Abbott, et al.: Two Logics of Indirect Governance: Delegation and Orchestration

Kenneth W. Abbott (Arizona State Univ.), Philipp Genschel (European Univ. Institute), Duncan Snidal (Univ. of Oxford), & Bernhard Zangl (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) have posted Two Logics of Indirect Governance: Delegation and Orchestration. Here's the abstract:

Most governance is indirect, carried out through intermediaries. Governors do not govern targets directly, but bring in third parties to increase efficiency, effectiveness or legitimacy. Sometimes these third parties are "internal" to the governor, as in the case of government bureaucracies, but often they are "external", operating at some distance from the governor. It has become common to treat indirect governance as a process of delegation to be analyzed through Principal-Agent theory (the P-A approach). We agree that much indirect governance can be understood in this way. Yet not all indirect governance can be properly understood as P-A delegation. Governors do not always have hard control over their agents. Often they lack the authority or power to grant or rescind third parties’ authority (at acceptable cost), and rely instead on soft inducements to mobilize intermediaries and keep them in line. In a recent book (Abbott et al. 2014a), we develop Orchestrator-Intermediary theory (O-I theory) to analyze soft, indirect forms of governance. Here we introduce O-I theory and contrast it to P-A theory. We highlight the commonalities and differences between orchestration and delegation, discuss the governor’s calculus of choice between them, and consider the relative effectiveness of orchestration.

Call for Papers: 11th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law

The European Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for its 11th Annual Conference, which will take place September 10-12, 2015, in Oslo and will be hosted by the PluriCourts Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order at the University of Oslo. The theme is: "The Judicialization of International Law – A Mixed Blessing?" The call for agora proposals and papers is here and the call for posters is here.

New Issue: Revue Québécoise de Droit International

The latest issue of the Revue Québécoise de Droit International (Hors-série Septembre 2014) is out. Contents include:

• L'hégémonie dans la société internationale : un regard néo-gramscien
• Marie-Neige Laperrière & Rémi Bachand, Introduction: L'hégémonie dans la société internationale : un regard néo-gramscien
• Mathieu Cousineau DeGarie, Du Libéralisme néoclassique : la Freshwater School à la rescousse de Washington
• Neil A. Burron, Counter-Hegemony in Latin America? Understanding emerging Multipolarity through a Gramscian Lens
• Rémi Bachand, Le droit international et l'idéologie droits-de-l'hommiste au fondement de l'hégémonie occidentale
• Fabrice Argounès, Hégémonie(s) émergente(s)? Hégémonie et théories « post-occidentales » au miroir gramscien
• Nafi Niang, Normes ISO, droit international et émancipation des pays en développement : éclairages (et impasses) de perspectives d'économie politique internationale

New Issue: Journal of World Energy Law & Business

The latest issue of Journal of World Energy Law & Business (Vol. 7, no. 5, October 2014) is out. Contents include:

• Special Issue: Unconventional gas in East Asia
• Philip Andrews-Speed & Christopher Len, The legal and commercial determinants of unconventional gas production in East Asia
• Tony Regan & Zhu Chao, Twenty five years of coal bed methane development in China
• Paul Deemer & Nicholas Song, China’s ‘Long March’ to shale gas production–exciting potential and lost opportunities
• Toby E.G. Hewitt, A progress report on Indonesian coal bed methane development
• Luu Hoang Ha, Institutional and regulatory constraints for the development of unconventional gas in Vietnam
• Lord Justice Lewison, Thirty years of change

Talmon: Immunität von Staatsbediensteten (Immunity of State Officials)

Stefan A.G. Talmon (Univ. of Bonn - Law) has posted Immunität von Staatsbediensteten (Immunity of State Officials) (Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht, Vol. 46, pp. 313-376, 2014). Here's the abstract:

German Absract: Der Beitrag, der auf dem Referat des Autors bei der Zweijahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationales Rechts in Luzern beruht, behandelt die Immunität von Staatsbediensteten von der Gerichtsbarkeit anderer Staaten. Diese Immunität steht im Spannungsfeld zweier Strukturprinzipien des Völkerrechts: der souveränen Gleichheit der Staaten und deren territorialer Souveränität. Die funktionelle Immunität der Staatsbediensteten folgt aus der Immunität der Staaten und damit aus dem Strukturprinzip der souveränen Gleichheit der Staaten. Sie war ursprünglich absolut. Alle Einschränkungen müssen auf Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder Vertrag beruhen. Die Beweislast obliegt dem Staat, der (weitere) Einschränkungen der funktionellen Immunität geltend macht. Die personale Immunität der Staatsbediensteten ist eine Folge der territorialen Souveränität der Staaten. Innerhalb seines Territoriums hatte der Staat ursprünglich absolute Gerichtsbarkeit über alle Personen. Die Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für Staatsbedienstete, die sich im Territorium eines anderen Staates aufhalten oder dort handeln, muss durch Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder Vertrag begründet werden. Die Beweislast obliegt dem Staat, der eine (weitere) Ausdehnung der personalen Immunität geltend macht. Sowohl die funktionelle als auch die personale Immunität sind Rechte des Staates, nicht der Staatsbediensteten. Diese Rechte erlöschen mit dem Untergang des Staates, nicht aber durch dessen vorübergehende Handlungsunfähigkeit.

Das Völkerrecht ist geprägt durch die Relativität der Rechtsbeziehungen. Dies gilt auch für die Immunität der Staatsbediensteten. Für Handlungen von Staatsbediensteten im Gerichtsstaat wird die funktionelle Immunität durch die personale Immunität als lex specialis verdrängt. Insbesondere handelt es sich bei der fortwirkenden personalen Immunität nicht um funktionelle Immunität. Der Umfang der personalen Immunität ist nicht absolut und richtet sich nach dem jeweils privilegierten Staatsbediensteten. Er wurde sowohl ratione materiae als auch ratione personae ausgeweitet als Antwort auf die Ausdehnung der exterritorialen Gerichtsbarkeit und die Einschränkung der funktionellen Immunität.

In einem Entwicklungsprozess, der Ende des 19. Jh. begann, haben sich allgemein gültige völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Ausnahmen von der funktionellen Immunität für nichthoheitliche Amtshandlungen sowie für Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Völkermord herausgebildet. Weitere Einschränkungen der funktionellen Immunität vor staatlichen Strafgerichten sind nicht durch rein theoretische Überlegungen zu begründen, sondern durch eine entsprechende von der notwendigen Rechtsüberzeugung getragene weitgehend einheitliche Staatenpraxis nachzuweisen. Insbesondere die vier verschiedenen von den Richtern des House of Lords im Fall Pinochet gelieferten Begründungsansätze sind bereits dogmatisch kein gangbarer Weg zur Einschränkung der funktionellen Immunität. Gleiches gilt für den Immunitätsentzug als Gegenmaßnahme. Das Urteil im Fall Pinochet und andere nationale Gerichtsentscheidungen können den Anfang eines neuen völkergewohnheitsrechtlichen Entwicklungsprozesses markieren, bilden aber nicht dessen Abschluss. Da Einschränkungen der funktionellen Immunität auf Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder Vertrag beruhen, können sich diese für verschiedene Staatsbedienstete, Handlungen und Gerichtsbarkeiten unterschiedlich entwickeln. Eine Einschränkung der funktionellen Immunität der Staatsbediensteten muss nicht notwendigerweise mit der Einschränkung der Immunität des Staates einhergehen.

Die Staaten verschließen sich nicht den politischen Realitäten. Die Einschränkung der funktionellen Immunität vor staatlichen Gerichten führt zur Herausbildung einer oftmals politisch kontrollierten „de facto-Immunität“ durch Beschränkungen der Gerichtsbarkeit nach dem Weltrechtsprinzip und zu einer an Rechtsmissbrauch grenzenden Überdehnung des Begriffs der „Spezialmission“.

Es gibt keinen generellen Immunitätsausschluss vor internationalen Strafgerichten oder sog. internationalisierten (nationalen) Strafgerichten. Die Frage der Immunität richtet sich in jedem Einzelfall nach der Rechtsgrundlage der ausgeübten Gerichtsbarkeit, dem in Frage stehenden Verbrechen und dem Begehungsort der Tat. Der Wegfall der funktionellen Immunität vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof wird durch die fragwürdige, von den Eigeninteressen einzelner Sicherheitsratsmitglieder geleitete Schaffung von „de facto-Immunität“ für die Bediensteten von Nichtvertragsparteien durch den UN-Sicherheitsrat konterkariert und durch den rechtlich bedenklichen Abschluss von sog. „Artikel 98-Übereinkünften“ durch die Staaten umgangen.

