Shaffer, Nedumpara, & Sinha: State Transformation and the Role of Lawyers: The WTO, India, and Transnational Legal Ordering

Gregory Shaffer (Univ. of California, Irvine - Law), James J. Nedumpara (Jindal Global Law School), & Aseema Sinha (Claremont McKenna College) have posted State Transformation and the Role of Lawyers: The WTO, India, and Transnational Legal Ordering (Law & Society Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article explains the impact of India’s engagement with the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on both the Indian state and on the WTO itself. In each case, it explains the role of Indian lawyers within the larger transnational context. In engaging with globalization and the WTO, India has transformed itself. The Indian state has moved toward a new developmental state model involving a stronger emphasis on trade, greater government transparency, and the development of public-private coordination mechanisms in which the government plays a steering role. We show that it has done so not as an autonomous policy choice, but rather in light of the global context in which the WTO and WTO law form an integral part. Reciprocally, the article shows the ways that India has built legal capacity to attempt to shape the construction, interpretation, and practice of the trade legal order. Indian private lawyers play increasing roles, although they remain on tap, not on top. The article builds from fieldwork in India and Geneva (the home of the WTO), including over one hundred and fifty interviews with key Indian officials, lawyers, and business and civil society stakeholders, regarding changes in the Indian state and the increased role of private lawyers as mediators in the legal order for trade.

Bradley: Foreign Relations Law and the Purported Shift Away from 'Exceptionalism'

Curtis A. Bradley (Duke Univ. - Law) has posted Foreign Relations Law and the Purported Shift Away from 'Exceptionalism' (Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 128, p. 294, 2015). Here's the abstract:

In prior writings, I coined the term “foreign relations exceptionalism” to refer to the view that the federal government’s foreign affairs powers are subject to a different, and generally more relaxed, set of constitutional restraints than those that govern its domestic powers. In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, the authors contend that during the past twenty-five years there has been a revolutionary shift away from foreign relations exceptionalism, that this “normalization” trend is likely to continue, and that this development should be welcomed and encouraged. This essay points out various conceptual and methodological limitations with the normalization thesis. In particular, the essay argues that the authors’ definition of foreign relations exceptionalism is problematic because it relies on artificial distinctions in constitutional law; that their account is too exclusively focused on the Supreme Court and does not present a compelling case even on its own terms; and that their lack of an underlying theory of why normalization is occurring weakens their empirical, predictive, and normative claims.

New Issue: International Theory

The latest issue of International Theory (Vol. 7, no. 2, July 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Joseph O’Mahoney, Why did they do that?: the methodology of reasons for action
• Jens Steffek, The output legitimacy of international organizations and the global public interest
• Haye Hazenberg, The legitimacy of the global order
• Sebastian Schindler & Tobias Wille, Change in and through practice: Pierre Bourdieu, Vincent Pouliot, and the end of the Cold War
• Vicki A. Spencer, Kant and Herder on colonialism, indigenous peoples, and minority nations

Chan: China, State Sovereignty and International Legal Order

Phil C.W. Chan has published China, State Sovereignty and International Legal Order (Brill | Nijhoff 2015). Here's the abstract:

China’s rise has aroused apprehension that it will revise the current rules of international order to pursue and reflect its power, and that, in its exercise of State sovereignty, it is unlikely to comply with international law. This book explores the extent to which China’s exercise of State sovereignty since the Opium War has shaped and contributed to the legitimacy and development of international law and the direction in which international legal order in its current form may proceed. It examines how international law within a normative–institutional framework has moderated China’s exercise of State sovereignty and helps mediate differences between China’s and other States’ approaches to State sovereignty, such that State sovereignty, and international law, may be better understood.

