- Alasdair R. Young, Not your parents' trade politics: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations
- Antonio Postigo, Institutional spillovers from the negotiation and formulation of East Asian free trade agreements
- David A. Steinberg, Developmental states and undervalued exchange rates in the developing world
- Thomas R. Eimer, Susanne Lütz & Verena Schüren, Varieties of localization: international norms and the commodification of knowledge in India and Brazil
- João Rodrigues, Ana C. Santos & Nuno Teles, Semi-peripheral financialisation: the case of Portugal
- Lukas Hakelberg, Coercion in international tax cooperation: identifying the prerequisites for sanction threats by a great power
Saturday, July 9, 2016
THE JUS POST BELLUM
An NWO-funded Vidi project of the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies at the University of Leiden
JUS POST BELLUM FINAL CONFERENCE
The Hague, 29 – 30 September 2016
CALL FOR PAPERS
Jus Post Bellum and the Justice of Peace
Jus post bellum as a concept has gained significant attention in past decades. Scholars have identified certain normative principles underlying transitions from conflict to peace, such as retribution, reconciliation, restitution, reconstruction and proportionality.1 However, few attempts have been made to clarify how such principles relate to concrete dilemmas in transitions from conflict to peace, and what guidance the law provides. The Jus Post Bellum project has examined specific sites of inquiry, such as the normative foundations of jus post bellum2 , the link to the environment3 and investment.4
Traditionally, jus post bellum has been more concerned with the justice of war, rather than the justice of peace. It has been focused on states, rather than non-state actors. In our final conference, we will explore to what extent international law contains norms and principles of just and sustainable peace in specific areas. We seek to focus on the following areas:
(i) Ending of conflict and conflict termination (cease-fire, peace agreements, constitutional reform)
(ii) Security (use of force in peace operations, detention, law enforcement)
(iii) Protection of public goods (cultural property)
(iv) Movement of persons (property rights, immigration, refugees)
(v) Accountability (sequencing of peace and justice, hybrid/international/domestic tribunals)
(vi) Rule of law reform (vetting practices, institution building, sequencing)
(vii) Sovereign debt and economic injustice (land reform, socio-economic rights)
(viii) Reparation and prevention (collective reparations, reconciliation)
We are seeking submissions of academic research papers for presentation at the conference. Submissions should include an abstract of no more than 300 words and be accompanied by a CV. Submissions must be written in English and sent to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than 5 August 2016. Draft papers should be submitted by 15 September 2016.
1 Larry May, After Wars End (CUP, 2012)
2 See Carsten Stahn, Jennifer Easterday and Jens Iverson, Just Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations (OUP, 2014)
3 Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson, and Jennifer Easterday, Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace: Clarifying Norms, Principles and Practices (OUP, forthcoming).
4 Special Issue Jus Post Bellum and Foreign Investment, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 16 (2015), 583-694.
Friday, July 8, 2016
- From the Board, Cracks in the EU
- Ming Du & Fei Deng, International Standards as Global Public Goods in the World Trading System
- Arianna Andreangeli, Healthcare Services, the EU Single Market and Beyond: Meeting Local Needs in an Open Economy – How Much Market or How Little Market?
- Benjamin Mooij & Catalin S. Rusu, Innovation and EU Competition Law: In Need of a Narrative for Where the Money Is Put
- Fátima Ramírez Carmona, The Feed-in Tariffs Entanglement: A Comparative Study of the Analytical Approaches Followed by the EU and WTO Judiciary Bodies regarding Renewable Energy Subsidies
This book is concerned with the international regulation of non-state armed groups. Specifically, it examines the possibility of subjecting armed groups to international human rights law obligations.
