- Silvina Barón Knoll, El Fallo “Van Gend And Loss” y Su Efecto Reflejo en Los Procesos de Integración Suramericanos
- Ada Lattuca, Integración Comunitaria y los Derechos Lacerados
- Alejandro Aldo Menicocci, El Principio Pro Cooperatione en la Jurisdicción Internacional Indirecta
- Amalia Uriondo de Martinoli, Adopción Internacional en dl Anteproyecto de Código Civil y Comercial 2012. Jurisdicción y Derecho Aplicable
Thursday, July 23, 2015
- Forum: Navigating Deterrence: Law, Strategy, and Security in the Twenty-First Century
- Zachary K. Goldman, Navigating Deterrence: Law, Strategy, and Security in the Twenty-First Century
- Paul K. Davis, Deterrence, Influence, Cyber Attack, and Cyberwar
- Austin Long, Deterrence: The State of the Field
- Jacqueline Ross, Anti-Terror Stings and Human Subjects Research: The Implications of the Analogy for Notions of Entrapment and for the Pursuit of Strategic Deterrence
- Janice Gross Stein & Ron Levi, The Social Psychology of Denial: Deterring Terrorism
- Alex Wilner, Contemporary Deterrence Theory and Counterterrorism: A Bridge Too Far?
Bartels: The Relationship between the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Since the expiry of the ‘peace clause’ at the end of 2003, it has been unclear which obligations under the WTO SCM Agreement apply to subsidies granted to agricultural products. This is in particular important for export subsidies, which are prohibited under the SCM Agreement, but, to some degree, recognised in the Agriculture Agreement. The matter is regulated by Article 21.1 of the Agriculture Agreement, which has been interpreted by the WTO Appellate Body in different ways, including as an expression of the lex specialis principle. This paper analyses this provision, and considers how it affects different forms of agricultural subsidies. It concludes that it would take an extension of the Appellate Body’s current interpretive framework to save export subsidies from the disciplines of the SCM Agreement.
- Sandra Lynn Hodgkinson, The governing international law on maritime piracy
- Sandra Lynn Hodgkinson, The incorporation of international law to define piracy crimes, national laws, and the definition of piracy
- Ved P. Nanda, Exercising universal jurisdiction over piracy
- Milena Sterio, Incorporating international law to establish jurisdiction: a comparative examination of the laws of the Netherlands, South Korea, Tanzania, India, and Kenya
- Laurie R. Blank, The use of force against pirates
- Mark V. Vlasic & Jeffrey DeSousa, The use of force by private parties against suspected pirates
- Frederick Lorenz & Laura Eshbach, Transfer of suspected and convicted pirates
- Milena Sterio, Pirates' right to a speedy trial
- Frederick Lorenz & Kelly Paradis, Evidentiary issues in piracy prosecutions
- Michael A. Newton, Piracy and the problem of 'command responsibility'
- Jon Bellish, The issue of juvenile piracy
- Eugene Kontorovich, The problems of pirate punishment
- Yvonne M. Dutton, The potential for asylum seeking by convicted pirates
- Michael P. Scharf, Conclusion
International lawyers have looked at the study of their object by international relations scholars above all with suspicion. Whereas they have warmly welcomed the increasing recognition of international law’s power also in political sciences, some of them have turned wary about the ways in which international law is (mis-)treated in the move to interdisciplinarity. Their anxieties pertain to the fate of both international law as an object of study and, by implication, the future of the discipline of international law. We submit that these anxieties overall boil down to concerns about the autonomy of international law, both as a domain of international or world society and as an academic discipline.
