Saturday, June 25, 2016
In contemporary discourse, international investment law (IIL) and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are often perceived as threats to community interests in one-sidedly protecting foreign investors and undermining public policies that are to the benefit of the local population and the international community. This is nowhere more manifest than in the fierce debates about the inclusion of an investment chapter in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The present chapter forwards a different perspective. First, it argues that investment law properly construed can be conceptualized as protecting community interests, because it is part of the legal infrastructure that is necessary for the functioning of the global economy under a rule of law framework. Aimed at supporting economic growth, this helps further economic and non-economic community interests, including sustainable development. Second, the chapter argues that IIL and ISDS do not turn a blind eye to the conflicts that can arise between economic and non-economic community interests, such as environmental protection, labour standards, public health or human rights. Instead, investment law and dispute settlement have numerous mechanisms at their disposal for alleviating tensions with non-economic community interests.
This Article discusses the inter-American human rights system’s adjudication model in light of some of the conjectures on subsidiarity as a principle for international governance — that is, the degree of deference it grants to the assessment of a situation by the member state concerned. I inquire about the system’s role as arbitrator of human rights cases within its jurisdiction, examining the dynamics of subsidiarity within the system’s changing context. I find that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights tends to employ a maximalist model of adjudication. Such a model leaves little room for states to reach their own decisions and can be explained as largely resting upon the political context where the Court came to exist, almost four decades ago. I argue that there is a challenge ahead for the Court, namely, to reconcile both claims: on the one hand, states’ demands for higher deference, and on the other hand, the importance of an independent and legitimate regional human rights tribunal.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Taylor Black: King Cotton in International Trade: The Political Economy of Dispute Resolution at the WTO
In King Cotton in International Trade Meredith A. Taylor Black provides a comprehensive analysis of the WTO Cotton dispute and its significant jurisprudential and negotiating effect on disciplining and containing the negative effects of highly trade-distorting agricultural subsidies of developed countries. To that end, this work details the historic, economic, and political background leading up to Brazil’s challenge of the US cotton subsidies and the main findings of the five WTO reports that largely upheld that challenge. It explores the impacts of the successful challenge in terms of political and negotiating dynamics involving agriculture subsidies and other trade-related issues in the WTO while examining the effects on domestic agriculture subsidy reforms in the United States and the European Union. Finally, this volume sets forth the possible impacts of the Cotton challenge on the negotiating end-game of the Doha Development Round.
Despite many predictions to the contrary, the Arctic has emerged today as a zone of cooperation. At the core of regional stability and security is an emerging architecture of cooperation focused on the Arctic Council. This new order is based not on military strength or a scramble to control resources, but on the multilateral pursuit of common interests. This book focuses on understanding and explaining the emergence of cooperation in the Arctic through an exploration by leading scholars and experts on the region of a key set of interlinked questions. What constitutes the current form of Arctic governance? What explains the emergence of this form of governance in the Arctic? Which are the emerging dynamics and actors that affect regional governance today?
At a time when many regions of the world are facing growing confrontation and even conflict, the authors consider whether the experience of fashioning multilateral, cooperative and peaceful governance in the Arctic offers lessons to other parts of the world? Looking ahead, the volume is designed to explore the sustainability of current governance trends in the Arctic. To what extent is cooperation in the Arctic the result of issues specific to the region today? Are current relationships and institutions durable in the light of emerging competition and even confrontation between key Arctic players elsewhere in the world? What steps might be taken to consolidate cooperation as the central political and security dynamic in the Arctic?
Languages of Internationalism
Conference to take place at Birkbeck College,
University of London
25-26 May 2017
Deadline for submission of abstracts: 1 September 2016
Scholars have in recent years re-energized the study of how peoples, cultures, and economies came, over time, to be linked and entangled across all manner of borders. Transnationalism and internationalism continue to be the watchwords of much humanities and social sciences scholarship. Yet insufficient attention has been paid to the crucial politics of language in historical scenarios of internationalism as a lived or imagined human enterprise. Organised by the Reluctant Internationalists research group at Birkbeck College London in collaboration with Dr. Brigid O’Keeffe from Brooklyn College, CUNY, this conference will bring together historians, anthropologists, literary scholars, linguists, and scholars in related fields, to debate the languages of internationalism.
