The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) has been relatively neglected in the field of normative human rights theory. This book aims to bridge the gap between human rights theory and the practice of the ECHR. In order to do so, it tests the two overarching approaches in human rights theory literature: the ethical and the political, against the practice of the ECHR ‘system’. The book also addresses the history of the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as an international legal and political institution.
The book offers a democratic defence of the authority of the ECtHR. It illustrates how a conception of democracy – more specifically, the egalitarian argument for democracy developed by Thomas Christiano on the domestic level – can illuminate the reasoning of the Court, including the allocation of the margin of appreciation on a significant number of issues. Alain Zysset argues that the justification of the authority of the ECtHR – its prominent status in the domestic legal orders – reinforces the democratic process within States Parties, thereby consolidating our status as political equals in those legal and political orders.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Jackson: A Conspiracy to Commit Genocide: Anti-Fertility Research in Apartheid's Chemical and Biological Weapons Programme
In late 2013, the Health Professions Council of South Africa found Dr Wouter Basson guilty of unprofessional conduct. The charges stemmed from Basson’s time as head of apartheid South Africa’s chemical and biological weapons programme — a programme implicated in kidnappings, poisonings and murders. Very little attention has been paid to a different aspect of the programme — anti-fertility research. This article argues that testimony from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission founds a reasonable basis to believe that scientists at the programme and their principals were engaged in a conspiracy to commit genocide — a conspiracy to surreptitiously deliver anti-fertility drugs to black South Africans with the intention of curtailing birth rates. A conspiracy of this kind gives rise to individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law and, given South Africa’s approach to the incorporation of international crimes, may be prosecuted as such in a domestic court. Regardless of whether it would be a good idea to prosecute the conspirators now, 30 years after the fact, South Africa’s research into anti-fertility drugs ought to play a far greater role in contemporary discussions of apartheid-era wrongs.
- Martine Durocher, United Nations Mission to Kosovo: in Violation of the Right to Life?
- Brenda Midson, Coercive Control and Criminal Responsibility: Victims Who Kill Their Abusers
- Auke Willems, Extradition on the Two Sides of the Atlantic: The U.S. Model as Blueprint for the European Arrest Warrant?
- Marc Groenhuijsen & René Jansen, The Reporting Procedure for Police Officers who have Used Serious Force Under Dutch Law and the Privilege Against Forced Self-incrimination
Friday, November 18, 2016
- Nicholas Chan, Climate Contributions and the Paris Agreement: Fairness and Equity in a Bottom-Up Architecture
- Jens Bartelson, Recognition: A Short History
- Karin Aggestam & Annika Bergman-Rosamond, Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy in the Making: Ethics, Politics, and Gender
- Luke Glanville, Self-Interest and the Distant Vulnerable
- Silje Aambø Langvatn, Should International Courts Use Public Reason?
- Review Essay
- James K. Galbraith, Ethics and Inequality: A Strategic and Practical View
- Ryan Jenkins & Duncan Purves, Robots and Respect: A Response to Robert Sparrow
- Robert Sparrow, Robots as “Evil Means”? A Rejoinder to Jenkins and Purves
- Benjamin J. Richardson, The Emerging Age of Ecological Restoration Law
- Arie Trouwborst, Floor Fleurke & Jennifer Dubrulle, Border Fences and their Impacts on Large Carnivores, Large Herbivores and Biodiversity: An International Wildlife Law Perspective
- Susanna Paleari, Managing Chemicals under REACH ‘Hybridity’: Progress and Problems in the Implementation Process
- Alexander Gillespie, Vulnerability and Response to the Risk of International Shipping: The Case of the Salish Sea
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping and Jurisdiction of States
- Till Markus & Pradeep Singh, Promoting Consistency in the Deep Seabed: Addressing Regulatory Dimensions in Designing the International Seabed Authority's Exploitation Code
- Christian Prip & Ole Kristian Fauchald, Securing Crop Genetic Diversity: Reconciling EU Seed Legislation and Biodiversity Treaties
- Eléonore Maitre-Ekern & Carl Dalhammar, Regulating Planned Obsolescence: A Review of Legal Approaches to Increase Product Durability and Reparability in Europe
Call for Papers: Transnational Criminal Law in the Americas
May 4-5, 2017
Transnational organized crime is a major threat to international security. This has been recognized by the United Nations Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. One country’s success in limiting illicit production and flows often results in the displacement of the problem to another state, thereby signalling the need for a coordinated response.