First addressed is the means by which armed groups may be bound by international law. Of particular interest is the de facto control theory and the possibility that international law may be applied in the absence of direct treaty regulation. Application of this theory is dependent upon an armed group's establishment of an independent existence, as demonstrated by the displacement of state authority. This means that armed groups are treated as a vertical authority, thereby maintaining the established hierarchy of international regulation. At issue therefore is not a radical approach to the regulation of non-state actors, but rather a modification of the traditional means of application in response to the reality of the situation. The attribution of international human rights law obligations to armed groups is then addressed in light of potential ratione personae restrictions. International human rights law treaties are interpreted in light of the contemporary international context, on the basis that an international instrument has to be applied within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of interpretation. Armed groups' status as vertical authorities facilitates the vertical application of international human rights law in a manner consistent with both the object and purpose of the law and its foundation in human dignity.
Finally, if international human rights law is to be applied to armed groups, its application must be effective in practice. A context-dependent division of responsibility between the territorial state and the armed group is proposed. The respect, protect, fulfil framework is adapted to facilitate the application of human rights obligations in a manner consistent with the control exerted by both the state and the armed group.
- Vincent Bernard, A price too high: rethinking nuclear weapons in light of their human cost
- After the atomic bomb: Hibakusha tell their stories
- Tomomitsu Miyazaki, The view from under the mushroom cloud: The Chugoku Shimbun newspaper and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center
- Akitoshi Nakamura, Photo gallery: Ground zero Nagasaki
- Seventy years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Reflections on the consequences of nuclear detonation
- Hans M. Kristensen & Matthew G. McKinzie, Nuclear arsenals: Current developments, trends and capabilities
- Treasa Dunworth, Pursuing “effective measures” relating to nuclear disarmament: Ways of making a legal obligation a reality
- Louis Maresca & Eleanor Mitchell, The human costs and legal consequences of nuclear weapons under international humanitarian law
- Gregor Malich, Robin Coupland, Steve Donnelly & Johnny Nehme, Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear events: The humanitarian response framework of the International Committee of the Red Cross
- Stuart Casey-Maslen, The use of nuclear weapons and human rights
- Alexander Kmentt, The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate
- Elizabeth Minor, Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian initiative
- Richard Slade, Robert Tickner & Phoebe Wynn-Pope, Protecting humanity from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons: Reframing the debate towards the humanitarian impact
- Sarah J. Swart, An African contribution to the nuclear weapons debate
- Tilman A. Ruff, The humanitarian impact and implications of nuclear test explosions in the Pacific region
- Rajiv Nayan, Focusing the debate on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons: An Indian perspective
- Stephanie E. Meulenbelt & Maarten S. Nieuwenhuizen, Non-State actors’ pursuit of CBRN weapons: From motivation to potential humanitarian consequences
Thursday, July 7, 2016
- G. Kristin Rosendal, Anne Ingeborg Myhr & Morten Walløe Tvedt, Access and Benefit Sharing Legislation for Marine Bioprospecting: Lessons From Australia for the Role of Marbank in Norway
- Winning Essays of the 2015 Worldwide Essay Contest of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP)
- Mathilde Pavis, Is There Any-Body on Stage? A Legal (Mis)understanding of Performances
- Elena Izyumenko, The Freedom of Expression Contours of Copyright in the Digital Era: A European Perspective
- Natalia Kapyrina, Le Dessin du Modèle: Vecteur de l'Harmonisation Internationale du Droit des Dessins et Modèles?
Explaining the shift from the priority of the charge of "aggression" in the beginning of the field of international criminal law to its exclusion in the age of the its reinvention around a suite of atrocity charges is the central task for historians in understanding this domain — and it also should matter for observers of the world today. Yet routinely, international criminal law is presented as running through a smooth trajectory, rather than a stark reversal or at least massive shift. For this reason, this essay gathers together elements for a case for the transformation in the first place, and floats some hypotheses about its timing and causes.