Weitere Einschränkungen der funktionellen und personalen Immunität werden zur Vermeidung politischer Verwicklungen und im Interesse der Funktionsfähigkeit der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit durch eine Ausweitung von „de facto-Immunität“ und andere „Umgehungsmaßnahmen“ kompensiert werden.

English Absract: This paper, presented at the Bi-annual Meeting of the German Society of International Law in Lucerne, sets out the law on the immunity of State officials. It is argued that the immunity of State officials from the jurisdiction of other States exists at a crossroads between two of the structural principles of international law: the sovereign equality of States and their territorial sovereignty. The functional immunity of State officials is a corollary of State immunity, which in turn follows from the structural principle of the sovereign equality of States. This immunity was originally absolute. All restrictions must be established by customary international law or treaty law. States that argue for (further) restrictions to functional immunity have the burden of proof. The personal immunity of State officials is a corollary to the territorial sovereignty of States. Originally, a State had absolute jurisdiction over all persons within its territory. The immunity from jurisdiction for State officials who are present or active in the territory of another State must be established by customary international law or treaty law. States that argue for (further) extensions of personal immunity have the burden of proof. Both functional and personal immunity are rights of the State, not the State officials. These rights cease to exist with the collapse of the State, but not through a State’s temporary inability to act.

International law is characterised by the relativity of legal relationships. This is also true for the immunity of State officials. For the acts of State officials in the forum State, functional immunity is replaced by personal immunity as lex specialis. In particular, residual personal immunity is not a case of functional immunity. The scope of personal immunity is not absolute and is determined based on the individual status conferred to the State official concerned. It has been extended both ratione materiae and ratione personae in response to the extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction and the restrictions placed on functional immunity.

In a process of development that began during the end of the 19th century, generally valid exceptions to functional immunity under customary international law were created for acts not performed in the exercise of sovereign authority. The exceptions also extend to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Further restrictions to functional immunity from the jurisdiction of national criminal courts are not to be founded on purely theoretical considerations, but rather through evidence of consistent State practice based on a corresponding opinio juris. The four different approaches adopted by the Law Lords in their speeches in the Pinochet case before the House of Lords, in particular, are doctrinally unsound as a means of restricting functional immunity. The same is true for a restriction to immunity as a counter-measure. The judgment in the Pinochet case and other national court decisions could mark the beginning of the development of new customary international law, but not mark its conclusion. As restrictions to functional immunity are based on customary international law or treaty law, they could develop differently for different State officials, acts or jurisdictions. A restriction of the functional immunity of State officials must not necessarily be accompanied by restrictions to State immunity.

States are not insensitive to political realities. The restriction of functional immunity before national courts leads to the development of an often politically controlled “de facto immunity” through limitations to universal jurisdiction and an extension of the term ‘special mission’ that borders on abuse of right.

There is no general exclusion of immunity before international criminal courts or so-called internationalised (national) criminal courts. In every individual case, the question of immunity is governed by the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, the crime in question and the place where the offence was committed. The loss of functional immunity before the International Criminal Court is being thwarted by the questionable and self-interested actions of individual UN Security Council members through the creation of “de facto immunity” for State officials of non-parties of the Rome Statute, as well as the legally dubious conclusion of so-called “Article 98 agreements” by States.

It is likely that further restrictions to functional and personal immunity will be countered by broadening the scope of “de facto immunity” and other “means of circumvention”, in order to avoid political complications and to ensure the proper functioning of international relations.

Note: Downloadable document is in German.

New Volume: Israel Yearbook on Human Rights

The latest volume of the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (Vol. 44, 2014) is out. Contents include:

• Air and Missile Warfare
• Kenneth Watkin, Targeting in Air Warfare
• Marco Sassòli & Anne Quintin, Active and Passive Precautions in Air and Missile Warfare
• Charles H.B. Garraway, The Protection of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Effects of Air and Missile Warfare: Are there any Differences Between the Immediate Battlefield and the Extended Battlefield?
• Peter Hostettler, Reflections on the Law of Neutrality in Current Air and Missile Warfare
• Michel Bourbonnière & Ricky J. Lee, Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello Considerations on the Targeting of Satellites: the Targeting of Post-Modern Military Space Assets
• International Humanitarian Law
• Asa Kasher, Combatants’ Life and Human Dignity
• Robert Cryer, The Role of International Criminal Prosecutions in Increasing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law
• Yoram Dinstein, Issues Relating to the Use of Civilian “Human Shields”
• Discrimination
• Iddo Porat, Between Intentional Discrimination and Discriminatory Side Effects

