- Alfons Aragoneses, Die plurale Nation im Spiegel des Rechts
- Peter Bußjäger, Katalonien. Ein neuer Staat in Europa
- Peter A. Kraus, Demokratisierung der Souveränität: Der Katalanische "Prozess"
- Georg Kremnitz, Katalonien: zur augenblicklichen Situation und zu möglichen sprachpolitischen Perspektiven für die Zukunft
- Michael Geistlinger, Some Thoughts on the De-Centralization of power or Federalization of the Ukraine
- Muhammad Asif Khan & Farooq Hayat, Pakistan's Vulnerable Minorities and the Anti-Blasphemy Laws: Is there a way out?
Saturday, June 13, 2015
- Special Issue: Business and Human Rights
- Michael A. Santoro, Business and Human Rights in Historical Perspective
- Florian Wettstein, Normativity, Ethics, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A Critical Assessment
- Toby Whitney, Conflict Minerals, Black Markets, and Transparency: The Legislative Background of Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and Its Historical Lessons
- Celia R. Taylor, Using Securities Disclosures to Advance Human Rights: A Consideration of Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Conflict Minerals Rule
- Nien-hê Hsieh, Should Business Have Human Rights Obligations?
- Anita Ramasastry, Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability
- Jennifer N. Costanza, Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Prior Consultation: Transforming Human Rights From the Grassroots in Guatemala
Friday, June 12, 2015
Pérez: Here to Stay? Extended Liability for Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Tool for Prosecuting Mass SGBV Crimes
Governments maintain secrecy over a range of conduct in order to protect national security, but in no area is secrecy more likely to impact foreign relations and destabilize the international political order than in the use of force. Although the political costs of secrecy are widely discussed, there has been virtually no attention in scholarship to how secrecy influences the law itself. This Article considers how secrecy and covert conduct shape the development of international law. Focusing on the area of the use of force, it examines how international law-making processes are affected when a state acts covertly — that is, when a state does not publicly acknowledge its conduct — and that covert conduct comes — partially or fully, accurately or inaccurately — to public light.
Despite widespread public perception that covert conduct necessarily violates international law, states act covertly for a range of legitimate political, diplomatic, and strategic reasons. Covert behavior may be — though certainly is not always — consistent with international law. I consider how covert actors’ non-engagement in public discourse distorts the landscape of evidence that informs other actors’ legal judgments. Where states view their conduct as lawful, acting covertly diminishes their ability to reinforce or develop the law, ceding that ground to third parties. I address whether secret and covert practice can count as evidence of customary law, and suggest that violating the law covertly may be less damaging to legal rules than overt violation, by denying the act precedential value. I also argue that unacknowledged conduct has an inherently corrosive effect on the law by casting doubt on whether the operative legal rules have obligatory effect, potentially contributing to the rules’ desuetude. Although one might assume that covert conduct is simply negligible to the evolution of the law, this Article shows how secrecy and covertness in fact shape law-making processes, and their substantive outcomes.
States will continue, often legitimately, to act covertly and maintain secrecy over aspects of their conduct. It is crucial for governments to understand the legal consequences and costs of secrecy and covertness, in order to manage their programs more strategically and potentially mitigate some of the pernicious effects on the law.
Mitchell, Sheargold, & Voon: Good Governance Obligations in International Economic Law: A Comparative Analysis of Trade and Investment
International trade and international investment agreements typically contain provisions requiring the parties to comply with good governance principles, such as procedural fairness and transparency. These provisions are increasingly the subject of disputes before international tribunals. The scope of these obligations is often unclear, as treaty provisions usually employ broad standards rather than specific rules. For example, the requirement to accord investors ‘fair and equitable treatment’ is common in international investment agreements, while WTO agreements demand the ‘reasonable and impartial administration of measures’. This paper compares approaches in international investment and trade law to three aspects of good governance: procedural fairness, transparency, and reasonable administration of measures. Despite textual differences, the standards adopted by these two regimes are remarkably similar. Consequently, decisions from these two branches of international economic law may provide states, tribunals, market participants and scholars with valuable insights into the conduct required by good governance obligations.