While this argument is in itself not unheard of, we submit more specifically that international lawyers’ responses have been largely counterproductive, threatening to undo some of the insights gained into the politics of international law. Our contribution first takes a step back from present day anxieties to contextualize them against the background of attempts to establish international law and international relations as scientific disciplines (II). A quest for scientific inquiry has similarly informed international relations scholarship, yet these parallel missions paradoxically feed present anxieties about interdisciplinarity. We will support this argument with a brief genealogy of the mainstream interdisciplinary agenda as it has evolved over the past two or three decades (III). In a third and final step, we will sketch our view of international law as practice. We point to the promise of asking what makes for a valid legal argument by investigating these standards as the medium and outcome of practice itself. We finally highlight its purchase for moving past anxieties of interdisciplinarity towards a productive study of the politics of international law (IV).
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Ramzi Madi, Mash-Up Songs: Are There Any Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights in the Light of the Jordanian Copyright Protection and Related Rights Law?
- Saradindu Bhaduri, Deep Jyoti Francis, Dwarkeshwar Dutt, Vineet Kumar & Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh, Politico-Historical Contingencies, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Performance Across Countries: A Simultaneous Equation System Perspective
- Amit Basole, Authenticity, Innovation, and the Geographical Indication in an Artisanal Industry: The Case of the Banarasi Sari
- Narayan Prasad & Pravesh Aggarwal, Facilitating Educational Needs in Digital Era: Adequacy of Fair Dealing Provisions of Indian Copyright Act in Question
- Michael Wood, International Organizations and Customary International Law
- Lisa R. Avalos, Female Genital Mutilation and Designer Vaginas in Britain: Crafting an Effective Legal and Policy Framework
- Robert W. Emerson, Judges as Guardian Angels: The German Practice of Hints and Feedback
- Yoon Jin Shin, Human Trafficking and Labor Migration: The Dichotomous Law and Complex Realities of Filipina Entertainers in South Korea and Suggestions for Integrated and Contextualized Legal Responses
- S.I. Strong, Religious Rights in Historical, Theoretical, and International Context: Hobby Lobby as a Jurisprudential Anomaly?
At the turn of the millennium, a new phenomenon emerged: conservatives, who just decades before had rejected the expanding human rights culture, began to embrace human rights in order to advance their political goals. In this book, Nicola Perugini and Neve Gordon account for how human rights — generally conceived as a counter-hegemonic instrument for righting historical injustices — are being deployed to further subjugate the weak and legitimize domination. Using Israel/Palestine as its main case study, The Human Right to Dominate describes the establishment of settler NGOs that appropriate human rights to dispossess indigenous Palestinians and military think-tanks that rationalize lethal violence by invoking human rights. The book underscores the increasing convergences between human rights NGOs, security agencies, settler organizations, and extreme right nationalists, showing how political actors of different stripes champion the dissemination of human rights and mirror each other's political strategies. Indeed, Perugini and Gordon demonstrate the multifaceted role that this discourse is currently playing in the international arena: on the one hand, human rights have become the lingua franca of global moral speak, while on the other, they have become reconstrued as a tool for enhancing domination.
- Davide Rovetta & Maurizio Gambardella, Intra-EU BITs and EU Law: What to Learn from the Micula Battle
- Reagan Walker, Judicial Review of CITT Preliminary Determinations of Injury: Is It Possible?
- Thomas Cantens, Mirror Analysis: Customs Risk Analysis and Fraud Detection
- Carolina Palma, WTO Implications of China’s Food Security Policy
- Carsten Weerth, AEO Programmes Worldwide: From MRAs to a General AEO Agreement?!
- Volume 373
- O. Cachard, Le transport international aérien de passagers
- M. Audit, Bioéthique et droit international privé
- Volume 374
- A.V.M. Struycken, Arbitration and State Contract
- O. Corten, La rébellion et le droit international: le principe de neutralité en tension
- A. Parra, The Convention and Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Call for Submissions: Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international
The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international – edited by Anne Peters (Editor-in-Chief), Randall Lesaffer and Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet – is an interdisciplinary journal on the history of international law with a broad outreach. It is placed among the top international law journals which are regularly consulted by all international lawyers with a general interest in the history of their field. It provides a forum for the emerging and expanding scholarship that takes a historical approach to exploring a wide range of issues in international law. It accommodates the growth in interest in the histories of international law from scholars working in related fields (global history, imperial history, intellectual history and international relations). It creates a venue for ground-breaking work in this field by combining tradition with innovation and to provide the opportunity to develop sustained critical engagement with work on the history of international law.
The Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international encourages critical reflection on the classical grand narrative of international law as the purveyor of peace and civilization to the whole world. It specifically invites articles on extra-European experiences and forms of legal relations between autonomous communities which were discontinued as a result of domination and colonization by European Powers. It is open to all possibilities of telling the history of international law, while respecting the necessary rigour in the use of records and sources. It is a forum for a plurality of visions of the history of international law, but also for debate on such plurality itself, on the methods, topics, and usages, as well as the bounds and dead-ends of this discipline. Moreover, it devotes space to examining in greater depth specific themes.
The article section of the Journal is open to submissions from the entire academic community. The Journal uses double-blind peer review. All manuscripts received are evaluated by the editors and after pre-screening submitted to one or two anonymous external referees. Articles submitted to the Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international should be original contributions – in English or French. All work submitted will be scrutinized based on its intellectual quality, originality and advancement of academic discourse. The editors have thus decided to issue a general call for papers, inviting interested persons to submit contributions for consideration for publication in the forthcoming issues of the Journal. For a scholarly research manuscript, the length should not be more than 14000 words, including footnotes. Articles must be accompanied by a 150-word (maximum) abstract needed for identifying reviewers (in a separate file). Authors must provide – in a separate file – current institutional affiliation with email address, full postal address and telephone number where they can be reached, and brief biographical data if they wish.
Manuscripts (accompanied by files with abstract and affiliation) and any correspondence should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org (to the attention of the Journal’s managing editor, Dr Mieke van der Linden). More information can be found via the website of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg: www.mpil.de.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
This article, part of a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems on subsidiarity in international law and governance (edited by Markus Jachtenfuchs and Nico Krisch), examines from positive and descriptive perspectives the actual extent of subsidiarity-like provisions and processes in the WTO; and in so doing explores the nature and distribution of their operation. In a nutshell, the critical argument is that the (surprisingly abundant) expressions of subsidiarity (or deference) in the WTO are selective and strategic, not systemic; and that they more often than not serve to counteract the anxieties of the multilateral decision-making machinery, providing it with sources of enhanced legitimacy in its give-and-take with other actors, the Membership (writ large) in particular, over influence and governance. Simultaneously, this selective subsidiarity does not clearly work to either empower, or disempower, national (or regional) systems, and it is in this respect that the deference becomes dialectical. This is how subsidiarity in action, in the WTO, should be understood – not as a technical authority allocation rule, but as range of instruments and vocabularies through which the apportionment of authority is negotiated and adjusted.
China is becoming one of the key stakeholders in the international investment regime. It is the third largest source country for outward foreign investments and concluded nearly 140 investment treaties. Despite these impressive numbers, it is still unclear what role China can play – and in fact wants to play – in the ongoing reform of the international investment regime. Starting from this overall focus, this article analyses the most recent period of China’s international investment policy-making. Mapping the contents of investment treaties signed since 2008 it argues that China undertook a ‘partial NAFTA-ization’: Whilst China has adopted a number of clauses invented by the member states of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it introduced these clauses in an incoherent fashion. Looking at the drivers of this peculiar policy, this article argues that China’s practice of investment treaty-making is largely inspired by its partner countries, which helps us to understand the incoherent contents of its post-2008 treaties. Against this background, it is difficult to argue that there is a unified Chinese approach to international investment rule-making. This belies the argument that China can make a significant contribution to reforming the international investment regime.