- Subsidiarity in Global Governance
- Markus Jachtenfuchs & Nico Krisch, Subsidiarity in Global Governance
- Andreas von Staden, Subsidiarity in Regional Integration Regimes in Latin America and Africa
- Tomer Broude, Selective Subsidiarity and Dialectic Deference in the World Trade Organization
- Isabel Feichtner, Subsidiarity in the World Trade Organization: The Promise of Waivers
- René Urueña, Subsidiarity and the Public–Private Distinction in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Jorge Contesse, Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System
- Andreas Føllesdal, Subsidiarity and International Human-Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Governance and Protecting Human Rights—Or Neither?
- Machiko Kanetake, Subsidiarity in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security
- Isobel Roele, Sidelining Subsidiarity: United Nations Security Council “Legislation” and Its Infra-Law
- Peer Zumbansen, Happy Spells? Constructing and Deconstructing a Private-Law Perspective on Subsidiarity
- Mattias Kumm, Sovereignty and the Right to Be Left Alone: Subsidiarity, Justice-Sensitive Externalities, and the Proper Domain of the Consent Requirement in International Law
- Robert Howse & Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Toward a Global Ethics of Trade Governance: Subsidiarity Writ Large
- Patricia-Ann T Prodigalidad, An Arbitrator’s ‘Expert, Yet Secret, Knowledge’: Friend or Foe? (Lessons Learned from The Bankard Saga)
- Manjiao Chi, The Impeding Effects of The Immunity Plea on International Arbitration: China’s Position Revisited
- Venera Konussova, The History and The Current Development of Commercial Arbitration In Kazakhstan
- Taejoon Ahn, The Utility of Carve-Out Clauses In Addressing Regulatory Concerns In Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Nigel D White, Security Agendas and International Law: The Case of New Technologies
- Hitoshi Nasu, Human Security and International Law: The Potential Scope for Legal Development within the Analytical Framework of Security
- John Pearson, Human Security versus Environmental Security: At Legal Loggerheads
- Julia Schmidt, Regional Security and International Law
- Olympia Bekou, International Criminal Justice and Security
- Alexandra Bohm, Security and International Law: The 'Responsibility to Protect'
- Tom Coppen, International Law and the Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Lessons for International Security and Arms Control
- Alexandros XM Ntovas, Contemporary Maritime Piracy as a Threat to International Peace and Security
- Lydia Davies-Bright, Terrorism: A Threat to Security?
- Jure Vidmar, Abusive Governments as a Threat
- Prabhash Ranjan, Protecting Security Interests in International Investment Law
- Jill Barrett, Securing the Polar Regions Through International Law
- Mattia Fosci, Climate Change as a Threat to International Security
- Nicholas Tsagourias & Russell Buchan, Cyber-Threats and International Law
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Program Suggestions Sought – ASIL Annual Meeting 2017
The American Society of International Law will convene its 111th Annual Meeting from April 12 to 15, 2017 in Washington D.C. The ASIL Annual Meeting Committee (chaired by Aloysius Llamzon, Julie Maupin, and Saira Mohamed) invites session proposals reflecting the meeting's theme, "What International Law Values."
Description of conference theme:
Well into the second decade of the 21st century, international law continues to expand on numerous fronts. Yet seemingly intractable global problems persist, raising vital questions about the field. We often ask whether international law is achieving its goals. In this Annual Meeting, we seek to consider the normative basis of international law and how those goals are realized in practice. Does international law reflect the values of the international community? How do these values affect the practice and theory of international law? For that matter, should international law reflect the international community's values, and what constituencies ought to be considered in determining what those values are? If international law should not reflect values, why not, and what interests are served or harmed by treating this body of law as a value-neutral set of rules? What role should international lawyers play in the shaping of those values and how can the core values of our profession – in all its heterogeneity, contestation, and dynamism – be brought to bear? Through the panels and events of the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, leading and emerging voices in international legal scholarship, policy, and practice will attempt to answer these urgent questions.