The goal of the conference is to shed light on the centrality of language to people’s past pursuit and experience of internationalism. Historians must better understand the linguistic realities that their subjects confronted in their various global networks and endeavors. For any agents of internationalism, language presented a wide variety of challenges and opportunities. It imposed obstacles and provided avenues to mutual understanding and collaboration among diverse peoples. The relative successes and failures of past internationalist projects in large measure owed to participants’ ability to effectively communicate across not just linguistic, but also political, cultural, economic, and professional boundaries. This fundamental and literal question of (mis)communication has dramatically shaped the lives of peoples variously confronting the global realities or pretensions of their milieus.
Conference participants will consider the frustrations and triumphs of human beings, in a wide variety of historical contexts, as they deployed language in their efforts to communicate across borders. In this way, the conference seeks better historical appreciation and understanding of language as a linchpin of transnational and international histories.
Submissions of individual papers on the following themes and topics are especially encouraged:
- Languages of Internationalism: When and why have languages helped or hindered internationalist projects? Roles played by lingua francas; bi-lingualism and multi-lingualism in border areas, cities, schools, refugee or POW camps; sign languages and deaf histories in global perspective; artificial languages as international auxiliary languages
- Language in Global Diplomacy and Cross-Cultural Exchange: Language politics by and within international organizations, including the League of Nations, United Nations, and others; (mis-)communication and international diplomacy; roles of interpreters and interpreting; connections between language and diplomatic failure; the role of language in educational, scholarly or artistic exchange programs
- (Mis-)Communicating Expertise in Science, Medicine, and Scholarship more generally: languages of technocracy; experts’ views on and uses of language and strategies of communication; international scholarly communities and the transmission of knowledge; differences between different fields of expertise; experts’ changing conceptions of ‘the public’ and how it can be reached
- Language Politics During and After Empire: Communication and questions of (linguistic) authority in colonial contexts; language and interpersonal relationships within and across empires; language and colonial diplomacy; language and postcolonial critique
- Linguistic Rights and Endangered Languages: Linguistic Rights; standardization and imposition of official or national languages; endangered languages and globalization
- Mass Media, Language, and Idea Transmission on the Global Stage: Communication and linking technologies such as the post, telegraph, radio, tv, and internet; language and global marketing; international publishing and translation projects
Please send paper titles, abstracts (300 – 400 words), and a brief academic biography (200 words) by 1 September 2016 to Brigid O’Keeffe (Brooklyn College, CUNY), firstname.lastname@example.org
There will be no conference fee. There will be limited funding available to contribute to the accommodation in London of junior scholars and those from institutions without research funds.
Torres Camprubí: Statehood under Water: Challenges of Sea-Level Rise to the Continuity of Pacific Island States
In Statehood under Water, Alejandra Torres Camprubí revisits the concept of statehood through an analysis on how sea-level rise and the Anthropocene challenge the territorial, demographical, and political dimensions of the State. Closely examining the fight for survival undertaken by low-lying Pacific Island States, the author engages with the legal and policy innovations necessary to address these new scenarios.
This monograph reacts against overly formal approaches to the law on statehood, and is devoted to the reconstruction of the context in which both the challenges, and the measures adopted to tackle them, are taking place. Progressively forged within the international community, it is the kind of political and ethical framework that will soon inform the potential transformation of the law on statehood.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
The 3rd Women in War and at War Conference, organised by The Open University Law School, The University of Warwick and Aberystwyth University will be held on 15th and 16th September 2016 at The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Call for Papers
Abstracts of a maximum of 250 words should be submitted by 30th June 2016 to the organising committee. Authors of selected abstracts will be informed by 25th July 2016. Conference registration will open on 25th July 2016.
31st October 2015 marked the 15 year anniversary of the adoption of the landmark UNSCR 1325. The Resolution formed the basis for the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda at the United Nations Security Council. Over the years, UNSCR 1325 and subsequent resolutions gave recognition to a variety of issues associated with women, modern armed conflicts and security. These included the recognition of the impact of conflict-related sexual violence on women and girls, various roles played by women in armed conflicts; calls for a greater accountability for crimes committed against women and girls in conflicts; the need to include women in all stages of conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction.
Despite these advances, modern armed conflicts provide a challenge to the effective protection of women and girls, but also unveil various roles and representations of women in conflict and post-conflict settings. For instance, the reports of enslavement and mistreatment of Yezidi women and girls are contrasted with the examples of active support and participation of women in ISIS operations. In addition, the protracted nature of the conflict in Syria resulting in mass conflict-related migration brought back the debates about the effectiveness of protection afforded to persons fleeing armed conflict or situations of gross human rights violations. Furthermore, the inclusion and active involvement of women in peace processes and post-conflict reconstruction remains a major challenge.