This paper uses the history and function of the jus cogens concept in international law to demonstrate that its meaning and implication have varied in respond to particular sets of interests of significant international actors. The history reveals three incarnations of the concept: A claim about limits on the ability of sovereign states to enter into treaties that negate the essence of state sovereignty; a claim about limits on the formation of international law based on the fundamental interests of the states engaged in Cold War competition; and a claim about the existence of strong protection of human interests that exists independent of state consent. The principal argument of the paper is that the present, human-rights oriented conception of jus cogens is itself contingent and a reflection of the interests of persons who participate in the international legal system, especially non-state actors. The paper speculates about changes in the configuration of state interests that might produce new adaptions of the jus cogens concept, including doctrines and applications that would be fundamentally at odds with the current conception.
The WTO Dispute Settlement System aimed to curb unilateralism by establishing a multilateral process operating under the aegis of the WTO as the exclusive forum for WTO adjudication. Intuitively, one would expect that those negatively affected by the curtailing of their power to unilaterally do justice for themselves, would agree to multilateral resolution of disputes if the established regime could guarantee enforcement of obligations in comparable terms (to unilateral enforcement). In this perspective, respect and guarantee of reciprocal commitments is the key ingredient. Reciprocal commitments entered should not be unilaterally undone through the commission of illegalities. There are good reasons to doubt whether the WTO regime as it now stands guarantees reciprocity following the commitment of illegalities. It is probably more accurate to argue that the WTO regime serves ‘diffuse’ as opposed to ‘specific’ reciprocity. Still, WTO Members continue to routinely submit their disputes to the WTO adjudicating fora, lending support to the argument that the regime after all, was meant to curb punishment, and not to punish.
- M. Hottelier, La convention européenne des droits de l'homme et la Suisse: quarante ans d'enrichissement au service de la dignité humaine
- E. Decaux, La Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme, Nova et Vetera
- G. Gonzalez, Du bon usage de la synergie des sources dans la construction, par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, du droit à la liberté syndicale
- N. Moizard, Le droit d'action collective en droit de l'Union après la décision LO et TCO c. Suède du Comité européen des droits sociaux
- B. Bulak, Grandeur ou décadence de la présomption d'innocence
- T. Majzoub & F. Quilleré-majzoub, De l'utilité future de la Cour arabe des droits de l'homme. De quelques réflexions sur son Statut
- L'institut De Droit Européen Des Droits De L'homme, Les juridictions de l'Union européenne et les droits fondamentaux. Chronique de jurisprudence (2014)
- J. Fierens, "Où t'es , papa où t'es ?" ou comment la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme choisit d'ignorer la fonction fondamentale du patronyme
- M. Guimezanes, Les militaires, des citoyens comme les autres? L'éclairage apporté par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme sur leur liberté d'association
- O. Michiels & G. Falque, L'importance aux yeux de Strasbourg de l'effectivité des recours préventifs et indemnitaires en cas de dépassement du délai raisonnable
Monday, July 20, 2015
In 2014, two landmark international legal decisions made a significant contribution to the development of international law on the protection of animals: the report of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in EC-Seal Products, and the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Whaling in the Antarctic: Australia v. Japan. Science plays a significant role in both decisions. In EC-Seal Products, the WTO Appellate Body ruled that the European Union’s ban on seal products was justifiable under Article XX(a) of GATT as a matter of public morals, because it was based on European citizens’ moral objections to cruelty in seal hunting – concerns that were validated in part based on reports and evidence from scientific experts. In Whaling in the Antarctic, the ICJ ruled that Japan’s whaling programme in the Southern Ocean is not ‘for purposes of scientific research’ within the meaning of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling because it is not ‘reasonable’ in relation to its research objectives. Both cases, as well as the broader international controversies over whaling and sealing in the context of which they arose, illustrate the persuasive power of the ‘appeal to science’: enlisting scientific objectivity and rigour to underpin the credibility of legal arguments and legal norms. But the role of science in both cases, while important, is only auxiliary. The questions that the WTO and the ICJ had to resolve were fundamentally legal ones concerning the interpretation of the relevant treaties. The cases also implicated more profound questions of policy and ethics at stake in international conflicts over the protection and the exploitation of marine mammals.