Lamp: The 'Development' Discourse in International Trade Lawmaking

Nicolas Lamp (Queen's Univ., Canada - Law) has posted The 'Development' Discourse in International Trade Lawmaking. Here's the abstract:

The impact of the idea of “development” in international trade lawmaking is often reduced to the principle of “special and differential treatment”, which exempts developing countries from certain obligations imposed by the trading regime. The article shows that “development” has always presented a much wider challenge to the vision of the trade regime championed by the major trading nations. The development discourse has conceived the trade regime’s historical significance, the regime’s aims, and the relationships among its members in ways that were often fundamentally at odds with the conception preferred by most developed countries. The article explores how the development discourse has informed lawmaking initiatives by developing countries throughout the history of the trade regime. While not all of these initiatives were successful or necessarily fruitful, they show that the development discourse in trade lawmaking has always been more than an effort to seek exemption from trade rules.

del Castillo: Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos

Lilian del Castillo (Univ. of Buenos Aires - Law) has published Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos (Brill | Nijhoff 2015). Contents include:

• Bernard H. Oxman, In Honor of Hugo Caminos
• Jeannette Irigoin-Barrenne, The Contribution of Andrés Bello to the Law of the Sea in the Chilean Civil Code
• M.C.W. Pinto, Hugo Grotius and the Law of the Sea
• Tullio Scovazzi, The Origin of the Theory of Sovereignty of the Sea
• Harry N. Scheiber, Reflections on the “abstention doctrine” in the diplomatic history of modern ocean law
• Tullio Treves, International courts and tribunals and the development of the law of the sea in the age of codification
• Rüdiger Wolfrum, The Freedom of Navigation: Modern Challenges seen from a Historical Perspective
• Tommy Koh, UNCLOS at 30: some reflections
• Marcelo G. Kohen, Is the Internal Waters Regime Excluded from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
• Annick de Marffy-Mantuano, Le rôle du Secretariat des Nations Unies dans l’application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer
• Luis Valencia-Rodríguez, The Contributions of Latin America to the Implementation of the UNCLOS
• Lilian del Castillo, Some comments on the Whaling in the Antarctic Judgment
• Philippe Gautier, The exercise of jurisdiction over activities in Antarctica: a new challenge for the Antarctic System
• Ariel Mansi, The System of Inspection of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
• Janusz Symonides, Problems and controversies concerning freedom of navigation in the Arctic
• Pablo Ferrara, International subjectivity of corporations operating in the Area and universal jurisdiction for environmental damage
• Fernanda Millicay, The Common Heritage of Mankind: 21st Century challenges of a revolutionary concept
• Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, Archipelagic States and the new Law of the Sea
• Antonio Remiro- Brotons, About the Islands
• Agustín Blanco-Bazán, Coastal and flag States in situations of distress at sea giving rise to environmental damage
• Nilufer Oral, Law of the sea, naval blockades and freedom of navigation in the aftermath of Gaza Flotilla incident of 31 May 2010
• Roberto Virzo, Les compétences de l’Etat côtier en matière de sécurité de la navigation maritime
• Angela Del Vecchio, The fight against piracy and the Enrica Lexie Case
• Yoram Dinstein, Piracy vs. International Armed Conflict
• Edison González-Lapeyre, Un nouvel envisagement sur la piraterie maritime
• James L. Kateka, Combating piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast and the Gulf of Guinea
• Helmut Tuerk, Combating piracy: new approaches to an ancient issue
• D.H. Anderson, Recent Judicial Decisions concerning Maritime Delimitation
• Gudmumdur Eiriksson, The Bay of Bengal case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• María Teresa Infante-Caffi, The Decision on the Maritime Boundary between Chile and Perú: International Law Revisited
• Rafael Nieto-Navia, Some Remarks on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute: Nicaragua v. Colombia Case
• Francisco Orrego-Vicuña, International Law Issues in the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Peru-Chile Maritime Dispute Case
• Jin-Hyun Paik, The Origin of the Principle of Natural Prolongation: North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Revisited
• Jean-Pierre Cot, Fraud on the Tribunal?
• Miguel García García-Revillo, The juridical personality and nature of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• Tafsir Malick Ndiaye, Les avis consultatifs du Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer
• Bing Bing Jia, The Terra Nullius Requirement in the Doctrine of Effective Occupation: A Case Study
• Kamal Hossain, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and provisional arrangements relating to activities in disputed maritime areas
• Djamchid Momtaz, La délimitation du plateau continental du Golfe Persique: une entreprise inachevée
• Jean-François Pulvenis, Regional fisheries bodies and regional fisheries management organizations and the settlement of disputes concerning marine living resources
• Susana Ruiz-Cerutti, The UNCLOS and the settlement of disputes: the ARA Libertad Case

Haque: Laws for War

Adil Ahmad Haque (Rutgers Univ., Newark - Law) has posted Laws for War (in Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict & Human Rights, Jens David Ohlin ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This chapter explores how international humanitarian law (IHL) can prohibit morally arbitrary killing in armed conflict and thereby avoid substantive conflict with international human rights law (IHRL). The chapter distinguishes between different senses of moral permissibility (fact-relative, evidence-relative, and belief-relative; objective and subjective; direct and indirect) and shows how different IHL norms can be interpreted to guarantee that lawful killings are morally permissible in one or more of these senses. Finally, the chapter contests the view of Janina Dill and Henry Shue that IHL should seek not to prohibit human rights violations but rather to minimize human rights violations. Instead, IHL should aim to help combatants better conform to their moral obligations.

New Issue: Ocean Development & International Law

The latest issue of Ocean Development & International Law (Vol. 46, no. 2, 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Special Issue: Regulating Private Maritime Security Providers
• Carolin Liss & Patricia Schneider, Regulating Private Maritime Security Providers
• Carolin Liss, (Re)Establishing Control? Flag State Regulation of Antipiracy PMSCs
• Birgit Feldtmann, What Happens After the Defense? Considering “Post Incident” Obligations of Masters from the Perspective of International and Danish Law
• Eugenio Cusumano & Stefano Ruzza, Contractors as a Second Best Option: The Italian Hybrid Approach to Maritime Security
• Annina Bürgin & Patricia Schneider, Regulation of Private Maritime Security Companies in Germany and Spain: A Comparative Study
• Joakim Berndtsson & Åse Gilje Østensen, The Scandinavian Approach to Private Maritime Security—A Regulatory Façade?
• Renée de Nevers, State Interests and the Problem of Piracy: Comparing U.S. and UK Approaches to Maritime PMSCs

Marsden & Brandon: Transboundary Environmental Governance in Asia

Simon Marsden (Flinders Univ. - Law) & Elizabeth Brandon (City Univ. of Hong Kong - Law) have published Transboundary Environmental Governance in Asia: Practice and Prospects with the UNECE Agreements (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015). Here's the abstract:

A comprehensive overview of treaty implementation and compliance concerning transboundary environmental governance in Asia is provided in this timely book. Recent United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) membership by Asian states in the Caucasus and Central Asia has shifted focus on environmental governance away from its Euro-centric roots and placed Asia at the forefront of discussion. The focus of this book is centred on the five UNECE treaties: Public Participation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Industrial Accidents, Water and Air Pollution. Twelve related protocols are discussed including Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Civil Liability, Water and Health, and Air Pollutants.

Deane: Emissions Trading and WTO Law

Felicity Deane (Queensland Univ. of Technology) has published Emissions Trading and WTO Law: A Global Analysis (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015). Here's the abstract:

Emissions Trading and WTO Law examines the global trade issues that arise as a result of the introduction of emissions trading frameworks. The book focusses specifically on the rules of the WTO, as a tool to demonstrate where the boundaries exist for acceptable interference with international trade. In doing so, Felicity Deane addresses the thorny issue of the potential global impact of emissions trading frameworks.

