Since 1945, the United Nations has had an internal justice system to handle internal disputes and examine employee conformity with its rules of governance. Based on an exhaustive analysis of 3,067 judgements, advisory opinions, and General Assembly debates on the issue, The Internal Justice of the United Nations offers an unparalleled account of the system’s effectiveness and shortcomings over its seventy year history.
In diesem Werk wird aus rechtswissenschaftlicher Sicht untersucht, welche Bedeutung das WTO- und EU-Agrarhandelsrecht sowie deren Verhältnis zum Menschenrecht auf Nahrung für die weltweite Ernährungssicherheit haben. Es wird aufgezeigt, dass
1. das WTO-Agrarrecht negative Auswirkungen auf die weltweite Ernährungssicherheit hat und das EU-Agrarrecht hierzu beiträgt,
2. aus menschenrechtlicher sowie agrarhandelsrechtlicher Sicht das Erfordernis besteht, das Menschenrecht auf Nahrung umfassend auch im Rahmen des WTO- und EU-Agrarrechts zu beachten,
3. mithilfe des Menschenrechts auf Nahrung als „übergeordnetem“ Maßstab für das WTO- und EU-Agrarrecht erreicht werden kann, dass diese Regelungen einen positiven Beitrag zur weltweiten Ernährungssicherheit sowie zum Erreichen ihrer jeweiligen Zielsetzungen leisten,
4. handhabbare Vorgaben sowie Harmonisierungsinstrumente für die praktische Umsetzung der aus dem Menschenrecht auf Nahrung folgenden (extraterritorialen) Verpflichtungen bestehen.
When faced with those who act with impunity, we seek the protection of law. We rely upon the legal system for justice, from international human rights law that establishes common standards of protection, to international criminal law that spearheads efforts to end impunity for the most heinous atrocities. While legal processes are perceived to combat impunity, and despite the ready availability of the law, accountability often remains elusive. What if the law itself enables impunity?
Law's Impunity asks this question in the context of the modern Private Military Company (PMC), examining the relationship between law and the concepts of responsibility and impunity. This book proposes that ordinary legal processes do not neutralise, but rather legalise impunity. This radical idea is applied to the abysmal record of human rights violations perpetrated by the modern PMC and the shocking absence of accountability. This book demonstrates how the law organises, rather than overcomes, impunity by detailing how the modern PMC exploits ordinary legal processes to systematically exclude itself from legal responsibility. Thus, Law's Impunity offers an alternative to conventional thinking about the law, providing an innovative approach to assess and refine the rigour of legal processes in the ongoing quest to end impunity.
What have WTO accessions contributed to the rules-based multilateral trading system? What demands have been made by original WTO members on acceding governments? How have the acceding governments fared? This volume of essays offers critical readings on how WTO accession negotiations have expanded the reach of the multilateral trading system not only geographically but also conceptually, clarifying disciplines and pointing the way to their further strengthening in future negotiations. Members who have acceded since the WTO was established now account for twenty per cent of total WTO membership. In the age of globalization there is an increased need for a universal system of trade rules. Accession negotiations have been used by governments as an instrument for domestic reforms, and one lesson from the accession process is that there are contexts which lead multilateral trade negotiations to successful outcomes even in the complex and multi-polar twenty-first century economic environment.
This paper seeks to articulate a moral case for criminalizing aggression. At the intersection of international law and moral theory, it takes the former seriously but considers that defenders of criminalization have failed, perhaps because they have allowed themselves to be sidetracked by definitional issues, to make a robust argument for why we should take aggression as one of the worst international crimes. Although this case might seem obvious to activists, one of the reasons for the historical decline of aggression as an international crime may well be persistent (but rarely fully acknowledged) doubts about the foundations of its condemnation and their possibly incompatible character. The chapter thus seeks to make a stylized case for the importance of aggression as an international crime that rehabilitates its normative status by putting it a much more solid (yet radical) footing than what has been bequeathed to us by Nuremberg.