The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations provides an innovative, authoritative, and accessible examination and critique of all 67 United Nations peacekeeping operations launched between 1948 and 2013. l Since the late 1940s, but particularly since the end of the cold war, peacekeeping has been the most visible and one of the most important activities of the United Nations and a significant part of global security governance and conflict management. The volume offers a chapter-by-chapter chronological analysis, designed to provide a comprehensive overview that highlights the evolution, changing nature and overall impact of UN peacekeeping. It also includes a collection of thematic chapters that examine key issues such as major trends of peace operations, the link between peacekeeping, humanitarian interventions and the responsibility to protect, peacekeeping and international law, the UN's inter-organizational partnerships and how to evaluate success or failure. l This handbook brings together leading scholars and senior practitioners in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the successes, failures and lessons learned of UN peacekeeping since 1948. This is a unique reference book for scholars and practitioners working in the field of international relations, international security, peacekeeping and global governance.
- General Part
- Kate Miles, International Investment Law and Universality: Histories of Shape-Shifting
- Tom Gerard Daly, Baby Steps away from the State: Comparing Postnational Order in South America and Europe through Analysis of Regional Judicial Dialogue and Community
- Maria Papaioannou, Harmonisation of International Human Rights Law Through Judicial Dialogue: the Indigenous Rights Paradigm
- Seshauna Wheatle, Constitutional Law and the Ius Gentium
- Elmar Widder, The Right to Challenge Witnesses—an Application of Strasbourg‘s Flexible “Sole And Decisive” Rule to Other Human Rights Jurisdictions
- Symposium: Transitional Constitutionalism
- Jason Allen, What is Transitional Constitutionalism and How Should We Study It?
- Iain McLean & Scot Peterson, Transitional Constitutionalism in the United Kingdom
- Carlos Bernal-Pulido, Transitional Justice within the Framework of a Permanent Constitution: The Case Study of the Legal Framework for Peace in Colombia
- Sylvie Delacroix, From constitutional words to Statehood? The Palestinian story
- Renad Mansour, Rethinking Recognition: The Case of Iraqi Kurdistan
- Antonios Kouroutakis, The Provisional Constitution of the Federal Republic of Somalia: Process, Architecture, and Perspectives
- Katrín Oddsdottír, Iceland: The Birth of the World’s First Crowd-sourced Constitution
- Matthew Kennedy, Constituent Power and the Limits of Adjudication: Kosovo and Quebec
- Francesco Biagi, Will Surviving Constitutionalism in Morocco and Jordan Work in the Long Run? A Comparison with Three Past Authoritarian Regimes
- Lorianne Updike Toler, Mapping the Constitutional Process
- Giulio Bartolini, A Universal Approach to International Law in Domestic Constitutions: Does it Exist?
- Anicée van Engeland, Balancing Islamic law, Customary Law and Human Rights in Islamic Constitutionalism through the Prism of Legal Pluralism
German Yearbook of International Law - Call for Papers
The German Yearbook of International Law is Germany’s oldest yearbook in the field of public international law. The GYIL is published annually by the Walther Schücking Institute for International Law at the University of Kiel and contains contributions on topics addressing all aspects of public international law. We aim to provide a forum for scholars of international law – both inside and outside Germany – to publish new research advancing public international legal discourse as well as analysis of current issues. The Yearbook features a ‘Forum’ for which prominent scholars are invited to enter into discussion on newly developing topics in international law and a ‘Focus’ section for which a group of experts are invited to write articles examining in-depth various aspects of a topic set in advance by the editors.
The General Articles section of the GYIL is open to submissions from the entire academic community and is independently peer‐reviewed by a board of renowned experts. All work submitted will be scrutinised based on its intellectual quality and its advancement of academic discourse. The editors have thus decided to issue a general call for papers for volume 58 (2015) of the GYIL, inviting interested parties to submit contributions for consideration for inclusion in the forthcoming edition.