How does international law as well as other disciplines respond to these developments? What do recent conflicts tell us about the contemporary representations of women in and at war? What lessons did we learn from the first 15 years of the WPS Agenda?
We invite proposals for papers in the following or related areas:
- Gender and conflict
- Women and conflict-related migration
- Women and ISIS
- WPS Agenda post-2015
- International Humanitarian Law: effectiveness and challenges
- International Criminal Law and the prosecution of gender-related crimes
- Representations of women in and at war
- Women, war and the media
- Women in post-conflict settings.
Start date: 15 September, 2016 at 09:00
End date: 16 September, 2016 at 17:00
Location: Michael Young Building, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Event booking details
Conference registration will open on 25th July 2016.
Name: Claire Wylde
Phone: 01908 332311
Why is the US so reluctant to join global multilateral treaties, even when those treaties are in line with its own policies? And how does it decide which treaties to ratify? Finding that the answers to these questions is less straightforward than may be apparent at first glance, Johannes Thimm explores the role of domestic politics in US unilateralism—and concludes that the real puzzle is not why the US supports so few international treaties, but rather how it manages to join any at all.
Call for Papers: Modernizing International Trade Law to Support Innovation and Sustainable Development
Security Council Resolution 2249 of 20 November 2015 was intended to open a new chapter in the fight against terrorism in general and against ISIS in particular. However, in academia this Resolution was received with criticism. After an analysis of SC Resolution 2249, it will be argued that the criteria developed for assessing jus ad bellum in inter-state relations are of no easy application in the relationship between states and non-state actors and in particular in regard to terrorists. If the prohibition of the use of force applies at all, this has to happen in a largely modified way. Fears that a lowered threshold for the use of force against terrorists will introduce a new “Hobbesian” element in international law do not appear to be justified. On the contrary, an international community showing more solidarity in the fight against terrorism will reinforce their Kantian traits. Resolution 2249 can offer an important contribution for such a development to take place.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
- Piotr Szwedo, Limiting Sovereignty through Global Governance?
- Aneta Jakubiak-Mirończuk, The European model of lawmaking – assumptions and policies
- Kamil Mielus, Legal implications of Palestine’s enhanced status in the UN General Assembly
- Artur Żurawik, ‘Public interest’ and ‘common good’ general clauses in both Polish and European Union law
- Case Comments
- Łukasz Gruszczynski, EC – Seal Products: Public Morality Meets the World Trade Court
- Marek Jeżewski, Case-comment on the Yukos Awards
- Francesco Pesce, La tutela europea dei diritti fondamentali in materia familiare: recenti sviluppi
- Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, La continuità internazionale delle situazioni giuridiche e la tutela dei diritti umani di natura sostanziale: strumenti e limiti
- Il caso
- Olivia Lopes Pegna, Effetti in Italia del matrimonio fra persone dello stesso sesso celebrato all’estero: solo una questione di ri-qualificazione?
- Mario Perini, Matrimoni omoaffettivi: una chiara politica giudiziaria del Consiglio di Stato di netta chiusura
- Raffaella Nigro, La risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite n. 2249 (2015) e la legittimità dell’uso della forza contro l’ISIS in base al diritto internazionale
- Tullio Scovazzi, Segreto di Stato e diritti umani: il sipario nero sul caso Abu Omar
- Michele Nino, Land grabbing, sovranità territoriale e diritto alla terra dei popoli indigeni
- Alessandra Viviani, Land grabbing e diritti umani
- Angelica Bonfanti, Diritti umani e politiche dell’Unione europea in materia commerciale e di investimenti stranieri: la comunicazione Commercio per tutti, tra regionalismo e multilateralismo economico
- Giuseppe Puma, Il regime carcerario c.d. art. 41-bis nuovamente al vaglio della Corte di Strasburgo: il caso Paolello
- Antonio Giattini, La tutela dei dati personali davanti alla Corte di giustizia dell’UE: il caso Schrems e l’invalidità del sistema di ‘approdo sicuro’
- Amina Maneggia, Genocidio e processi di liberazione nazionale nella sentenza Vasiliauskas della Corte europea dei diritti umani
- Maria Eugenia Bartoloni, La direttiva rimpatri, il reingresso irregolare e la pena detentiva: una triangolazione dagli esiti … molto incerti
- Nicolas Binctin, Le renouveau du contentieux international de la propriété intellectuelle
- Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Autonomie et ordre public dans les principes de la Haye sur le choix de la loi applicable aux contrats commerciaux internationaux
- Denys-Sasha Robin, Statut et bien-être des animaux : Quelques remarques sur les balbutiements d’un droit international animalier
- Charles Leben, Liber Amicorum, Peter Haggenmacher, l’histoire du droit international ou la perte de l’innocence
- Ghislain Poissonnier & François Dubuisson, La question du Sahara occidental devant le Tribunal de l’Union européenne : une application approximative du droit international relatif aux territoires non autonomes
- Pierre Veron, Le règlement (UE) n° 542/2014 modifiant le règlement Bruxelles I (refonte) concernant les règles applicables à la juridiction unifiée du brevet et à la Cour de justice Benelux
- P. Fois, L’Unione Europea è ancora un’organizzazione internazionale?
