The latest issue of Humanity (Vol. 7, no. 2, Summer 2016) is out. Contents include:
La présente étude entend induire de la pratique du juge international un élargissement du droit international humanitaire, qui s'est opéré à deux niveaux : le premier touche aux règles primaires de ce système juridique, à savoir son caractère et son contenu, le second aux règles secondaires de ce système. Cette recherche permet d'approfondir des questions telles que l'essence coutumière de cette branche de droit, son interaction de plus en plus poussée avec d'autres branches de droit voisines, notamment le droit international des droits de l'Homme et le droit international pénal, ses rapports avec le droit international général, la teneur de certaines de ses règles en tant que normes de jus cogens, les questions relatives à son champ d'application et celles ayant trait à sa mise en oeuvre.
Das seevölkerrechtliche Haftungsregime für den Tiefseebergbau gewinnt aufgrund des steigenden Interesses der Staatengemeinschaft an der Erschließung der Rohstoffe der Tiefsee rasant an Bedeutung. Dies gilt insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund des Meeresumweltschutzes und des Status des Tiefseebodens und seiner Ressourcen als gemeinsames Erbe der Menschheit. Das Werk analysiert die Voraussetzungen, Rechtsfolgen und Besonderheiten einer Haftung von Staaten nach dem Seevölkerrecht und den völkergewohnheitsrechtlich anerkannten Regeln der Staatenverantwortlichkeit. Ausgangspunkt sind hierbei die umfangreichen Pflichten der Staaten nach dem Tiefseebergbauregime des Seerechtsübereinkommens, die sich insbesondere aus einer Mitwirkung der Staaten am Lizenzierungsverfahren von Tiefseebergbauunternehmungen ergeben. Mit Blick auf die deutsche Gesetzgebung stellt das Werk außerdem das deutsche Meeresbodenbergbaugesetz dar und prüft dieses auf seine Völkerrechtskonformität.
The ICJ's 1966 decision on the merits of the South West Africa cases was widely perceived as a plain disaster. It cast the Court into a deep crisis and alienated newly independent states further from the Court. It all but destroyed the wavering trust that they had placed in the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. A judgment of such magnitude warrants renewed attention on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. In particular, it invites inquiries into the Court’s representativeness and its appeal in the world. The present symposium reminds of the South West Africa cases and asks about the Court’s past and present capacity to induce trust. More specifically, it explores questions of the Court’s representativeness and of its responsiveness to the aspirations of different parts of the world.
Ius cogens has been a subject of great interest in international law studies. But the inquiry into the collision between peremptory norms has been virtually non-existent. This book aims at addressing this particular doctrinal gap. Antinomies between ius cogens norms may arise in the conflicting simultaneous application of the peremptory norms on human rights, the non-use of force and self-determination. In order to determine how norms of ius cogens might be applied in situations of normative conflict - either apparent or real ones -, the author suggests the use of “weighing and balancing” techniques. After analysing the main theories on the issue, and describing the most commonly accepted peremptory norms in current international law, this work approaches the problem of antinomies between peremptory norms by applying “weighing and balancing” techniques to two case studies. First, the apparent conflict between the prohibition of the use of force and the prohibition of the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as embodied in the notion of “humanitarian intervention”. Second, the real conflict between the prohibition of the use of force and the right to self-determination as conveyed by a hypothetical Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement entailing the partial cession of occupied territories. Norms of ius cogens are known for regulating sensitive and highly axiological matters, as shown by these two case studies. As a result, finding answers to the problem of conflicting peremptory norms is important not only as regards the doctrinal advancement in the field of international law, but also for the purpose of reaching lawful solutions to central concerns of the international community at large.