Those interested in publishing a General Article in the GYIL should submit a manuscript conforming with the house style of the GYIL (which is available on request or via our website) dealing with any topic of interest in the field of public international law to the editors by 1 September 2015. The length of the paper should be 10,000-12,500 words inclusive of footnotes. Potential authors are also requested to include a brief biographical statement, including information regarding current academic affiliations and general research interests. All inquiries and materials should be addressed to the Assistant Editors of the GYIL via e-mail: email@example.com.
- Nicholas Tsagourias, The Legal Status of Cyberspace
- Uta Kohl, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace
- Constantine Antonopoulos, State Responsibility in Cyberspace
- Andreas Rahmatian, Cyberspace and Intellectual Property Rights
- David P. Fidler, Cyberspace and Human Rights
- Kai Ambos, International Criminal Responsibility in Cyberspace
- Ben Saul & Kathleen Heath, Cyber Terrorism
- Russell Buchan, Cyber Espionage and International Law
- Philipp Kastner & Frédéric Mégret, International Legal Dimensions of Cybercrime
- Paul Ducheine, The Notion of Cyber Operations
- Marco Roscini, Cyber Operations as a Use of Force
- Carlo Focarelli, Self-Defence in Cyberspace
- Eric Myjer, Some Thoughts on Cyber Deterrence and Public International Law
- Neil C. Rowe, Distinctive Ethical Challenges of Cyberweapons
- Louise Arimatsu, Classifying Cyber Warfare
- Karine Bannelier-Christakis, Is the Principle of Distinction Still Relevant in Cyberwarfare?
- Terry D. Gill, International Humanitarian Law Applied to Cyber-Warfare: Precautions, Proportionality and the Notion of “Armed” under the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict
- David Turns, Cyber War and the Law of Neutrality
- Ramses A. Wessel, Towards EU Cybersecurity: Regulating a New Policy Field
- Katharina Ziolkowski, NATO and Cyber Defence
- Hitoshi Nasu & Helen Trezise, Cyber Security in the Asia-Pacific
- Christopher Henderson, The United Nations and the Regulation of Cyber-Security
- Special Issue: Sovereignty as Trusteeship for Humanity — Historical Antecedents and Their Impact on International Law
- Yael Braudo, Introduction
- Michel Troper, Sovereignty and Natural Law in the Legal Discourse of the Ancien Régime
- David Dyzenhaus, Kelsen, Heller and Schmitt: Paradigms of Sovereignty Thought
- Sergio Dellavalle, On Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and Solidarity Or: How Can a Solidaristic Idea of Legitimate Sovereignty Be Justified?
- Lorenzo Zucca, A Genealogy of State Sovereignty
- Benjamin Straumann, Early Modern Sovereignty and Its Limits
- Andrew Fitzmaurice, Sovereign Trusteeship and Empire
- Evan J. Criddle, Three Grotian Theories of Humanitarian Intervention
- Evan Fox-Decent & Ian Dahlman, Sovereignty as Trusteeship and Indigenous Peoples
- Eyal Benvenisti, The Paradoxes of Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: Concluding Remarks
Call for Papers: The Missing Link? The Fundamental Interplay of Commissions and International Courts in Regional Integration
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Missing Link? The Fundamental Interplay of Commissions and International Courts in Regional Integration
iCourts, University of Copenhagen 19 – 20 January 2016
It is generally accepted that Europe has played a key role in popularising regional economic integration underpinned by supranational law and enforced by a deeply embedded supranational judiciary. In this regard it is practically undisputed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ)/Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most effective international courts in history, and one of the main driving forces behind successful integration in Europe. Closely related, European scholars have also documented the fundamental contributions of the European Commission –the European Union (EU)’s executive organ/bureaucracy- to the effectiveness of the EU’s legal system and the work of the ECJ/CJEU. The European Commission has variously been described as ‘the engine of integration or the EU’s policy entrepreneur (Metcalfe, 1996), ‘the Conscience of the Community’ (Peterson, 2011), the ‘guardian of the Treaties’ (Metcalf, 1996; Hooge) and ‘guardian of the European rules’ (Steunenberg, 2010). The diffusion of the ECJ/CJEU style international courts in regional integration schemes around the globe is acknowledgment of, and attempt to replicate European integration successes through judicialisation of integration processes. However, although imitators of the EU have generally also established Secretariats/Commissions, the contribution of such organs to the judicial processes of their respective organisations remains largely unexplored.
