Saturday, April 30, 2016
Friday, April 29, 2016
- Special Issue: International Organizations and Member State Responsibility – Critical Perspectives
- Ana Sofia Barros, Cedric Ryngaert & Jan Wouters, Member States, International Organizations and International Responsibility
- Ramses A. Wessel & Ige F. Dekker, Identities of States in International Organizations
- Niels Blokker, Member State Responsibility for Wrongdoings of International Organizations
- Ana Sofia Barros, Member States and the International Legal (Dis)order
- Catherine Brölmann, Member States and International Legal Responsibility
- Jean d’Aspremont, International Responsibility and the Constitution of Power
- Tom Dannenbaum, Dual attribution in the context of military operations
- Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Sharing Responsibility for UN Targeted Sanctions
- Esa Paasivirta, The Responsibility of Member States of International Organizations?
- Paolo Palchetti, Litigating Member State Responsibility
- Francesco Messineo, The Invocation of Member State Responsibility before National and International Courts
- Cedric Ryngaert, The Responsibility of Member States of International Organizations
Kendall & Nouwen: Speaking of Legacy: Toward an Ethos of Modesty at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
This paper is the longer version of an article that will appear in a Symposium in the American Journal of International Law on the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Even before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had closed down, there was already much talk about its legacy. This article demonstrates a sharp contrast between the ambiguities of what is and can be known about the Tribunal's legacy and the certainty of the assertions made in the field and by the Tribunal itself about what it will have been. Building on social theorist Zygmunt Bauman's work on "bids for immortality", we identify the phenomenon of "legacy talk": attempts to consolidate a set of interpretations about the substance and value of what is left prior to the departure of the legator.
International Organization in Time investigates why reformers often pledge to unify international organizations (IOs), but end up fragmenting them instead. The book reconstructs the institutional history of the World Health Organization (WHO) since its creation in 1946. It theorizes the fragmentation trap, which is both a cause and a consequence of reform failure in the WHO. A comparison between the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) illustrates the relevance of path dependence and fragmentation across the United Nations (UN) system. As the UN approaches its 70th anniversary, this book helps to understand the path dependent dynamics that reformers encounter in international organizations.
Intelligence activity is — or, more accurately, was — the last bastion of foreign relations unconstrained by international law. States could steal diplomatic secrets, covertly assess rivals’ military capabilities, and disseminate propaganda inside other states without fear of international legal sanction. This absence of regulation made sense as long as a state’s intelligence activities were primarily directed at foreign states and their officials. However, intelligence activity now implicates private actors as never before, as states engage in bulk data collection, steal secrets from corporations, and expand their focus on non-state actors such as terrorist groups. As a result, some states and advocates now are pressing for a formalist approach to international law, claiming that states should interpret various bodies of existing international law as applicable to state intelligence activities. Others contend that intelligence activities will and should remain untouched by international legal constraint. Both approaches are flawed: the realpolitik view of the (non-existent) relationship between intelligence and international legal constraints is unsustainable and creates troubling legal black holes. The formalist view fails to acknowledge important reasons why state-on-state intelligence activities are distinct from diplomatic and military actions that states view as constrained by international law.
This Article identifies a better way to mediate the relationship between intelligence and international law. Rather than rejecting international law altogether or, alternatively, imposing a rigid legal framework on intelligence activity, it argues that states should differentiate between international laws that protect individuals against tangible harm (such as international humanitarian law and human rights treaties) and those that protect states against harms that are often dignitary (such as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity). The Article proposes a sliding interpretive scale whereby states engaged in intelligence activity have less freedom to interpret and apply individually-focused international rules and more freedom to interpret state-protective rules. It also illustrates how several states have begun to pursue this approach in practice. Ultimately, this Article argues that states and human rights advocates both must adapt — in different ways — their expectations about the proper role of international law in the world of intelligence operations.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
- Scientific Articles
- Ahmed Khayre, Politics of Justice, Human Rights and Reconciliation in the Collapsed State of Somalia
- Stella Ageli, Private Military Companies (PMCs) and International Criminal Law: Are PMCs the New Perpetrators of International Crimes?
- Eva Manco, Protecting the Child’s Right to Participate in Criminal Justice Proceedings
- Special Issue: Terrorism Investigations and Prosecutions in Comparative Law
- Francesca Galli, Valsamis Mitsilegas & Clive Walker, Terrorism investigations and prosecutions in comparative law
- John R. Spencer, Adversarial vs inquisitorial systems: is there still such a difference?
- Michele Panzavolta, Of hearsay and beyond: is the Italian criminal justice system an adversarial system?