Arato: Accounting for Difference in Treaty Interpretation Over Time

Julian Arato (Columbia Univ. - Law) has posted Accounting for Difference in Treaty Interpretation Over Time (in Interpretation in International Law, Andrea Bianchi, Daniel Peat, & Matthew Windsor eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The law of treaty interpretation aspires to unity. All treaties are formally subject to the same rules of interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention. Yet time and again we hear that some kinds of treaties are entitled to special treatment. Most commonly the idea is that certain exceptional conventions are capable of evolving, with or without the continued consent of the parties — as with certain human rights conventions. Other times the claim is that certain kinds of agreements resist techniques of interpretation that establish treaty change over time. To date, explanations for such differential treatment remain unsatisfying. This Chapter seeks to better account for the practice of affording some treaties special status. I argue that differential treatment cannot be justified by appeal to a treaty’s object and purpose alone, but must be understood in light of the nature of the obligations that the parties established to achieve their goals.

New Issue: Journal of World Trade

The latest issue of the Journal of World Trade (Vol. 49, no. 3, 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Petros C. Mavroidis & André Sapir, Dial PTAs for Peace: The Influence of Preferential Trade Agreements on Litigation between Trading Partners
• Cezary Sowinski, WCO Immediate Release Guidelines: State of Application in the Eve of the ATF Adoption
• Valerie Demedts, Which Future for Competition in the Global Trade System: Competition Chapters in FTAs
• William A. Kerr & Jill E. Hobbs, A Protectionist Bargain?: Agriculture in the European Union—Canada Trade Agreement
• Umut Turksen & Ruth Holder, Contemporary Problems with the GATS and Internet Gambling
• Brigid Gavin, Sustainable Development of China’s Rare Earth Industry within and without the WTO
• Garima Shahani, The Sequencing Dilemma: Will the European Union Succeed against Indonesia?

Schultz: Arbitral Decision-Making: Legal Realism and Law & Economics

Thomas Schultz (King's College London – Law) has posted Arbitral Decision-Making: Legal Realism and Law & Economics (Journal of International Dispute Settlement, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

As the social impact and role of international arbitration receives increasing attention, one central theme in this conundrum gains prominence: how do arbitrators decide cases? What influences arbitral decision-making? With the progressive opening of scholarship in the field to interdisciplinary approaches and studies going beyond doctrinal work, the question often takes the following form: do arbitrators apply the law, or do they make decisions based on something else – personal preferences, political biases, etc? When empirical studies fail to find significant statistical evidence of the role of extra-legal factors in their decision-making, the conclusion is drawn that arbitrators do indeed nothing else than apply the law. This article argues that the question so posed is an argumentative fallacy. Using the epistemology of legal realism and a simple methodology of law & economics, this article maintains that arbitrators, like every dispute resolver, are likely to always rely on both legal and extra-legal factors. It focuses on identifying, in the abstract, possible extra-legal factors which may amount to incentives and constraints placed by the current ecosystem of arbitration on arbitral decision-making.

New Issue: Journal du Droit International

The latest issue of the Journal du Droit International ("Clunet") (Vol. 142, no. 2, Avril-Mai-Juin 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Doctrine
• David Sindres, Le tourisme procréatif et le droit international privé
• Gérard Anou, Les conflits entre le droit de l’Union européenne et le droit international des investissements dans l’arbitrage CIRDI
• Arnaud Poitevin, Des « prérequis » pour la levée de fonds sur les marchés internationaux : les normes environnementales et sociales des institutions financières internationales et leurs sanctions
• Variétés
• Christian Byk, La Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur le trafic d’organes humains

Call for Papers: International Organizations and the Rule of Law: Perils and Promise

The New Zealand Centre for Public Law and the International Law Association (New Zealand Branch) have issued a call for papers for a workshop on "International Organisations and the Rule of Law: Perils and Promise," to be held December 7-8, 2015, at the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law. Here's the call:

CALL FOR PAPERS: DEADLINE 15 JULY 2015

The New Zealand Centre for Public Law

and

The International Law Association (New Zealand Branch)

are pleased to announce a workshop on:

International Organisations and the Rule of Law:

Perils and Promise

7-8 December 2015

to be held at Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law

Wellington, New Zealand

Keynote speaker and workshop commentator:

Professor José E. Alvarez

Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law

New York University School of Law

International organisations have represented some of humanity’s highest hopes for a more just and peaceful world order. In recent years, however, they have also been beset by serious problems and criticisms. Internationalists once believed that apolitical, technical international agencies would bring about ‘peace by pieces’, but some organisations such as the World Bank and IMF now face the contrary charge of advancing a particular brand of neoliberal economics and in the process undermining public goods and political legitimacy in their member states. Observers have noted the irony that the United Nations promulgates a “rule of law” paradigm to its member states, while it is not at all clear that the organization itself meets the requirements of that ideal. The Security Council is regarded alternately as a tool of ‘hegemonic international law’ and lamentably ineffectual where the interests of its permanent members are directly or indirectly concerned. And whereas the international community once saw the blue helmets of UN peacekeepers as symbols of international peace and security, that hopeful promise has been undercut by the tragedies in Rwanda and Srebrenica, allegations of sexual misconduct and, more recently, the catastrophic cholera outbreak in Haiti.

These problems raise a series of important theoretical and practical policy questions that demand attention from international lawyers. On the one hand, classical international organisations law, such as the doctrine of implied powers, has legitimised the continuous ‘mission creep’ of organisations well beyond what their founders originally intended, while failing to develop an adequate and enforceable doctrine of ultra vires. On the other hand, international organisations’ immunities are interpreted in an exceedingly broad, functionalist manner, making their officials and experts, as well as the organisations themselves, effectively unaccountable for a wide range of civil and criminal wrongs. Efforts to extend the international law of responsibility to international organisations have been roundly criticised on both doctrinal and practical grounds, and are unlikely to provide recourse to individuals and groups most negatively impacted by IO activities. The internal accountability mechanisms of international organisations, such as the World Bank’s Inspection Panel, may not address the root of the problems.

This workshop will take a fresh look at the resources that international law possesses to ensure that international organisations are held accountable for their errors and excesses, while remaining relevant and effective in the face of ever growing global challenges. How can international law develop in a way that preserves and enhances the dynamic possibilities of international organisations and their ability to contribute to the development of international law while making sure that the organisations themselves comply with the rule of law? Can international law offer solutions, or is it part of the problem? The workshop organisers welcome papers that present original legal or empirical research; theoretical reflections; case studies from practice; and critical and historical perspectives.

The workshop will be held in a roundtable format, focused on the discussion of draft papers. To enable all participants to benefit from the workshop, all will be expected to have read, and be prepared to comment on, each other’s papers.

Deadline for proposals: 15 July 2015

Proposals must include a one-page abstract of new writing and a one-page curriculum vitae, and should be emailed to Law-Events@vuw.ac.nz. Due to space limitations, early submission of proposals is highly encouraged. All participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.

Successful applicants will be notified by 15 August 2015.

Draft papers, no more than 8,000 words long, including footnotes, will due for circulation to all workshop participants no later than 15 November 2015.

Workshop organisers:

Campbell McLachlan and Guy Fiti Sinclair

Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law

SFDI: Droit international et développement

The Société française pour le droit international has published Droit international et développement : Colloque de Lyon (Pedone 2015). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

L’équilibre a été gardé entre un regard rétrospectif sur le passé à la lumière du présent et une analyse en général lucide du droit tel qu’il va. Que l’on soit convaincu ou non par l’idée d’un « droit de la reconnaissance » (E. Tourme Jouannet), que l’on adhère ou non à l’idée d’une « gouvernance globale du développement » (M. Salah ; v. aussi les contributions de B. Gueye et G. Aïvo), que l’on estime la doctrine du security development nexus féconde ou non (M. Dubuy ; v. aussi la contribution d’E. Serrurier sur la gestion du dévelop-pement en situation conflictuelle), ces tentatives de renouvellements conceptuels montrent d’abord que l’on ne peut s’en tenir à l’approche marxisante, essentiellement économiciste, qui inspirait les zélateurs du droit international du développement dont, à sa modeste place, faisait partie le signataire de ces lignes [ndr Alain Pellet] (qui n’en a pas de regret – à l’époque, c’était le bon combat).