- G. Puma, Negoziato in malafede e cause di invalidità dei trattati internazionali
- P. Rossi, L’adattamento al diritto internazionale nell’ordinamento giuridico della Repubblica popolare cinese
- Note e Commenti
- M. Buscemi, Sugli obblighi internazionali degli Stati in merito al pagamento di riscatti per la liberazione di propri cittadini sequestrati da gruppi terroristici associati all’ISIL e ad Al-Qaeda
- F. Francioni, Ricordo di Benedetto Conforti
- N. Lazzerini, Less is more? Qualche rilievo sulla legittimità e sul merito delle recenti iniziative delle istituzioni europee in materia di salvaguardia dei valori fondanti dell’Unione
- M. Sarzo, La Cassazione penale e il crimine di guerra di Podrute: un divorzio dal diritto internazionale?
- O. Feraci, Sul ricorso alla cooperazione rafforzata in tema di rapporti patrimoniali fra coniugi e fra parti di unioni registrate
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
- Joana Abrisketa Uriarte, Al Bashir: ¿Excepción a la inmunidad del jefe de Estado de Sudán y cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional?
- Joan David Janer Torrens, Política europea de control de las exportaciones de armas convencionales y seguridad humana: mecanismos para fomentar el respeto de los derechos humanos
- Jaume Ferrer Lloret, La Ley Orgánica 16/2015 sobre inmunidades: ¿aporta una mayor seguridad jurídica a los operadores del Derecho? Una valoración provisional
- Javier Andrés González Vega, Inmunidades, Derecho internacional y tutela judicial en la Ley Orgánica 16/2015, de 27 de octubre, sobre inmunidades
- Pedro Alberto de Miguel Asensio, Coordinación de la Ley de cooperación jurídica internacional en materia civil con la legislación especial
- Miguel Gardeñes Santiago, Procedimientos paralelos en España y en el extranjero: el Título iv de la Ley 29/2015 (arts. 37 a 40)
In 2015 the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University has taken over The Hague Prize for International which was established in 2002. With a view to continuing the Prize Maastricht University will collaborate with the Municipality of Maastricht.
The main Prize will be awarded every five years to individuals who have made- through publications or achievements in the practice of law – a special contribution to the development of public international law or private international law or the advancement of the rule of law in the world. The Prize consists of a diploma, a monetary award of € 10.000,- and a drawing. The prize will be awarded for the first time in Maastricht on 8 December 2016.
In the intervening years when the main Prize is not awarded, a Junior Prize will be awarded to promising younger academics in the field of human rights. The Junior prize will be awarded for the first time in 2018. It will carry a financial award of € 3.000,-.
Recipients of the Hague Prize for International Law in the past included Prof. Shabtai Rosenne (2004), Prof. M. Cherif Bassiouni (2007), Dame Rosalyn Higgins (2009), Prof. Paul Lagarde (2011) and Prof. Georges Abi-Saab and Prof. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht (2013).
The Board of the Maastricht Prize Foundation hereby invites anyone to nominate candidates who deserve such recognition for their contribution to international law. Nominations for the Prize will be accepted until 1 August 2016. Chairperson of the Nominating Committee is Prof. L. Lijnzaad.
Reasoned recommendations for nominations should be sent to Prof. J. Vidmar, Secretary of the Nominating Committee, Maastricht University, Department of International and European Law, P.O. Box 616 Maastricht, The Netherlands, or by email:
law-maastrichtprize[at]maastrichtuniversity[dot]nl by 1 August 2016.