The transfer of data across borders supports trade in most service industries around the world as well as the growth of traditional manufacturing sectors. However, several countries have begun to adopt laws impeding the cross-border transfer of data, ostensibly in pursuit of policy objectives such as national security, public morals or public order, and privacy. Such domestic measures create potential concerns under both international trade law and international investment law. Accordingly, recent trade and investment negotiations such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) include specific provisions mandating the permissibility of cross-border data transfer and prohibiting data localisation in certain circumstances. Although World Trade Organization law contains no such specific provisions, restrictive data transfer measures could breach the non-discrimination and market access disciplines under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), except to the extent that they are justified under the general exception in GATS art XIV. International investment law may also apply to measures restricting data transfer, particularly if investment arbitrators take into account holistic changes in the digital economy to interpret the scope of covered investments and the meaning of investment obligations. The application of general trade and investment law disciplines to data transfer restrictions and localisation requirements remain uncertain. The more specific provisions in the TPP, while welcome, fail to address this uncertainty. These fields must be better synchronised with each other in respect of data transfer and with the realities of the digital economy. A comprehensive legal framework ― including coverage of trade and investment law ― and extensive policy coordination across a variety of stakeholders would better enable open, secure and efficient data flows across borders.
Nous assistons, particulièrement depuis la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989, à une certaine surenchère du discours ainsi que d'actes plus concrets, se réclamant de l'intervention internationale menée au nom des droits de l'homme. Il en a été question, par exemple, à la suite des crises humanitaires ayant eu lieu en Libye, en Irak ou en ex-Yougoslavie. Mais ce type d'intervention, impliquant l'emploi unilatéral de la force d'un État dans la juridiction d'un autre État, peut-il être admis au regard du droit international ? La présente thèse propose de répondre à cette question en s'intéressant à un dénominateur commun devant relier tout à la fois l'intention de l'intervenant, la Charte de l'ONU et la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme de 1948. Ce dénominateur se trouve dans une norme primordiale qu'il convient d'appeler finaliste parce qu'elle postule que l'accomplissement des finalités du droit international, y compris la réalisation universelle des droits de l'homme, sont non seulement souhaitables mais également possibles. Cette recherche vérifie par une démarche historique et épistémologique, l'origine, la pertinence et la portée de la norme finaliste ainsi que de son antithèse, la norme primordiale fataliste. Le jeu qu'entretiennent entre elles ces deux normes fait ressortir les intentions réelles de l'intervenant et découvrir un ensemble d'obligations implicites à la charge de ce dernier. Il permet, in fine, de déterminer l'autorité juridique de l'intervenant.
The latest issue of World Politics (Vol. 68, no. 4, October 2016) is out. Contents include:
L'existence d'un conflit armé international entraîne l'application des Conventions de Genève de 1949 et de leur Protocole Additionnel I de 1977 - des textes amenant des changements juridiques cruciaux concernant la vie d'individus, leur liberté personnelle ou encore leurs biens. Malgré leur centralité, ni la notion de conflit armé international ni celle de son acte déclencheur ne sont clairement délimitées en droit international. Cet ouvrage propose une définition de l'acte déclencheur d'un conflit armé international de l'article 2 commun aux Conventions de Genève en utilisant la méthode interprétative de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités de 1969. Nous nous arrêtons notamment sur les questions suivantes : qui peut commettre un acte potentiellement déclencheur d'un conflit armé international ? Contre qui cet acte doit-il être dirigé ? Un seuil de violence est-il nécessaire ? Faut-il qu'un critère d'animus belligerendi soit rempli ? Des développements sur l'internationalisation des conflits armés non internationaux et sur la qualification des conflits armés transnationaux sont également proposés. Sur ce dernier point, nous expliquons dans cet ouvrage que selon nous, et contrairement à la doctrine majoritaire, les conflits qui opposent un État à un groupe armé situé sur le territoire d'un autre État ne déclenchent pas l'application du droit des conflits armés internationaux mais devraient être qualifiés de conflits armés non internationaux, et ce même si l'État territorial ne consent pas aux hostilités.
La gouvernance internationale est un paysage naturellement fragmenté, composé de traités et d'institutions autonomes, sans hiérarchie existante entre les sources de droit et les traités. Cette fragmentation découle de la souveraineté des États. La fragmentation s'intensifie encore dans le cadre de la culture, parce que les échanges culturelles constituent une question complexe, multisectorielle.