In order to address the neglect of Secretariats/Commissions in the judicial processes of regional integration organisations, this conference invites original, scientific contributions especially from law, sociology, political science and history that address questions relating to how the presence or absence of these organs affect the work of regional international courts. Among others, contributions can address the position and functions of Commissions in the institutional framework of regional organisations; the legitimating influence of the Commissions; the relationships between Commissions, regional international courts and member states; the contribution and impact of Commissions on the effectiveness of regional international courts; and the role of Commissions in advancing the ‘international rule of law’ in their respective organisational frameworks. We particularly encourage papers which explore the role of Commissions in less studied regional integration systems such as those in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
Paper proposals/abstracts no longer than 400 words should kindly be submitted to Solomon.Ebobrah@jur.ku.dk by 15 September 2015.
- Richard Ashby Wilson, Foreword
- Francisco Ferrándiz & Antonius C. G. M. Robben, Introduction: The Ethnography of Exhumations
- Luis Fondebrider, Forensic Anthropology and the Investigation of Political Violence: Lessons Learned from Latin America and the Balkans
- Antonius C.G.M. Robben, Exhumations, Territoriality, and Necropolitics in Chile and Argentina
- Heonik Kwon, Korean War Mass Graves
- Francisco Ferrándiz, Mass Graves, Landscapes of Terror: A Spanish Tale
- Sarah Wagner, The Quandaries of Partial and Commingled Remains: Srebrenica's Missing and Korean War Casualties Compared
- Francesco Torres, Photo Essay: 9/11: Absence, Sediment, and Memory
- Katerina Stefatos & Iosif Kovras, Buried Silences of the Greek Civil War
- Isaias Rojas-Perez, Death in Transition: The Truth Commission and the Politics of Reburial in Postconflict Peru
- Elena Lesley, Death on Display: Bones and Bodies in Cambodia and Rwanda
- Zoë Crossland, Epilogue
Sunday, July 19, 2015
- P. Ridder & M.-P. Weller, The impact of « force majeure » on german contracts
- D. Philippe, Le bouleversement de l'économie contractuelle en droit belge
- M.A. Prado & F.L. Matthes, Déséquilibre économique du contrat en droit brésilien
- S. Han, Basic issues for understanding change of circumstances under Chinese contract law
- A.M. Garro, Force majeure, hardship and other excuses
- P. Accaoui Lorfing, L'obligation de renégociation du contrat
- P. Stoffel-munck, Hardship, force majeure : an insight into french law
- Lucas Carlos Lima, Weighting the evidential value of expert opinion: The Whaling Case
- Natalino Ronzitti, The immunity of State organs – A reply to Pisillo Mazzeschi
- Benedetto Conforti, A few remarks on the functional immunity of the organs of foreign States
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
The International Criminal Law Interest Group will hold a day-long works-in-progress workshop on December 4, 2015 at Columbia University Law School in New York. We invite you to submit abstracts (500 words max) to firstname.lastname@example.org and Rebecca.Hamilton@law.columbia.edu by August 15th. Draft papers will be due by November 16th.
Depending on the number of abstracts submitted, we may be able to include a session for early stage projects. If you would be interested in participating in such a session, please let us know by August 15th.
Meg deGuzman and Bec Hamilton
Co-Chairs, International Criminal Law Interest Group