- Genevieve Lennon, Stop and search powers in UK terrorism investigations: a limited judicial oversight?
- Clive Walker, Post-charge questioning in UK terrorism cases: straining the adversarial process
- Francesca Galli, The interception of communication in France and Italy – what relevance for the development of English law?
- Dan Squires, Terrorism and pre-emptive civil processes
Faude: Von Konkurrenz zu Arbeitsteilung: Komplexität und Dynamik im Zusammenspiel internationaler Institutionen
Das internationale System besteht aus einer Vielzahl von Institutionen, die häufig in ihren Funktionen überlappen, aber nicht in eine hierarchische Ordnung eingebettet sind. Ob diese institutionelle Komplexität zwischenstaatliche Zusammenarbeit stärkt oder schwächt, ist eine viel diskutierte Frage. Indem Benjamin Faude zeigt, dass funktional überlappenden internationalen Institutionen die Tendenz zur Herausbildung einer Arbeitsteilung inhärent ist, widerspricht er all denen, die von einer Schwächung internationaler Institutionen sprechen.
- Jacqueline Peel & David Fisher, International Law at the Intersection of Environmental Protection and Disaster Risk Reduction
- Lisa Grow Sun, Climate Change and the Narrative of Disaster
- Daniel Farber, Disaster Law in the Anthropocene
- Rosemary Lyster, A Capabilities Approach to Defining Climate Disasters
- Anne Siders, Resilient Incoherence – Seeking Common Language for Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Sustainable Development
- Cinnamon P. Carlarne, Disastrous Adaptation
- Denis Edwards, Disaster Risk Assessment: An Appraisal of European Union Environmental Law
- A. Dan Tarlock, The Potential Role of International Environmental and Water Law to Prevent and Mitigate Water-Related Disasters
- Mary Picard, Water Treaty Regimes as a Vehicle for Cooperation to Reduce Water-related Disaster Risk - The Case of Southern Africa and the Zambesi Basin
- Arden Rowell & Lesley Wexler, Valuing Foreign Disasters in International Environmental Law
- Michael G. Faure, Liability and Compensation as Instruments of Disaster Risk Mitigation?
- Nicholas A. Robinson, The UN SDGs and Environmental Law: Cooperative Remedies for Natural Disaster Risks
- Carl Bruch, Rene Nijenhuis & Shanna N. McClain, International Frameworks Governing Environmental Emergency Preparedness and Response: An Assessment of Approaches
- Hari M. Osofsky, Jessica Shadian & Sara L. Fechtelkotter, Preventing and Responding to Arctic Offshore Drilling Disasters: The Role of Hybrid Cooperation
- Anastasia Telesetsky, Overlapping International Disaster Law Approaches with International Environmental Law Regimes to Address Latent Ecological Disaster
- Robert McCorquodale, Defining the International Rule of Law: Defying Gravity?
- Colin RG Murray & Aoife O'Donoghue, Towards Unilateralism? House of Commons Oversight of the Use of Force
- Daniel Costelloe, Treaty Succession in Annexed Territory
- Berk Demirkol, Ordering Cessation of Court Proceedings to Protect the Integrity of Arbitration Agreements Under the Brussels I Regime
- Cecily Rose, The Limitations of a Human Rights Approach to Corruption
- Man Yip, The Resolution of Disputes Before the Singapore International Commercial Court
- Shorter Articles and Notes
- Ardavan Arzandeh, Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine
- Lavanya Rajamani, Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative Possibilities and Underlying Politics
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
- Hans-W. Micklitz, The Internal vs the External Dimension of European Private Law: A Conceptual Design and a Research Agenda
- Marise Cremona, A Triple Braid- Interactions between International Law, EU Law, and Private Law
- Christiaan Timmermans, The Specificity of Private Law in EU External Relations: The Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice
- Stéphanie Francq, The External Dimension of Rome I and Rome II: Neutrality of Schizophrenia?
- Etienne Pataut, The External Dimension of International Family Law
- Niilo Jääskinen & Angela Ward, The External Reach of EU Private Law in the Light of L'Oreal v eBay and Google and Google Spain
- Stefan Grundmann, EU Contract and Company Law with Global Reach?