- Territory, the sea, space; the management and regulation of natural resources and energy; climate change and sustainable development
- International dispute settlement in its public, private, and hybrid modalities (including interstate adjudication and arbitration, international investment arbitration, and international commercial arbitration; regional and special courts and tribunals; and other forms of dispute resolution, including conciliation and mediation); the structural, operational, and normative dilemmas of inter-governmental organizations
- Use of force, armed conflict, national security, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, and military technology
- Human rights, migration, labor, and criminal law
- Interactions among international, regional, and national law in their public and private forms: international law as domestic law, domestic law as international law, transnational law, foreign relations law, international law in domestic and regional courts, private international law and the conflict of laws
- International economic law: trade, investment, sovereign debt, financial regulation, monetary law, international intellectual property, tax, internet governance, and other cross-border economic technologies and their associated governance regimes
Instructions for submitting proposals:
To suggest a session to the Committee, please complete the form found below by no later than August 1, 2016.
Proposals should include
- a proposed title for the session
- a proposed description of the session, including the proposed format and an explanation of the overall goal of the session
Proposers may also wish to include ideas for speakers to be considered, but speaker proposals are not required.
The Program Committee welcomes proposals addressing this year's theme both within and across the many sub-fields of international law. Drawing on session suggestions, the Committee will create a program with the following goals in mind:
- coverage of a breadth of timely topics of interest to ASIL members;
- participation by individuals from a variety of backgrounds; and
- a vibrant exchange of ideas through the use of innovative program formats.
The Committee will prioritize session proposals that involve formats other than traditional panels, such as interviews, question-and-answer roundtables, lectures, debates, poster sessions, or the use of multimedia or interactive audience participation features.
The Committee will also prioritize novel or cutting-edge topics in international law. In addition, the Committee is committed to expanding diversity in the issues and voices represented at the Annual Meeting.
Important note on how the ASIL Annual Meeting program is crafted
The Program Committee appreciates the work required to propose a program session, and it takes seriously the proposers' views on areas of focus and format for the Annual Meeting. Nonetheless, given the number of proposals expected, the inevitable similarities between some proposals, and the goals and themes articulated above, not all session proposals can be accepted into the program as proposed. The Committee reserves the right to accept but significantly modify proposed sessions, which may result in omitting proposed participants (including the proposer), adding new participants, combining multiple proposals, or modifying a session's description, focus, or goals.
How can international law better protect both international security and the human rights of people fleeing violence? International refugee law protects only the refugees: those fleeing across borders due to a well-founded persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The world’s other 42.3 million people displaced by violence have few protections under international law. This article proposes and sketches new international law to address this crucial human rights problem. I argue that a new Displaced Persons Convention to protect people fleeing violent conflict is needed to supplement the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Refugee Convention must be preserved because of the critical protections it provides for the rights of minorities and political dissidents. Adding a new Displaced Persons Convention would better protect the human rights of individuals fleeing violent conflict and state failure, further state interests, and improve international security.
- Invitado especial
- W. Michael Reisman, Siegfried Wiessner, & Andrew R. Willard, La New Haven School: Una breve introducción
- Hua Deng, What can China do to develop International Criminal Law and Justice further from the perspective of the International Criminal Court?
- Jaime Gallegos Zúñiga, Nuevos escenarios de la inversión extranjera en Chile
- Ximena Gauché Marchetti, La Resolución 1325 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. A 15 años de su adopción
- Martha Guadalupe G. Verano, Aproximaciones a la crisis humanitaria en el Medio Oriente
- Francisco Lertora Pinto, La condición jurídica del hielo y su comprensión en el contexto del régimen antártico
- Juan Antonio Travieso, Protección de datos personales y tecnología. En busca del paraíso perdido
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Sixth Annual ASIL Research Forum
November 11-12, 2016
University of Washington School of Law
4293 Memorial Way Northeast Seattle, WA 98195
The American Society of International Law calls for submissions of scholarly paper proposals for the ASIL Research Forum to be held at ASIL Academic Partner University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington.
The Research Forum, a Society initiative introduced in 2011, aims to provide a setting for the presentation and focused discussion of works-in-progress from across the spectrum of international law. Please note that, in addition to academics, private practitioners, government attorneys, international organization representatives, and non-government lawyers are frequently selected to present papers based on the abstracts they submit.