Depuis une vingtaine d'années, un cadre normatif se construit progressivement comme un axe majeur de réponse aux défis de la mondialisation devenue tangible à travers son institutionnalisation, à travers les accords de l'OMC. Après avoir voyagé sous le manteau des droits de l'homme, ce cadre a trouvé un contenu intellectuel et un cadre juridique à travers la convention de l'Unesco sur la diversité culturelle. Cette dernière comble les lacunes du droit international en créant un cadre novateur qui investit les décombres et les interstices entre les droits nationaux et le droit international.
Dans la manière dont elle est institutionnellement saisie et mise en chantier, la problématique de la diversité culturelle est condamnée à osciller entre le droit du commerce et le droit international de la culture. Or, après avoir mis tant d'années à résoudre la question ontologique du droit international envisagé comme un système juridique dont la qualité principale est la cohérence, l'ère est au débat sur l'expansion désordonnée et l'unité de l'ordre juridique au sein duquel cohabite une multiplicité d'acteurs charriant avec eux des échelles de valeurs hétérogènes et animant la structure changeante et complexe du système juridique international. L'UNESCO, comme l'OMC, est en charge de questions sensibles, porteuses de forts enjeux de souveraineté. Dès lors, cette convention devenue un lieu de cristallisation de l'interface culture-commerce, peut-elle apporter des réponses idoines à ces défis. À la clé de cette recherche fondamentale complexe se trouvent des réponses et des applications concrètes dont pourraient bénéficier les praticiens. L'objectif de cet ouvrage est, par une approche inter-systémique insistant sur l'incomplétude des systèmes, d'examiner à quelles conditions les rapports, tantôt apaisés, voire complices, tantôt conflictuels entre les organisations internationales, peuvent ouvrer pour un développement durable par une gouvernance internationale moins éclatée et plus cohérente.
The latest issue of Legal Issues of Economic Integration (Vol. 43, no. 3, 2016) is out. Contents include:
This book offers an overview of the challenges in the emerging regime of international criminal justice as a tool of sustainable peace. It illustrates the impact of the regime on international law and international relations, focusing on the obstacles to and concerns of its governance in the context of the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security.
The author advocates for an appropriate interaction strategy between the United Nations and the Rome Statute institutions as a matter of international mutual concern and for the sake of human security. In multiple and inter-linked country situations the failure of strategies to prevent mass atrocity crimes have severely compromised the safety of civilians, including their individual fundamental rights. In several countries - such as in Libya, Syria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast and Mali - civilians have severely suffered the consequences of such failure. Furthermore, the right of humanitarian intervention that it is sometimes claimed the international community has is now challenged and qualified by the responsibility to protect civilians in situations of mass atrocity crimes. Such an international norm represents unfinished business in global politics and is considered by many to be far from capable of preserving the rule of international law. The preservation of the rule of law requires discussions and the advocacy of global values in international relations, such as multilateralism, collective responsibility, global solidarity and mutual accountability.
Zahlreiche Staaten und der Internationale Gerichtshof äusserten sich während des Kosovo-Verfahrens zur höchst umstrittenen und aktuellen Frage nach der völkerrechtlichen Rechtsmässigkeit einer Sezession. Die Arbeit untersucht die vertretenen Positionen und ihre argumentative Bearbeitung im dreistufigen Verfahren. Nach einer Problematisierung völkerrechtlicher Argumentbegriffe wird in einem ersten Teil mittels Rezeption neuerer argumentationstheoretischer Entwicklungen ein dialogischer und pragmatischer Argumentbegriff eingeführt. Gestützt darauf werden in einem zweiten Teil die Verfahrensbeiträge der beteiligten Akteure analysiert. Die Arbeit zeigt, in welchen fünf »Sezessionsrahmen« die umstrittene Frage nach der Legalität der Sezession bearbeitet wurde, wie und warum die vertretenen Positionen während des Verfahrens stärker oder schwächer wurden und welche von ihnen schliesslich im Gutachten des Gerichtshofs obsiegte.