- Jan Wouters & Jed Odermatt, International Banking Standards, Private Law, and the European Union
- Antonio Marcacci, The EU in the Transnational Financial Regulatory Arena - The Case of IOSCO
- Jules Stuyck & Mateja Djurovic, The External Dimension of EU Consumer Law
- Anna-Alexandra Marhold, EU Regulatory Private Law in the Energy Community: The Synergy between the CEER and the ECRB in Facilitating Customer Protection
- Marco Rizzi, Non-Measurable Negotiations: The EU between Transnational Regulation of Pharmaceuticals and Private Law
Hiroshima Peace Research Journal
Call for Papers for Vol. 4
Announcement from the Editorial Board of the Hiroshima Peace Research Journal,
Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
Call for Contributions to a Special Issue
Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Vol. 4 (2017) will compile a special issue on the non-international armed conflict and refugee issues. We also invite articles on other topics. Those interested in contributing an article on this topic should follow the Submission Guidelines on our website or the last page of Hiroshima Peace Research Journal, Vol. 3 (2016).
The deadline is 15th. September, 2016. Submissions should be made via e-mail to : firstname.lastname@example.org
- Gary N. Horlick, Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Corey L. Norton, A U.S. Perspective on TPP: Prosperity through Market Access, Plus Many New Areas to Debate
- Mariana Pendás & Eduardo Mathison, TPP and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Intertwined Spectrum of Options for Investors?
- Robert Ireland, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Tobacco Carve-Out Precedent
- Andrew Hudson, The Australian TPP Experience – The Same but Different
- Ian Gault & Andy Glenie, New Zealand and the TPP
- Stefano Pellegrino & Mark Fraser, Impact of the TPP on Trade and Investment in Vietnam
- Kala Anandarajah. Trans-Pacific Partnership and Singapore – Not Just Another Free Trade Agreement
- Kuok Yew Chen & Tracy Wong, The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Malaysia
- Rafael Vergara, Matías Vergara, & Patricio Laporta, Possible Trans-Pacific Partnership Implications for Chilean International Trade
- Miguel Adolfo Rodriguez Cuadros, TPP Opportunities for Peruvian Exporters and Importers: Some Ideas to Optimize the Supply Chain of Products and Some Thoughts about the Agreement
- Turenna Ramirez Ortiz, The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Mexico’s Perspective and Expectations
- Clifford Sosnow & Leslie Milton, Trans-Pacific Partnership: Key Takeaways on Canada
- Peter Marcus Kristensen, Discipline admonished: On International Relations fragmentation and the disciplinary politics of stocktaking
- Martijn Konings, Governing the system: Risk, finance, and neoliberal reason
- Andrew Walter, Open economy politics and international security dynamics: Explaining international cooperation in financial crises
- Deepshikha Shahi & Gennaro Ascione, Rethinking the absence of post-Western International Relations theory in India: ‘Advaitic monism’ as an alternative epistemological resource
- Lisel Hintz, “Take it outside!” National identity contestation in the foreign policy arena
- Alan Shiu Cheung Kwan, Hierarchy, status and international society: China and the steppe nomads
- ) Julia Gallagher, Creating a state: A Kleinian reading of recognition in Zimbabwe’s regional relationships
- Roos Haer & Tobias Böhmelt, Child soldiers as time bombs? Adolescents’ participation in rebel groups and the recurrence of armed conflict
- Travis Nelson & M. Patrick Cottrell, Sport without referees? The power of the International Olympic Committee and the social politics of accountability
- Morten Ougaard, The reconfiguration of the transnational power bloc in the crisis
- Fatou B. Bensouda, Foreword
- Richard H. Steinberg, Preface
- Part I. Jurisdiction: The 2008-2009 Gaza Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the 2008-2009 Gaza Jurisdiction Issue
- George P. Fletcher, No Jurisdictional Basis for an Investigation Pursuant to the Palestinian Declaration;
- Marlies Glasius, Press Releases, Not Arrest Warrants: Interpreting the ICC Prosecutor’s Moves in Relation to the Gaza Situation
- Michael Kearney, Palestine and the International Criminal Court: Asking the Right Question
- John Quigley, Palestine is a State so the Consent Declaration is a Valid Basis for Investigation by the ICC
- Yaël Ronen, Statehood and Recognition: Not a Matter for the ICC Prosecutor
- Part II. Obligation to Arrest: The Darfur Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction: The Obligation to Arrest in the Darfur Context
- Dapo Akande, The Genocide Convention Provides an Alternative Basis for the Obligation to Arrest Al Bashir
- Paola Gaeta, Head of State Immunity as a Bar to Arrest
- Makau W. Mutua, Closing the “Impunity Gap” and the Role of State Support of the ICC
- William A. Schabas, State Obligations in Implementing Arrest Warrants
- Göran Sluiter, State “Cooperation Issues” in Arresting Al Bashir
- Part III. The Oversight Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the Oversight Issue
- José E. Alvarez, The Proposed Independent Oversight Mechanism for the International Criminal Court