The paper suggests three ways of conceptualizing aggression that can be teased out of the discourse and examines their merits. It finds that the definition of aggression as first and foremost a crime against certain states' sovereignty, whilst undeniably capturing something, needs to deal with the relative normative decline of sovereignty, and its simultaneous implication in the very definition of what is or is not aggression (in a way that makes it difficult for sovereignty to act simultaneously as a signifier of meaning and gravity). Crimes against humanity and genocide as such have a better claim to our indignation, all other things being equal, because of their oppressive and asymmetrical character against the defenceless. More importantly, the paper considers the hypothesis of "war as duel" (one in which two states agree to fight each other), and concludes that we would consider a war no less grave simply because it proceeded from mutual sovereign assent from the outset. In other words, the condemnation of aggression betrays a concern with public order (war is wrong regardless of agreement by parties to it) and reflects above all our misgivings about war as a particular form of violence. We should not confuse war's most common cause (aggression) with the nature of the problem (violence in international relations).
The paper thus turns to a second possible conceptualization of aggression, namely as a form of crime against peace, as illustrated most notably at Nuremberg. Again, this captures something but the idea of peace as the value that is primarily protected by the prohibition on aggression is vague and problematic. In particular, the idea of aggression as the "mother of all crimes" fails to account for the fact that aggression is not necessarily causal of much of the violence that we find objectionable in war in that (i) we no longer typically think that the gravest atrocity crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity) necessarily or logically follow from aggression, (ii) not even war crimes follow strictly from the fact that there was an aggression, and at least we have no reason to think that the aggressor necessarily commits more such war crimes, and (iii) at any rate if it does commit a range of atrocity crimes, these are already and better prosecuted under their own name rather than as simply consequences flowing from aggression. What is more, the computing of the causal evil of aggression is made complicated by international law's obfuscation of the specific violence of war through two simultaneous moves (i) the humanitarian "laundering" of war, i.e.: the extent to which both the killing of combatants and the collateral killing of civilians (within certain bounds) are considered legal, even though they may well in practice account for the greatest number of casualties by far of any given conflict and our sense of revulsion at war, and (ii) the tendency of international human rights law to have abdicated the moral hight ground vis-à-vis the humanitarian sensitivity to war, under the broad rubric of the laws of war as lex specialis of human rights when it comes to determining who can be killed.
The paper then goes on to articulate a third and quite different conceptualization of the evil of aggression, namely that it is a violation of the rights of all of those affected by it. The suggestion is that a radical cosmopolitan take on human rights would rise up to its pacifist potential, and deny aggressor states the possibility of (entirely) hiding behind international humanitarian law to mask their sins by relying on the international reification of war. The chapter articulates some of the doctrinal moves that need to be made to realize such a change in how we conceptualize war, including expanding the recognition of extra-territorial jurisdiction in case of aggression. It seeks to explore all the implications of seeing aggression as a violation not only of the right to peace of collectives, but also to life and integrity of every individual affected by aggression, including not only civilians of the defending state, but also its combatants. More radically, it suggests that we should also consider as victims of aggression the civilians and combatants of the attacking state itself, that are put in harm's way by its decision to commit aggression, a decision that ex hypothesis cannot be justified either under international law or human rights. It also proposes a theory of how this new found sense of the human rights responsibilities of the aggressor might fit alongside the continued (but critically evaluated) application of the laws of war, seeking nonetheless to highlight a normative horizon in which the anomaly of the laws of war would be eliminated. It concludes with a few thoughts on how deploying human rights discourse against positive international law (including mainstream international human rights law) might be a way of helping the idea of human rights in international society rise up to its true potential.
The latest issue of the African Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 23, no. 3, October 2015) is out. Contents include:
The European Union is a key participant in international organisations with its involvement taking different forms, ranging from full membership to mere observer. Moreover, there is also not only one status of observer, but different ones depending on the constituent charters of the organisations. This book provides a comprehensive overview of the participation of the EU in five international organisations: the UN, the ILO, the WTO, the WHO and the WIPO. It identifies its role and influence in diverse areas of global governance, such as foreign policy, peace, human rights, social rights, trade, health and intellectual property.
EU and international experts, diplomats and scholars have contributed to this book to give an overview of the different aspects linked to the participation of the EU in these organisations and to the coordination that takes place internally with its Member States. They also examine the EU’s actual influence in the various areas and its contribution to global governance. The combination of these two dimensions allows the work to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the participation of the EU in these five international organisations.