Legacy plays an increasing role in the work of international courts and tribunals. But it remains under-theorized as a concept. Court strategies navigate between re-production of the past and societal transformation. Many of the lasting effects of criminal proceedings are not tied to the legal reasoning of judgments, but specific incidents or performative aspects of trials, and their reception. This contribution examines legacy strategies and their critiques. It shows that the turn to legacy is partly an expression of the role of courts as social agents and geared towards the production of ‘global’ legacies. It argues that legacy cannot be construed by institutions, but shifts with perceptions over time. It differentiates different types of legacy: juridified legacy, institutional/systemic legacy, performative legacy, re-productive legacy and receptive legacy. It claims that Court-mandated legacy involves a certain degree of social construction and claims of ownership over the past that sit uncomfortably strategies with the thicker fabric of remembrance and collective memory.
Dupont, Schultz, Wahl, & Angin: Types of Political Risk Leading to Investment Arbitrations in the Oil & Gas Sector
It is often believed that investment arbitrations are filed because some form of political risk materialized, harming the investor’s interests. This is the hypothesis that the authors examine in this article, focusing on the oil & gas sector. They analyze which types of political risk, present in the host state, eventually lead oil & gas investors to file investment arbitration claims against that state. They find statistical evidence supporting the idea that bad governance and economic nationalism are indeed conducive to arbitration claims in the oil & gas sector. However, it appears that economic hardship does not have the same triggering effect.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Fikfak: English Courts and the ‘Internalisation’ of the European Convention of Human Rights? – between Theory and Practice
This article examines the claims in literature that the recent caselaw of English courts has internalised the protections contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. Instead of applying the Human Rights Act, judges have sought to comply with the international obligations by having recourse to common law rights. These newly identified and recognised rights, it has been suggested, might provide a good basis for the fulfilment of the international obligations even if the UK pulls out of the Convention or in case of repeal of the HRA by Parliament. This paper seeks to examine the conditions and limits of the internalisation of the European Convention of Human Rights by English courts through the re-interpretation of the common law. It does so by comparing the practice of English courts to the theory of judicial internalisation which certain international scholars argue is an ideal manner of ensuring compliance with international law. In particular, I inquire into the three elements of internalisation: the idea of voluntary compliance; the idea that this internalisation occurs through dialogue with other actors in the international community rather than by reference to the political branches within the state; and finally the argument that ultimately the internalisation is seen as reshaping national interest in order for domestic law (and nation states) to acquire an international identity.
- William W. Burke-White, Power Shifts in International Law: Structural Realignment and Substantive Pluralism
- Marko Milanovic, Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age
- Tatiana Sainati, Human Rights Class Actions: Rethinking the Pilot-Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights
Europe’s Shared Burden:
Collective Responsibility for Migrants at Sea An Interdisciplinary Workshop
Friday 9th and Saturday 10th October 2015
Call for Papers
UCD Sutherland School of Law welcomes paper proposals for its eighteenth Irish European Law Forum, addressing the topic of “Europe’s Shared Burden: Collective Responsibility for Migrants at Sea”, to be held on 9th and 10th October 2015 at University College Dublin. The workshop aims to foster a strong interdisciplinary focus in order to better understand and critically engage with the concept of collective responsibility in the context of irregular maritime migration. In this respect, we hope to encourage contributions from law, politics, philosophy, as well as other cognate social and human science disciplines. We are also delighted to have keynote addresses from both Peter Sutherland, UN Special Representative for International Migration and Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Professor of International Refugee Law, University of Oxford (TBC). Further details, including submission requirements and timeline are included below.