The past few decades have seen a growing number of multilateral conventions addressing questions of transnational crime. In response, the emerging field of transnational criminal law is developing with the growing recognition of the need for further research and informed dialogue about important legal questions arising in this context.
On May 4-5, 2017, the Transnational Law and Justice Network at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, invites academics, policy makers, NGOs, and individuals working on the ground to participate in a multidisciplinary regional dialogue about the most pressing transnational criminal law issues facing the Americas today.
Topics may include: the suppression treaty regime generally; legal responses to specific transnational crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, migrant smuggling, money laundering, corruption, firearms trafficking, environmental crimes, and other transnational organized crime; institutions and accountability for transnational crime; and mutual legal assistance, cooperation and capacity building.
Questions to be addressed may include:
• What are the most pressing transnational criminal law issues facing the Americas today and how are these issues evolving and shifting?
• Should greater emphasis be placed on regional responses to transnational criminal law and how should such regional responses be structured?
• What assumptions underlie the current legal regimes addressing transnational crime and do they adequately reflect the reality of transnational criminality today?
• How have globalization and technological advancements shifted the nature of transnational criminality and how should this inform the legal response?
• How do critical approaches to law inform questions of transnational criminal law?
Transnational Criminal Law in the Americas is to be held May 4-5, 2017 at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. The Honourable A. Anne McLellan, P.C., O.C., will be delivering the public Greenspan Cohn Lecture in criminal law at the conference and Professor Robert Currie of the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, will be delivering the keynote address. The conference organizers seek to publish a select number of conference papers in a high level journal.
Those interested in presenting at the conference are invited to apply by email to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than January 20, 2017.
Applications should include:
• An abstract of 300 words maximum
• Your name(s), affiliation(s) and contact information
• A short biography
The Transnational Law and Justice Network (TLJN) is a research hub that promotes and sponsors scholarship on global governance, internationalism, transnationalism, social justice and access to justice. The network is home to a number of local, national and international experts whose scholarship translates theory into practice in their respective communities and primarily focuses on the intersection of local and global. Situated in the border city of Windsor, Ontario, the most highly trafficked land crossing in North America, TLJN is an ideal space for this type of transnational and interdisciplinary collaboration. For more information, please visit the TLJN website.
In collaboration with the Program for International Legal Studies, Wayne State University Law School.
Giraudeau: The Principles of Confidentiality and Noninterference in Communications with Lawyers and Legal Advisers in Recent ICJ and ECHR Case Law
CALL FOR PAPERS: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Special Issue on THE DUTIES, RIGHTS AND POWERS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATORS
This special issue of the journal The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals focuses on the duties, rights and powers of international arbitrators in investment arbitration disputes. According to a well-known saying, the three key elements of international arbitration are “arbitrator, arbitrator and arbitrator.” The exercise of the professional activity of international arbitrators, who are the real soul of the contemporary ISDS system, poses many challenges. For example, the legal relationship of arbitrators to the parties, especially to the one which appoints them, is controversial and questioned. The following are just some areas on which the Special Issue will focus: International arbitrator competence; duties of international arbitrators; challenge, removal and replacement of international arbitrators; liability of international arbitrators; rights of international arbitrators; effects of the European Union policy on foreign direct investment on the duties, rights and powers of international arbitrators; and other regional initiatives, such as Draft Constitutive Agreement of the Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes of the UNASUR.
Submission of proposals: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (Editor-in Chief: Eduardo Valencia-Ospina and Managing Editor: Pierre Bodeau-Livinec) is firmly established as the leading journal in its field, which is indexed in Scopus. Each issue of this double-blind peer-reviewed journal presents the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal also presents the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature. Procedural matters covered in the Journal include the bench, representation of the parties, institution of contentious proceedings, written proceedings and related matters, oral proceedings, proceedings in chambers, absence of appearance, provisional measures of protection, preliminary objections, counterclaims, intervention by third States, discontinuance of proceedings, the decision, interpretation and revision of judgments, advisory proceedings, evidence, witnesses, experts and the extra-judicial function.
For this call for papers for the Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, experienced practitioners, IIA negotiators and scholars are invited to submit innovative proposals that go beyond the state of the art. Extended abstracts – minimum of 1,000 words – or unpublished full papers should be submitted to the editors (email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org) along with the author’s name, affiliation and a CV that includes the author’s contact details.
All submissions and finalised papers must be written in English. Submission for the Special Issue is incompatible with a parallel submission to a different publication.