Elles montrent aussi que, si l’on peut enrichir la notion, l’objectif d’atténuation des inégalités poursuivi par ce que j’avais appelé jadis le « droit social des nations » demeure incontournable. Le concept de développement durable centré sur l’humain, ce qui en fait un « droit de l’humanité » (C. Le Bris), si central dans les débats de Lyon (v. not., parmi d’autres, les contributions de V. Barral, M. Bennouna, E. Decaux, E. Gaillard, R. Khérad, M-P. Lanfranchi ou I. Michallet), en témoigne de manière éclatante : le développement est l’objectif, mais il est pensé maintenant sur le long terme dans une perspective intergénérationnelle et indissociable de la préservation de l’environnement. Comme celui de maintien de la paix, le concept de développement est devenu de plus en plus « englobant » (H. Hamant) grâce, notamment, à la « fonction unificatrice » du droit au développement (K. Neri), qui ne doit pas, au demeurant, dissimuler l’« irréductible hétérogénéité des approches développementalistes » régionales (L. Burgorgue-Larsen).

La multiplication des acteurs du développement (« mal-développement » ? J-M Thouvenin), leur institutionnalisation (L. Boisson de Chazournes, A. Louwette), la recherche d’une « plurijuridicité » assurant « la participation de tous les acteurs concernés, dans leur pluralité et leur diversité » à l’élaboration des normes pour le développement (A. Geslin), confirment la fin du monopole étatique en ce domaine (mais a-t-il jamais été une réalité ?). Peut-on en déduire la mort de la souveraineté ? Certes, dans les années 1960 et 1970, les pays du Tiers Monde étaient obsédés par la nécessité d’affirmer la leur, minée par les inégalités de développement ; la prégnance dans leurs préoccupations de la « souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles et les activités économiques » est le signe de cette (à l’époque) légitime obsession. Selon la formule célèbre de Louis Henquin, il est assurément prématuré d’envoyer les faire-part de décès ; mais la prise de conscience des indispensables solidarités transfrontières, autant que le fait brut (et parfois brutal) de la globalisation conduisent tout esprit raisonnable à avoir de la souveraineté une conception bien tempérée et à y voir la source de devoirs autant que de droits – mais, des droits et des devoirs qui incombent à l’Etat et, parfois, à lui seul– et d’une « responsabilité partagée » (D. Gnamou).

C’est toute la dialectique – peut-être suffit-il de dire que c’est tout l’équilibre à réaliser ? mais ce qui est trop simple indiffère ! – entre le droit au développement et la responsabilité de protéger, équilibre dont l’aboutissement normatif est encore incertain (v. les contributions de J. d’Aspremont ou d’Y. Nouvel, qui décrit l’effacement – peut-être moins marqué qu’il l’écrit – de la question du développement dans le droit de l’investissement) même si l’on est à la recherche de nouveaux instruments de développement, dont les accords ou les contrats de partenariat économique (M. Cardon et J.-F. Sestier) sont un bon exemple, et de nouvelles techniques contractuelles (notamment en matière de « part locale » – M. Audit) ou conventionnelles (vers une OMC à la carte ? – H. Ghérari).

Les quelques lignes qui précèdent n’ont nullement l’ambition de rendre compte de la richesse des contributions au colloque 2014 de la SFDI. Elles suffisent cependant peut-être à confirmer et les propos introductifs de S. Doumbé-Billé : le développement continue de « hanter » le droit international ; et la conclusion de P.-M. Dupuy : il fallait venir à Lyon ! Mais, si ce n’était pas votre cas, il est encore possible de vous « rattraper » en vous plongeant dans ce volume qui en restitue les Actes.