* * *
Claims of moral, legal and political responsibility feature heavily in discourse on the phenomenon of irregular migration by sea (or “boat migration”). This is understandable given the growing humanitarian catastrophe being witnessed in the Mediterranean region at present. In fact, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has predicted that in the Mediterranean the death toll from irregular migration could be as high as 30,000 in 2015 alone. The question of European states’ willingness to share in the burden of saving lives at sea has come into sharp focus in the aftermath of the EU’s decision in 2014 to cancel the Mare Nostrum rescue programme, and instead impose the more tightly circumscribed Triton security operation. With the unprecedented number of deaths at sea in recent months there seems to be growing acknowledgement in principle that responsibility for the fate of migrants is, or should be, shared amongst states and institutions at the European level. However, there has been little systematic study of what this shared or collective responsibility actually entails in terms of specific duties and responsibilities. It is clear that existing policy and legal responses are failing, particularly given the rather fragmented and uncertain legal framework (engaging rules of the international law of the sea, refugee and migration law, EU law and international and European human rights law), not to mention inadequate financing, coordination and political will in policy response. Despite recent momentum leading to increased resources, new operational initiatives and reconsideration of refugee resettlement frameworks, there remains a concern that this has been a rather piecemeal, inadequate and uneven response, particularly geared towards border management and security imperatives, rather than consideration of root causes and humanitarian objectives.
In light of these challenges, we welcome contributions addressing any of the following panel themes:
- Panel theme 1 (‘understanding the nature of the problem’): considering the scale and nature of the humanitarian challenge, as well as the tension between humanitarian and security concerns.
- Panel theme 2 (‘what is implied by responsibility in this context’): outlining the nature of the duties and responsibilities entailed by the above challenges from legal, moral-philosophical and political perspectives.
- Panel theme 3 (‘how responsibility should be shared at the operational level’): specifically focussed on understanding burden sharing in the context of maritime search and rescue.
- Panel theme 4 (‘how responsibility should be shared at the strategic level’): considering the emerging notion of ‘solidarity’ at the European and international levels, and addressing issues of financing and allocation of resources, policy formation and leadership, as well as resettlement obligations in the European context.
- Panel theme 5 (‘responsibility and redress for harms’): which aims at considering the nature and adequacy of international and European redress mechanisms in response to potential human rights violations, deaths and injury at sea, including consideration of moral and legal implications of “push back” operations.
Although focussed upon the challenges posed at the European level, the organisers welcome contributions developing comparative perspectives (especially given parallel concerns in the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea at present). We also strongly encourage interdisciplinary collaboration where appropriate.
Abstracts, not exceeding 300 words, should be sent by Friday 26th June 2015 to Dr Richard Collins (email@example.com), including your full name, affiliation, and contact details. Please also clearly indicate which panel theme(s) your paper will address.
Please also note:
- Selected participants will be asked to provide a draft paper (8,000-10,000 words) in advance of the workshop – further details below.
- Following the workshop a selection of papers will be considered for publication as part of an edited collection.
- Accepted participants will be expected to meet their own travel and accommodation costs. We may be in a position to offer some financial assistance to PhD students and Post-Docs, if unable to draw on institutional funds. Please indicate in your email if you believe you may require financial assistance in this respect.
- Deadline for submissions is Friday 26 June 2015
- Successful applicants will be informed by Monday 13 July 2015
- Draft programme published by Monday 3 August 2015.
- Submission of draft conference papers by Friday 18 September 2015
International human rights law is a field concerned with causality. While scholars in other fields argue about how laws can be changed to maximize their effectiveness, scholars of international human rights law still regularly debate whether the major international agreements have had any effect on state behavior. Part of the reason that this threshold question is still contested is that there are a number of barriers to causal inference that make answering it with observational data incredibly difficult. Given these obstacles to using observational data, and the importance of the topic, scholars have begun to use experimental methods to study the effects of commitments to human rights agreements. This paper discusses the motivations behind the limited experimental work on human rights, the mechanisms that are being tested, and the findings of this emerging literature.