The latest issue of the Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme (No. 104, October 2015) is out. Contents include:
A quantitative and qualitative study of international investment arbitration case law employing the concept of estoppel reveals investment tribunals’ inconsistency with regard to its requirements. This contribution discusses possible reasons why tribunals often deviate from what appears to be the established view in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) and in international law scholarship and why they do not explain their preference for the one or the other view. In fact, the often striking lack of reasoning in this regard begs the question as to the order of approach chosen and outcome produced. In the interest of doctrinal and jurisprudential consistency, arbitrators should be more transparent as to their choice of view and as to the reasons for choosing it over another one. This will sharpen the concept of estoppel both in international investment law in particular and in public international law in general.
In this study, Caroline Henckels examines how investment tribunals have balanced the competing interests of host states and foreign investors in determining state liability in disputes concerning the exercise of public power. Analyzing the concepts of proportionality and deference in investment tribunals' decision-making in comparative perspective, the book proposes a new methodology for investment tribunals to adopt in regulatory disputes, which combines proportionality analysis with an institutionally sensitive approach to the standard of review. Henckels argues that adopting a modified form of proportionality analysis would provide a means for tribunals to decide cases in a more consistent and coherent manner leading to greater certainty for both states and investors, and that affording due deference to host states in the determination of liability would address the concern that the decisions of investment tribunals unjustifiably impact on the regulatory autonomy of states.
In Maritime Security Cooperation in the Guinea: Prospects and Challenges, Kamal-Deen Ali provides ground-breaking analyses of the maritime security situation in the Gulf of Guinea and its implications for shipping, energy security, sustainable fisheries as well as national and regional security. The book juxtaposes the growing strategic importance of the Gulf of Guinea against the rising insecurity in the maritime domain, especially from piracy. Ali points out key gaps in prevailing regional and international approaches to maritime security cooperation in the Gulf of Guinea and sets out several suggestions for combating piracy as well as other maritime security threats while effectively enhancing maritime security cooperation in the region.
The latest issue of the Revue belge de droit international (Vol. 47, no. 1, 2014) is out. Contents include:
The latest volume of the Irish Yearbook of International Law (Volume 8, 2013) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of the Journal of World Trade (Vol. 49, no. 5, 2015) is out. Contents include:
The latest volume of the African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law (Vol. 2014) is out. Contents include:
The 12th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law will take place in Riga, Latvia, on 8 - 10 September 2016. The Conference is hosted by Riga Graduate School of Law in cooperation with Latvian Constitutional Court. Organisers are proud to announce a theme of the Conference: "How International Law Works in Times of Crisis".
In recent years the world has yet again been confronted with events that required decisions going to the heart of the international legal order, which it has sought to build since the creation of the United Nations and, especially, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The 2016 ESIL annual conference in Rīga is taking place at a time when the word ‘crisis’ frequently comes to mind, either with reference to the European public order or international law in general.
The territorial integrity of many States continues to be undermined. The rise of ISIS and the continued proliferation of other violent extremist groups provide serious challenges to the world order we have striven to build. Crises around the world range from more traditional threats to territorial integrity and security, through the use of modern technology or forms of warfare to more fundamental challenges to the planet through climate change and environmental threats. Problems in the global, European and national economies and financial markets provide yet further examples of crises. Many of these developments are interlinked. For example, the unprecedented flow of migrants and refugees into Europe is linked to security, the economy, and climate change. This is all taking place at a time when globalization is a reality and traditional societal boundaries are continually being eroded through ever-developing interdependencies while at the same time faced with growing nationalism.
These developments raise challenges at two levels. One is to ask whether international law itself is in crisis. Is it possible to identify challenges to the basic underpinnings of the traditional international legal order that would be qualitatively different from those faced previously? Another way of posing the question is to enquire whether international law is up to the task of dealing with particular crises.
It should, of course, be recognized that crises are not new for the discipline of international law. It has been argued that a sense of crisis is integral to the discipline. The role, relevance and institutions of international law have always been challenged, especially when faced with different kinds of crisis. Moreover, moments of crisis may offer new possibilities. Historically, such moments have led to new solutions in the world community, including new projects involving normative developments. Be that as it may, international lawyers should confront and address this sense of crisis embedded in their discipline. Against this background, the ESIL Conference in Rīga will address the theme How International Law Works in Times of Crisis.