- Nicholas Richard Cowdery, The Independent Oversight Mechanism Does Not Have Authority to Investigate and Decide Alleged Misconduct by Staff in the Office of the Prosecutor
- Max du Plessis & Christopher Gevers, The Role of the Assembly of States Parties for the ICC
- Akbar Khan, Establishing a Transparent and Effective Oversight Machinery and the Need for Constructive Dialogue Between the Assembly, Court Officials, and Civil Society
- Harmen Van der Wilt, A Reasonable Request: Requiring Prosecutor Authorization Prior to Any Investigation by the Independent Oversight Mechanism
- Part IV. Deterrence: The Prevention Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the Prevention Issue: Enhancing Deterrence
- Kenneth Anderson, The ICC Would Increase Its Prevention Ability If the Prosecutor’s Discretion Were More Visibly Limited
- Tomer Broude, The Court Should Avoid All Considerations of Deterrence and Instead Focus on Creating a Credible and Legitimate Normative Environment in which Serious Crimes Are Not Tolerated
- William W. Burke-White, Maximizing the ICC's Crime Prevention Impact Through Positive Complementarity and Hard-nosed Diplomacy
- Richard J.Goldstone, The Crime Prevention Potential of the ICC Depends Upon its Credibility and the Support it Receives from Governments and States Parties to the Rome Treaty
- David Scheffer, Maximizing Opportunities to Deter Further Atrocity Crimes
- Part V. The Reparations Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the Reparations Issue
- M. Cherif Bassiouni, Victims’ Rights and Participation in ICC Proceedings and in Emerging Customary International Law
- Carla Ferstman, The ICC Should Avoid Paternalistic or Bureaucratic Approaches to Determining Victims' Needs and Wants and Should Award Reparations to Promote Victims' Dignity and Agency
- Saul Levmore, Reparations in the Wake of Atrocities: A Plan for Encouraging Participation by Governments
- Frédéric Mégret, Reparations Before the ICC: the Need for Pragmatism and Creativity
- Eric A. Posner, A Minimalist Reparations Regime for the International Criminal Court
- Part VI. Proof: The Mass Rape Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction: Proving Mass Rape
- Kelly Dawn Askin, Can the ICC Sustain a Conviction for the Underlying Crime of Mass Rape without Testimony from Victims?
- Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Cases of Mass Sexual Violence Can Be Proven Without Direct Victim Testimony
- John Hagan, The Use of Sample Survey Interviews as Evidence of Mass Rape
- Ruth Wedgwood, ICC Prosecution of Mass Rape Crimes Will Require Some Evidence from Victims, but the Hardship of Testifying can be Mitigated
- Part VII. Bias? The Africa Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the Africa Issue: Is the ICC Biased?
- M. Cherif Bassiouni & Douglass Hansen, The Inevitable Practice of the Office of the Prosecutor
- Kamari Maxine Clarke, Is the ICC Targeting Africa Inappropriately or is it Justified?
- Margaret M. deGuzman, Is the ICC Targeting Africa Inappropriately?: A Moral, Legal and Sociological Assessment
- Charles Achaleke Taku, International Politics and Policy Considerations for the Inappropriate Targeting of Africa by the ICC OTP Chief
- Jessica Peake, The Institutional Framework of the Office of the Prosecutor, Legitimacy, and Overcoming Bias Allegations
- Abdul Tejan-Cole, Is the ICC’s Exclusively African Case Docket a Legitimate and Appropriate Intervention or an Unfair Targeting of Africans?
- Part VIII. The Arrest Issue
- Richard H. Steinberg, Introduction to the Arrest Issue
- Beth Van Schaak, ICC Fugitives: The Need for Bespoke Solutions
- Richard Dicker, Ramping Up Strategies for the ICC Arrests: A Few Lessons Learned
- Cedric Ryngaert, Some Reflections on Securing the Arrest of ICC Fugitives
- Tom Parker, Pollyannas Need Not Apply: International Justice is, to a Certain Extent, Political Justice
- Nadia Banteka, The Prosecutor May Increase Rates in the Apprehension of Suspects and Therefore Secure Higher Levels of Judicial Enforcement by Appreciating and Capitalizing on her Political Role and the Realities Surrounding It
- Special Issue: The SDGs and International Environmental Law
- Pamela S. Chasek, Lynn M. Wagner, Faye Leone, Ana-Maria Lebada & Nathalie Risse, Getting to 2030: Negotiating the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda
- Rakhyun E. Kim, The Nexus between International Law and the Sustainable Development Goals
- Birgit Lode, Philipp Schönberger & Patrick Toussaint, Clean Air for All by 2030? Air Quality in the 2030 Agenda and in International Law
- Otto Spijkers, The Cross-fertilization between the Sustainable Development Goals and International Water Law
- Marcos Orellana, Governance and the Sustainable Development Goals: The Increasing Relevance of Access Rights in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration
- Åsa Persson, Nina Weitz & Måns Nilsson, Follow-up and Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: Alignment vs. Internalization
- Regular Articles
- Roland Ismer & Manuel Haussner, Inclusion of Consumption into the EU ETS: The Legal Basis under European Union Law
- Benedikt Pirker, Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the Aarhus Convention's Effects in the EU Legal Order: No Room for Nuanced Self-executing Effect?