During its Kosovo Advisory Proceedings, the International Court of Justice and the disputing parties considered highly contentious questions relating to the legality of secession under international law. In-depth analysis of the positions advanced by the parties, and how the argumentative process unfolded, is the central focus of the present study, which uses the most recent developments in the field of argumentation theory to assess the proceedings based on a pragmatic and dialogical notion of argumentation. The study finds that the actors used five different »secession frames«, considers how those positions gained or lost ground during the proceedings, and assesses why one of them was ultimately endorsed by the Court in its Advisory Opinion.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Italian Yearbook of International Law, Volume XXVI (2016)
International Law in Regional and Domestic Legal Systems
Volume XXVI (2016) of the Italian Yearbook of International Law (IYIL) will include a Focus on “International Law in Regional and Domestic Legal Systems”, which will be edited in cooperation with the Interest Group on “International Law in Domestic Legal Orders” of the Italian Society of International Law.
The Editors welcome submissions of abstracts showing a critical and/or innovative perspective on any of the following aspects:
- Methodological approaches to the relationship between international, regional and national legal systems;
- Historical and doctrinal perspectives on the relationship between international, regional and national legal systems
- Supremacy and direct effect of international law: new problems, new processes;
- The position of the individual as right-holder and duty-bearer in the international legal order: insights from national jurisprudence;
- The protection of global fundamental values by national and regional courts;
- The interplay between international and national jurisprudence in the creation, interpretation and implementation of international law;
- The incorporation of international law in regional legal systems (e.g. EU, Andean Community, ASEAN, African organizations) and in non-mainstream, under-studied national legal systems (such as Brazil, China, Japan, and Russia)
- The relationship between EU law and international law: critical views on recent developments;
- Domestic courts and the sources of international law: uses and abuses;
- The implementation of the law of international responsibility in domestic and regional legal systems.
Abstracts of no more than 500 words, written in English and including the author’s name and e-mail address should be submitted to the IYIL Editors, e-mail address: italianyearbook@gmail.com. A halfpage (max one-page) curriculum vitae must be included in the file containing the abstract. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 14 November 2016. Successful applicants will be notified via e-mail by 30 November 2016 and must submit the final draft paper (10.000-12.000 words, including footnotes) by 28 February 2017. Papers will be peer-reviewed before final acceptance for publication
During the last couple of decades, law has broken its conceptual isolation. Through interventions by authors such as Martti Koskenniemi and David Kennedy, a new critical way of looking at law has brought the field closer to the social sciences. Critical geographers such as Arnulf Becker Lorca show how to broaden the geographical understanding of law. Much, though not all, of this discussion is about the laws of war, and it is also through this subject that professional historians enter this field of study.
So: should we historicise law? Could we, in a workable way?
The international law of foreign investment is one of the fastest growing areas of international economic law and policy which increasingly rely on large membership investment treaties such as the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA). This book comprehensively examines the role of this specific international treaty on investment and situates it in the wider global trend towards the regionalisation of laws and policy on foreign investment.
Considering the state of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 and its transformation until 2025, Julien Chaisse and Sufian Jusoh illustrate the pivotal role ACIA has to play in future international investment law negotiations and the benefits to ASEAN and third country investors and their investments. Collective commitment to a common standard contributes to depoliticise any potential conflict between individual investors and host states, making the agreement particularly crucial to discussions involving ASEAN Member States and between ASEAN and Dialogue Partners as well as to investment decisions including investment liberalisation and investment facilitation.
In the theoretical literature on the authority of international secretariats, academics often dichotomise between states and secretariats. Even when they account for the fact that states are often divided, they normally adopt a two-step approach: states first resolve their own differences before they entertain relations with secretariats. This article provides an alternative perspective. It argues that individual or groups of states may collude with like-minded secretariats to achieve outcomes at the expense of other states. Working informally together is beneficial. States can benefit from the rational-legal, delegated, moral and expert authority of secretariats. States and secretariats can also exchange resources. The article illustrates this perspective through two case studies: the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 and the EU military operation in Chad in 2008.