- Special Issue: Legal Empowerment
- Lars Waldorf, Introduction: legal empowerment in transitions
- Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona & Kate Donald, Beyond legal empowerment: improving access to justice from the human rights perspective
- Arnaud Kurze, Christopher Lamont & Simon Robins, Contested spaces of transitional justice: legal empowerment in global post-conflict contexts revisited
- Janet E. Lord & Michael Ashley Stein, Peacebuilding and reintegrating ex-combatants with disabilities
- Robert Porter, Transition and empowerment: experience of conflicts and legal empowerment in transitioning countries
- Martin Jones. Legal empowerment and refugees on the Nile: the very short history of legal empowerment and refugee legal aid in Egypt
- Damiano de Felice, Banks and human rights due diligence: A critical analysis of the Thun Group's discussion paper on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
- Olga Martin-Ortega, Opi Outhwaite & William Rook, Buying power and human rights in the supply chain: legal options for socially responsible public procurement of electronic goods
- Nilay Saiya, The religious freedom peace
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
CALL FOR PAPERS: DEADLINE 30 JUNE 2015
The International Economic Law Interest Groups
American and European Societies of International Law
together with the
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law
are pleased to announce a joint
2015 Scholarship Workshop on:
The Future of Transatlantic Economic Governance
in the Age of the BRICS
11-12 December 2015
to be held at the Max Planck Institute
Workshop theme: As the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations have revealed, in some ways the developed economies of North America and Europe have never been more interested in creating a cooperative system of economic governance. In other ways, however, the relationship between these countries has never faced more challenges, as new economies disinclined to accept the trade rules and regulatory cooperation efforts of the developed world have ascended to new economic rights and have asserted new legal authority. Moreover, some of the traditional strengths of incumbency, such as a powerful currency and traditionally strong representation in international organizations, have come to look more like liabilities. This emerging economic order has presented challenges for Transatlantic cooperation efforts in trade law, investment law, financial regulation, monetary policy, and law and development – to say nothing of the longstanding conundrums raised by differences in competition law, complexities inherent in the supervision of multinational corporations and financial institutions, and problems posed by the need for sustained regulatory cooperation.
The International Economic Law Interest Groups of the American Society of International Law and the European Society of International Law, in cooperation with the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, will hold a joint workshop in which progress in research on these issues may be made. The working language of the workshop will be English.
Call for previously unpublished papers: We encourage IEL scholars, practitioners, and advanced doctoral students to submit proposals for paper presentations on any topic related to the workshop’s theme, broadly conceived. Proposals should be no more than one single-spaced page in length and should include the paper’s working title and an abstract describing its main thesis, methods, and contribution. All papers should be works-in-progress, that is unpublished at the time of the workshop. Authors should also submit a separate, one-page bio or short curriculum vitae (CV) (max two pages) along with the abstract. Proposals should be emailed to: ASIL.ESIL.IntEcLIG.Workshop@gmail.com and must be received no later than June 30, 2015.
Selection process: Submissions will be reviewed by a joint selection committee convened by the organizers. Selection decisions will take into account the proposals’ originality, diversity, and relevance to the workshop’s theme and will aim to achieve a well-rounded representation of European, North American, and non-transatlantic perspectives. We plan to inform the selected participants by August 15, 2015, with papers due for circulation to all workshop participants no later than November 15, 2015.
Workshop Format: In order to ensure a high level of discussion, the workshop will take place over 1.5 days in a roundtable format. Presenters will be thematically grouped into four to five panels of three papers each, with a senior commentator moderating the discussion for each panel. Due to space limitations, early submission of proposals is highly encouraged.
Publication Possibility: Depending upon the topics of the final submissions, a number of workshop participants may be invited to submit their papers for publication within a special issue of the Journal of World Investment and Trade. Any such invitations will be extended in accordance with that Journal’s usual peer review and editorial policy.
Workshop Costs: We are in the process of applying for funding to help offset the costs of the workshop. Subject to final availability of funds, we hope to be able to cover reasonable economy class travel and accommodation costs to assist most participants with the journey to Heidelberg, which is particularly lovely during the holiday season. Final confirmation of funding availability will be communicated along with selection decisions.
Any further questions may be directed to the organizers at: ASIL.ESIL.IntEcLIG.Workshop@gmail.com.
We look forward to receiving your proposals!