- Nicolas C. Bremer, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment of Large Dams in the Euphrates–Tigris Region: An Analysis of International Law Binding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey
- William Onzivu, Rethinking Transnational Environmental Health Governance in Africa: Can Adaptive Governance Help?
- Case Note
- Marjan Peeters, Urgenda Foundation and 886 Individuals v. The State of the Netherlands: The Dilemma of More Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action by EU Member States
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
- Intelligence! Konflikte und Konfliktvermeidung durch Informationsgewinnung
- Konstantin von Notz, Der demokratische Rechtsstaat und das Geheimnis der Dienste – Neubewertung eines Spannungsverhältnisses
- Steffen Augsberg, Der Transparenz(alb)traum
- Felix Bieker, Geheimdienste vor Gericht – die gerichtliche Aufarbeitung der massenhaften Überwachung im Vereinigten Königreich und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention
- Witold Mucha, Nur Vasall in Washingtons Gnaden? Informationsgewinnung, Konflikt und Konfliktvermeidung durch den BND
- Pierre Thielbörger & Robin Ramsahye, Hybrid Warfare: zwischen Cyber-Attacken und Manipulation von Informationen
- Renate Kicker, Funktion und Bedeutung von Vertraulichkeit im Menschenrechts-Monitoring – Ein Praxisbericht
- S.I. Strong, Reasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law Dichotomy
- Charles W. Mooney, Jr., A Framework for a Formal Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism: The Kiss Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and Other Guiding Principles
- Odysseas G. Repousis, On Territoriality and International Investment Law: Apply China’s Investment Treaties to Hong Kong and Macao
This two-day conference will bring together for the first time leading academic and practising lawyers to pool knowledge and share perspectives on the changing relationship between public international law and domestic public law in different jurisdictions.
Organised by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the Melbourne Law School (MLS), this event will allow a constructive dialogue on how national public law and public international law and practice should and must co-exist, combining theory with case studies and the experience of practitioners.
An initiative of this kind is badly needed. It is trite that 21st century globalisation is characterised by an interpenetration of domestic public law and international law. It is also characterised by shifting boundaries between public and private spheres of activity at both the international and national levels. The concept of 'global constitutionalism' is used by some in an attempt to capture the implications of these developments for one or both spheres but does not do them justice. Terms of this kind draw attention to the reality of some significant change but mask disagreement over its extent, nature and consequences. Generalisation has inhibited a deeper understanding of what really is going on in this complex and diverse terrain. Focussed dialogue between public lawyers and international lawyers is needed to pool knowledge and share perspectives and to examine how, in present conditions, the two bodies of law and practice can and should co-exist. This event is designed to provide the impetus for a more informed debate which connects theory and doctrine with practice, drawing on the insights that case studies provide.