New Volume: Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs

The latest volume of the Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs (Vol. 30, 2012) is out. Contents include:

• Articles
• Walter Woon, Resolving Territorial Disputes in ASEAN
• Brad R. Roth, Parsing “Mutual Non-Recognition and Mutual Non-Denial:” An International Law Perspective on Taipei’s Current Framework for Cross-Strait Relations
• Mizushima Tomonori, The Settlement of a Private Person’s Claim against a Foreign “State:” The Case of Japan’s Foreign State Immunity Act
• Alison Pert, The “Duty” of Non-Recognition in Contemporary International Law: Issues and Uncertainties
• Yoshimichi Ishikawa, Plain Packaging Requirements and Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
• Chen-Ju Chen, Multipolar Disorder in the East China Sea: Learning from the Experiences in Building the Legal Systems of the Arctic and the Antarctic
• Emika Tokunaga, The Rights of Disaster Victims: Japan’s Triple Disaster Two Years On

Giacca: Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Armed Conflict

Gilles Giacca (Univ. of Oxford - Law) has published Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Armed Conflict (Oxford Univ. Press 2014). Here's the abstract:

This book addresses the international legal obligation to protect economic, social, and cultural human rights in times of armed conflict and other situations of armed violence. These rights provide guarantees to individuals of their fundamental rights to work, to an adequate standard of living (food, water, housing), to education, and to health. Armed violence can take many forms, from civil unrest or protest and other forms of internal disturbances and tensions to higher levels of violence that may amount to armed conflict, whether of an international or of a non-international character. However, in all such cases the protection of ESC rights is sorely challenged.

Situations of actual or potential violence present a number of challenges to the application and implementation of human rights law in general and socio-economic rights obligations more specifically. This book sets out the legal framework, defining what constitutes a minimum universal standard of human rights protection applicable in all circumstances. It assesses the concept and content of ESC rights' obligations, and evaluates how far they can be legally applicable in various scenarios of armed violence. By looking at the specific human rights treaty provisions, it discusses how far ESC rights obligations can be affected by practical and legal challenges to their implementation. The book addresses the key issues facing the protection of such rights in times of armed conflict: the legal conditions to limit ESC rights on security grounds, including the use of force; the extraterritorial applicability of international human rights treaties setting out ESC rights; the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law; and the obligations of non-state actors under human rights law and with particular relevance to the protection of ESC rights. The book assesses the nature of these potential challenges to the protection of ESC rights, and offers solutions to reinforce their continued application.

New Issue: Global Trade and Customs Journal

The latest issue of Global Trade and Customs Journal (Vol. 9, no. 10, 2014) is out. Contents include:

• Onur Bülbül & Aslı Orhon, Beyond Turkey-EU Customs Union: Predictions for Key Regulatory Issues in a Potential Turkey-U.S. FTA Following TTIP
• Laurent Ruessmann & Jochen Beck, 2016 and the Application of an NME Methodology to Chinese Producers in Anti-dumping Investigations
• Nathan W. Cunningham, Drawing Down Bribery Risks: Complying with the FCPA While Doing Business in Afghanistan in 2014 and Beyond
• Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Qiner Jiang, Laila Arjuman Ara, & Zhou Kai, Assessing the Economic Impact of the Proposed “Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC)” Preferential Trade Agreement
• Jeremy Zucker, Darshak Dholakia, & Hrishikesh Hari, Gone with the Wind III: Ralls’ Historic Appeal and Lessons for Foreign Investors
• Eugenia Costanza Laurenza, Jean Michel Grave, Head of Unit, DG Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission

Call for Papers: 4th Conference of the SIEL Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network

The Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law has issued a call for papers for its fourth conference. The conference will take place April 16-17, 2015 in Milan. Here's the call:

4th Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law (PEPA/SIEL) 2015

Milan, 16-17 April 2015

Organised by PEPA/SIEL in collaboration with the Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies of the University of Milan SIEL’s Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network (PEPA/SIEL) is, among other things, interested in fostering collaboration and mentoring opportunities for emerging academics and professionals in International Economic Law (IEL). PEPA/SIEL fulfils these goals through various activities such as organising conferences at which emerging IEL academics and professionals can present and discuss their research in a supportive and welcoming environment.