The conference will provide an opportunity to discuss the crisis of international law, the international law of crisis, and also different biases and assumptions that contribute to questions about crisis. Questions that will be discussed include: In times of crisis, how does international law work? More specifically: How is international law rising to the challenge of contemporary crises, of capturing old and factually new phenomena and dealing with them in a normative context? What is the role of international lawyers in addressing the old and new crises? What role is assumed by (regional) organizations and the European Union in particular as well as non-state actors in this context of multiple tensions and multiple visions of the past and the future? This focus invites legal and interdisciplinary approaches to address these issues more generally as well as in different specialised areas of international law.
The latest issue of the Nordic Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 33, no. 2, 2015) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of Transnational Environmental Law (Vol. 4, no. 2, October 2015) is out. Contents include:
The American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association will host International Law Weekend 2015, November 5-7, 2015, in New York City. The conference theme is "Global Problems, Legal Solutions: Challenges for Contemporary International Lawyers." The program is here.
POLISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Call for papers (Volume XXXV)
Polish Yearbook of International Law (PYIL) is currently seeking articles for its next volume (XXXV), which will be published in June 2016. Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers in areas connected with public and private international law, including European law. Although it is not a formal condition for acceptance, we are specifically interested in articles that address issues in international and European law relating to Central and Eastern Europe. Authors from the region are also strongly encouraged to submit their works.
Submissions should not exceed 15,000 words (including footnotes) but in exceptional cases we may also accept longer works. We assess manuscripts on a rolling basis and will consider requests for expedited review in case of a pending acceptance for publication from another journal.
All details about submission procedure and required formatting are available at the PYIL’s webpage.
Please send manuscripts to pyil@inp.pan.pl. The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2016.
The standard account has it that Hugo Grotius secularised international law by grounding it on human nature. This chapter argues we should not stop at the standard account, but rather should dig deeper and examine the theological anthropology grounding Grotius’ ideas on the law of nature and nations. With some attention for the influence of both (neo-)scepticism and (neo)stoicism in analyses of Grotius’ understanding of human nature and natural law, this chapter examines Grotius’ ideas through the lens of the Christian theological notion of imago Dei – the idea that human beings are different from other animals in that they are created in ‘the image and likeness of God’.
The chapter relates the concept of the imago Dei briefly to the early seventeenth-century theological and political debates in the Dutch Republic and discusses the Arminian interpretation of the imago Dei along the lines of three dimensions generally set apart: ontological, teleological (the telos being to reach God, also through others in society), and functional (linked to the function of dominium). This chapter argues that the Arminian imago Dei anthropology is foundational to Grotius’ theory of the law of nature and nations in (at least) three ways along the lines of these three dimensions. The chapter concludes with a few remarks on how a post-skeptical reading of Grotius, through the lens of his imago Dei anthropology, is relevant for the future of international law thinking.
The ‘institutional veil’ of international organizations is the linchpin for legal analysis and appraisal of the role and interrelation of international organizations, member states and organs. Through this lens the article examines in semi-broad strokes the position of international organizations’ member states in the legal framework of international responsibility, with reference to pertinent provisions in the ILC ARIO. This leads to the finding that in (the discourse on) the establishment of responsibility there are four possible legal contexts, which have the institutional veil of the organization work out in different ways: subsidiary responsibility of member states (the proverbial ‘piercing of the corporate veil’); the attribution of conduct to member states; the ‘attribution of responsibility’ to member states; and the bypassing of the institutional veil to establish independent responsibility of member states, which is then connected by a material link to the wrongful act of the organization or to the injurious circumstances originally at issue. In the context of subsidiary responsibility, the institutional veil has been consistently conceptualized as impermeable since the 1980s Tin Council cases; on the other hand, in the context of attribution of conduct the institutional veil of organizations appears to be increasingly contested, engaged with and challenged for transparency. This leaves room a.o. for considerations on the politics of the institutional veil: one likely factor of inspiration for the intense doctrinal exploration and discussion on this point is the lack of legal remedies for injured individuals resulting from the combination of attribution of conduct to an international organization, on the one hand, and the organization’s immunity from process before a domestic court, or lack of standing before an international court, on the other.
The latest issue of the International Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 19, no. 7, 2015) is out. Contents include:
