La maxime ex injuria jus non oritur signifie littéralement qu’un droit ne peut pas naître d’un fait illicite. À priori, l’idée séduit par sa logique. Quoi de plus évident en effet que de prévoir, par exemple, qu’une preuve obtenue par la torture n’est pas valide ou qu’un État qui envahit le territoire d’un autre État ne peut y exercer sa souveraineté. Aussi logique qu’elle puisse paraître, cette maxime dispose cependant d’un statut bien incertain en droit international. La Cour internationale de justice ou la Commission du droit international s’y réfèrent parfois comme à un principe bien établi. Mais de nombreux auteurs doutent de son utilité pratique en soulignant le rôle prépondérant de l’effectivité en droit international. Il est vrai que dans la pratique, il arrive qu’un fait apparemment contraire au droit international donne naissance à une situation dont les États s’accommodent sans trop se préoccuper du fait illicite originel. Pour ne prendre qu’un seul exemple, l’opération militaire déclenchée en 2003 contre l’Irak a donné lieu à une administration étrangère du territoire qui a fini par être acceptée par les États même si la majorité d’entre eux considéraient que cette opération était contraire à la Charte des Nations Unies. Ces paradoxes qui animent la pratique internationale ne sont pas sans poser des interrogations qui touchent à la définition même du droit. Si on admet qu’un fait illicite puisse créer des droits, est-ce qu’on ne voue pas le système juridique à sa propre destruction ? Et si au contraire, on refuse systématiquement qu’un fait illicite puisse créer des droits, est-ce qu’on ne risque pas de creuser, trop profondément, le fossé qui sépare le droit de la réalité qu’il est censé régir ? C’est à ces différentes questions que l’ouvrage s’attelle en proposant une analyse approfondie du statut et de la portée du principe ex injuria jus non oritur en droit international contemporain.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Friday, February 19, 2016
Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time.
In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt.
Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.
Over the past two decades, as the discipline has moved into the legal mainstream, investment lawyers have engaged with many core aspects of public international law. State succession - a particularly thorny question undoubtedly belonging to the core of public international law - has so far not prompted much debate, but recent decisions in cases such as Sanum v Laos and World Wide Minerals v Kazakhstan is likely to change this. Against the background of recent cases, this article provides a comprehensive assessment of State succession issues that have arisen, or are likely to arise, in relation to investment treaties. It situates debates by outlining the general legal regime of State succession and comparing it to investment treaty practice. Surveying State practice and international jurisprudence, the article provide investment lawyers and practitioners with a guide to the key issues arising in State succession disputes.
- Stephen Humphreys, Conscience in the Datasphere
- Samuel Martinez, From Commoditizing to Commodifying Human Rights: Research on Forced Labor in Dominican Sugar Production
- Photo Essay: From in the Presence of the Holy See
- Barbara Harlow, What the Holy See Saw—And Didn't See
- Joseph Morgan Hodge, Writing the History of Development (Part 1: The First Wave)
- Mira L. Siegelberg, Neither Right Nor Left: Interwar Internationalism Between Justice and Order
- Maame A.S. Mensa-Bonsu, Forty-one In One Blow! Thoughts on the Proposed Single Referendum Question to Decide the Amendment of Ghana's Constitution
- Kwame Akuffo, A Subaltern Theory of Equity
- Nwudego Nkemakonam Chinwuba, Filling the Gaps Between Colonial Legal Heritage and Prevailing Local Customs in Family Relations: the Place of Secret Trust
- Benhajj Shaaban Masoud, Implications of ‘BITs’ for Cross-border Insolvency Regulation in Sub-Saharan Africa
- Peter Munyi, Bram De Jong & B. Visser, Opportunities and Threats to Harmonisation of Plant Breeders' Rights in Africa: ARIPO and SADC
- Liz Lewis, Exploring the ‘Ecology’ of Laws at the Interface Between International Rights Law and Subnational Customary Law
- Andra le Roux-Kemp, The Recognition of Health Rights in Constitutions on the African Continent: a Systematic Review
- Maria Papaioannou, The EU – Africa Partnership in the Fight Against IUU Fishing
- Dinah Shelton, Legitimate and necessary: adjudicating human rights violations related to activities causing environmental harm or risk
- Evadne Grant, International human rights courts and environmental human rights: re-imagining adjudicative paradigms
- Aled Dilwyn Fisher & Maria Lundberg, Human rights' legitimacy in the face of the global ecological crisis – indigenous peoples, ecological rights claims and the Inter-American human rights system
- Dina Townsend, Taking dignity seriously? A dignity approach to environmental disputes before human rights courts
- Sean D Murphy, New Mechanisms for Punishing Atrocities in Non-International Armed Conflicts
- Margaret A Young & Sebastián Rioseco Sullivan, Evolution through the Duty to Cooperate: Implications of the Whaling Case at the International Court of Justice
- Gregory S Gordon, When ‘One Country, Two Systems’ Meets ‘One Person, One Vote’: The Law of Treaties and the Handover Narrative through the Crucible of Hong Kong’s Election Crisis
- Umair Ghori, An Epic Mess: ‘Exhaustible Natural Resources’ and the Future of Export Restraints after the China — Rare Earths Decision
- Rachel Harris & Gillian Moon, GATT Article XX and Human Rights: What Do We Know from the First 20 Years?
- Matias Thomsen, The Obligation Not to Arbitrarily Refuse International Disaster Relief: A Question of Sovereignty
- Mary Crock & Kate Bones, Australian Exceptionalism: Temporary Protection and the Rights of Refugees
- Natalie Baird, The Role of International Non-Governmental Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review of Pacific Island States: Can ‘Doing Good’ Be Done Better?
Thursday, February 18, 2016
- Special Issue: Reconsidering Appropriate Responses to Victims of Conflict
- Juan E. Méndez, Victims as Protagonists in Transitional Justice
- Pilar Riaño Alcalá & María Victoria Uribe, Constructing Memory amidst War: The Historical Memory Group of Colombia
- Tazreena Sajjad, Heavy Hands, Helping Hands, Holding Hands: The Politics of Exclusion in Victims’ Networks in Nepal
- Julie Bernath, ‘Complex Political Victims’ in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity: Reflections on the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia
- Janine Natalya Clark, Transitional Justice as Recognition: An Analysis of the Women’s Court in Sarajevo
- Peter J. Dixon, Reparations, Assistance and the Experience of Justice: Lessons from Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Margaret Urban Walker, Transformative Reparations? A Critical Look at a Current Trend in Thinking about Gender-Just Reparations
- Emily L. Camins, Needs or Rights? Exploring the Limitations of Individual Reparations for Violations of International Humanitarian Law
- Luke Moffett, Reparations for ‘Guilty Victims’: Navigating Complex Identities of Victim–Perpetrators in Reparation Mechanisms
- Huma Saeed, Victims and Victimhood: Individuals of Inaction or Active Agents of Change? Reflections on Fieldwork in Afghanistan
- Tessa Lacerda, ‘Victim’: What Is Hidden behind This Word?
- Gertrude Fester-Wicomb, Interrogator Versus Political Prisoner: Silences, Secrets and the Unsaid – A Question of Power
- Special Issue: Empirical Studies on Investment Disputes
- Cédric Dupont & Thomas Schultz, Towards a New Heuristic Model: Investment Arbitration as a Political System
- Jonathan Bonnitcha, Foreign Investment, Development and Governance: What international investment law can learn from the empirical literature on investment
- Jason Webb Yackee, Do BITs ‘Work’? Empirical Evidence from France
- Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen & Emma Aisbett, Diplomats Want Treaties: Diplomatic Agendas and Perks in the Investment Regime
- Gus Van Harten & Dayna Nadine Scott, Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada
- Rachel L. Wellhausen, Recent Trends in Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- Cédric Dupont, Thomas Schultz, & Merih Angin, Political Risk and Investment Arbitration: An Empirical Study*
- Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & David G. Victor, Secrecy in International Investment Arbitration: An Empirical Analysis
- Todd Tucker, Inside the Black Box: Collegial Patterns on Investment Tribunals
- Clint Peinhardt & Todd Allee, Political Risk Insurance as Dispute Resolution
For a country of its size, Taiwan has a tremendous influence on world affairs and U.S. policy. The U.S.-Taiwan-China Relationship in International Law and Policy describes the central issues animating the dynamic U.S.-Taiwan-China relationship and the salient international and domestic legal issues shaping U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific region. In this book, Lung-chu Chen gives particular attention to Taiwan's status under international law, and the role of the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) in the formulation and execution of U.S. policy toward Taiwan. This book endorses the central purpose of the Taiwan Relations Act—achieving a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan question—while offering policy alternatives that will empower Taiwan to participate more actively in the international arena.
This book follows in the tradition of the New Haven School of international law. As such, it defines the common interests of the world community, which include demands for human dignity and security and the protection of human rights in accordance with bedrock norms such as the right to self-determination and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Chen proposes that in accordance with international law, historical trends, and contemporary political conditions, the people of Taiwan should ultimately determine a path to normalized statehood through a plebiscite under the supervision of the international community.
- Curtis A. Bradley, Introduction: custom's future
- Emily Kadens, Custom's past
- Curtis A. Bradley, Customary international law adjudication as common law adjudication
- Brian D. Lepard, Customary international law as a dynamic process
- John Tasioulas, Custom, jus cogens, and human rights
- Stephen J. Choi & Mitu Gulati, Customary international law: how do courts do it?
- Monica Hakimi, Custom's method and process: lessons from humanitarian law
- Joel P. Trachtman, The growing obsolescence of customary international law
- C. L. Lim, The strange vitality of custom in the international protection of contracts, property, and commerce
- Larissa van den Herik, The decline of customary international law as a source of international criminal law
- Niels Petersen, Customary international law and public goods
- Andrew T. Guzman & Jerome Hsiang, Reinvigorating customary international law
- Laurence R. Helfer & Timothy Meyer, The evolution of codification: a principal-agent theory of the international law commission's influence
- Jan Wouters & Linda Hamid, Custom and informal international lawmaking
- Omri Sender & Michael Wood, Custom's bright future: the continuing importance of customary international law
- Reeve T. Bull, Neysun A. Mahboubi, Richard B. Stewart, & Jonathan B. Wiener, New Approaches to International Regulatory Cooperation: The Challenge of TTIP, TPP, and Mega-Regional Trade Agreements
- C. Boyden Gray, Upgrading Existing Regulatory Mechanisms for Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation
- Reeve T. Bull, Developing a Domestic Framework for International Regulatory Cooperation
- Robert B. Ahdieh, Coordination and Conflict: The Persistent Relevance of Networks in International Financial Regulation
- Jonathan Baert Wiener & Alberto Alemanno, The Future of International Regulatory Cooperation: TTIP as a Learning Process Toward a Global Policy Laboratory
- Robert Howse, Regulatory Cooperation, Regional Trade Agreements, and World Trade Law: Conflict or Complementarity?
- Anne Meuwese, Constitutional Aspects of Regulatory Coherence in TTIP: An EU Perspective
- Fernanda G. Nicola, The Politicization of Legal Expertise in the TTIP Negotiation
- Mariana Mota Prado & Vladimir Bertrand, Regulatory Cooperation in Latin America: The Case of Mercosur
- Francesca Bignami & Giorgio Resta, Transatlantic Privacy Regulation: Conflict and Cooperation
- Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Mapping a Hidden World of International Regulatory Cooperation
- Tessa White, From the Group of Twenty to the Group of Two: The Need for Harmonizing Derivatives Regulation Between the United States and the European Union
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
- Special Issue: Engendering Transitional Justice: Silence, Absence and Repair
- Olivera Simic, Engendering Transitional Justice: Silence, Absence and Repair
- Brandon Hamber, There Is a Crack in Everything: Problematising Masculinities, Peacebuilding and Transitional Justice
- Elisabeth Porter, Gendered Narratives: Stories and Silences in Transitional Justice
- Lia Kent, After the Truth Commission: Gender and Citizenship in Timor-Leste
- Wendy Lambourne & Vivianna Rodriguez Carreon, Engendering Transitional Justice: a Transformative Approach to Building Peace and Attaining Human Rights for Women
- Olivera Simic, Feminist Research in Transitional Justice Studies: Navigating Silences and Disruptions in the Field
International human rights law may serve as a language through which lawyers and others describe the harms resulting from corruption, but this approach has significant limitations as a legal framework. Despite a growing emphasis among scholars and practitioners on a human rights approach to the problem of corruption, this body of law does not provide a strong basis for addressing such conduct. International human rights treaties make no mention of corruption, and human rights treaty bodies have not brought conceptual clarity to the question of how corruption violates or undermines human rights. Given that human rights law binds States alone, it is also ill-suited to a phenomenon that typically occurs at the intersection of the public and private sectors. Even as a language for describing how corruption harms social and economic rights, human rights law has its limitations, some of which come into relief when compared with the field of development economics.
In the report, the Independent Expert explores the interrelationships between income and wealth inequality, on the one hand, and financial crises, on the other, and their implications for the enjoyment of human rights. He illustrates how increased levels of such inequalities may contribute to increases in sovereign debt that may subsequently degenerate into financial crises. Furthermore, he examines the reverse relationship by assessing the distributional impact of financial crises and points to severe adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights. He concludes with a set of policy recommendations designed to target economic inequality as a pressing human rights issue and a factor contributing to the emergence of financial crises.
The immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War sparked a new cosmopolitan enthusiasm for global goods, such as the environment, public health or knowledge, to be commonly governed. With the support of UNDP, a group of renowned scholars coined the term “global public goods” to express and frame the challenges urgently faced by the international community. Drawing a comparison with the literature on public goods at the level of the nation State, it was suggested that supreme international coordination was required to overcome the structural deprivation of certain public goods on a global level. The term has since then enjoyed a spectacular success and permeated much of the international policy discourse. Around the same time, many social activists across the world united around the idea that “the world was not for sale”, i.e. that not all goods were meant to be commodified, and that some areas of social life should remain governed as commons. The reference to a governance of the “(global) commons” as an alternative to both the State and the market has subsequently become central in many transnational social movements.
As a consequence, two different theoretical concepts, each relying on distinct analytical frameworks, have materialized. Although the two approaches overlap partly, they also hint at a different kind of literature and carry a different set of political, economic and legal implications. Furthermore, they put forward contrasting views on several key points, such as the role of the State, multilateral organizations (in particular the United Nations) and international law in providing global public goods and preserving the global commons. As a consequence of globalization and the perceived democratic deficit in the functioning of international organizations and global governance, an additional development soon emerged: a political discourse in support of global democracy and/or democratizing global governance. This led to a debate on the shortcomings of global governance mechanisms and how they can be addressed.
The present two-day international conference will explore the economic, legal and political underpinnings, premises and implications of global public goods and global commons for global governance institutions and international organizations, especially in relationship with the debate on their (non)-democratic nature. The conference aims to assess, from an interdisciplinary perspective, how the respective discourses surrounding global public goods and global commons diverge in their relation to global democracy, and in particular, to the advancement of democracy in global governance and international organizations. The aim is to turn the proceedings of this conference into a flagship publication.
We welcome, alongside a carefully selected cast of paper presenters, two eminent keynote speakers. Prof. Dr. Inge Kaul will open the conference with a keynote lecture on the relevance of the concept of global public goods. Subsequently, during the first day, three panels will focus on (i) an analytical comparison of both approaches in different disciplines, (ii) the role of democracy in the governance of global public goods and global commons, and (iii) the principle of the common heritage of mankind. At the beginning of the second day, Prof. Dr. Pierre Dardot will deliver a keynote lecture on the motives of his preference for the term global commons over the term global public good. Afterwards, a first panel will approach the issue of the structures of power underlying the governance of global goods. A second panel will ponder the added value of framing old issues in terms of common goods. The conference will culminate in a dialogue between Prof. Dr. Inge Kaul and Prof. Dr. Pierre Dardot and will be concluded with critical summaries by the rapporteurs.
The conference will bring new and refreshing insights to a larger interdisciplinary research programme, “Global Governance and Democratic Government”, which the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies conducts as part of its KU Leuven Centre of Excellence status. This programme involves six doctoral and two postdoctoral researchers and several associated professors working across disciplines in order to provide a political paradigm able to reconcile governance and democracy on the international scene.
- Nehal Bhuta, The Frontiers of Extraterritoriality - Human Rights as Global Law
- Aeyal Gross, The Righting of the Law of Occupation
- Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Derogations from Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict
- Tullio Treves & Cesare Pitea, Piracy, International Law, and Human Rights
- Ralph Wilde, Dilemmas in Promoting Global Economic Justice through Human Rights Law
- Jorge E. Viñuales, A Human Rights Approach to Extraterritorial Environmental Protection
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
- Thierry Garcia, Préface
- Joël-Pascal Biays, Note sur « l’état du droit en Égypte »
- Jean-Marie Rainaud, Le héros méditerranéen
- Louis Balmond, Mesures de confiance en Méditerranée : l’Union pour la Méditerranée, une nouvelle donne ?
- Laurence Boy, La qualité agroalimentaire au Liban
- Jean-Jacques Sueur, Georges Pompidou et la Méditerranée
- Thierry Garcia, Considérations sur le droit parlementaire au Royaume d’Utopia
- Jean-Claude Avquaviva, De quelques attributions méconnues du Président de la République française
What are the current challenges regarding reparations of past mass crimes? What role for the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights or for national jurisdictions? What about the victims? These issues will be discussed and debated by the panelists, who will also address lessons learned from past experiences, including South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Holocaust Reparations or the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission.
In August 2015, Kosovo established the Specialist Chambers (SC) and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) with the mandate of prosecuting international and transborder crimes committed during and after the 1998–1999 armed conflict. This article examines the founding instruments of the SC and the SPO, the influence of certain regional organizations in their creation and management, their organization, jurisdiction, legal nature and the function they exercise within the international legal system. The key question is whether the SC and the SPO may be included in existing categories of judicial entities established to deal with international criminal justice. The article concludes that they represent a regional variation of mixed criminal tribunals.
The international law governing armed conflict is at a crossroads, as the formal framework of laws designed to control the exercise of self-defense and conduct of inter-state conflict finds itself confronted with violent 21st Century disputes of a very different character. Military practitioners who seek to stay within the bounds of international law often find themselves applying bodies of law-IHRL, IHL, ICL-in an exclusionary fashion, and adherence to those boundaries can lead to a formal and often rigid application of the law that does not adequately address contemporary security challenges.
Fighting at the Legal Boundaries offers a holistic approach towards the application of the various constitutive parts of international law. The author focuses on the interaction between the applicable bodies of law by exploring whether their boundaries are improperly drawn, or are being interpreted in too rigid a fashion. Emphasis is placed on the disconnect that can occur between theory and practice regarding how these legal regimes are applied and interact with one another. Through a number of case studies, Fighting at the Legal Boundaries explores how the threat posed by insurgents, terrorists, and transnational criminal gangs often occurs not only at the point where these bodies of law interact, but also in situations where there is significant overlap. In this regard, the exercise of the longstanding right of States to defend nationals, including the conduct of operations such as hostage rescue, can involve the application of human rights based law enforcement norms to counter threats transcending the conflict spectrum.
This book has five parts: Part I sets out the security, legal, and operational challenges of contemporary conflict. Part II focuses on the interaction between the jus ad bellum, humanitarian law and human rights, including an analysis of the historical influences that shaped their application as separate bodies of law. Emphasis is placed on the influence the proper authority principle has had in the human rights based approach being favored when dealing with "criminal" non-State actors during both international and non-international armed conflict. Part III analyzes the threats of insurgency and terrorism, and the state response. This includes exploring their link to criminal activity and the phenomenon of transnational criminal organizations. Part IV addresses the conduct of operations against non-State actors that span the conflict spectrum from inter-state warfare to international law enforcement. Lastly, Part V looks at the way ahead and discusses the approaches that can be applied to address the evolving, diverse and unique security threats facing the international community.
The multilateral trading system privileges a perspective in which trade policies are appraised primarily in terms of their exchange value — their capacity to be exchanged for modifications in other countries’ trade policies — rather than their use value — their utility for the country that has adopted them. The article traces the marginalisation of use value in multilateral trade lawmaking and explores the ramifications of treating trade policies themselves as tradable commodities.
Call for Papers: Young Researchers Workshop on "The Significance of Obscured Practices and Subjects: Investigating Silences in Transnational Legal Spaces"
EISA Young Researchers Workshop
Izmir, 6 September 2016
EISA is now inviting proposals for papers for Young Researchers Workshops (YRW) linked to the next EISA Pan-European Conference in Izmir, Turkey. The workshops will be held on 6 September 2016, prior to the main conference. Young Researchers Workshops are one-day workshops organized for doctoral candidates and early career postdoc researchers.
We welcome proposals for papers for the following workshop:
The Significance of Obscured Practices and Subjects:
Investigating Silences in Transnational Legal Spaces
While research in the field of transnational law is no longer a novel practice, the way in which it is carried out still reflects a more traditional view of legal scholarship. Analyses of treaties, judgments and case notes prevail, while many crucial aspects that make up the transnational legal space remain obscured, for example: the everyday know-how and dispositions of practitioners, the practices of using maps and images in courtrooms, or even the very act of being silent itself. This workshop investigates what it means to focus on the obscured and explores how it is hidden or taken for granted. An important aspect of the workshop is to address how to approach topics that defy traditional legal categories. For example, the future child, homeless EU citizens, and bureaucratic practitioners fall outside familiar categorisations. Studying the obscured evokes both methodological questions, and questions such as: What happens if the attempt to break the silence falls on deaf ears? How does this shift of focus to particular issues bring about its own practices of silencing? Is marking something as ‘understudied’ and shedding light on the obscured a goal in and of itself? The workshop contributions both attempt to make visible what has been ignored, and moreover scrutinize what these blank spots do and how they impact our conceptualisations of international law as a field and practice. Participants contribute with a variety of topics. The interdisciplinary workshop will not primarily focus on the content of this variety, but rather on the common-held question of how and why to research silences in transnational legal spaces. The transnational here can be understood as a plural legal and societal space, which encompasses both the national and the international legal sphere and all elements that fall outside traditional legal structures but that are nevertheless crucial for understanding what ‘the law’ means in a globalizing world.
In the first part of the workshop, participants present each other’s papers. Two senior discussants, including Prof. Nik Rajkovic (Tilburg Law School), will identify common themes and points for discussion. The second part of each workshop session moves beyond the individual papers to address these common interests in a group discussion organised around the themes identified by the discussants.
We welcome 300 word abstracts to be sent to Renske Vos (University of Edinburgh) and Sofia Stolk (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam / Centre for the Politics of Transnational Law) at: email@example.com by 25 March 2016.
- Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China's Rise and the Fate of America's Global Position
- Scott L. Kastner, Is the Taiwan Strait Still a Flash Point? Rethinking the Prospects for Armed Conflict between China and Taiwan
- Ronald R. Krebs & Roy Licklider, United They Fall: Why the International Community Should Not Promote Military Integration after Civil War
- Phil Haun & Colin Jackson, Breaker of Armies: Air Power in the Easter Offensive and the Myth of Linebacker I and II in the Vietnam War
- Jack Snyder, Trade Expectations and Great Power Conflict—A Review Essay
- Charles L. Glaser, Andrew H. Kydd, Mark L. Haas, John M. Owen IV, & Sebastian Rosato, Can Great Powers Discern Intentions?
Ruys & Ferro: Divergent Views on the Content and Relevance of the Jus Ad Bellum in Europe and the United States?
The goal of this chapter is to take a critical look at the alleged transatlantic divide with regard to the content and relevance of the jus ad bellum by means of a case-study, notably from the perspective of the recourse to force by the US-led military coalition fighting against the so-called Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL, or Da’esh) in Iraq and Syria. At first sight, this case would seem to confirm the existence of such a divide, more specifically in relation to the legality of self-defense against attacks by non-State actors (such as IS) and to the validity of the so-called unable and unwilling-test. A closer analysis of the intervening States’ positions, however, instead reveals a gradual acceptance of the more expansionist interpretation of the legal framework first put forward by the United States as its “persistent advocate.” Moreover, the chapter addresses the degree of parliamentary involvement in decisions to deploy armed forces abroad. It observes how the present case seems to fit into a broader trend of increased parliamentary control over war-and-peace decisions on both sides of the Atlantic. Inasmuch as international legal arguments can and do play a role in parliamentary debates and concomitant resolutions, this trend carries the potential of contributing to the compliance pull of the jus ad bellum.
- Myles Carroll, The new agrarian double movement: hegemony and resistance in the GMO food economy
- James Ron, Archana Pandya & David Crow, Universal values, foreign money: funding local human rights organizations in the global south
- Andrew B. Kennedy, Slouching tiger, roaring dragon: comparing India and China as late innovators
- Timothy J. McKeown, A different two-level game: foreign policy officials' personal networks and coordinated policy innovation
- Abraham Newman & Elliot Posner, Transnational feedback, soft law, and preferences in global financial regulation
- Alberto Fuentes & Seth Pipkin, Self-discovery in the dark: the demand side of industrial policy in Latin America
Call for Papers: Adjudicating International Trade and Investment Disputes: Between Interaction and Isolation (Reminder)
CALL FOR PAPERS
Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes:
between interaction and isolation
Thursday and Friday 25-26 August 2016
Call for papers
1 January 2016
1 March 2016
Notifications of acceptance
15 March 2016
Draft papers due
15 August 2016
The PluriCourts Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo is organizing a conference titled ‘Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes: between interaction and isolation.’ The conference will be hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo on Thursday and Friday 25- 26 August 2016. Submission procedures and timelines are detailed at the end of this call.
This conference aims to focus on the relationship, interactions and comparisons between the international trade and investment regimes in the context of adjudication of disputes. The conference will welcome research across the disciplines of law, political science, and philosophy relating to three themes: the new mega-regionals, comparisons and practices, and cross-fertilization and learning.
Historically, the global regulation of international trade and investment relations have been closely interrelated; but in the post-war period, international trade law and international investment law developed on largely divergent paths. While international trade regulation has culminated in a multilateral regime with a permanent dispute settlement mechanism, the international regulation of foreign direct investment is primarily governed by 3500 essentially bilateral treaty relationships calling for ad hoc investor – state arbitration potentially to be hosted by a variety of international institutions. Despite these seemingly distinct structures, there is a recent trend that some say signal a move towards regime convergence: most clearly seen in the rise of mega-regional free trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters.
This potential convergence may be deceiving, however. The investment chapters of FTAs remain separate from the rest of the agreements and provide for distinct rules and procedures on dispute settlement. Moreover, issues of overlap between trade chapters and investment chapters have not been resolved, which means that the same case could possibly be raised simultaneously in two separate disputes under the same FTA. Legal disputes based on investment chapters in FTAs to date (ie under the NAFTA and DR-CAFTA) appear to interpret the investment protection chapters as standalone agreements with little or no reference to other sections of the FTAs.
Despite the limitations to integration that this new generation of trade and investment agreements may represent, there are other areas of interaction between the trade and investment regimes that could provide better evidence of a gradual move towards cohesion. This conference aims to look at the development of the new mega-regionals, but also the ways (or lack thereof) that the trade and investment regimes share practices and cross-fertilize.
Theme 1: The new mega-regionals
The first theme will focus on research relating to the increasing negotiation of mega-regional FTAs with investment chapters and what effects these agreements will or could have on the adjudication of international trade and investment disputes. The conference will seek to discuss state-of-the-art research, from both legal and social science perspectives, relating to the dispute settlement options under FTAs, including existing (inter alia NAFTA, ECT, ASEAN, DR-CAFTA) and emerging (inter alia CETA, TPP, RCEP, TISA, TTIP). Additionally, and given the EU’s recent preference for FTAs, the conference will also seek research on how the EU’s post-Lisbon trade and investment policy may have spill-over effects for the global trade and investment regimes. Papers under this theme could address the following:
- Analysis of the TPP, TTIP drafts and other recently signed FTAs: how will disputes be resolved?
- The relationship between the WTO agreements and FTA provisions: potential conflicts or cohesion in the adjudication of disputes?
- What relevance will the shift towards mega-regionals have for the legitimacy of international adjudication?
- Recent investment arbitration jurisprudence under FTAs with investment chapters: new developments?
- The proposal for a TTIP investment court: a dispute settlement mechanism for investment protection modelled on the WTO?
- The EU strategy for extra-EU BITs after Lisbon: A potential move towards multilateralization?
Theme 2: Comparisons and practices
The second theme of the conference will invite research focusing on comparisons between the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and investment treaty arbitrations tribunals; and research that focuses on the practices of WTO disputes and investment tribunals. The conference will also seek research relating to the distinct practices and structures of international trade and investment disputes may affect both their normative and sociological legitimacy. There are significant structural differences between WTO dispute resolution and investment treaty arbitration. Despite these differences, there are some similarities in the subject matter (global economic governance) that make these systems of international dispute settlement worthy of comparison. Papers under this theme could address the following:
- Are there important? Salient? differences in the appointment and selection of adjudicators in investment arbitration and WTO panels?.
- Comparative approaches in managing legitimacy: how do arbitrators, judges and institutions in trade and investment adjudication legitimize themselves?
- Public opinion and the anti-globalization movement: a valid constraint on the development of trade and investment adjudication?
- What are the roles and influences of institutional secretariats in the adjudication of trade and investment disputes?
- Litigating trade and investment disputes: what is the role of legal counsel in regime shaping and targeting?
- How have the trade and investment regimes comparatively dealt with issues of systemic interpretation and the inclusion of extra-sector concerns such as human rights and the environment?
- The possibilities for multilaterizing investment treaty law: are there lessons to be learned from the WTO?
Theme 3: Cross-fertilization and learning
The third theme will focus on the interaction between the international trade and investment regimes in the context of adjudication. The conference seeks research on how the interaction (or lack thereof) between WTO disputes, FTA trade disputes, investment treaty arbitration and other areas of international law affects the legitimacy and efficacy of international economic governance. The conference will seek both social science and legal research focusing on issues of judicial dialogue between trade and investment tribunals; and how cross-fertilization of ideas and practices between tribunals affects the development of the jurisprudence and the legitimacy of these institutions. Papers under this theme could address the following:
- Issues relating to overlapping jurisdiction: increasing fragmentation or opportunities for coherence?
- Is there judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization between trade and investment tribunals?
- Are there differences or similarities in how trade and investment tribunals deal with issues of legal interpretation and with the precedential value of previous awards?
- Treaty shopping issues in trade and investment disputes: is it actually a problem?
- The relationship between investment chapters and other chapters in FTAs: investment chapters as stand-alone agreements?
- What are the implications of the overlap between the trade in services and investment protection regimes?
We invite researchers from the disciplines of law, political science and philosophy to submit abstracts of no more than 500 words along with a CV of no more than two pages to Dr. Daniel Behn firstname.lastname@example.org by 1 March 2016. Please indicate in the subject line of the email as to which Theme your abstract corresponds. Selection of papers will be based on abstracts as assessed through a blind process of a five person committee. Notification of successful applicants will be made by 15 March 2016. We will aim to select approximately 15 papers for presentation. Selected applicants will be required to submit a draft paper of 5000 to 7000 words two weeks prior to the conference. Travel funding may be available to paper presenters. Please indicate in the application your needs for funding.
- The Global Forum
- Miles Kahler, The Global Economic Multilaterals: Will Eighty Years Be Enough?
- Gregory T. Chin, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Governance Innovation and Prospects
- Abiodun Williams, John Holmes Memorial Lecture
- Kai Michael Kenkel & Cristina G. Stefan, Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support
- John Langmore and Jeremy Farrall, Can Elected Members Make a Difference in the UN Security Council? Australia’s Experience in 2013-2014
- Kundai Sithole, NGO-IGO Relations: Amnesty International, Council of Europe, and Abolition of the Death Penalty
- Richard W. Mansbach & Ellen B. Pirro, Putting the Pieces Together: International and EU Institutions After the Economic Crisis
- Liam Clegg, Contesting Sovereignty: Informal Governance and the Battle over Military Expenditure at the IMF
- Victoria Brereton & Bonita Ayuko, Negotiating Security: Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement and Kenya’s Political Accord
- David Bosco, Palestine in the Hague: Justice, Geopolitics, and the International Criminal Court
Monday, February 15, 2016
- Peter Hilpold, Einführung
- Peter Hilpold, Selbstbestimmung und Autonomie – Zwischen Sezession und innerer Selbstbestimmung
- Hans-Joachim Heintze, Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker als Herausforderung des souveränitätsorientierten Völkerrechts – Autonomie als Konfliktlösungsmechanismus
- Rein Müllerson, One Man’s Separatist – Another Man’s Independantist – Self-determination claims from Scotland to Ukraine
- Markku Suksi, The Referendum as an Instrument for the Resolution of Territorial Disputes and for the Exercise of Self-Determination
- Ulrike Haider-Quercia, Vom Prinzip der Unteilbarkeit des Staatsgebietes zur verhandelten Unabhängigkeit – Die verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung von Separationsbewegungen in westeuropäischen Autonomiesystemen
- Christoph Perathoner, Die Südtirol-Autonomie als internationales Referenzmodell? – Die internationale Absicherung und die Verallgemeinerungsfähigkeit der Südtiroler Errungenschaften
- Hannes Hofmeister & Belen Olmos Giupponi, “Conscious uncoupling” – Legal Aspects of Scot Independence
- Eugenia López-Jacoiste, Autonomy and Self-determination in Spain: Catalonia’s claims for Independence from the Perspective of International Law
- Xabier Arzoz, Autonomie und Selbstbestimmung in Spanien aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht
- Antonello Tancredi, Italian Approaches to Self-determination: Theory and Practice
- Stefan Oeter, Die Kurden zwischen Diskriminierung, Autonomie und Selbstbestimmung
- Daniel Turp, The Principle of Autonomy, the Right to Self-determination and the Case of Québec
- Giuseppe Nesi, Statehood, Self-determination and International Criminal Justice – A Few Remarks
- Marco Pertile, Economic Self-Determination in the 21st Century: Tracing the Origin and the Evolution of a Chameleonic Concept
24th Annual Conference of the
Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law
Canberra, 30 June - 2 July 2016
International Law of the Everyday:
Fieldwork, Friction & Fairness
The 24th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) will take place from Thursday 30 June 2016 to Saturday 2 July 2016 at University House, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. The Conference Organising Committee now invites proposals for papers to be presented at the Conference, either individually, or as a panel proposal.
Call for Papers & Panel Proposals: Deadline 26 February 2016
Much is made of international law’s chequered past and vaulting (or sometimes despairing) visions for the future. Yet international law also has a rich and variegated present and informs daily life in many ways. These senses of the present will be the focus of this year’s ANZSIL Conference. Participants are invited to reflect on what comprises the everyday of international law and how international law shapes the everyday. Is the former, for instance, made up of states’ reporting and meeting under multilateral treaties; the cyclical, ritualised work of international institutions; the rhythms of claim and counter-claim characteristic of dispute resolution; the routine advisory work of international lawyers embedded in corporate, public sector, military or advocacy environments; the mostly unseen work of consular servicing and diplomatic protection carried out by governments; the implementation and monitoring of sanctions regimes; popular mobilisation of international legal argument in the media and public debate; the operationalization of international law by NGOs and others working in the field; the familiar dramas of the classroom or the conference room; or something else? How does international legal normativity get enacted, affirmed or called into question in such mundane settings and how might we compare and contrast the versions of international law so produced? And how do these various activities register in daily lives commonly understood in national or local terms? Can we, indeed, conceive of an everyday or a present for, of or around international law at all, when the conditions under which people live across the globe are marked by such disparity? What is at stake in assembling a particular moment – a “now” – in which international law might operate and what is the history of the present international law purports to inhabit? Can international law speak meaningfully to quotidian concerns – the question of how to live any one day – and what guidance (if any) does it offer in that respect? What are, or should be, international lawyers’ most pressing tasks for the here and now?
The Conference Organising Committee invites paper submissions reflecting on these themes in any area of public and private international law including (but not limited to): human rights; the law of the sea; international humanitarian law; international trade law; international investment law; international financial regulation; international environmental law; international criminal law; global administrative law; diplomatic and consular law; international legal pedagogy; international legal theory; international legal history; anthropologies, sociologies or geographies of international law; and/or the ethics or politics of international law. Also invited are proposals for panels comprised of three to four papers in circumstances where the presenters concerned are already in conversation, or would find it useful to be so assembled. Please also note that the Conference Organising Committee has decided that all panels will contain balanced gender representation. Those proposing panels are also invited to seek out a diversity of presenters in other respects as well; the Conference Organising Committee would particularly like to encourage collaboration among those at different stages of their careers and/or from different types of workplace, discipline or sub-discipline, as applicable. In the tradition of ANZSIL Conferences, the Conference Organising Committee also invites and welcomes proposals on international law topics not connected to the conference theme.
Submission of Paper Proposals
Those proposing papers for presentation at the Conference should submit a single document comprised of:
- a one page abstract;
- a one page curriculum vitae of the presenter; and
- 150-200 words of bio-data (for possible inclusion in the conference program).
Submission of Panel Proposals
Those proposing panels for presentation at the Conference should submit a single document comprised of:
- 150-200 words explaining the rationale and theme of the panel; and
- three or four paper proposals, including in each case the information requested above.
The information requested above should be submitted in a single document by email to the ANZSIL Secretariat (email@example.com) no later than Friday, 26 February 2016. Please include the heading on your email message ‘ANZSIL Conference 2016 Proposal: [Your Name]’. The Conference Organising Committee will inform applicants of the outcome of their proposals by the end of March 2016. Further information about the Conference, including program and registration details, will be available on the ANZSIL website.
- Todd Landman, Rigorous Morality: Norms, Values, and the Comparative Politics of Human Rights
- Başak Çali, Nazila Ghanea, & Benjamin Jones, Big Promises, Small Gains: Domestic Effects of Human Rights Treaty Ratification in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council
- Jeffrey Davis, Uncloaking Secrecy: International Human Rights Law in Terrorism Cases
- Petrice R. Flowers, International Human Rights Norms in Japan
- Tom Farer & Frederic Bernard, Killing by Drone: Towards Uneasy Reconciliation with the Values of a Liberal State
- Elizabeth Baisley, Reaching the Tipping Point?: Emerging International Human Rights Norms Pertaining to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
- Rosa Freedman & Jacob Mchangama, Expanding or Diluting Human Rights?: The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates
- Joseph Weber & Linjun Fan, How Chinese Journalism Students View Domestic and Foreign Media: A Survey on Credibility, Censorship, and the Role of the Communist Party in Media
- Ron Haviv, Photojournalist Ron Haviv’s Response to Martin Lukk and Keith Doubt: Bearing Witness and the Limits of War Photojournalism: Ron Haviv in Bijeljina
- Martin Lukk & Keith Doubt, Response to Ron Haviv
Im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht stehen staatliche Regulierungsmaßnahmen und der materielle Schutz ausländischer Investoren in einem natürlichen Spannungsverhältnis. Mit Hilfe der rechtstheoretischen Grundlagen des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit zeigt die Arbeit, dass die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung Investor-Staat-Schiedsgerichten eine Struktur vorgibt, welche sie auf Tatbestandsebene zu einer umfassenden Würdigung der gegenläufigen Interessen zwingt. Im Einzelfall kann auf dieser Grundlage eine rationale Vorrangentscheidung zwischen den jeweiligen Interessen getroffen werden, weshalb der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit prozedural einen Interessenausgleich schafft. Die Struktur der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung könnte daher im europäischen Investitionsschutzrecht die Voraussehbarkeit der Investor-Staat-Rechtsprechung durch Schiedsgerichte erhöhen. Dies würde einen Beitrag dazu leisten, die Legitimität der Investor-Staat-Rechtsprechung im europäischen Investitionsschutzrecht zu fördern.
À quoi sert le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU ? Quel est son bilan ? Quels sont ses pouvoirs, ses méthodes ? Quel rôle pour la France en son sein ? Peut-on, faut-il le réformer, et comment ? Le droit de veto est-il légitime ? Cet organe majeur de la société internationale, juridiquement maître de la guerre et de la paix, politiquement tributaire des grandes puissances, est souvent méconnu, critiqué, décrié. À tort ou à raison ? Le présent ouvrage réunit les contributions de diplomates et universitaires spécialistes de ces questions.
Avec les contributions de Pierre Bodeau-Livinec, Mouloud Boumghar, Arthur Boutellis, Olivier de Frouville, Alain Dejammet, Jean-Marc de La Sablière, Namie di Razza, Michel Foucher, Paul Gacem, Richard Gowan, Maryline Grangé, Jean-Baptiste Jeangène-Vilmer, Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, Patrice Sartre, Anaïs Schill, Serge Sur, Thierry Tardy, Paul D. Williams
- James Crawford, Responsibility, Fraternity, and Sustainability in International Law
- Suzanne Lalonde, The Right of Overflight above International Straits
- Elise Hansbury & Bernard Duhaime, Les enjeux de la corruption sur le continent américain: une réflexion sur le rôle du Système interaméricain de protection des droits humains dans la consolidation des politiques de lutte contre la corruption
- Sara Wharton, Redrawing the Line? Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community beyond the Rome Statute
- Frédéric Mégret & Raphaël Girard, Diasporas, Extraterritorial Representation, and the Right to Vote
- Yves Hamuli Kabumba, L’élément politique des crimes contre l’humanité: État des lieux de la jurisprudence de la Cour pénale internationale
- Jean-Michel Marcoux, Beyond Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: The Host State’s Capacity to Regulate Extractive Activities in Light of Canadian Firms’ Experience in International Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Rosemary Hollis, Palestine and the Palestinians in British political elite discourse: From ‘The Palestine Problem’ to ‘the Two-State Solution’
- Nicholas Ross Smith, The EU under a realist scope: Employing a neoclassical realist framework for the analysis of the EU’s Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement offer to Ukraine
- Malte Gephart, Local embedding of international discourse: Chile and the international and transnational anti-corruption campaign
- Stefano Recchia, Why seek international organisation approval under unipolarity? Averting issue linkage vs. appeasing Congress
- Jamal Barnes, The ‘war on terror’ and the battle for the definition of torture
- JHHW, On My Way Out – Advice to Young Scholars II: Career Strategy and the Publication Trap; Roll of Honour; In this Issue
- Yishai Beer, Humanity Considerations Cannot Reduce War’s Hazards Alone: Revitalizing the Concept of Military Necessity
- Helen Keller & Cedric Marti, Reconceptualizing Implementation: The Judicialization of the Execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments
- Anna Dolidze, Bridging Comparative and International Law: Amicus Curiae Participation as a Vertical Legal Transplant
- Ruth Rubio-Marín & Mathias Möschel, Anti-Discrimination Exceptionalism: Racist Violence before the ECtHR and the Holocaust Prism
- An Hertogen, Letting Lotus Bloom
- For the Classroom
- John R. Morss, The International Legal Status of the Vatican/Holy See Complex
- Roaming Charges: Moments of Dignity: Shoemaker at Work, Tel Aviv
- Afterword: Jan Klabbers and His Critics
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Functionalism! Functionalism! Do I Look Like Functionalism?
- André Nollkaemper, Saving the Scarecrow
- Guy Fiti Sinclair, The Original Sin (and Salvation) of Functionalism
- Jan Klabbers, The Transformation of International Organizations Law: A Rejoinder
- EJIL: Debate!
- Erika de Wet, The Modern Practice of Intervention by Invitation in Africa and Its Implications for the Prohibition of the Use of Force
- Dino Kritsiotis, Interrogations of Consent: A Reply to Erika de Wet
- Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
- Ronagh J.A. McQuigg, Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Issue: Rumor v. Italy
Sunday, February 14, 2016
- S. Erin Brewer & J. Sáenz Andujo, Torture, Military Jurisdiction and Conventionality Control: The Evolving Use of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores to Challenge Endemic Human Rights Violations in the Mexican Justice System
- F. Seatzu, Speculating on the Future of the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) After Mohamad and Kiobel
- G. Miniuci, Amnesty Laws and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- B. Arp, La jurisprudencia de los órganos internacionales de derechos humanos sobre el derecho al contacto entre niños y padres, y la obligación de pronta restitución de menores en caso de secuestro internacional
- J.L. Caballero Ochoa & M. Aguilar Contreras, New Trends on the Right to Non-Discrimination in the Inter-American System of Human Rights
- J. Murillo Chávarro, The Emergence of the Right to Water in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- J. Sarkin, The Need to Deal with All Missing Persons Including those Missing as a Result of Armed Conflict, Disasters, Migration, Human Trafficking, and Human Rights Violations (including Enforced Disappearances) in International and Domestic Law and Processes