Papers may be on any topic related to international, comparative, and transnational law and should be unpublished at the time of their submission (for purposes of the call, publication to an electronic database such as SSRN is not considered publication). Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome. Multiple submissions are welcome, but authors will only be selected to present on a single abstract, including co-authored papers.
Proposals should be submitted submitted online by 12 noon ET on Monday, July 11, 2016. Interested authors should submit an abstract (no more than 500 words in length) summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the Forum. Abstracts will be considered via a blind review process. Papers that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered. Notifications of acceptance will go out in late July.
Papers accepted for presentation will be assembled into panels. The organizers welcome volunteers to serve as discussants who will comment on the papers. All authors of accepted papers will be required to submit a draft paper four weeks (Monday, October 10, 2016) before the Research Forum. Accepted authors must commit to being present on both Friday, November 11 and Saturday, November 12, 2016. Presenters must agree to allow their draft papers to be provided to registered attendees of the Research Forum in advance of the meeting.
Presenters will be required to register for the Research Forum, but will be provided a significantly reduced registration rate. ASIL does not have funding resources to cover the costs of travel or lodging for presenters.
- Peter Hilpold, Die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft im Völkerrecht
- Daniel Turp, Dual Nationality in International, European and Constitutional Law
- Ulrike Haider-Quercia, Rechtsrahmen und Bedeutung der doppelten Staatsbürgerschaften in Italien
- Kubilay Yiğitbaşı, Doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft für die türkischstämmige Bevölkerung in Österreich? – Eine rechtliche und rechtspolitische Herausforderung
- Franz Watschinger & Peter Pernthaler, Regierungsvorlage/Initiativantrag/ Antrag eines Ausschusses
- Jean-Paul Costa, Tintin et les droits de l’homme
- Béatrice Pastre-Belda, La protection à géométrie variable de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
- Johann Guiorguieff, Droit international et renforcement du droit de retrait de la nationalité face aux actes terroristes
- Anne-Valérie Foucher, L’observance de prescriptions alimentaires issues de convictions religieuses et philosophiques dans l’espace public en France
- Institut de droit européen des droits de l'homme (I.D.E.D.H.), Christophe Maubernard, Hélène Surrel, Katarzyna Blay-Grabarczyk, Laure Milano, & Romain Tinière, Les juridictions de l’Union européenne et les droits fondamentaux - Chronique de jurisprudence (2015) , par
- Nicolas Bernard & Noria Derdek, Le DALO, un droit au logement vraiment « opposable » ? (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Tchokontio Happi c. France, 9 avril 2015)
- Anne-Blandine Caire, Persistance des incertitudes sur le statut de l’embryon (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Parrillo c. Italie, 27 août 2015)
- Yvan Jeanneret, De Salduz à Dvorski : du droit à l’avocat de la première heure au droit de le choisir (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Dvorski c. Croatie, 20 octobre 2015)
- Mustapha Afroukh, La Cour européenne condamne énergiquement toutes les formes de négationnisme et d’antisémitisme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., M’Bala M’Bala c. France, 20 octobre 2015)
- Xavier Bioy, « Moi aussi, aujourd’hui, je rentre chez moi… » (obs/s. Cour const. b., arrêt no 153/2015, 29 octobre 2015)
How does international law protect migrants? For the most part, it does not. Of the millions of people who flee persecution, conflict, and poverty each year, international law protects only refugees: those who flee persecution on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides critical protections for minorities that must never be diluted. However, it is insufficient to protect the swarms of migrants landing on the shores of Europe and elsewhere, or to guide states on how to protect them while guarding their own security. This article argues that states have always revised international law regarding displaced people to protect their own security interests and changing circumstances of displacement. The time is thus ripe for the creation of an additional instrument of international law to protect the 35 million displaced people who do not meet the definition of “refugee.” To support this argument, this article presents a comprehensive history of refugees in international law, combining primary sources and original interview data to trace how states have used refugee law to protect minority rights, even as state security interests have changed refugee protection over time. In doing so, the article makes two theoretical claims that contribute to growing scholarly interest in the history of human rights law. First, the article argues that refugee law is paradigmatic human rights law, although it is often excluded from the human rights canon. Second, the article claims that refugee law predates the modern human rights regime, challenges its foundations, and extends its claims to universality.