Finalised papers will be around 6,000-8,000 words and must comply with the Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals style guide, ethical and legal conditions which can be accessed here.
International Conference: Under the direction of Dr. Horacio Grigera Naón, American University Washington College of Law, and the guest editors are organizing an international conference that will take place on September 19th, 2017 at the Washington College of Law. Accepted papers will be presented in this forum. Paper presenters will receive comments on their papers from key speakers, scholars attending the conference, prominent international lawyers, and guest editors. Selected speakers are expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation.
- The deadline for the submission of proposals is December 31st, 2016.
- Successful applicants will be informed by January 31st, 2017.
- The deadline for the submission of the draft paper for accepted proposals is August 15th, 2017.
- The international conference will be held at American University Washington College of Law in September 19th, 2017.
- Finalised paper will be submitted to the editors by October 30th, 2017.
- The special issue in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals will be published in Spring 2018 (LPCT, Vol. 17, No. 1).
Thursday, November 17, 2016
- Jacob Katz Cogan, Ian Hurd, & Ian Johnstone, Preface
- Jon Pevehouse & Inken von Borzyskowski, International Organizations in World Politics
- Anne Peters, International Organizations and International Law
- Jeffrey Dunoff, The Law and Politics of International Organizations
- Madeleine Herren, International Organizations, 1865-1945
- B.S. Chimni, International Organizations, 1945-Present
- Jan Klabbers, Formal Inter-Governmental Organizations
- Peter Lindseth, Supranational Organizations
- Walter Mattli, Private Transnational Governance
- Lise Morjé Howard & Anjali Dayal, Peace Operations
- James Cockayne, Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crime
- Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
- Dinah Shelton, Human Rights
- David J. Scheffer, Criminal Justice
- Thomas G. Weiss, Humanitarian Action
- Gil Loescher, Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
- Joel Trachtman, Trade
- Manuela Moschella, International Finance
- Frank Schimmelfennig, Economic Relations and Integration
- David M. Malone & Rohinton P. Medhora, Development
- David A. Wirth, Environment
- Gian Luca Burci & Andrew Cassels, Health
- Brian Langille, Labour
- Helge Årsheim, Religion
- Ian Johnstone & Michael Snyder, Democracy Promotion
- Milton Mueller, Communications and the Internet
- Nigel D. White, Lawmaking
- Timm Betz & Barbara Koremenos, Monitoring Processes
- Jeremy Farrall, Sanctions
- Marc Weller, Use of Force
- John R. Crook, Dispute Settlement
- Jean-Marc Coicaud & David Le Blanc, Information Gathering, Analysis, and Dissemination
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Relationships of International Organizations with Other Actors
- Jan Aart Scholte, Relations with Civil Society
- Georg Kell, Relations with the Private Sector
- Margaret P. Karns, General Assemblies and Assemblies of States Parties
- Bjørn Høyland, Parliaments
- Ramses A. Wessel, Executive Boards and Councils
- Simon Chesterman, Executive Heads
- Touko Piiparinen, Secretariats
- Ramesh Thakur, High-Level Panels
- Chiara Giorgetti, International Adjudicative Bodies
- Jacob Katz Cogan, Financing and Budgets
- Stephen C. Nelson & Catherine Weaver, Organizational Culture
- Niels Blokker, Constituent Instruments
- Stephen Mathias & Stadler Trengove, Membership and Representation
- Dan Sarooshi, Legal Capacity and Powers
- Jan Wouters & Jed Odermatt, Assessing the Legality of Decisions
- Pierre Klein, Responsibility
- August Reinisch, Privileges and Immunities
- Santiago Villalpando, The Law of the International Civil Service
- Santiago Villalpando, International Administrative Tribunals
- Dominik Zaum, Legitimacy
- Patrizia Nanz & Klaus Dingwerth, Participation
- Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, Accountability
- Jonas Tallberg, Transparency
Ce travail, basé sur une étude normative du développement et non sur une étude économique du droit, démontre que le concept du développement influence dans certains cas l'interprétation et l'application du droit international des investissements. Le concept du développement est utilisé sous diverses acceptions : le développement économique, le niveau de développement des États et le développement sous sa forme durable. Sous ces formes, son influence s'observe à deux niveaux : celui de l'identification et celui de la protection des investissements internationaux. Référence est faite à la contribution d'une activité au développement économique de son État d'accueil pour identifier un investissement ; le concept est, de même, parfois utilisé lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer l'étendue de la protection due aux investissements internationaux. Ici, c'est le niveau de développement et le développement durable qui sont utilisés pour évaluer la protection effectivement due aux investissements internationaux. La protection est ici considérée dans un sens lato sensu : elle englobe aussi la protection financière. La thèse fait valoir que l'utilisation du concept est très contestable pour identifier un investissement, alors que son influence est plus palpable au niveau de l'application des normes relatives à la protection des investissements. Dans ce sens, le livre explique que le concept produit des effets plus concrets sur le droit international des investissements lorsque son utilisation se fonde sur certains principes ou s'accompagne de certaines techniques juridiques. En filigranes, le travail critique aussi l'approche adoptée par les juristes lors de l'étude du développement.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Encouraged by the post-Cold War rise of international adjudication, most international lawyers have focused their attention on judicial ‘success stories’. They have thereby revitalised a liberal-modernist narrative that views the constant expansion and improvement of international adjudication as historically ineluctable. Against this backdrop, the DEBACLES project, inaugurated at the Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law in 2015, aims to cast an unconventional light on the history of international adjudication, bringing to the foreground its many illusions and failures, the paths not taken, and, more generally, the nonlinearity of its developments.