- Jeffrey Kahn, “Protection and Empire”: The Martens Clause, State Sovereignty, and Individual Rights
- John J. Merriam, Affirmative Target Identification: Operationalizing the Principle of Distinction for U.S. Warfighters
- William J. Moon, The Original Meaning of the Law of Nations
- J. Benton Heath, Global Emergency Power in the Age of Ebola
- Neha Jain, Judicial Lawmaking and General Principles of Law in International Criminal Law
- Odette Lienau, The Challenge of Legitimacy in Sovereign Debt Restructuring
- Rebecca Ingber, International Law Constraints as Executive Power
- JHHW, The EJIL Foreword; 10 Good Reads; Vital Statistics; EJIL’s Assistant Editors; With Gratitude – Shirley Wayne; In this Issue
- The EJIL Foreword
- Robert Howse, The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary
- Charles Leben, Hebrew Sources in the Doctrine of the Law of Nature and Nations in Early Modern Europe
- Andreas Kulick, About the Order of Cart and Horse, Among Other Things: Estoppel in the Jurisprudence of International Investment Arbitration Tribunals
- Yoshiko Naiki, Trade and Bioenergy: Explaining and Assessing the Regime Complex for Sustainable Bioenergy
- Timothy Meyer, Shifting Sands: Power, Uncertainty and the Form of International Legal Cooperation
- Roaming Charges: The Halls of Justice: At the African Court on Human and People’s Rights in Arusha, Tanzania
- Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
- Stewart Manley, Referencing Patterns at the International Criminal Court
- Catherine Brölmann & Yannick Radi, Introduction: International Lawmaking in a Global World
- Wouter G. Werner, State Consent as Foundational Myth
- Jean d’Aspremont, Subjects and Actors in International Lawmaking: The Paradigmatic Divides in the Cognition of International Norm-Generating Processes
- Dennis Patterson, Transnational Lawmaking
- Ingo Venzke, Contemporary Theories and International Lawmaking
- Kirsten Schmalenbach, Lawmaking by Treaty: Negotiation of Agreements and Adoption of Treaty Texts
- Daniel Costelloe & Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Lawmaking by Treaty: Conclusion of Treaties and Evolution of a Treaty Regimes in Practice
- Omri Sender & Michael Wood, The Emergence of Customary International Law: Between Theory and Practice
- Beatrice I. Bonafé & Paolo Palchetti, Relying on General Principles in International Law
- Ramses A. Wessel, Institutional Lawmaking: The Emergence of a Global Normative Web
- Gleider I. Hernández, International Judicial Lawmaking
- Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Domestic Judicial Lawmaking
- Mara Tignino, Quasi-Judicial Bodies
- Michael S. Barr, International Lawmaking by Hybrid Bodies: The Case of Financial Regulation
- Barbara K. Woodward, International Lawmaking and Civil Society
- Jörg Kammerhofer, Lawmaking by Scholars
- Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, The Making of International Human Rights Law
- Sergey Vasiliev, The Making of International Criminal Law
- Mary E. Footer, The Making of International Trade Law
- Francesca Romanin Jacur, The Making of International Environmental Law
- Owen McIntyre, The Making of International Natural Resources Law
Monday, April 25, 2016
- Stewart Patrick, The New “New Multilateralism”: Minilateral Cooperation, but at What Cost?
- Daniel D. Bradlow, Lessons from the Frontlines: What I Learned from My Participation in the G20
- Gregory T. Chin & Hugo Dobson, China’s Presidency of the G20 Hangzhou: On Global Leadership and Strategy (CC)
- Steven Slaughter, Building G20 Outreach: The Role of Transnational Policy Networks in Sustaining Effective and Legitimate Summitry
- Christopher Alden & Maxi Schoeman, Reconstructing South African Identity through Global Summitry
- Mike Jobbins & Floride Ahitungiye, Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention in Burundi’s 2015 Election Crisis
- Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) (Perm. Ct. Arb.), with introductory note by Theodore Kill
- Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile): Preliminary Objection (I.C.J.), with introductory note by Julian G. Ku
- Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan: Procedural Order No. 3 (ICSID), with introductory note by Diane A. Desierto
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 & Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with introductory note by Michael D. Rosenthal
- April 28, 2016: Federica Paddeu (Univ. of Cambridge), Justification and Excuse in the Law of State Responsibility: A Distinction of Pure Academic Interest?