We are pleased to announce that the fourth conference will take place on 16-17 April 2015 in Milan (Italy).

Call for Papers

This conference offers graduate students (students enrolled in Master or Ph.D. programmes) and early professionals/academics (generally within five years of graduating) studying or working in the field of IEL an opportunity to present and discuss their research. It also provides a critical platform where participants can test their ideas about broader issues relating to IEL. One or more senior practitioners and academics will comment on each paper after its presentation, followed by a general discussion.

We invite submissions on any IEL topic including, but not limited to:

- Law and practice in international economic governance and international organizations;

- International trade, investment, competition, monetary and financial law;

- The interaction of IEL branches with other branches of law governing intellectual property, human rights, environment, sustainable development, food safety;

- Bilateral and regional economic integration and the multilateral trading system;

- Comparative economic law, focusing on how international economic law interacts with laws, institutions and actors at the domestic level;

- International economics, philosophy, sociology, politics.

How and when to submit

Submissions should include a CV and a research abstract (no more than 400 words) and be sent no later than 2 November 2014 to pepa2015conference@gmail.com. Papers will be selected based on a double blind review conducted by a senior practitioner or academic and a conference organiser. Successful applicants will be notified by 30 November 2014, after which they are expected to submit a conference paper (no more than 4000 words) by 15 March 2015. Abstracts will be made available online via the SIEL website (www.sielnet.org).

General practical information about participating and attending the Conference

The deadline for registration is 15 February 2015. Registration has to be done online at the SIEL website. Registration costs 45 GBP for non-SIEL Members, and 35 GBP for SIEL Members. SIEL Membership details may be found at the SIEL website (students membership is 5 GBP). The registration fee covers conference materials and coffee breaks of both days.

Cancellation of participation must be made in writing to pepa2015conference@gmail.com. The deadline for cancellation is 25 March 2015. The registration fee minus an administrative fee of 10 GBP and any incurring bank fees will be refunded if the cancellation is done before or on the given date. Later cancellation will not be refunded.

A limited number of conference fee waivers is available for applicants facing financial hardship. Applicants for such a waiver are kindly invited to add a short letter of no more than 3 paragraphs to their conference application, stating the reason for their waiver request. Successful applications will be notified by 31 January 2015.

Please understand that we will not be able to provide any travel or other financial assistance to conference participants.

Subject to space availability, registration of participants not presenting a paper will be accepted. The regular fee will be applied. Please contact pepa2015conference@gmail.com.

Should you have any question regarding application or participation, please feel free to contact pepa2015conference@gmail.com.

Organisers

Conference Co-Chairs: Angela Lupone, Manlio Frigo, Giovanna Adinolfi, Anna Micara, Freya Baetens and José Caiado

Conference: International Child Abduction and Human Rights: A Critical Assessment of the Status Quo

On October 16, 2014, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and the University of Antwerp will hold a conference on "International Child Abduction and Human Rights: A Critical Assessment of the Status Quo," in Antwerp. The program is here. Here's the idea:

Against the background of the increasingly diverging case law of the CJEU and ECHR, this event examines and critically assesses the current legal framework for international child abduction cases. The question is how far a court's duty reaches when assessing the grant of a return order. Should the court apply a very marginal test only, in essence sending the child back unless there is a very serious reason not to do so? Or must it take full account of the right to family life of each individual child and his or her parents?

Speakers will discuss the use of the grounds for refusal; the role of Central Authorities; the future of the 1980 Hague Convention and of the Brussels II bis Regulation; potential ways to a harmonised case law of the CJEU and ECHR; children's rights and interests; and the concerns of children's organisations.