The present conference, which marks an important milestone, will engage with specific failed attempts to create and operate international judicial forums, as well as with broader historical and theoretical issues related to such failures. First among these is the clarification of the very concept of ‘failure’ and the identification of its subjective and objective dimensions. The conference will offer a rich inventory of cases of failure arranged in four thematic sessions on — respectively — human rights, international economic law, regional international organisations, and international criminal law. Prominent and outwardly thriving institutions — including the International Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) — are examined along with lesser-known or almost forgotten ones, like the International Loans Tribunal and other dead letter courts. One may see, in the choice to take a closer look at cases of failure, an attempt to draw lessons from past setbacks with a view to the progressive advancement and further expansion of international adjudication. The analyses we offer may of course be put to such use, although the project’s main purpose is, rather, to develop a dispassionate critique of the practice of international adjudication itself, its ideological underpinnings most notably as reflected in its historiography, and its structural limits.
Liefaard & Sloth-Nielsen: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking Stock after 25 Years and Looking Ahead
In 2014 the world’s most widely ratified human rights treaty, one specifically for children, reached the milestone of its twenty-fifth anniversary. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in the time since then it has entered a new century, reshaping laws, policies, institutions and practices across the globe, along with fundamental conceptions of who children are, their rights and entitlements, and society’s duties and obligations to them.
Yet despite its rapid entry into force worldwide, there are concerns that the Convention remains a high-level paper treaty without the traction on the ground needed to address ever-continuing violations of children’s rights. This book, based on papers from the conference ‘25 Years CRC’ held by the Department of Child Law at Leiden University, draws together a rich collection of research and insight by academics, practitioners, NGOs and other specialists to reflect on the lessons of the past 25 years, take stock of how international rights find their way into children’s lives at the local level, and explore the frontiers of children’s rights for the 25 years ahead.
Is it desirable for non-criminal international tribunals to be employed in constructing collective memories? This initial paper explores this question from three major sociological perspectives: the structural-functional approach, the symbolic-interactionist perspective, and the social conflict approach. These three theoretical approaches suggest different answers to the above question, and offer different guidelines concerning the involvement of international tribunals in the development of historical narratives. The answer provided to this question may generate some practical judicial results, such as those relating to the presentation of a historical narrative in judgements, exercise of discretion regarding the admissibility of the case, or influencing the remedies ordered by international tribunals.
Migration emergencies are a commonplace feature in contemporary headlines. Pundits offer a variety of causes provoking these emergencies. Some highlight the deadly risks of these journeys for the migrants. Many more express alarm at the potential threats these mass influxes pose to their destination countries. But few question whether these migrant flows are, as commonly portrayed, unexpected and unpredictable. This paper asks whether these migration emergencies are surprising events or the logical and foreseeable outcomes of the structural failures of the global migration system. In particular, it interrogates the architecture of international migration law, arguing that the current framework is unsustainable in today’s globalized world.
This is a story about the legal construction of crisis. Several literatures offer compelling insights into the construction of migration crises, but fail to explore the crucial role of international migration law. Scholars of forced migration view the legal framework as an inadequate response to crises but not as a root cause. Others have highlighted the role that crises play in the development of international law, demonstrating how crises impact law, but failing to examine how law helps to construct those crises.