- May 5, 2016: Markos Karavias (Univ. of Amsterdam), The Diffusion of International Law in the Global Market
- May 12, 2016: Jill Barrett (British Institute of International and Comparative Law), Rights and Duties of States in the Undelimited Maritime Area
- May 19, 2016: Guy S. Goodwin-Gill (Univ. of Oxford), The Syrian Refugee Crisis and International Law
- May 26, 2016: Mark Janis (Univ. of Connecticut), Religion and American International Law
- “Criminalization” of International Law: Impacts of International Criminal Justice on Other Fields of International Law
- Shuichi Furuya, The “Criminalization” of International Law: A Critical Overview
- Dire Tladi, Immunity in the Era of “Criminalisation”: The African Union, the ICC, and International Law
- Michael O’Flaherty & Noelle Higgins, International Human Rights Law and “Criminalization”
- Catherine Harwood, Human Rights in Fancy Dress? The Use of International Criminal Law by Human Rights Council Commissions of Inquiry in Pursuit of Accountability
- Kyo Arai, Criminalization of the Security Council
- Yutaka Arai-Takahashi, The Impact of “Criminalization” on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law — Judicial Advances of the Law of War Crimes as Salutary Osmosis? —
- Party Autonomy in Contemporary Private International Law
- Horatia Muir Watt, Party Autonomy in Global Context: The Political Economy of a Self-Constituting Regime
- Keisuke Takeshita, Critical Analysis of Party Autonomy: From a Theoretical Perspective
- Mary Keyes, Party Autonomy in Dispute Resolution: Implied Choices and Waiver in the Context of Jurisdiction
- ICJ Judgment on Whaling in the Antarctic: Its Significance and Implications
- Shigeki Sakamoto, The Whaling in the Antarctic Case from a Japanese Perspective
- Erik Franckx, The Legal Nature of Resolutions of Intergovernmental Organizations: The Contribution of the Whaling in the Antarctic Case
- Akiho Shibata, ICRW as an Evolving Instrument: Potential Broader Implications of the Whaling Judgment
- Sondre Torp Helmersen, The Sui Generis Nature of Flag State Jurisdiction
- Massimo Lando, State Jurisdiction and Immunity of Warships in the ARA Libertad Case
In United States Law and Policy on Transitional Justice: Principles, Politics, and Pragmatics, Zachary D. Kaufman explores the U.S. government's support for, or opposition to, certain transitional justice institutions. By first presenting an overview of possible responses to atrocities (such as war crimes tribunals) and then analyzing six historical case studies, Kaufman evaluates why and how the United States has pursued particular transitional justice options since World War II.
This book challenges the "legalist" paradigm, which postulates that liberal states pursue war crimes tribunals because their decision-makers hold a principled commitment to the rule of law. Kaufman develops an alternative theory-"prudentialism"-which contends that any state (liberal or illiberal) may support bona fide war crimes tribunals. More generally, prudentialism proposes that states pursue transitional justice options, not out of strict adherence to certain principles, but as a result of a case-specific balancing of politics, pragmatics, and normative beliefs. Kaufman tests these two competing theories through the U.S. experience in six contexts: Germany and Japan after World War II, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, the 1990-1991 Iraqi offenses against Kuwaitis, the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Kaufman demonstrates that political and pragmatic factors featured as or more prominently in U.S. transitional justice policy than did U.S. government officials' normative beliefs. Kaufman thus concludes that, at least for the United States, prudentialism is superior to legalism as an explanatory theory in transitional justice policymaking.
This Advanced Introduction provides both an overview and a critical assessment of international environmental law (IEL) written by one of the leading authorities in this field. An invaluable entry point to this complex area of the law, the book pinpoints essential principles and institutions and distils the vast and often technical corpus of legal doctrine whilst also offering insights that stimulate critical thinking. Covering the origins, substantive content, institutional structure and accountability mechanisms of IEL, the book discusses substantive and procedural fairness, thus exploring questions of distributive justice, accountability and legitimacy.
The post-Cold War period has witnessed a substantial increase in armed humanitarian interventions-the use of military force by one or more states, acting with or without the imprimatur of the United Nations, to stop mass atrocities in another state, generally without its consent and thus without regard to its sovereignty. The increase has three sources: the emergence of the United States as a peerless power; Western states' embrace and propagation of universal human rights norms; and the international human rights movement's dogged and effective lobbying, using national and international forums, in support of the project. The campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya demonstrate the salience humanitarian intervention has now acquired in world politics. In this new era, states' sovereign immunity is being reevaluated and intervention based on universal human rights principles has become common.
Rajan Menon's The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention presents a trenchant challenge to the conventional wisdom on this policy. He contends that universalistic principles invoked in support of it tend to be fig leaves and that armed interventions to stop mass killing occur on a highly selective basis. The rationales offered to justify them more often than not derive from national interest and power politics. States, no matter how powerful, are unwilling to intervene (or resort to lesser measures) when the costs are prohibitive, even when killing unfolds on a massive scale, or when the perpetrators happen to be friends or allies.