On behalf of the ASIL IEcLIG:
Julie Maupin (Max Planck Institute, HD)
Sonia Rolland (Northeastern University)
Jarrod Wong (Pacific McGeorge)
David Zaring (Wharton)
On behalf of the ESIL IEcLIG:
Elisa Baroncini (University of Bologna)
Marion Pannizon (World Trade Institute)
Peter-Tobias Stoll (Georg August Universität, Göttingen)
On behalf of the Max Planck Institute:
Anne Peters (Co-Director)
- Janine Natalya Clark, ‘Specific Direction’ and the Fragmentation of International Jurisprudence on Aiding and Abetting: Perišić and Beyond
- Sarah Williams & Emma Palmer, The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Developing the Law on Sexual Violence?
- Carola Lingaas, The Elephant in the Room: The Uneasy Task of Defining ‘Racial’ in International Criminal Law
- Rumyana Grozdanova, The United Kingdom and Diplomatic Assurances: A Minimalist Approach towards the Anti-torture Norm
- Johann Soufi & Sophie Maurice, Structure, Functions and Initial Achievements of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT)
- Ahmed Al-Dawoody, International Terrorism and the Jurisdiction of Islamic Law
- Kirsten Schmalenbach, Editorial: Judge and Jury
- Andrea de Guttry, How Does the UN Security Council Control States or Organizations Authorized to Use Force?
- Andrés Muñoz Mosquera, On the Notion of Precarious Employment in International Organizations
- Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi, The African Union System of Refugee Protection
- Padraig McAuliffe, Bad Analogy
- Jean d’Aspremont, The Law of International Organizations and the Art of Reconciliation
- Current Events: Strategic Litigation: The Role of NGOs in International Criminal Justice
- Florian Jeßberger & Julia Geneuss, ‘Litigating Universal Jurisdiction’ — Introduction
- Reed Brody, Bringing a Dictator to Justice: The Case of Hissène Habré
- Olympia Bekou, Doing Justice for the Liberian Victims of Mass Atrocity: NGOs in Aid of Universal Jurisdiction
- Thomas Beck & Christian Ritscher, Do Criminal Complaints Make Sense in (German) International Criminal Law?: A Prosecutor’s Perspective
- Harmen van der Wilt, ‘Sadder but Wiser’?: NGOs and Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes
- Máximo Langer, Universal Jurisdiction is Not Disappearing: The Shift from ‘Global Enforcer’ to ‘No Safe Haven’ Universal Jurisdiction
- Michael Salter, A Critical Assessment of US Intelligence’s Investigation of Nazi Art Looting
- Luke Moffett, Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond Rhetoric and The Hague
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Nadia Bernaz, Corporate Criminal Liability under International Law: The New TV S.A.L. and Akhbar Beirut S.A.L. Cases at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
- Rachel Killean, An Incomplete Narrative: Prosecuting Sexual Violence Crimes at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Legislation and Cases
- Mia Swart, Requiem for a Dream?: The Impact of Kiobel on Apartheid Reparations in South Africa
- Katerina I. Kappos & Patrick W. Hayden, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals
- Ronald J. Bettauer, Settlement of the Claims of Individuals by Their Countries
- Seokwoo Lee & Leonardo Bernard, West Sea Special Zone between South Korea and North Korea
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Processes of globalization are putting pressure on traditional conceptualizations of international law, and especially of its relation with domestic law and transnational norms of an informal kind. As the proximity of these different orders grows and they spur increasingly overlapping claims to authority, pluralism has become a prominent paradigm for understanding the global legal order and for guiding its development. This short overview paper traces the rise of the pluralist paradigm, its different variants and normative concerns about them, as well as some broader implications it holds for the study and practice of law.