Criticism of the effects of the international investment regime on state regulatory space (SRS) is on the rise, much of it focusing on the impact of binding arbitration. Specifically, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions found in most bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other investment agreements have a profound effect on the balance between investor rights and state regulatory space (SRS), raising a debate on their legitimacy. We explore how states perceive the legitimacy of ISDS provisions in light of their experiences with the investment regime through the lens of BIT renegotiation and termination. Renegotiation provides an empirical window for understanding how dissatisfaction with BITs translates into concrete decisions by governments to recalibrate their treaty obligations, perhaps rendering them more legitimate. Based on an original data set comprised of 161 renegotiated agreements, we find that states have not made a systematic effort over the years to recalibrate their BITs for the purpose of preserving more regulatory space. In fact, most renegotiations either leave ISDS provisions unchanged or render them more investor-friendly. However, recent renegotiations show a greater tendency to limit investor protections in ISDS provisions.
Over the past 15 years, a significant “transparency gap” has developed between the investment treaty arbitration and international commercial arbitration regimes. With increasing frequency in investment treaty cases, the public is provided with some form of access to documents and hearings as well as opportunities for participation through written amicus submissions; only to a very limited extent have such developments occurred within the international commercial arbitration regime.
This chapter examines whether the existing transparency gap between the two regimes should be maintained. To evaluate that transparency gap, this chapter analyzes the respective regimes in light of three factors: (i) the nature of the public interest; (ii) the role of confidentiality; and (iii) the role of party autonomy.
This chapter concludes that the existing transparency gap between the two regimes should — as a general matter — be maintained. Although the public interest in particular international commercial arbitration cases can be significant — most notably in cases involving State entities or statutory claims — on a systemic level the public interest in international commercial arbitration contrasts sharply with investment treaty arbitration, where cases consistently involve State entities and challenges to government measures. Equally important, two cornerstones of international commercial arbitration also support the existing transparency gap: (i) the availability of discreet and dispassionate dispute resolution, made possible by confidential proceedings, and (ii) the primacy of party autonomy.
But with respect to the particular issue of public availability of arbitral awards, this chapter concludes that the existing transparency gap should be narrowed significantly, given the compelling and multifaceted nature of the public interest in that context. The public interest in obtaining access to arbitral awards exceeds — both in strength and multiplicity — the public interest in obtaining access to other documents and hearings, or in participating in disputes as amicus curiae. With respect to the future development of international law, it is the awards — not other documents, hearing transcripts, and/or amicus submissions — that hold the greatest potential for significant impact.
With a view to increasing the public availability of commercial arbitration awards, this chapter proposes three alternative models for rulemaking: (i) a default rule model (which — absent party agreement to keep awards confidential — would require publication of redacted versions of awards), (ii) a modified mandatory rule model (which would track the ICSID approach of publishing, at a minimum, excerpts of the legal reasoning in each award), and (iii) a mandatory rule model (which would track recent investment treaty practice, requiring publication of awards subject to redaction of protected information).
The International Organizations Interest Group of the American Society of International Law will hold a works-in-progress workshop on Friday, February 10, 2017 in New York City.
If you are interested in presenting a paper at the workshop, please submit an abstract to Sarah Dadush (sdadush@kinoy.rutgers.edu), Noah Bialostozky (noahbialos@gmail.com), and Maria Panezi (panezi_maria@yahoo.com) by the end of the day on November 30, 2016. Abstracts should be a couple of paragraphs long, but not more than one page. Papers should relate to the study of international organizations.
Papers selected for presentation are due no later than January 20, 2017, as they will be pre-circulated. Papers should not yet be in print so that authors will have time to make revisions based on comments from the workshop.
The workshop's format will be structured to afford each presenter significant individual feedback. Each paper will have a dedicated session, in which it will first be introduced by a commentator. Thereafter the author will have the opportunity to respond if he or she wishes. The floor will then be opened up for discussion. The workshop will be conducted on the assumption that everyone has read all of the papers in advance. One need not present or comment on a paper to participate. Registration for the workshop will open in November.