Selon Yasuaki Onuma, grand théoricien et historien japonais du droit international, si le droit international est généralement considéré comme un droit commun à toute l'humanité, ce constat doit être examiné de façon critique pour être dépassé. Un droit international plus légitime d'un point de vue global, représentant le monde non occidental, doit être écrit et mis en oeuvre. Les contributions présentées dans cet ouvrage reflètent plus précisément deux préoccupations fondamentales qui ont accompagné l'auteur toute sa vie. Dans les textes rassemblés dans la première partie, il a cherché à clarifier les limites du droit international actuel, tourné vers l'Occident, cherchant à surmonter celles-ci en proposant une approche « trans-civilisationnelle » ou « inter-civilisationnelle » qui permettrait à la fois de s'engager en faveur d'un système global plus légitime et de comprendre de manière plus pertinente les questions associées à l'international, à l'universel et au global. Dans les textes de la deuxième partie, il a tenté d'élucider les liens entre le Japon moderne et l'ordre juridique international. Ces liens sont fondamentalement ambivalents, le Japon étant un État non occidental et pourtant occidentalisé. Ainsi a-t-il lutté contre l'hégémonie occidentale mais en a-t-il reproduit certains des pires traits (colonialisme, guerre d'agression, sentiments racistes et discriminatoires, basés sur la nationalité, à l'encontre des peuples « non-blancs »). Fort d'une formation qui emprunte à différentes cultures et de sa qualité de Japonais, fondamentalement asiatique mais également occidentalisé, Yasuaki ONUMA est particulièrement autorisé à proposer sa thèse majeure en faveur d'un déplacement du droit international « occidentalo-centré » au profit d'une approche de celui-ci qui se nourrit de l'apport mutuel des civilisations.
Bradlow: Can Parallel Lines Ever Meet? The Strange Case of the International Standards on Sovereign Debt and Business and Human Rights
Sovereigns have a long history of defaulting on their debts. Despite the bitter lessons learned through this history, the international community has not yet developed an effective method for dealing with these events. As a result, each sovereign’s debt restructuring process is likely to be conflict ridden, inefficient and to have a high probability of resulting in a sub-optimal outcome. In fact, the risk of sub-optimal outcomes has increased as financial markets have become larger and more globalized so that sovereign debtors - at least those with access to financial markets - are able to borrow from a broader range of creditors. One consequence is that sovereign debt restructurings (SODRs), are difficult, often traumatic, experiences for the sovereign debtors and their populations and frustrating and potentially costly for their creditors.
Given these high stakes, it is not surprising that efforts have been made over the past seventy years to improve the process. One recent manifestation of this effort has been the promulgation of a number of international norms and standards that either explicitly or implicitly are applicable to SODRs. Interestingly, the documents dealing with the SODR process all recognize that SODRs have substantial social and political effects in addition to their financial and economic consequences. In fact, they all appear to accept that the parties to the SODR will need to take these impacts into account in arranging a sustainable SODR. However, they do not provide detailed guidance to the parties on how they should deal with these social and political impacts in negotiating and agreeing on a sustainable SODR. This is surprising given the norms and standards that companies and states have developed for dealing with the social responsibilities, including in regard to human rights, of businesses.
The seeming disconnect between the developments in regard to the SODR process and to business and human rights is intriguing, particularly because many of the world’s most significant financial institutions have publicly available human rights policies that, at least prima facie, are applicable to all their business operations and relations.