- Nicola Henry, From Reconciliation to Transitional Justice: The Contours of Redress Politics in Established Democracies
- Yeliz Budak, Dealing with the Past: Transitional Justice, Ongoing Conflict and the Kurdish Issue in Turkey
- Victor Igreja, Amnesty Law, Political Struggles for Legitimacy and Violence in Mozambique
- Yi Shin Tang, International Justice through Domestic Courts: Challenges in Brazil’s Judicial Review of the Amnesty Law
- Lucas Lixinski, Cultural Heritage Law and Transitional Justice: Lessons from South Africa
- Siona O’Connell, Injury, Illumination and Freedom: Thinking about the Afterlives of Apartheid through the Family Albums of District Six, Cape Town
- Vincent Druliolle, Recovering Historical Memory: A Struggle against Silence and Forgetting? The Politics of Victimhood in Spain
- Enzo Nussio, Angelika Rettberg, & Juan E. Ugarriza, Victims, Nonvictims and Their Opinions on Transitional Justice: Findings from the Colombian Case
Distinctive features of a new legal realist approach to international law are its commitment to empirical work, its assessment of the role of institutions in meditating the pursuit of social goals, its engagement with critical analysis in a self-reflective manner to question incoming biases, and its grounding in social problems in a pragmatist vein. The purpose of engaging in research in a new legal realist vein is to uncover issues and perspectives through empirical engagement about which we are otherwise ignorant, permitting our incoming predispositions (inevitable no matter how neutral we try to be) to be challenged and transformed. This is particularly important in a world characterized by constituencies with different priorities, perspectives, and opportunities to be heard. The chapter situates new legal realism in relation to the original legal realist movement in the United States and the current transnational context. It provides research examples of what a new legal realist approach to international law offers.
Call for Papers: The Present and Future Role of Investment Treaty Arbitration in Adjudicating Environmental Disputes
The Present and Future Role of Investment Treaty
Arbitration in Adjudicating Environmental Disputes
5 and 6 November 2015, Oslo
Call for Papers
PluriCourts, a Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo, is organizing an international symposium entitled ‘The Present and Future Role of Investment Treaty Arbitration in Adjudicating Environmental Disputes’. The symposium will be hosted at the faculty of law of the University of Oslo on 5 and 6 November 2015.
This symposium will focus on investment treaty arbitration from a forward-looking perspective on how future practice might be shaped or reformed in a way that can both promote environmental sustainability and protect responsible and legitimate foreign investments. In light of this focus, the symposium will engage participants in discussions on specific reform proposals and practical policy and treaty practice responses to issues dealing with how international investment law and environmental law might become more mutually supportive and complimentary especially in the context of the adjudication of foreign investment disputes concerning environmental issues.
The symposium aims at fostering discussion on the ways in which international investment law and environmental law can be mutually supportive and complimentary. For example, this mutually supportive approach could be investigated from a number of angles: 1) how, when, and to what extent can future IIA practice – as informed by existing treaty practice and jurisprudence – integrate environmental sustainability and protection components (ie GATT-like general exceptions, sustainable development obligations) while still protecting legitimate foreign investments; 2) how, when, and to what extent could environmental agreements (especially those relating to the funding of climate change mitigation and adaptation) incorporate ‘green’ investment protections that are subject to dispute settlement provisions; and 3) how might investment treaty tribunals help promote a state’s compliance with its own environmental obligations where such compliance is the basis of the foreign investor’s claim (ie the pending Allard v Barbados claim).
A partial list of expert scholars, practitioners and arbitrators confirmed for the symposium include:
Freya Baetens, University of Leiden
Andrea Bjorklund, McGill University
Rudolf Dolzer, University of Bonn
Ben Juratowitch, Freshfields
Robert Kirkness, Freshfields
Kate Miles, University of Cambridge
Andrew Newcombe, University of Victoria
Noah Rubins, Freshfields
Stephan Schill, University of Amsterdam
M. Sornarajah, University of Singapore
Jeffrey Sullivan, Allen and Overy
Jorge Vinuales, University of Cambridge
We invite papers to be presented and discussed on the theme of this symposium. We remind applicants to focus specifically on issues of adjudication related to treaty-based arbitrations involving environmental aspects. Please send your abstract (word limit: 500 words) with a CV to: firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for submissions is 15 July 2015. Notification of acceptance will be given in the beginning of September 2015. We aim at publishing 5 to 6 selected papers in a special issue of the Journal of World Investment and Trade.