This article begins to unpack the role of international migration law in constructing migration “crises”. International migration law, because it is codified in written instruments and nearly impossible to alter, entrenches sociocultural frames that might otherwise be substantially more flexible. International law has constructed a deeply path-dependent approach to international migration that not only obscures systemic inequality but also consumes alternate conceptions of morality. In response to this critique, the article suggests a new approach to global migration law that aims to govern migrant flows more effectively. In short, it aims to establish international migration law as a separate subfield of international law rather than the afterthought that it currently represents.
Conference: State Socialism, Legal Experts and the Genesis of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law after 1945
In the history of international law, the socialist bloc has been generally relegated to the role of roadblock to the fulfillment of the ideals of Western liberalism. Scholars of international criminal law (ICL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) have often dismissed the contributions of socialist legal initiatives as little more than Cold War propaganda and thus irrelevant to understanding the historical evolution of judicial norms and the modern international system. The establishment of different international tribunals since the collapse of the Soviet Union has only reinforced the notion that the socialist world was little more than an impediment to progress. Nevertheless, the American-led global war on terror has done much to call into question Western commitment to the laws of war.
This conference seeks to explore the role of state-socialist intellectuals, experts and governments in shaping the evolution of ICL and IHL since the end of the Second World War. Actors from Eastern Europe, the USSR, and East Asian and African socialist states actively participated in international debates regarding international legal norms, the meaning of state sovereignty, and in the negotiation of all major ICL and IHL conventions after 1945. In various cases the socialist bloc was often more enthusiastic, and timely, in supporting and ratifying international legal agreements than Western governments, even if these initiatives were inseparable from political agendas. Although they systematically opposed the creation of international tribunals, experts from socialist countries led the way in many areas, such as the codification of crimes against peace and Apartheid or the elimination of statutory limitations for major ICL offences. The socialist world participated also in debates over the international legal status of drug conflicts and revolutionary groups funded by narcotics trafficking. Deliberations on the criminalization of terrorism and the regulation of armed conflicts were closely linked to the politics of “wars of liberation” by socialist forces in Africa, South-East Asia, and Latin America. Socialist legal experts were active participants in transnational epistemic communities and engaged in broader global projects, initiatives, and mobilizations across the Cold War divide.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
It is no secret that the US variously pulls away from the United Nations and embraces it as a significant venue for policy initiatives. But what explains this dramatic inconsistency? What is the logic of US multilateralism? Alynna Lyon explores the puzzling waxing and waning of US support for the UN, tracing events, actions, and decisions from the end of World War I to the present. Lyon weaves together a consideration of international context, UN institutional dynamics, and US domestic politics to conceptualize and explain the trials and tribulations of the US-UN relationship. In the process, she tells the story of the progression of the US from a country committed to internationalism to one full of dysfunctional partisanship, ideological underpinnings, and domestic power struggles that undermine its capacities to cooperate on a global scale.
- Agora: Contested multilateralism and global constitutionalism
- Andreas Follesdal, Implications of contested multilateralism for global constitutionalism
- Neil Walker, Postnational constitutionalism and the challenge of contested multilateralism
- Gráinne de Búrca, Contested or competitive multilateralism? A reply to Julia C. Morse and Robert O. Keohane
- Christian Kreuder-Sonnen & Bernhard Zangl, Varieties of contested multilateralism: Positive and negative consequences for the constitutionalisation of multilateral institutions
- Robert O. Keohane & Julia C. Morse, Contribution to Global Constitutionalism Symposium
- Gautam Bhatia, Freedom from community: Individual rights, group life, state authority and religious freedom under the Indian Constitution
- Stefan Kroll, Zooming in on norm research: Towards a suitable scale for the Shanghai Mixed Court
- Chris Thornhill, The global legal system and the procedural construction of constituent power
- Michael C. Horowitz, Sarah E. Kreps, & Matthew Fuhrmann, Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation
- Alexander B. Downes & Lindsey A. O'Rourke, You Can't Always Get What You Want: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Seldom Improves Interstate Relations
- Keren Yarhi-Milo, Alexander Lanoszka, & Zack Cooper, To Arm or to Ally? The Patron's Dilemma and the Strategic Logic of Arms Transfers and Alliances
- Gary J. Bass, Bargaining Away Justice: India, Pakistan, and the International Politics of Impunity for the Bangladesh Genocide
- William Z.Y. Wang, Stephen G. Brooks, & William C. Wohlforth, Debating China's Rise and the Future of U.S. Power
- Derek Grossman, Sheryn Lee, Benjamin Schreer, & Scott L. Kastner, Stability or Volatility across the Taiwan Strait?