New Issue: African Journal of International and Comparative Law

The latest issue of the African Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 22, no. 3, October 2014) is out. Contents include:

• James D. Fry, Towards an International Piracy Tribunal: Curing the Legal Limbo of Captured Pirates
• Rhuks Temitope Ako & Olubayo Oluduro, Identifying Beneficiaries of the UN Indigenous Peoples’ Partnership (UNIPP): The Case for the Indigenes of Nigeria's Delta Region
• Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko, Legal Status of International Law in South Africa's Municipal Law: Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and Others (657/11) [2012] ZASCA 122
• Konstantinos D. Magliveras, Fighting Impunity Unsuccessfully in Africa: A Critique of the African Union's Handling of the Hissène Habré Affair
• Paul Smit, Transnational Labour Relations: A Dream or Possibility in SADC?
• Ebenezer Durojaye, When Poverty Is Not a Sin: An Assessment of the Human Rights Council's Guiding Principles on Poverty and Human Rights
• Christian-Jr Kabange Nkongolo, The Justiciability of Socio-economic Rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Appraisal and Perspectives Three Decades after Its Adoption
• John C. Mubangizi, Some Reflections on Two Decades of Human Rights Protection in South Africa: Lessons and Challenges

New Issue: Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

The latest issue of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (Vol. 32, no. 3, 2014) is out. Contents include:

• Lourdes Peroni, On Religious and Cultural Equality in European Human Rights Convention Law
• Linos-Alexander Sicilianos, The Involvement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Implementation of its Judgments: Recent Developments under Article 46 ECHR
• Gauthier De Beco, The Right to Inclusive Education According to Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Background, Requirements and (Remaining) Questions
• Hubert Smekal & Katarína Šipulová, DH v Czech Republic Six Years Later: On the Power of an International Human Rights Court to Push through Systemic Change
• Jenny Goldschmidt, “Whose Business Is It Anyway?” – Valedictory Lecture delivered at Utrecht University, 1 July 2014

Frishman & Benvenisti: National Courts and Interpretative Approaches to International Law: The Case Against Convergence

Olga Frishman (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) & Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) have posted National Courts and Interpretative Approaches to International Law: The Case Against Convergence (in Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts, Helmut Philip Aust & Georg Nolte eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Should national courts act as agents of the international community and promote a global rule of law based on a hierarchical structure which puts international tribunals – primarily the International Court of Justice – at its apex? For that purpose, must national courts abandon their current practices of divergent methods of interpretation and use the same rules of interpretation of international law that international courts apply? In this chapter we reject this “convergence thesis.” Even when taking only global interests into account, we argue that the convergence thesis is neither necessary nor sufficient to promote collective values; in fact it is counterproductive. Instead we outline a middle road for national courts to take: neither a solipsistic outlook that requires national courts to put national interests above all is appropriate, nor a cosmopolitan attitude that regards national courts as mere agents of the international legal system operating within states. Instead, we offer an approach that is informed by the vision of sovereignty as a trusteeship of humanity, which requires national courts to take global interests into account when interpreting international law. This view does not necessarily imply that national courts should reject international rules of interpretation, but it does imply that they should not aspire to mimic international courts.

Seminar Series: Beyond Pluralism? Co-Implication, Embeddedness and Interdependency between Public International Law and EU Law

This year, the Centre for Law and Society in a Global Context at Queen Mary University of London School of Law will host a seminar series on the theme "Beyond Pluralism? Co-Implication, Embeddedness and Interdependency between Public International Law and EU Law." The schedule is here.

Call for Papers: A Nordic Approach to International Law?

The Centre for International Law and Justice at the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law has issued a call for papers for a conference on "A Nordic Approach to International Law?" The call is here.

Special Issues: [Après La Libye. Avant La Syrie ?] L’ingérence. Le Problème

The latest issues of Droits, Revue française de théorie, de philosophie et de cultures juridiques (Nos. 56 & 57, 2012 & 2013) focus on "[Après La Libye. Avant La Syrie ?] L’ingérence. Le Problème." Contents include:

• Mario Bettati, Du devoir d’ingérence à la responsabilité de protéger
• Philippe Raynaud, Les guerres démocratiques
• Jacques Annequin, Athènes et les cités alliées. Hégémonie, domination, ingérence
• Olivier Corten, Droit d’intervention versus souveraineté. Actualité et antécédents d’une tension protéiforme
• Éric David, L’opération Unified Protector en Libye au regard du droit international humanitaire
• Sandra Szurek, La responsabilité de protéger : du prospectif au prescriptif… et retour. La situation de la Libye devant le Conseil de sécurité
• Julien Boudon, Ingérence, conquête, annexion, réunion, rattachement. Les mots de la Révolution française
• Thibaut Fleury Graff, Droit d’intervention et révolutions en droit international. Les enseignements de la Sainte Alliance
• Éric Desmons, Illustration d’une manie française. Le « devoir d’ingérence » sous la Deuxième République
• Jean-Philippe Feldman, Libéralisme, anarcho-capitalisme et ingérence
• Monique Castillo, Ingérence et/ou paix mondiale. L’apport de Kant
• Matthieu Haumesser, L’insociable sociabilité des États. Autour de la critique kantienne du droit d’ingérence
• Isabelle Thomas-Fogiel, Fichte ou l’impossibilité théorique d’un « droit à l’ingérence »
• Olivier Jouanjan, La communauté populaire et ses espaces. La question de l’ingérence dans l’idéologie juridique nazie
• Jean-Pierre Massias, La doctrine Brejnev et le droit d’ingérence
• Olivier de Frouville, Perspectives du droit cosmopolitique sur la responsabilité de protéger
• Mathias Forteau, Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies est-il soustrait à l’emprise du principe de non intervention ?
• Julian Fernandez, L’ingérence judiciaire au nom et responsabilité de protéger. À propos de la situation en Libye
• Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Sanctions économiques et droit international

Peat: The Use of Court-Appointed Experts by the International Court of Justice

Daniel Peat (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) has posted The Use of Court-Appointed Experts by the International Court of Justice (British Yearbook of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Faced with increasingly complex cases, the International Court of Justice has come under criticism for failing to appoint neutral experts to assist the Court under Article 50 of its Statute. After examining the limited use of court-appointed experts by the ICJ and its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, this article argues that increased recourse to expert knowledge under Article 50 would result in a delegation of the judicial function to unaccountable experts. Acknowledging the demands of technically complex cases, the article evaluates three different methods adopted by other international tribunals, under the auspices of the WTO, ECJ, UNCC, WIPO, UNCLOS and PRIME Finance. Considering the institutional specificities of the ICJ, the article concludes by advocating the adoption of a new form of pre-trial procedure involving co-operation with specialist international organisations: this could be accomplished under an amended version of the Rules, which would limit provision for expert consultation to that necessary to determine the facts pertinent to the selection and application of the rules of law necessary for the Court to perform its function in the case at hand.

Seminar: INTRAlaw Project

On October 24, 2014, the International and Transnational Tendencies in Law (INTRAlaw) Project at the Aarhus University Department of Law will host its opening seminar. The program is here.

Call for Submissions: Privacy under International and European Law

The Utrecht Journal of International and European Law has issued a call for submissions for a special issue on "Privacy under International and European Law." The call is here.

Call for Submissions: Texas International Law Journal 50th Anniversary Issue

The Texas International Law Journal has issued a call for submissions for its fiftieth anniversary issue. The call is here.

Shaffer: How the World Trade Organization Shapes Regulatory Governance

Gregory Shaffer (Univ. of California, Irvine - Law) has posted How the World Trade Organization Shapes Regulatory Governance (Regulation & Governance, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The World Trade Organization (WTO) arguably shapes regulatory governance in more countries to a greater extent than any other international organization. This article provides a new framework for assessing the broader transnational regulatory implications of the WTO as part of a transnational legal order (TLO) in terms of four dimensions of regulatory change that permeate the state: (i) changes in the boundary between the market and the state (involving concomitantly market liberalization and growth of the administrative state); (ii) changes in the relative authority of institutions within the state (promoting bureaucratized and judicialized governance); (iii) changes in professional expertise engaging with state regulation (such as the role of lawyers); and (iv) changes in normative frames and accountability mechanisms for national regulation (which are trade liberal and transnational in scope). In practice, these four dimensions of change interact and build on each other. The article presents what we know to date and a framework for conducting further study of such transnational legal ordering.

Morrow: Order within Anarchy: The Laws of War as an International Institution

James D. Morrow (Univ. of Michigan - Political Science) has published Order within Anarchy: The Laws of War as an International Institution (Cambridge Univ. Press 2014). Here's the abstract:

Order within Anarchy focuses on how the laws of war create strategic expectations about how states and their soldiers will act during war, which can help produce restraint. The success of the laws of war depends on three related factors: compliance between warring states and between soldiers on the battlefield, and control of soldiers by their militaries. A statistical study of compliance of the laws of war during the twentieth century shows that joint ratification strengthens both compliance and reciprocity, compliance varies across issues with the scope for individual violations, and violations occur early in war. Close study of the treatment of prisoners of war during World Wars I and II demonstrates the difficulties posed by states' varied willingness to limit violence, a lack of clarity about what restraint means, and the practical problems of restraint on the battlefield.