Prof. Christina Voigt, PluriCourts coordinator, environmental law (email@example.com)
Prof. Ole Kristian Fauchald, PluriCourts coordinator, investment law (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Dr. Daniel Behn, PluriCourts postdoctoral researcher, investment law (email@example.com)
- Structural Challenges Facing International Organisations: Re-Assessing the League of Nations
- Stephen Mathias, Structural Challenges Facing International Organizations: Re-assessing the League of Nations
- Thomas D. Grant, Universality versus Coherence: Membership, Participation and the Crisis of the League of Nations
- Roman Kwiecień, Universality and Coherence under the Experiences of the League of Nations: Comments on Thomas Grant’s Paper
- Cezary Mik, The League of Nations’ Capacity for Reform and Adaptation
Monday, June 8, 2015
Conference: Legalities and Legacies: The Past, Present, and Future of the Palestine Mandate in International Law
The Society annually bestows three book awards, known as ASIL Certificates of Merit, for a “preeminent contribution to creative scholarship;” “a specialized area of international law;” and “high technical craftsmanship and utility to practicing lawyers and scholars.” The awardees are selected by the Society's Executive Council on the nomination of the Scholarship Awards Committee and presented at the Society’s Annual Meeting.
The Scholarship Awards Committee is now accepting applications for the 2016 Certificates of Merit. Books by authors of any nationality, in any language, and of any place of publication that have been published in the 24 months preceding February 1, 2016, are eligible. In order to apply, please send six copies of each book you wish to nominate, along with a list of titles being nominated, to the following address by October 1, 2015:
Scholarship Awards Committee
American Society of International Law
2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Charting New Frontiers in International Law
From March 30-April 2, 2016, the American Society of International Law will convene its 110th Annual Meeting. The ASIL Annual Meeting Committee (chaired by Tendayi Achiume, Dawn Yamane Hewett, and Ina Popova) welcomes session proposals reflecting the meeting's theme, "Charting New Frontiers in International Law."
Dramatic shifts in the global economy, the environment, technological innovation, geopolitical power structures, and human mobility are forcing societies around the world to redefine their normative foundations. The dynamic physical and conceptual frontiers of our international order require that scholars and lawyers chart new frontiers in the theory and practice of international law. At its 110th Annual Meeting in Spring 2016, the American Society of International Law invites policymakers, practitioners, academics, and students of international law to deepen that exploration by mapping micro and macro structural shifts in the field of international law. The Committee will rely on the submissions process to identify illuminating topics and knowledgeable speakers.
Drawing on session suggestions, the Committee will create a program with the following goals in mind:
The Committee will prioritize session proposals that involve non-traditional formats, such as interviews, question-and-answer roundtables, lectures, debates, poster sessions, or the use of multimedia or interactive audience participation features. In addition, the Committee is committed to expanding diversity in the issues and voices represented at the Annual Meeting and is excited to present a track specifically focused on professional and academic development.
- Coverage of a wide breadth of timely topics of interest to ASIL members;
- Participation by individuals from a variety of backgrounds; and
- A vibrant exchange of ideas through the use of innovative program formats.
Please note that, even if your suggested session is reflected in some form in the final program, the Committee might significantly modify your initial proposal (including the proposed participants) or to combine multiple proposals, in order to satisfy the overall goals identified above.
In order to suggest a session to the Committee, please select the “Proposal Submission” tab and complete the form found there by no later than Monday, July 20, 2015. The Committee will inform proposers by email about the status of their suggestion(s) in the fall of 2015. Thank you very much for your interest in the 2016 Annual Meeting.
Tully & Smith: Operation "Sovereign Borders": the High Court of Australia Considers Implications of International Law
Sunday, June 7, 2015
- Roland Bank, The Potential and Limitations of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Shaping International Refugee Law
- François Gemenne & Pauline Brücker, From the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to the Nansen Initiative: What the Governance of Environmental Migration Can Learn from the Governance of Internal Displacement
- Kathryn Greenman, A Castle Built on Sand? Article 3 ECHR and the Source of Risk in Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Law
- Anne Neylon, Ensuring Precariousness: The Status of Designated Foreign National under the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act 2012
- Andrew Wolman & Guobin Li, Saeteomin Asylum Seekers: The Law and Policy Response