This short work will range broadly, moving from the Balkan intervention of the 1990s to the 2011 intervention in Libya. It also assesses the failed US intervention in Iraq and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan to highlight the problems-ones relevant to humanitarian wars-that interventions encounter, and create, in the post-war phase. Menon is not advocating that we turn a blind eye to mass killing. Rather, he is asking us to look at the world as it rather than as we wish it to be, to recognize the extent to which power and national interest underpin humanitarian intervention, and to face up to the problems and unintended consequences humanitarian intervention creates rather than resorting to idealistic clichés that evade reality or that cloak states' self-interest and cynicism. As the slaughter in Syria demonstrates, power politics, not human rights norms, determine whether or not humanitarian intervention takes place. Despite the magnitude of mass killing in Syria, the United States and its allies decided to eschew intervention, judging it far too hazardous. Menon's searching critique of the theory and practice of armed humanitarian intervention will force us to see this grand project in a new light.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Kanetake & Nollkaemper: The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels: Contestations and Deference
- Veronika Fikfak, Judicial Strategies and their Impact on the Development of the International Rule of Law
- Mateja Steinbrück Platiše, The Development of the Immunities of International Organisations in Response to Domestic Contestations
- Shotaro Hamamoto, Domestic Review of Treaty-Based International Investment Awards: Effects of the Metalclad Judgment of the British Columbia Supreme Court
- Prabhash Ranjan, National Contestation of International Investment Law and the International Rule of Law
- Rene Urueña, Domestic Non-Judicial Institutions in the Development of the International Rule of Law
- Ji Li, Interactions between Domestic Social Norms and International Law over Trade Dispute Resolution
- Birgit Peters, The Rule of Law Dimensions of Dialogues between National Courts and Strasbourg
- Shai Dothan, Three Interpretive Constraints on the European Court of Human Rights
- Andrew Legg, Human Rights, the Margin of Appreciation, and the International Rule of Law
- Machiko Kanetake, Subsidiarity in the Practice of International Courts
- Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko, Revisiting the Reservations Dialogue: Negotiating Diversity while Preserving Universality
- Yvonne Donders & Vincent Vleugel, Universality, Diversity, and Legal Certainty: Cultural Diversity in the Dialogue between the CEDAW and States Parties
- Hege Elisabeth Kjos, Domestic Courts under Scrutiny: The Rule of Law as a Standard (of Deference) in Investor-State Arbitration
- Jennifer Easterday, The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels in Post-Conflict Peace Agreements
- Stephan Schill, The Rule of Law and the Division of Labour between National and International Law: The Case of International Energy Relations
- Machiko Kanetake & André Nollkaemper, The International Rule of Law in the Cycle of Contestations and Deference
Uniquely in international criminal law, the criminalization of aggression is rooted in a wrong inflicted by a state on another state, rather than in a wrong (or collection of wrongs) inflicted on individual human beings by other human beings (whether or not the latter are state agents). Other international crimes, like genocide, also involve wrongs against a collective entity. However, the wrong underpinning aggression is special because it occurs exclusively on the macro level. Even the bloodiest aggressive war need not inflict any criminal wrong on individuals. Or so goes the traditional normative account (shared by those who defend the criminalization of aggression and those who object to that criminalization).
I reject that understanding. Not only are individuals wronged gravely in an aggressive war, the wrongfulness of their treatment as individuals is at the very crux of what explains the criminalization of aggression. It is the normative core of the crime.
To be clear, the dominant view is correct that whether a war is criminal is determined on the macro level by whether there is an inter-state breach. But that inter-state breach cannot explain why waging such wars is criminal. The core moral problem with aggressive war is not that it infringes sovereignty, but that it entails killing, maiming, and destroying in a context that does not warrant the infliction of such profound human harms.
There are five reasons that this is the optimal normative account of the crime of aggression. First, the concept of “sovereignty” or “states’ rights” is indeterminate as a normative guide on the issue of aggression. The criminalization of such wars is at least as great a restraint on state sovereignty as it is a protection of it. Second, what distinguishes aggression from any other sovereignty violation is that it involves widespread killing, not that it involves especially egregious violations of territorial integrity or political independence. Other violations that more effectively and dramatically infringe those sovereign rights are not criminalized. Conversely, there is no sovereignty violation that more directly attacks the physical integrity of human beings than does aggressive war. Third, understanding aggression in this way reconciles it to the broader international criminal law project. Fourth, the claimed imperative to incorporate a restrictive jus ad bellum into twentieth century international law was articulated not in terms of sovereignty, but in terms of human suffering. Finally, the jurisprudence and reasoning of the judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg and Tokyo affirmed their understanding that the prohibition of wrongful killing is normatively central to the crime.
The Article concludes by explaining why clarity on this normative substructure is not merely a point of theoretical accuracy, but has significant upshots for the legal framework. First, genuine unilateral humanitarian intervention may be illegal, but it cannot coherently be deemed criminal. Second, so-called “bloodless aggression” is also unlikely to be criminal, unless it involves a massive, immediate, and direct threat to human life. Third, soldiers who participate in criminal wars are not just participants in a mass criminal action. They are also the immediate perpetrators of the constituent wrongs that make sense of the criminality of that action. This has significant implications for their status under international law. Fourth, recognizing that the victims of aggression are individuals (and not just states) sheds light on how we ought to conceive of reparation in this context.