van Sliedregt & Vasiliev: Pluralism in International Criminal Law

Elies van Sliedregt (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Law) & Sergey Vasiliev (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Law) have published Pluralism in International Criminal Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2014). Contents include:

• Elies Van Sliedregt & Sergey Vasiliev, Pluralism: A New Framework for International Criminal Justice
• Cassandra Steer, Legal Transplants or Legal Patchworking? The Creation of International Criminal Law as a Pluralistic Body of Law
• Mark A. Drumbl, The Curious Criminality of Mass Atrocity: Diverse Actors, Multiple Truths, and Plural Responses
• Jens David Ohlin, Organizational Criminality
• Marjolein Cupido, Pluralism in Theories of Liability: Joint Criminal Enterprise versus Joint Perception
• John D. Jackson & Yassin Brunger, Fragmentation and Harmonization in the Development of Evidentiary Practices in International Criminal Tribunals
• Barbora Holá, Consistency and Pluralism of International Sentencing: An Empirical Assessment of the ICTY and ICTR Practice
• Ruth A. Kok, National Adjudication of International Crimes: A Dutch Approach
• Alexander Zahar, Pluralism and the Rights of the Accused in International Criminal Proceedings
• Elinor Fry, The Nature of International Crimes and Evidentiary Challenges: Preserving Quality While Managing Quantity
• Wayne Jordash & Matthew R. Crowe, Evidentiary Challenges for the Defence: Domestic and International Prosecutions of International Crimes
• Gerhard Werle & Boris Burghardt, Establishing Degrees of Responsibility: Modes of Participation in Article 25 of the ICC Statute
• James G. Stewart, Ten Reasons for Adopting a Universal Concept of Participation in Atrocity
• Javid Gadirov, Collective Intentions and Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law
• Peter Murphy & Lina Baddour, Evidence and Selection of Judges in International Criminal Tribunals: The Need for a Harmonized Approach

Gallagher & David: The International Law of Migrant Smuggling

Anne T. Gallagher & Fiona David (Australian National Univ. - Centre for International and Public Law) have published The International Law of Migrant Smuggling (Cambridge Univ. Press 2014). Here's the abstract:

Whether forced into relocation by fear of persecution, civil war, or humanitarian crisis, or pulled toward the prospect of better economic opportunities, more people are on the move than ever before. Opportunities for lawful entry into preferred destinations are decreasing rapidly, creating demand that is increasingly being met by migrant smugglers. This companion volume to the award-winning The International Law of Human Trafficking, presents the first-ever comprehensive, in-depth analysis into the subject. The authors call on their experience of working with the UN to chart the development of new international laws and to link these specialist rules to other relevant areas of international law, including law of the sea, human rights law, and international refugee law. Through this analysis, the authors explain the major legal obligations of States with respect to migrant smuggling, including those related to criminalization, interdiction and rescue at sea, protection, prevention, detention, and return.

Call for Papers: ASIL Annual Meeting - New Voices Sessions

The American Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for at least one "New Voices" session for its 2015 Annual Meeting. Here's the call:

2015 ASIL Annual Meeting Call for Papers – New Voices Sessions

From April 8-11, 2015, the American Society of International Law will convene its 109th Annual Meeting. The aim of the 2015 Annual Meeting is to promote a rigorous discussion on the question of how international law is “adapting to a rapidly changing world.”

Next year, as in the past, the Planning Committee for the Annual Meeting would like to include at least one "New Voices" session that will provide a platform for junior scholars and practitioners to present their works-in-progress.

ASIL invites submissions from non-tenured scholars and junior practitioners on any topic of international law. Any authors who submitted a paper abstract in the first call for papers and session proposals do not need to submit again; those abstracts remain under consideration.

Abstracts should be well developed and reflect advanced progress on a paper that will be presented at the Meeting. Final papers will be due by March 30, 2015.

Send your abstract to asilannualmeeting@asil.org by no later than Thursday, October 30, 2014, with the subject line “New Voices Proposal.” Please send the abstract as a Microsoft Word attachment, including your name and contact information (email address & affiliation). Abstracts should be no longer than 1000 words. Selected authors will be notified by the end of November.

Please direct any questions to the co-chairs of the ASIL New Professionals Interest Group at asilnpig@gmail.com.