” scholars. Drawing on examples of boundary crossings pursued recently by investor-state arbitrators and the International Law Commission, it warns against interpretative boundary crossings that go against the object and purpose, remedies or organizational structures of the underlying regimes. It argues that such interpretative linkages, however well-meaning, may not be as “progressive” as anticipated.
At the 2005 World Summit, states unanimously acknowledged their responsibilities to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and declared their readiness to use collective force to that end if necessary. This endorsement of the “responsibility to protect” (RtoP) represents an important step on the road to developing a norm of legitimate humanitarian intervention. However, there is a critical flaw in the way states framed RtoP at the World Summit: they equated the just cause threshold for humanitarian intervention with the commission of international crimes. This was a mistake because just cause for intervention should depend on the gravity of actual or threatened harm, not on whether that harm constitutes a crime, let alone an international crime. This Article argues that there are three deleterious consequences of framing RtoP in this way: (1) it excludes situations of catastrophic, unintentional harm where intervention may be morally justified; (2) it impedes efforts to prevent all levels of harm by requiring a finding that crimes are occurring or threatened before RtoP applies; and (3) it threatens to undermine the international criminal law regime by encouraging people to think of international crimes exclusively as “atrocities” and by obscuring the difference between humanitarian intervention and aggression.
- Luca Rubini, ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.’ Lessons on Methodology in Legal Analysis from the Recent WTO Litigation on Renewable Energy Subsidies
- Manjiao Chi, ‘Exhaustible Natural Resource’ in WTO Law: GATT Article XX (g) Disputes and Their Implications
- Diwakar Dixit, Agricultural Value Chains and Food Security
- Henry Gao, Public-Private Partnership: The Chinese Dilemma
- Thomas Cottier, Olga Nartova, & Anirudh Shingal, The Potential of Tariff Policy for Climate Change Mitigation: Legal and Economic Analysis
- Kenneth Heydon, Plurilateral Agreements and Global Trade Governance: A Lesson from the OECD
- Patricia Garcia-Duran, Benjamin Kienzle, & Montserrat Millet, Revisiting European Influence: The Case of Agricultural Trade Negotiations
Sunday, September 21, 2014
- Marieke Louis & Lucile Maertens, Des stratégies de changement dans les organisations internationales : une analyse comparée du HCR et de l’OIT
- Moda Dieng, Maintien de la paix : Apports et limites de l’action diplomatique sud-africaine
- Julien Pomarède, Des maux guerriers aux mots interventionnistes. Analyse des mécanismes de légitimation de l’opération militaire internationale en Libye (2011)
- Stéphane Paquin, La politique internationale du Québec envers les États-Unis. Un essai de périodisation
- Meryll David-Ismayil, Les politiques de présence des États occidentaux au sein des organisations internationales : Comprendre le maintien de la domination occidentale à partir du cas français