- Robert E. Goodin, Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide
- Tine Hanrieder, Orders of worth and the moral conceptions of health in global politics
- Symposium: Theory, History, and the Global Transformation
- Christian Reus-Smit, Theory, history, and great transformations
- Paul Musgrave & Daniel Nexon, The global transformation: more than meets the eye
- Patricia Owens, International historical what?
- Bear Braumoeller, The promise of historical dynamism for the American study of international relations
- Alexander Anievas, History, theory, and contingency in the study of modern international relations: the global transformation revisited
- Andrew Phillips, The global transformation, multiple early modernities, and international systems change
- Pinar Bilgin, How to remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A complement and a challenge for The Global Transformation
- Barry Buzan & George Lawson, Theory, history, and the global transformation
Murray, Akande, Garraway, Hampson, Lubell, & Wilmshurst: Practitioners' Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict
Although the relationship between international human rights law and the law of armed conflict has been the subject of significant recent academic discussion, there remains a lack of comprehensive guidance in identifying the law applicable to specific situations faced by military forces.
Providing guidance for armed forces and practitioners on the detailed application of international human rights law during armed conflict, this book fills that gap. Part 1 of the volume details foundational information relating to international human rights law and human rights institutions, the types of operations that States' armed forces engage in, and how the law of armed conflict and international human rights law apply to regulate different situations. Part 2 provides practical guidance as to the legal regulation of specific situations, including discussion of the conduct of hostilities, detention operations, humanitarian assistance, cyber operations, and investigations.
Monday, November 14, 2016
- Trine Flockhart, The problem of change in constructivist theory: Ontological security seeking and agent motivation
- Jonna Nyman, What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate
- Alejandro Colás, Barbary Coast in the expansion of international society: Piracy, privateering, and corsairing as primary institutions
- David Miller, Neo-Kantian theories of self-determination: a critique
- Leonie Ansems de Vries, Politics of (in)visibility: Governance-resistance and the constitution of refugee subjectivities in Malaysia
- Nicolas Lemay-Hébert & Stefanie Kappler, What attachment to peace? Exploring the normative and material dimensions of local ownership in peacebuilding
- Catherine Hecht, The shifting salience of democratic governance: Evidence from the United Nations General Assembly General Debates
- Maren Hofius, Community at the border or the boundaries of community? The case of EU field diplomats
- Jo Jakobsen, Tor G. Jakobsen, & Eirin Rande Ekevold, Democratic peace and the norms of the public: a multilevel analysis of the relationship between regime type and citizens’ bellicosity, 1981–2008
Call for Papers: Democracy and Participation versus Global Public Goods and Commons: Theoretical Challenges
European Society of International Law
Interest Group on International Legal Theory
Workshop, held on the occasion of the 13th ESIL Annual Conference:
‘Global Public Goods, Global Commons and Fundamental Values:
The Responses of International Law’, Naples, 7–9 September 2017
Call for Papers
Democracy and Participation versus Global Public
Goods and Commons: Theoretical Challenges
Democratic and participatory principles, although not free from challenges, are nowadays held by many to be a necessary component of (legitimate) international law. These challenges increase with the entry into international law and legal scholarship of the ideas of ‘global public goods’ and ‘global commons’. This panel will reflect on challenges arising from democratic and participatory ideals vis‐à‐vis global public goods and global commons.
For instance, in relation to commons within local domestic contexts a series of principles have been propounded, claiming to ensure success in managing commons on both the theoretical and on the practical level. Several among these relate to ideas of democracy and participation, for example the participation of users in decision‐making processes and the development of rules; holding monitors accountable; or low‐cost conflict resolution. However, these pose significant challenges when applied to global commons. Moreover, whether the management of global commons requires more or different design principles (e.g. as developed in relation to local commons) remains a largely open question.
In relation to the global public goods debate, the position of international law (and its scholarship) remains ambiguous. While some scholars argue that international institutions and international law are needed to provide for global public goods, others contest the adequacy of traditional international law mechanisms. In both cases, however, the place of democratic and participatory principles remains unclear.
Participants in this panel will critically examine whether and how international law might influence the development of democratic and participatory principles in the management of global public goods and commons, both in a positive and in a negative way. Simultaneously, this panel will evaluate whether the introduction of the language of global public goods and global commons by states, scholars or international institutions supports or detracts from the development of democratic and participatory principles in international law. Is the language of global public goods and global commons merely a convenient device legitimating undemocratic processes and elitism of international institutions? Are we instead correct to speak of a ‘democratic turn’ in the law‐making and in the governance of international law? Would this mean a distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘higher’ law‐making?
We invite reflections on this theme from a variety of perspectives, including interdisciplinary and critical approaches.
Please submit an abstract in Word of no more than 800words to panel organisers Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko (email@example.com) and Claudio Corradetti (firstname.lastname@example.org). The following information must be provided with each abstract:
Only one abstract per author will be considered.
- The author’s name and affiliation;
- The author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications;
- The author’s contact details, including email address and phone number;
- Whether the author is an ESIL member; and
- Whether the abstract should be considered for the ESIL Young Scholar Prize.
Abstracts will be selected for inclusion in the IGILT panel proposal on the basis of their alignment with the panel description and objectives as well as the overall coherence of the panel. The selected abstracts will form the basis for the IGILT’s agora proposal at the main conference, but IGILT will organise an autonomous interest group workshop if the proposal were not to be accepted.
Submissions in both English and French, the two official languages of the Society, are welcomed.
The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 10 December 2016. Applicants will be informed of the selection committee’s decision no later than 9 January 2017.
The Interest Group is unable to provide funding for travel to and attendance at the conference. Please see the ESIL web site for information on finances and for other relevant information about the conference.
- Sofie A. E. Høgestøl, The Habré Judgment at the Extraordinary African Chambers: A Singular Victory in the Fight Against Impunity
- Kristin Henrard, The European Court of Human Rights, Ethnic and Religious Minorities and the Two Dimensions of the Right to Equal Treatment: Jurisprudence at Different Speeds?
- Caroline Adolphsen, Rights of Children Seeking Asylum: A Danish Perspective
- Michael Hertzberg, The Rhetorical Shadows of the Anti-Conversion Bill: Religious Freedom and Political Alliances in Sri Lanka
- Nora Stene, Christian Missionaries and Asylum Seekers: A Case Study from Norway
Call for Papers: Gender on the International Bench
PluriCourts – iCourts Workshop
Oslo March 23-24 2017
At present, women make up an average of 17% of the judges of international courts and tribunals. There is significant variation in the proportion of women on the benches of different legal regimes. To better understand and assess this inequality, PluriCourts and iCourts invites papers for a workshop March 23-24 2017 in Oslo, Norway. PluriCourts and iCourts are Norwegian and Danish Centres of Excellence studying international courts.
The aims of the workshop are
We invite papers in political science and philosophy, addressing such topics as
- to better understand the current patterns of gender diversity and inequality on these international courts and tribunals,
- to critically assess reasons to be concerned with this gender disparity, and
- to identify challenges and ways to alleviate disparities that should be changed.
Please submit an abstract before January 20 to:
- What reasons are there to be concerned about the lack of gender diversity on international courts and tribunals? Candidate arguments may include substantive outcome, deliberative and other processes, procedures, social legitimacy, as well as representation.
- What are the factors driving (the lack of) gender diversity on international courts and tribunals?
- How can we explain variation in gender diversity between different areas of international law, such as international commercial and investment arbitration, trade law, law of the sea, and international human rights law?
- Is gender diversity on international courts and tribunals important for substantive outcomes and/or processes? If so;
- in which substantive areas do we see such patterns?
- what types of judicial outcomes and/or processes may be affected? This may include both individual and panel effects, including the quality of judicial deliberations, the interpretation of legal principles, facts, precedent, rules of procedure, rules of evidence, the direction of decisions on substantive policy scales (such as activism/restraint, liberal/conservative), the use of precedent as a legitimation strategy, the practice of publishing separate opinions, the behavior at oral hearings, etc.)
- Do women judges tend to have different background from male judges before their appointment to ICs and tribunals in terms of;
- professional experience (e.g. legal training, previous positions, substantive area background)
- national/regional background
- How can we address intersectionality and other kinds of diversity?
- How can we address international courts as gendered institutions;
- what roles and positions are men and women awarded at the court
(case assignments, positions as rapporteurs, presidents, etc)?
- to what extent is homo-sociality a factor influencing judicial outcomes and processes (e.g. in citation practices)?
- Are there best practices in terms of selection procedures, nomination, mentoring, gatekeeping, and sponsoring women on the path towards the international bench?
- What are the empirical and theoretical challenges for this research theme, e.g;
- too few women, or too few cases, to assess substantive effects of diversity in many contexts?
