Stanford Law School and University of Pennsylvania Law School
Ninth International Junior Faculty Forum
Call for Papers
Sponsored by Stanford Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the International Junior Faculty Forum (IJFF) was established to stimulate the exchange of ideas and research among younger legal scholars from around the world. We live today in a global community– in particular, a global legal community. The IJFF is designed to foster transnational legal scholarship that surmounts barriers of time, space, legal traditions and cultures, and to create an engaged global community of scholars. The Ninth IJFF will be held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in late September or early October 2016 (the exact date has not yet been fixed).
- In order to be considered for the 2016 International Junior Faculty Forum, authors must meet the following criteria:
- Citizen of a country other than the United States
- Current academic institution is outside of the United States
- Not currently a student in the United States
- Have held a faculty position or the equivalent, including positions comparable to junior faculty positions in research institutions, for less than seven years as of 2016; and
- Last degree earned less than ten years before 2016
Papers may be on any legally relevant subject and can make use of any relevant approach: they can be quantitative or qualitative, sociological, anthropological, historical, or economic. The host institutions are committed to intellectual, methodological, and regional diversity, and welcome papers from junior scholars from all parts of the world. Please note, however, that already published papers are not eligible for consideration. We particularly welcome work that is interdisciplinary.
Those who would like to participate in the IJFF must first submit an abstract of the proposed paper. Abstracts should be no more than two (2) pages long and must be in English. The abstract should provide a roadmap of your paper—it should tell us what you plan to do, lay out the major argument of the paper, say something about the methodology, and indicate the paper’s contribution to scholarship. The due date for abstracts is Friday, January 15, 2016, although earlier submissions are welcome. Please submit the abstract electronically to both Maria O’Neill, firstname.lastname@example.org, and Norva Hall, email@example.com, with the subject line, International Junior Faculty Forum. The abstract should contain the author’s name, home institution, and the title of the proposed paper. Please also send a current CV.
After the abstracts have been reviewed, we will invite, no later than mid-February, a number of junior scholars to submit full papers of no more than 15,000 words, electronically, in English, by May 13, 2016. Please include a word count for final papers. There is no fixed number of papers to be invited, but in the past years up to 50 invitations have been issued from among a much larger number of abstracts.
An international committee of legal scholars will review the papers and select approximately ten papers for full presentation at the conference, where two senior scholars will comment on each paper. After the remarks of the commentators, all of the participants, junior and senior alike, will have a chance to join in the discussion. One of the most valuable—and enjoyable—aspects of the Forum, in the opinion of many participants, has been the chance to meet junior and senior scholars, and to talk about your work and theirs.
Stanford and Penn will cover expenses of travel, including airfare, lodging, and food, for each participant. Questions should be directed to Maria O’Neill (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Norva Hall (email@example.com).
Professor Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford Law School
Professor Eric A. Feldman, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Self-reporting on implementation is common in international regulatory agreements, yet we know almost nothing about how (or whether) it works. We argue self-reporting provides information for international and domestic audiences, with the potential to create pressure for agreement compliance. Using original data on the quality and responsiveness of reports submitted to the Committee Against Torture, we test for the influence of the review process on the pervasiveness of torture. Adopting a dynamic approach to strengthen our ability to draw inferences, we find that the review process in fact does help to reduce the incidence of torture in reporting countries. Moreover, local media attention spikes during the review process, consistent with a domestic mobilization mechanism. This is the first study to evaluate the effects of self-reporting on torture outcomes. Since many international agreements are based on self-reporting, the results have broad significance for international relations.
Friday, December 4, 2015
The Security Council resolution implementing the Iran deal spells out the terms of its own destruction. It contains a provision that allows any one of seven countries to terminate its key components. This provision – which this Comment terms a trigger termination – is both unusual and important. It is unusual because, up to now, the Security Council has almost always either not specified the conditions under which resolutions terminate or used time-based sunset clauses. It is important not only for the Iran deal, but also as a precedent and a model for the use of trigger terminations in the future. The political and legal dimensions of trigger terminations are striking. As to political dimensions, this Comment shows that by providing for the termination of resolutions, trigger terminations can influence the bargaining surrounding the creation and implementation of resolutions. As to legal dimensions, this Comment analyzes trigger terminations in light of the broader literature on the Security Council’s power to delegate authority and defends their legality within wide boundaries. Overall, this Comment argues that trigger terminations hold considerable promise but also some peril for the future.
This brief Comment responds to Jan Klabbers’ recent article, The Transformation of International Organizations Law. It focuses on three points: the polemical style and disengagement with substance in the article; the question of whether we can do without some form of functionalism; and the further question of what it means to speak of ‘responsibility beyond functionalism’.
- Analytical Essay: Evaluation, Synthesis, Reflections
- Betcy Jose & Peace A. Medie, Understanding Why and How Civilians Resort to Self-Protection in Armed Conflict
- Elias Steinhilper, From “the Rest” to “the West”? Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Western Bias in Norm Diffusion Research
- David Traven, Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict
- Boaz Atzili & Anne Kantel, Accepting the Unacceptable: Lessons from West Germany's Changing Border Politics
- J. Samuel Barkin, On the Heuristic Use of Formal Models in International Relations Theory
- Michiel Foulon, Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities
- The Forum: Globalization, Politics, and the Poor
- Nita Rudra & Kristen Skillman, Introduction—Globalization, Politics, and the Poor
- Helen V. Milner & Nita Rudra, Globalization and the Political Benefits of the Informal Economy
- Edmund J. Malesky, Transfer Pricing and Global Poverty
- Pablo Beramendi & Erik Wibbels, Globalization, Public Finance, and Poverty
- Daniel Nielson, Promoting Exports, Preventing Poverty: Toward a Causal Evidence Base
Building Consensus on European Consensus
1&2 June 2016
European University Institute
Professor Conor Gearty, London School of Economics
Call for Papers
The University of Portsmouth School of Law, the European University Institute and the McCoubrey Centre for International Law of the University of Hull Law School are organising a two-day conference on the European consensus (EuC) method of interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court).
Should prisoners have voting rights? Should terminally ill patients have a right to assisted suicide? Should same-sex couples have a right to marriage or adoption? Few would argue that such legally complex, and morally and politically sensitive issues are subject to universally accepted normative responses. When these questions arise within a European normative framework, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention) is expected to act as a buffer for idiosyncratic national differences so that common “European” answers and standards of protection can emerge. The ECtHR undoubtedly plays a pivotal role, given its position as the last-word interpreter of the Convention.
Yet, the idea of a court, let alone an international court, establishing “new” rights or significantly expanding the scope and meaning of existing ones is, of course, inherently controversial. Presumably, it is for this reason, and in an attempt to increase its external legitimacy, that the ECtHR has developed the interpretative method of EuC. The Court will only recognise a pan-European -thus common to all 47 signatory parties to the ECHR- standard in sensitive areas of social activity, if it can trace their existence to the (loosely defined) consensus of national jurisdictions, as this is evidenced in the practice of the national legal systems of the ECHR states. If no consensus is diagnosed, states are given wider margin of appreciation. As a result, Europe may legitimately accommodate multiple human rights standards within its normative borders in the spirit of constitutional pluralism. EuC, and its symbiotic relationship to other interpretative techniques, inevitably raise significant legal, political and philosophical questions. By resorting to EuC the Court may appear to pre-empt or respond to criticisms of judicial activism and claim that evolution in the interpretation of the Convention is, in fact, born out of the practice and implicit will of it signatory parties, which are all sovereign states. But this is hardly sufficient to dissuade concerns regarding the appropriateness of consensus analysis in identifying norms in a “special” area of law, such as human rights.
The purpose of this two-day international conference is to study the function of EuC, to identify its impact on European human rights law and beyond, and to assess its merits and shortcomings by exploring the following three main strands of analysis.
1. Conceptualisation of EuC: This theme invites contributions that will purport to define and conceptualise EuC, that is to say, to explain what EuC is, how it functions and what its results and consequences are. Papers may discuss the methods (both quantitative and qualitative) that could be used for the conceptualisation of EuC, the theoretical lens (such as constitutionalism, legal pluralism etc.) through which EUC may be explained, the interrelation between EuC and other methods of interpretation (such as margin of appreciation, dynamic/evolutive, systemic integration etc.), how EuC compares to, converges with or diverges from the methods employed by courts in analogous positions (such as regional international human rights courts or national constitutional courts, including the US Supreme Court) and, more generally, any line of enquiry that may contribute to the understanding of EuC.
2. Evaluation of EuC: This theme invites contributions that aim to critically evaluate EuC, its use, usefulness, appropriateness and normative outputs. We expect analysis in that strand to be primarily normative in nature and attempt to situate EuC in the broader context of questions within Public law, Constitutional law, International law and the Philosophy of Law, purporting to answer who has the authority to make constitutive decisions about civil and political rights in a liberal democracy and how these decisions should be made.
3. The “spill-over” effects of EuC: The last theme invites contributions that will examine the impact of EuC beyond the confines of the ECHR, both within national legal systems and at the inter/supra-national levels. Is EuC (or its altera pars, namely the margin of appreciation doctrine) employed in some shape or form in other legal systems? Could / should other courts in Europe, and first and foremost the Court of Justice of the European Union, make use of EuC? Are European Union (EU) human rights institutions using EuC? We are inviting contributions that will engage with these axes of enquiry from any disciplinary perspective. Contributions may adopt a variety of doctrinal or disciplinary approaches, ranging from Jurisprudence and Legal Theory to Constitutional law and from Political Science and Philosophy to European Public law, broadly defined.
Interested scholars should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words by 31 January 2016. Abstracts should contain the title of the paper, and the name title and affiliation of the author(s). Please send abstracts using the Building Consensus on European consensus conference webpage. If you wish to discuss topics or ideas informally, please contact Dr. Panos Kapotas at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Speakers will be informed of acceptance of their papers by 12 February 2016, and will be expected to submit a full paper of around 8.000 words (including footnotes) by 1st May 2016. Presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes in duration.
The Conference will take place at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Speakers will be required to meet the cost of travel and accommodation.
Abstract submission by: 31/01/2016
Selection of papers by: 12/02/2016
Submission of papers by: 01/05/2016
Dr Panos Kapotas, University of Portsmouth, School of Law
Professor Dennis Patterson, European University Institute
Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, University of Hull Law School
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Call for Submissions: The Protection of Cultural Property and the Norms of International Humanitarian Law
- É.- A. T. Gatsi, Mise en place du Sénat au Cameroun : légitimité et légalité en question
- P. Kishore, La réglementation du clonage humain
- F. E. Ndjolo Vodom, L’information comptable dans les sociétés coopératives en droit de l’Organisation pour l’harmonisation du droit des affaires en Afrique (OHADA)
- Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takács, Vesna Lazić, & Ben Van Rompuy, Introduction
- Christophe Paulussen & Jessica Dorsey, Towards an EU Position on Armed Drones and Targeted Killing?
- Onur Güven & Olivier Ribbelink, The Protection of Nationals Abroad: A Return to Old Practice?
- Kinga Tibori-Szabó, The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test and the Law of Self-defence
- Wybe Th. Douma and Steffen van der Velde, Protection of Fundamental Rights in Third Countries Through EU External Trade Policy: The Cases of Conflict Minerals and Timber
- Tamara Takács & Davor Jancic, Fundamental Rights and Rule of Law Promotion in EU Enlargement Policy in the Western Balkans
- Sacha Prechal, The Court of Justice and Effective Judicial Protection: What Has the Charter Changed?
- Vesna Lazić, Family Private International Law Issues Before the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons to Be Learned from Povse v. Austria in Revising the Brussels IIa Regulation
- Steven Stuij, Some Aspects of the Application and Ascertainment of Foreign Law in the Light of Article 6 of the ECHR
- Richard Blauwhoff & Lisette Frohn, International Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements: The Interests of the Child as a Concern of Both Human Rights and Private International Law
- Antoine Duval & Ben Van Rompuy, Protecting Athletes’ Right to a Fair Trial Through EU Competition Law: The Pechstein Case
- Marco van der Harst, The Enforcement of CAS Arbitral Awards by National Courts and the Effective Protection of EU Law
- James A.R. Nafziger, Rights and Wrongs of and About Nationality in Sports Competition
- David D. Caron, Stephan W. Schill, Abby Cohen Smutny, & Epaminontas Triantafilou, Practising Virtue: An Introduction
- Sundaresh Menon, The Transnational Protection of Private Rights: Issues, Challenges, and Possible Solutions
- Alan Redfern, The Changing World of International Arbitration
- Piero Bernardini, International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Eduardo Zuleta, International Jurisprudence, Global Governance, and Global Administrative Law
- James H. Carter, The Culture of Arbitration and the Defence of Arbitral Legitimacy
- Stephan W. Schill, Conceptions of Legitimacy in International Arbitration
- V.V. Veeder, The Historical Keystone to International Arbitration: The Party-Appointed Arbitrator - From Miami to Geneva
- Antonio R. Parra, 'Black's Bank' and the Settlement of Investment Disputes
- Stephen M. Schwebel, Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht's Report on the Revision of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
- Oscar M. Garibaldi, Jurisdictional Errors: A Critique of the North American Dredging Company Case
- Emmanuel Gaillard, Sociology of International Arbitration
- Giorgio Sacerdoti, From Law Professor to International Adjudicator: The WTO Appellate Body and ICSID Arbitration Compared - A Personal Account
- Donald Francis Donovan, The Advocate in the Transnational Justice System
- Gary Born & Marija Scekic, Pre-Arbitration Procedural Requirements: 'A Dismal Swamp'
- Christoph Schreuer, At What Time Must Jurisdiction Exist?
- Rudolf Dolzer, Local Remedies in International Treaties: A Stocktaking
- L. Yves Fortier, Investor-State Tribunals and National Courts: A Harmony of Spheres?
- Horacio A. Grigera Naon, Should International Commercial Arbitrators Declare a Law Unconstitutional?
- Joseph E. Neuhaus, The Enforceability of Legislative Stabilization Clauses
- Neil Kaplan, Non-Payment of Advances on Costs: No Pay, Can Play?
- Julian D.M. Lew, Document Production and Legal Privilege in International Commercial Arbitration
- David A.R. Williams & Anna Kirk, Fair and Equitable Treatment of Witnesses in International Arbitration - Some Emerging Principles
- David D. Caron, Regulating Opacity: Shaping How Tribunals Think
- Judith A.E. Gill, The Development of Legal Argument in Arbitration: Law as an Afterthought - Is It Time To Recalibrate Our Approach?
- Mahnoush H. Arsanjani & W. Michael Reisman, Babel and BITs: Divergence Analysis and Authentication in the Unusual Decision of Kilic v. Turkmenistan
- Kaj Hober, Reporting from the Arbitral Shop-Floor: Treaty Interpretation in Practice
- Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Judge Brower and the Vienna Convention Rules of Treaty Interpretation
- Epaminontas E. Triantafilou, Contemporaneity and Its Limits in Treaty Interpretation
- Richard M. Mosk, Deliberations of Arbitrators
- Albert Jan van den Berg, Charles Brower's Problem with 100 Per Cent-Dissenting Opinions by Party-Appointed Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration
- Michael Hwang & Joshua Lim, How to Draft Enforceable Awards under the Model Law
- O. Thomas Johnson, The Deal with BITs: What the Parties Thought They Would Get, What They Thought They Were Giving Up to Get It, and What They Got
- Christopher Greenwood, Reflections on 'Most Favoured Nation' Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties
- Loretta Malintoppi & Hussein Haeri, The Non-Disputing State Party in Investment Arbitration: An Interested Player or the Third Man Out?
- Francisco Orrego Vicuna, Time in International Law and Arbitration: The Chess Clock No Longer Works
- James Crawford, Challenges to Arbitrators in ICSID Arbitration
- Gavan Griffith & Daniel Kalderimis, 'Pure' Issue Conflicts in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Abby Cohen Smutny, CompensationDue in the Event of an Unlawful Expropriation: The 'Simple Scheme' Presented by Chorzow Factory and Its Relevance to Investment Treaty Disputes
- Hans van Houtte & Bridie McAsey, FutureDamages in Investment Arbitration - A Tribunal with a Crystal Ball?
- Arthur W. Rovine, Allocation of Costs in Recent ICSID Awards
- Carolyn B. Lamm, Eckhard R. Hellbeck, & David P. Riesenberg, The Two Annulment Decisions in Amco Asia and 'Non-Application' of Applicable Law by ICSID Tribunals
- Pierre-Marie Dupuy & Julie Maupin, Of Wit, Wisdom, and Balance in International Law: Reflections on the Tokyo Resolution of the Institut de Droit International
Interest in international law has increased greatly over the past decade, largely because of its central place in discussions such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo, the World Trade Organisation, the anti-capitalist movement, the Kyoto Convention on climate change, and the apparent failure of the international system to deal with the situations in Palestine and Darfur, and the plights of refugees and illegal immigrants around the world.
This Very Short Introduction explains what international law is, what its role in international society is, and how it operates. Vaughan Lowe examines what international law can and cannot do and what it is and what it isn't doing to make the world a better place. Focussing on the problems the world faces, Lowe uses terrorism, environmental change, poverty, and international violence to demonstrate the theories and practice of international law, and how the principles can be used for international co-operation.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
- Ioannis Kalpouzos & Itamar Mann, Banal Crimes against Humanity: The Case of Asylum Seekers in Greece
- Anna Hood, Ebola: A Threat to the Parameters of a Threat to the Peace?
- Spencer Zifcak, What Happened to the International Community? R2P and the Conflicts in South Sudan and the Central African Republic
- Robert Pietriche, The Ascendancy of the Lex Loci Delicti: The Problematic Role of Theory in Australian Choice of Tort Law Rules
- Giulia Dondoli, LGBTI Activism Influencing Foreign Legislation
- Tetyana (Tanya) Krupiy, Of Souls, Spirits and Ghosts: Transposing the Application of the Rules of Targeting to Lethal Autonomous Robots
- Alexandra Veuthey & Lloyd Freeburn, The Fight against Hooliganism in England: Insights for Other Jurisdictions?
- Caecilia Alexandre & Konstantia Koutouki, Les déplacés des Chagos. Retour sur la lutte de ces habitants pour récupérer leur terre ancestrale
- Patient Lwango Mirindi, L’article 1502 du « Dodd-Frank Act » : une menace pour la souveraineté de la République démocratique du Congo sur ses ressources naturelles ?
- Rolince Mbungo, L’approche juridique internationale du phénomène de discrimination fondée sur le motif des antécédents judiciaires
- Sergio Salinas Alcega, Le contrôle de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme suite au processus d’Interlaken : l’évolution technique d’un mécanisme politique
- Notes et commentaires
- Vincent Chapaux, De la possibilité d’appréhender le droit international de manière critique : réflexions à partir de « Gráinne de Búrca, Claire Kilpatrick et Joanne Scott, dir, Critical Legal Perspectives on Global Governance: Liber Amicorum David M Trubek, Oxford, Hart, 2014 »
- Marc Nerenberg & Philippe Larochelle, We Were Sailing into Uncharted Waters: Flaws in the Application of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Acts
Call for Papers
Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
5th Annual Conference - "Public and Private Power"
University of Cambridge, 8-9 April 2016
The editors of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL) welcome submissions for the CJICL 5th Annual Conference to be held at the University of Cambridge on 8-9 April 2016. Accepted papers will be considered for publication in a special issue of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. Abstracts should be submitted on the basis that the subsequent paper will be available for publication if selected.
The theme for the CJICL 5th Annual Conference is “Public and Private Power”. We are interested in doctrinal, theoretical, institutional and comparative perspectives from international, European and comparative law on the regulation of public and private power.
We are interested in exploring how the landscape of public and private power is changing, where new and important networks and partnerships between public and private power are emerging and where public power is co-opting or commissioning private power in larger projects. This interconnectivity can be seen at all levels, challenges traditional divisions between public and private, and raises new problems for regulation.
How is public and private power understood at the international, European and national levels? How should public and private power be allocated between and within the international, European and national levels? What new controls are necessary or desirable for existing or emerging areas of public and private power? What is distinctive about public and private power? How important is the distinction between public and private power? Is the distinction sustainable in different areas of regulation? How is the relationship between public and private power changing?
We are particularly interested in international, comparative and EU perspectives on the following topics:
- the distinctiveness of public or private power;
- the changing structure of the public-private divide;
- the value of distinguishing between public and private power;
- the allocation of public and private power; and
- the control of public and private power.
Applications should be submitted to email@example.com by 10 January 2016. Applications should include a proposed abstract of not more than 300 words and a CV and applicants should expect to hear from the convenors by the end of January.
General registration for the conference will open in February 2015 on our website. Numbers are limited and early registration is highly recommended. Attendees are responsible for their own travel expenses and accommodation and should seek funding from their home institution or other bodies. The convenors can arrange a limited amount of accommodation at Emmanuel College at the attendee’s expense. The conference fee will be confirmed in January and there will be a limited number of fee waivers or reductions at the discretion of the convenors in cases of financial hardship. The conference is aimed at both academic and professional attendees and will be CPD accredited.
International military interventions endanger soldier and civilian lives, can be financially costly, and risk spiraling out of control. One incident which exemplified the risks involved a US and UK wish to stop a Russian ship from delivering helicopter gunships to the Assad regime in Syria in 2012. Forcibly intercepting a Russian ship in transit could have risked World War III, so they developed an alternative, non-confrontational maneuver: instead of military intervention, the UK persuaded the ship's insurer, London's Standard Club, to withdraw the ship's insurance. This loss of insurance caused the ship to return to Russia, thus avoiding an international clash as well as the delivery of deadly weapons to Syria. This use of legal maneuvering in lieu of armed force is known as "lawfare" and is becoming a critical tool in the foreign policy arena.
In Lawfare, author Orde Kittrie draws on his experiences as a lawfare practitioner, US State Department attorney, and international law scholar in analyzing the theory and practice of lawfare. Kittrie explains how factors including the increased reach of international laws and tribunals and the rise of economic globalization and information technology have fueled lawfare's increasing power and prevalence. The book includes case studies of recent offensive and defensive lawfare by the United States, China, all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and several non-governmental organizations and individuals. Kittrie asserts that much of the United States' most effective and creative lawfare today is being waged by private sector or other non-governmental attorneys. He analyzes why this is the case, and describes how such attorneys' expertise and experience can contribute even more to U.S. national security. Kittrie also explains that lawfare, deployed more systematically and adeptly by the U.S. government, could likely reduce U.S. and foreign casualties, and save U.S. taxpayer dollars, by supplementing or replacing the use of armed force as a tool for achieving some significant U.S. national security objectives. Understanding this alternative to armed force has never been more important.
- Andrew Glencross, From ‘doing history’ to thinking historically: Historical consciousness across History and International Relations
- Charles F Parker, Christer Karlsson, & Mattias Hjerpe, Climate change leaders and followers: Leadership recognition and selection in the UNFCCC negotiations
- Judith C Huigens, Conditions for changing inter-organisational relations: The G8 summit and the European Union
- Pablo de Orellana, Struggles over identity in diplomacy: ‘Commie terrorists’ contra ‘imperialists’ in Western Sahara
- Pinar Bilgin & Basak Ince, Security and citizenship in the global South: In/securing citizens in early republican Turkey (1923–1946)
How can children grow to realize their inherent rights and respect the rights of others? In this book, authors Jonathan Todres and Sarah Higinbotham explore this question through both human rights law and children's literature. Both international and domestic law affirm that children have rights, but how are these norms disseminated so that they make a difference in children's lives? Human rights education research demonstrates that when children learn about human rights, they exhibit greater self-esteem and respect the rights of others. The Convention on the Rights of the Child -- the most widely-ratified human rights treaty -- not only ensures that children have rights, it also requires that states make those rights "widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike." This first-of-its-kind requirement for a human rights treaty indicates that if rights are to be meaningful to the lives of children, then government and civil society must engage with those rights in ways that are relevant to children.
Human Rights in Children's Literature investigates children's rights under international law -- identity and family rights, the right to be heard, the right to be free from discrimination, and other civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights -- and considers the way in which those rights are embedded in children's literature from Peter Rabbit to Horton Hears a Who! to Harry Potter. This book traverses children's rights law, literary theory, and human rights education to argue that in order for children to fully realize their human rights, they first have to imagine and understand them.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
- Themistoklis Tzimas, International ‘public emergency’ and Collective Security
- Lars Müller, The Force Intervention Brigade—United Nations Forces beyond the Fine Line Between Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement
- Kinga Tibori-Szabó, Self-Defence and the United States Policy on Drone Strikes
- Tetyana (Tanya) Krupiy, A Case against Relying Solely on Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Technology to Identify Proposed Targets
- Freya Foster, The Price of News from the Front Line: Rethinking the Protection of Media Personnel under International Humanitarian Law
- Assessing the requirements for the indication of provisional measures by ITLOS: The order of 24 August 2015 in the Enrica Lexie case
- Introduced by Paolo Palchetti & Maurizio Arcari
- Massimo Lando, Establishing the existence of a ‘dispute’ under UNCLOS at the provisional measures stage: the Enrica Lexie case
- Irini Papanicolopulu, Considerations of humanity in the Enrica Lexie Case
- Report of the International Commercial Disputes Committee and the Arbitration Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, A Model Federal Arbitration Summons to Testify and Present Documentary Evidence at an Arbitration Hearing
- Tony Cole, Pietro Ortolani, & Barbara Warwas, Arbitration in Southern Europe: Insights From a Large-Scale Empirical Study
- Tom Childs, Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards: Should a Party Be Allowed Multiple Bites at the Apple?
- Elizabeth Chan, Proposed Guidelines for the Disclosure of Third-Party Funding Arrangements in International Arbitration
- Denis Parchajev, Prospects of Enforcing the Yukos Award in Russia
The number of academic writings on international criminal procedure is growing rapidly. Nevertheless, the investigation phase has so far received less attention than the trial phase itself. The importance of investigative actions for the further proceedings is not yet reflected to the full extent in academic writings on international criminal proceedings.
This book seeks to cover this gap. It examines the existing law and practice of the different international(ised) criminal courts and tribunals with regard to the conduct of investigations in order to identify any (emerging) rules of international criminal procedure. More precisely, it enquires whether, notwithstanding their nature of ‘self-contained regimes’, these institutions have adopted certain common rules. Additionally, it aims to examine the fairness of the law and practice of the different international(ised) criminal courts and tribunals with regard to the conduct of investigations.
Monday, November 30, 2015
- Special Issue: The Politics of Numbers
- André Broome & Joel Quirk, The politics of numbers: the normative agendas of global benchmarking
- André Broome & Joel Quirk, Governing the world at a distance: the practice of global benchmarking
- Alexandra Homolar, Human security benchmarks: Governing human wellbeing at a distance
- Tony Porter, Global benchmarking networks: the cases of disaster risk reduction and supply chains
- Leonard Seabrooke & Duncan Wigan, How activists use benchmarks: Reformist and revolutionary benchmarks for global economic justice
- Genevieve LeBaron & Jane Lister, Benchmarking global supply chains: the power of the ‘ethical audit’ regime
- James Harrison & Sharifah Sekalala, Addressing the compliance gap? UN initiatives to benchmark the human rights performance of states and corporations
- Liam Clegg, Benchmarking and blame games: Exploring the contestation of the Millennium Development Goals
- Caroline Kuzemko, Climate change benchmarking: Constructing a sustainable future?
- Ole Jacob Sending & Jon Harald Sande Lie, The limits of global authority: World Bank benchmarks in Ethiopia and Malawi
- Symposium: Evidence and Proof in the Practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Yvonne Mcdermott & John D. Jackson, Symposium – Evidence and Proof in the Practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Yvonne McDermott, The ICTR’s fact-finding legacy: lessons for the future of proof in international criminal trials
- Terence Anderson &, William Twining, Evidential reasoning in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: a case study of Tharcisse Muvunyi
- Nancy Amoury Combs, A new look at fact-finding at the ICTR: advances in judicial acknowledgement
- Oliver Windridge, Assessing circumstantial evidence and inference at the ICTR
- Lachezar Yanev, A Janus-Faced Concept: Nuremberg’s Law on Conspiracy Vis-à-Vis the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise
- Robert Charles Clarke, Together Again? Customary Law and Control over the Crime
- Janine Natalya Clark, Elucidating the Dolus Specialis: An Analysis of ICTY Jurisprudence on Genocidal Intent
- Melanie O’Brien, Classifying Cultural and Physical Destruction: Are Modern Historical and Current Human Rights Violations in China Violations of International Criminal Law?
Regional Colloquium on Globalization of Law
and International Organization
Call for Papers
March 4th 2016 at the University of Notre Dame
The University of Notre Dame welcomes applications for the 2016 Regional Colloquium on Globalization of Law and International Organization. This one-day workshop encourages new scholarship on the interdisciplinary study of international law, international organization, legalization, and globalization. It is sponsored by the Center on Law and Globalization (American Bar Foundation/Illinois College of Law) and the IO/IL Working Group of the Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies of Northwestern University. The workshop is on March 4th 2016 at the Notre Dame Conference Center in South Bend, Indiana.
We are seeking proposals from interested scholars of law, globalization, history, politics, and related fields. The event is open to faculty and advanced graduate students. We also welcome participants interested in serving as discussants.
Applicants should send a topic, abstract, and bio by January 15, 2016 to the organizers listed below.
This is the sixth annual presentation of the regional colloquium. The series aims to encourage new scholarship on the globalization of law and to foster an intellectual community in the Midwest across institutions, disciplines, and approaches. Previous sessions were held in Chicago (2015), at the American Bar Foundation (2014), University of Wisconsin Law School (2013), University of Chicago Law School (2011), and Northwestern University (2009). The colloquium considers law and legalization as juridical, historical, political, and comparative phenomena with a global scope. We encourage research across a range of topics and perspectives, including on private and public legalization, historical and contemporary issues, formal and informal institutions and practices, and conceptual and empirical concerns.
The University of Notre Dame will provide for all colloquium meals. Participants are expected to cover their own travel and accommodation expenses. A number of hotel rooms have been set aside at the Morris Inn in South Bend, IN. For questions on travel and lodging, please contact Steven McDowell, Ph. D. student at Notre Dame (firstname.lastname@example.org). A small number of modest subsidies for travel are available to enable participation from individuals who otherwise could not attend. To be considered for a subsidy, please include the request in your application.
Applications and queries should be sent to:
Emilia Justyna Powell
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Notre Dame University
Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies
Graduate Coordinator IO/IL Working Group at the Buffett Institute
Ph. D. Student at Notre Dame
For many years, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop - jointly organized by Rainer Hofmann (Frankfurt), Stephan W. Schill (Amsterdam), and Christian J. Tams (Glasgow) - has been a forum for the discussion of foundational issues of international investment law.
As ICSID reaches its half-century, the next workshop asks whether and to what extent international investment law and investor-State arbitration are 'motors of general international law‘? No doubt, investment law in its 'BIT era’ operates within a framework of general international law - it does not exist, to take up a phrase coined in relation to WTO law, in 'clinical isolation‘. But how about the reverse effect? Do investment law and investment arbitration have radiating effects? Do they shape international law more generally?
The workshop addresses this question against the backdrop of investment law’s increased relevance. Over the past decade, international investment law, once considered an exotic niche area, has moved into the international legal mainstream. The increasing numbers of investment treaties, proliferating investment disputes, and the negotiation of mega-regionals (such as TTIP and TTP) attest to this; they have raised awareness for investment law and resulted in increasing contestation. The question is whether approaches and ideas tried out and tested in investment treaty making and arbitration are being picked up by law-makers and dispute settlers in other fields. Contributions to this workshop address this question. They focus on three areas in which investment law and arbitration might be seen as a motor of legal development: the law of dispute settlement, the law of treaties, and state responsibility. As in previous years, the workshop will bring together academics and practitioners and provide them with a forum for open and frank exchanges.
If you are interested in participating, please contact Sabine Schimpf, Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order, University of Frankfurt, E-Mail: S.Schimpf@jur.uni-frankfurt.de by 28 February 2016.
- Editorial Comment
- Sienho Yee, Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 5): Temple of Preah Vihear (Interpretation) (2013)
- Matthias Vanhullebusch, Regime Change, the Security Council and China
- Jie Huang, Protecting Non-indigenous Human Remains under Cultural Heritage Law
- Jianjun Gao, The ITLOS Advisory Opinion for the SRFC
- Miodrag A. Jovanović, Responsibility to Protect and the International Rule of Law
- Asif H. Qureshi, China/Pakistan Economic Corridor: A Critical National and International Law Policy Based Perspective
Telling the history of something requires choosing a perspective. This perspective, or narrative, is the lens through which we look at a specific topic or field. The picture that thereupon emerges is necessarily shaped by the perspective chosen. Strictly speaking, we cannot tell the ‘history of X’, only attempt to approach a historical account of one or several aspects of X by way of the perspective or perspectives we employ to look at X. Discussing, thus, the history of international investment law equally and inevitably requires choice of perspectives/narratives; and by choosing such narrative(s) the ‘narrator’ influences the audience’s grasp of the field whose ‘history’ he or she presents. In this contribution I will seek to illustrate how the investment community presents certain narratives of the history of international investment law, asserting – sometimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently – their objectivity and thereby shaping certain perceptions of the history according to its view on the present and future of the field. Hence, my task is primarily to present, by way of examples, how certain epistemic communities (see II.) employ such narratives and thereby enhance investment law scholars’ and practitioners’ awareness vis-à-vis the constructive character of these narratives (III.). However, as I will further develop in the conclusion (IV.), this is not at all to say that the study of history and telling certain narratives is a futile exercise for international investment law to undertake. What is central, is making transparent the constructive nature of the narrative in order for the audience that is told this specific historical account to be aware that this is just one of many possible perspectives the authority of which hinges exclusively on its plausibility.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
- Robin Churchill, Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2014
- Dire Tladi, The Proposed Implementing Agreement: Options for Coherence and Consistency in the Establishment of Protected Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
- Jiayu Bai, The IMO Polar Code: The Emerging Rules of Arctic Shipping Governance
- Anastasia Telesetsky & Seokwoo Lee, After Whaling in the Antarctic: Amending Article VIII to Fix a Broken Treaty Regime
- Laurence Cordonnery; Alan D. Hemmings & Lorne Kriwoken, Nexus and Imbroglio: CCAMLR, the Madrid Protocol and Designating Antarctic Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean
- Olivia Woolley, Ecological Governance for Offshore Wind Energy in United Kingdom Waters: Has an Effective Legal Framework Been Established for Preventing Ecologically Harmful Development?
- Yen-Chiang Chang & Nannan Wang, The Restructuring of the State Oceanic Administration in China: Moving Toward a More Integrated Governance Approach