Additional information can be found on the website of the Maastricht Prize.
- Special Issue: Chinese Foreign Policy on Trial: Contending Perspectives?
- Yongjin Zhang, Introduction: Dynamism and contention: understanding Chinese foreign policy under Xi Jinping
- Jinghan Zeng & Shaun Breslin, China's ‘new type of Great Power relations’: a G2 with Chinese characteristics?
- Yongjin Zhang, China and liberal hierarchies in global international society: power and negotiation for normative change
- Nien-Chung Chang Liao, The sources of China's assertiveness: the system, domestic politics or leadership preferences?
- Zhang Yunling, China and its neighbourhood: transformation, challenges and grand strategy
- Wu Xinbo. Cooperation, competition and shaping the outlook: the United States and China's neighbourhood diplomacy
- Zhou Fangyin, Between assertiveness and self-restraint: understanding China's South China Sea policy
- Zhao Huasheng, Afghanistan and China's new neighbourhood diplomacy
- Katherine Morton, China's ambition in the South China Sea: is a legitimate maritime order possible?
- Peter Ferdinand, Westward ho—the China dream and ‘one belt, one road’: Chinese foreign policy under Xi Jinping
- Richard Maher, The elusive EU–China strategic partnership
- Jingdong Yuan, Averting US–China conflict in the Asia–Pacific
- Kai Chen, Three perspectives on Chinese diplomacy: government, think-tanks and academia
Talmon: Objections Not Possessing an 'Exclusively Preliminary Character' in the South China Sea Arbitration
The Tribunal’s Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China (the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’) is remarkable in that the Tribunal found with respect to seven of the Philippines’ 15 submissions that a determination of its jurisdiction would involve consideration of issues that do not possess ‘an exclusively preliminary character’, and accordingly reserved consideration of its jurisdiction to rule on these submissions to the merits phase of the proceedings. By comparison, the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) found that questions of jurisdiction generally require decision at the preliminary stage of the proceedings. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the ICJ found that an objection to jurisdiction does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. In fact, since the change to its Rules of Court in 1972, i.e. in almost 45 years, the ICJ has done so only on four occasions. In all other cases, the ICJ either accepted or rejected the objection at the preliminary objections phase of the proceedings. This raises the question of whether and, if so, why the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration has adopted a less restrictive approach with regard to preliminary objections. The paper identifies the criteria to be applied by UNCLOS Annex VII arbitral tribunals in deciding whether an objection possesses an ‘exclusively preliminary character’. It concludes that the Tribunal has not scrupulously applied the ‘exclusively preliminary character’ test and has joined objections to the merits which should have been decided at the preliminary objections stage. Considering China’s firm opposition to the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds this may provide China with further arguments for rejecting the Tribunal’s Awards in the South China Sea Arbitration.
The central task of all statebuilding is to create a state that is regarded as legitimate by the people over whom it exercises authority. This is a necessary condition for stable, effective governance. States sufficiently motivated to bear the costs of building a state in some distant land are likely to have interests in the future policies of that country, and will therefore seek to promote loyal leaders who are sympathetic to their interests and willing to implement their preferred policies. In The Statebuilder's Dilemma, David A. Lake addresses the key tradeoff between legitimacy and loyalty common to all international statebuilding attempts. Except in rare cases where the policy preferences of the statebuilder and the population of the country whose state is to be built coincide, as in the famous success cases of West Germany and Japan after 1945, promoting a leader who will remain loyal to the statebuilder undermines that leader’s legitimacy at home.
In Iraq, thrust into a statebuilding role it neither anticipated nor wanted, the United States eventually backed Nouri al-Malaki as the most favorable of a bad lot of alternative leaders. Malaki then used the support of the Bush administration to govern as a Shiite partisan, undermining the statebuilding effort and ultimately leading to the second failure of the Iraqi state in 2014. Ethiopia faced the same tradeoff in Somalia after the rise of a promising but irredentist government in 2006, invading to put its own puppet in power in Mogadishu. But the resulting government has not been able to build significant local support and legitimacy. Lake uses these cases to demonstrate that the greater the interests of the statebuilder in the target country, the more difficult it is to build a legitimate state that can survive on its own.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Call for Papers
Human Rights and Tax in an Unequal World
Abstract/Draft Paper Deadline: July 1, 2016
Event Date: September 22-23, 2016
Location: NYU School of Law
The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) invites submissions of scholarly papers for a conference on human rights and tax, to be held at NYU School of Law on September 22-23, 2016. The conference aims to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which tax policy is a centrally important form of human rights policy, and to consider how the international human rights framework can best be used to promote greater equality and justice through the global tax regime. For years, resource constraints have been cited as the principal limitation on the ability of States to fulfill their human rights obligations, particularly when it comes to economic, social and cultural rights. Yet with few exceptions, human rights scholars and practitioners have shied away from core economic and financial debates, leaving the policies that shape resource availability and allocation largely in the hands of economists, tax and investment lawyers, and “development” experts. Those technocrats, in turn, have rarely paid heed to the expanding corpus of human rights law and its implications for State and non-State actors. There has been very little dialogue between tax and human rights experts, and even less scholarship on the intersection of these fields. CHRGJ’s conference aims to help fill that gap.