The disconnect between these two developments raises at least two questions. First, should the human rights and business standards be applied to the SODR process. Second, if they should be applied to the SODR process, how should they be applied? The primary purpose of this article is to answer these two questions. This exercise serves three purposes. First, it will enable us to see if these human rights and business standards can add value to SODRs in the sense of reducing their human rights costs without unduly increasing their financial costs. Second it will provide some additional insight into how easily human rights law can be adapted to financial transactions specifically and to business more generally. Third, this exercise might help us better understand how to plug the gap in global economic governance that allows different actors in global governance to develop international standards on SODR and on business and human rights on parallel tracks that do not seem to communicate with each other.
- Alberta Fabbricotti, Introduction
- Anne Van Aaken & Joel P. Trachtman, Political Economy of International Law: Towards a Holistic Model of State Behavior
- Niels Petersen, The Political Economy of Customary International Law
- Alessandra Gianelli, Can Political Economy Help Solve The Riddle of Customary International Law?
- Paul B. Stephan, The Political Economy of Jus Cogens
- Panos Merkouris, The Political Economy of International Treaties
- Ramses A. Wessel & Evisa Kica, Political Economy and the Decisions of International Organizations: Choosing Governance Arrangements Through Informality
- Barbara Delcourt, Political Economy of International Law: A Convenient Alliance for the Study of Compliance?
- Meredith Kolsky Lewis, International Political Economy and the Prisoner’s Dilemma: Compliance with International Law
- Paul B. Stephan, The Political Economy of Judicial Production of International Law
- Andreas von Staden, The Political Economy of The (Non-)Enforcement of International Human Rights Pronouncements by States
- Eyal Benvenisti, The Political Economy of International Lawmaking by National Courts
- André Nollkaemper, Political Economy and the Responsibility of States: The Problem of Many Hands in International Law
- Alberta Fabbricotti, The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements
- Tobias A. Lehmann, Political Economy and International Investment Law: The Conclusion of IIAs by Developing Countries during the Twentieth Century
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes & Christina Leb, Political Economy and International Water Law: Political Economy Induced Changes to the Uptake of Benefit Sharing in International Water Law
- Ulyana Kohut, Political Economy and the Protection of Human Rights: Political Economy and Compliance with Human Rights Treaties
- Daniela Vitiello & Marion Panizzon, Political Economy and International Migration Law
- Eyal Benvenisti & Jan Wouters, Political Economy and International Law: Paradoxes and Potential
Monday, July 4, 2016
- Théories et réalités du droit international au XXIème siècle
- Propos introductif
- Julie Ferrero & Tiphaine Demariahors, Avant-propos
- Peter Haggenmacher, En guise de prélude : retour sur un classique du droit international au XXème siècle
- I. Approches contemporaines du droit international
- Olivier Corten, Le positivisme juridique aujourd’hui : science ou science-fiction ?
- Olivier de Frouville, L’actualité du droit naturel en droit international
- Lucie Delabiehors, Les nouvelles approches du droit international
- II. Théorie(s) et pratique(s) du droit international : problèmes choisis
- Frédéric Vannestehors, Interpréter la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et la Convention américaine des droits de l’homme : comment réconcilier les pratiques divergentes avec la théorie générale
- Hélène Tigroudjahors, La jurisprudence parmi les modes formels de détermination du droit international : quel imperium judiciaire international ?
- Tiphaine Demaria & Julie Ferrero, Sur un aspect de la sanction en droit international : le cas des dommages et intérêts punitifs
- Julien Dellauxhors, La normativité du droit international
- Thomas Margueritte & Rémy Prouvèze, Le droit international et la doctrine saisis par le fait : la diversification des sujets du droit international sous l’effet de la pratique
In choosing the theme for the 77th Biennial Conference of the International Law Association (ILA), [the South African Branch of the International Law Association] intended to create an opportunity for academics and practitioners to reflect on developments in state practice that prove or disprove North – South divisions in the interpretation and application of international law in areas of mutual concern. Our objective is to attract participants from as many regions of the world as practically possible, and especially from the African continent which is under-represented in the work and membership of the ILA. The conference theme and the work of the specialist committees that will be presented at the conference will be of relevance not only for scholars and practitioners of international law. Judges, prosecutors, political scientists, scholars in international relations, NGO’s, social scientists and economists may find the programme equally stimulating.
International efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—rest upon foundations provided by global treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Over time, however, states have created a number of other mechanisms for organizing international cooperation to promote nonproliferation. Examples range from regional efforts to various worldwide export-control regimes and nuclear security summit meetings initiated by U.S. president Barack Obama. Many of these additional nonproliferation arrangements are less formal and have fewer members than the global treaties.
International Cooperation on WMD Nonproliferation calls attention to the emergence of international cooperation beyond the core global nonproliferation treaties. The contributors examine why these other cooperative nonproliferation mechanisms have emerged, assess their effectiveness, and ask how well the different pieces of the global nonproliferation regime complex fit together. Collectively, the essayists show that states have added new forms of international cooperation to combat WMD proliferation for multiple reasons, including the need to address new problems and the entrepreneurial activities of key state leaders. Despite the complications created by the existence of so many different cooperative arrangements, this collection shows the world is witnessing a process of building cooperation that is leading to greater levels of activity in support of norms against WMD and terrorism.
Paradigms of International Human Rights Law explores the legal, ethical, and other policy consequences of three core structural features of international human rights law: the focus on individual rights instead of duties; the division of rights into substantive and nondiscrimination categories; and the use of positive and negative right paradigms. Part I explains the types of individual, corporate, and state duties available, and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating each type of duty into the world public order, with special attention to supplementing individual rights with explicit individual and state duties. Part II evaluates how substantive rights and nondiscrimination rights are used to protect similar values through different channels; summarizes the nondiscrimination right in international practice; proposes refinements; and explains how the paradigms synergize. Part III discusses negative and positive paradigms by dispelling a common misconception about positive rights, and then justifies and defines the concept of negative rights, justifies positive rights, and concludes with a discussion of the ethical consequences of structuring the human rights system on a purely negative paradigm. For each set of alternatives, the author analyzes how human rights law incorporates the paradigms, the technical legal implications of the various alternatives, and the ethical and other policy consequences of using each alternative while dispelling common misconceptions about the paradigms and considering the arguments justifying or opposing one or the other.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Cho & Kurtz: International Cooperation and Organizational Identities: The Evolution of the ASEAN Investment Regime
This article first conceptualizes the ASEAN Investment Regime (AIR) as an Interstate Cooperative Regime (ICR), defined as a stable interstate cooperative nexus on a particular regulative subject, comprising the regulation of foreign investment in this particular case. It then seeks to explain the evolution of AIR in terms of its identity formation. In doing so, this article employs three ideal types of cultural logic - Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian - across each stage of AIR’s evolution, largely overlapping with the three main IR theories of neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism, respectively. Using those models, we find a clear evolutionary pathway with the AIR following this sequential trajectory as it has transitioned towards a closer, regional investment community. This article nonetheless concludes that AIR’s organizational development has not always been linear and that one can detect sovereigntist regressionism in certain areas.
This paper considers the law applicable by WTO panels and the Appellate Body in dispute settlement proceedings. It begins by explaining how law is applied to facts, and how this is relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction by WTO panels and the Appellate Body. It then looks at several discrete sets of legal questions, both jurisdictional and merits, in which questions related to applicable law arise. The jurisdictional questions, broadly speaking, that are considered concern the power of panels to determine the legality of their establishment, the power of panels to determine whether other preconditions to the exercise of their jurisdiction have been met, including what is elsewhere termed ‘admissibility’. The merits questions concern the law applicable to the proper identification of the facts and to the law applicable to these facts, based on the various overlapping provisions in the DSU pertaining to these matters, and taking into account the possible role of non-WTO law.