The one-and-a-half day event will bring together leading practitioners and scholars from the fields of domestic and international taxation, human rights, corporate accountability, and development. The conference will be structured around a series of seven panels, addressing issues such as: the role of human rights law in regulating tax practices; the impacts of tax on human rights; the North-South dimensions of tax abuse and of solutions to it; private sector responsibility for abusive tax practices; State duties to enforce tax transparency; the architecture of international tax reform; and inequality through the lenses of tax and human rights. Conference materials will be widely disseminated and an edited volume of essays, based on papers presented, will be published after the conference. Because one of the organizers is the United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, the outcomes of the conference will also feed into ongoing discussion of these issues in the UN context.
Papers may be on any topic related to conference theme, including the seven areas of focus listed above-listed, and must be unpublished at the time of their submission. Inter-disciplinary and co-authored pieces are welcome. While multiple submissions will be considered, no author will be selected to present more than one paper. Interested authors should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words in length, summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the conference, to email@example.com by 5pm EST, Friday, July 1, 2016. If the full paper is available, interested authors may submit the full paper for consideration by the same deadline. Notifications of acceptance will be sent in late July. Authors of accepted papers will be required to submit a draft of the paper by Thursday, September 1, 2016 —3 weeks in advance of the conference—and must agree to allow it to be shared with other conference panelists and discussants in advance of the event.
Questions should be sent to the conference conveners: Nikki Reisch, firstname.lastname@example.org and Philip Alston, email@example.com.
Non-binding recommendations, standards, and guidelines often bring about changes to domestic laws and regulations, even though these instruments only represent political or moral rather than legal commitments by states. Such non-binding instruments are designed to have an impact on domestic legal systems in ways that are functionally similar to binding treaties, despite the fact that they do not require legislative approval, as would be necessary for treaties in most (but not all) democratic states. States are thereby generating international norms that have legal consequences in domestic systems, but they are doing so through non-binding instruments that alleviate the need to seek legislative approval, a process that may be slow, highly political, and generally burdensome. The regular use of non-binding instruments for the creation of international norms raises questions about the political legitimacy of such instruments. Executive-branch officials who negotiate non-binding instruments are seemingly unaccountable to legislatures, which often have a prescribed role in approving treaties. This chapter argues, however, that the loss of accountability that results from the use of non-binding instruments is not as great as it might appear to be at first glance. Oftentimes, an apparent loss of accountability is mitigated by other mechanisms, such as legislative oversight, approval of implementing legislation as opposed to the treaty itself, and public consultation processes.
- Daniel Thürer, Demokratie und Rule of Law im internationalen, staatlichen und transnationalen Recht: Eine kosmopolitische Perspektive
- Andreas R. Ziegler, Die Entwicklung der Völkerrechtslehre und -wissenschaft in der Schweiz – eine Übersicht
- Olivier Gaillard, Les relations entre la Grèce et la Suisse en matière successorale : la Convention d’établissement et de protection juridique du 1er décembre 1927
- Elvin Gjevori & Gëzim Visoka, Albanian peacekeepers: exploring the inward-looking utility of international peacekeeping
- Zorzeta Bakaki & Kaisa Hinkkainen, Do child soldiers influence UN Peacekeeping?
- Martin Welz, Multi-actor peace operations and inter-organizational relations: insights from the Central African Republic
Talmon: The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: A Case Study of the Creeping Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Part XV Courts and Tribunals
This article shows that the Tribunal in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration between Mauritius and the United Kingdom has contributed considerably to the creeping expansion of compulsory jurisdiction of courts and tribunals established under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Tribunal has employed three techniques to do so. First, it has read down the jurisdictional precondition to exchange views in Article 283(1) of the UNCLOS; second, it has expanded the limited scope of compulsory subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2 of Part XV by broadening the meaning of the phrase ‘any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention’ to include incidental, related – and through the backdoor of a balancing exercise – even extraneous disputes; and, third, it has restricted the limitations and exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction in Articles 297 and 298 of the UNCLOS. Few would have predicted in 1982 that a Part XV court or tribunal would – within the context of such a balancing exercise – ever find that a colonial era undertaking created binding legal obligations under international law and that the United Kingdom was obliged to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes. The Tribunal’s expansive reading of the jurisdictional provisions in Part XV opens up the possibility of future rulings, albeit incidentally, on issues that have nothing to do with the law of the sea.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
- Tribute to John H. Jackson
- R. Michael Gadbaw, Editor’s Note
- Robert B. Thompson, John Jackson’s Legacy: Defining a Field
- Thomas Cottier, John H. Jackson, Sovereignty-Modern and the Constitutional Approach to International Law
- Tomer Broude, A Field of his Own: John Jackson and the Consolidation of International Economic Law as a Scholarly Domain
- William J. Davey, John Jackson and the Rule of Law
- Peter L.H. Van den Bossche, John H. Jackson and WTO Dispute Settlement
- Debra P. Steger, John H. Jackson—WTO Institution Builder
- Isabelle Van Damme, Professor John H. Jackson and the Normative Challenges of the WTO
- Reto Malacrida, Call It the ‘WTO Charter’: John Jackson and His Abiding Concern for Treaty Nomenclature and Structure
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Worthy of a Nobel: An Appreciation of John H. Jackson
- Mitsuo Matsushita, Implementing International Trade Agreements in Domestic Jurisdictions
- Roberto Echandi, The Impact of an Idea: John Jackson’s Striving for a Rule-Oriented International Economic System
- Edna Ramirez-Robles, Professor John H. Jackson’s contributions to Development in WTO Law
- Edith Brown Weiss, Integrating Environment and Trade
- Rosa M. Lastra, The Coming of Age of International Monetary and Financial Law after the Global Financial Crisis
- Sean Hagan, Expanding the IMF’s Regulatory Authority—Incrementally
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, WTO and Non-Trade Issues: Inside/Outside WTO
- Andrew D. Mitchell & Tania Voon, Professor John H. Jackson: The WTO and Public International Law
- Francis G. Jacobs, International Economic Law and Human Rights
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Why Treaty Interpretation and Adjudication Require ‘Constitutional Mind-Sets’
- Luiz O. Baptista, John H. Jackson
- Marco Bronckers & Reinhard Quick, John Jackson as a Teacher
- Gary Horlick, John Jackson as a Resource for Scholars and Others
- Pieter Jan Kuijper, John Jackson’s Contribution to the WTO as Organization: A Personal Reminiscence
- Joseph J. Norton, The Fall of ‘71 and the Old Quad: A Personal Tribute to Professor John H. Jackson
- Yasuhei Taniguchi, Memory of Professor John Jackson since 1962
- General Articles
- Ji Yeong Yoo & Dukgeun Ahn, Security Exceptions in the WTO System: Bridge or Bottle-Neck for Trade and Security?
- Julien Sylvestre Fleury & Jean-Michel Marcoux, The US Shaping of State-Owned Enterprise Disciplines in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Gracia Marín Durán, Measures with Multiple Competing Purposes after EC – Seal Products: Avoiding a Conflict between GATT Article XX-Chapeau and Article 2.1 TBT Agreement
- Arnoud R. Willems & Bregt Natens, What’s Wrong with EU Anti-Circumvention Rules and How to Fix it
- Jochem de Kok, The Future of EU Trade Defence Investigations against Imports from China
The aim of the event is to deepen our understanding of the international law of military operations from a comparative and practical perspective.
Military deployments in the territory of other States are subject to a diverse range of rules under international law. In recent years, it has become increasingly common to refer to these rules as ‘operations law’ or the ‘international law of military operations’. Despite the growing popularity of the term, its meaning and utility remain uncertain.
The conference will map the field by focusing on the scope and concept of operations law, its current challenges and future training needs. The event will offer a unique opportunity for legal advisors and others working in the area to engage with world-leading experts from the UK and abroad to debate some of the most pressing legal challenges facing military operations.