- how can we do research with “sex as a variable” without making simplified essentializing assumptions?
- what can we learn about gender diversity in international courts and tribunals from existing research on domestic courts and other public and private institutions?
For political science: Daniel Naurin Daniel.email@example.com
For philosophy: Andreas Follesdal firstname.lastname@example.org
- Siwon Park, The power of presidency in UN climate change negotiations: comparison between Denmark and Mexico
- Michelle Lim, Governance criteria for effective transboundary biodiversity conservation
- Mark Giordano, Diana Suhardiman, & Jacob Peterson-Perlman, Do hydrologic rigor and technological advance tell us more or less about transboundary water management?
- Vera Batanjski, Ana Batrićević, Dragica Purger, Antun Alegro, Slobodan Jovanović, & Vladan Joldžić, Critical legal and environmental view on the Ramsar Convention in protection from invasive plant species: an example of the Southern Pannonia region
- Kirstin I. Conti & Joyeeta Gupta, Global governance principles for the sustainable development of groundwater resources
- Bunyod Holmatov, Jonathan Lautze, & Jusipbek Kazbekov, Tributary-level transboundary water law in the Syr Darya: overlooked stories of practical water cooperation
- Håkon Sælen, Side-payments: an effective instrument for building climate clubs?
- Kamleshan Pillay & Jorge E. Viñuales, “Monetary” rules for a linked system of offset credits
Titi: Embedded Liberalism and IIAs: The Future of the Right to Regulate, with Reflections on WTO Law
The embedded liberalism of the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is often contrasted to a common laissez-faire liberalism of old generation investment agreements (IIAs). While WTO law broadly attempts to reconcile trade liberalisation with regulatory flexibility, old generation IIAs have been liberal instruments overly protective of investor interests at the expense of the state’s right to regulate in the public interest. But the unharnessed liberalism of these international investment treaties, although still largely persistent due to the slow reform of international investment law, progressively gives way to new more balanced instruments and a paradigm shift is witnessed towards a model that is closer to WTO law’s embedded liberalism. The chapter explores this shift in international investment law towards treaty models that radically change the landscape of the discipline, through the widespread use of exceptions for public policy measures and other provisions aiming to safeguard the state’s regulatory flexibility. The focus of the chapter is on very new investment agreements, including megaregionals, such as the 2016 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the 2016 EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the under negotiation Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and recently-adopted model bilateral investment treaties, such as the 2015 Brazilian model ‘cooperation and facilitation investment agreement’ (CFIA), and India’s 2015 model BIT. In light of these instruments, it examines how embedded liberalism and the state’s right to regulate from ‘emergent’ concepts in international investment law are becoming the quintessence of new IIAs.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
The purpose of this chapter is to identify common assumptions characterizing the sources doctrine in international law. Those are the autonomy of international law from politics, morality, economics, etc.; the focus on binding, enforceable rules; and state consent as the source of legitimacy of international law. Today, each of these assumptions is challenged. To address these challenges, the chapter proposes to further develop the sources theory and elaborate the concept of principles of international law (as they ensure international law’s autonomy), a concept of authority (as non-binding acts may have similar effects as binding law), and to distinguish international legal rules (or authoritative acts) which require democratic legitimacy from those which do not.
- Kirby Lecture in International Law — 2015
- Gerry Simpson, Human Rights with a Vengeance: One Hundred Years of Retributive Humanitarianism
- Amos O Enabulele, Judicial Lawmaking: Understanding Articles 38(1)(d) and 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
- Stephanie Ierino, John Reid & Anne Sheehan, The International Law Framework Underpinning the Australian Government's Response to the Downing of MH17
- Bridget Lewis, Quality Control for New Rights in International Human Rights Law: A Case Study of the Right to a Good Environment
- Martin Ratcovich, The Concept of 'Place of Safety': Yet Another Self-Contained Maritime Rule of a Sustainable Solution to the Ever Controversial Question of Where to Disembark Migrants Rescued at Sea?
- Stephen Tully, Citizen Deleted
Chang: When Do-Gooders Do Harm: Accountability of the United Nations toward Third Parties in Peace Operations
The United Nations’ mandate in a peace operation can be multidimensional, ranging from ceasefire monitoring to investigating human rights abuses to post-conflict stabilisation and recovery. The exercise of wide-ranging powers comes with risks of failure and unintended consequences. Like any organisation, the UN is subject to flaws in decision-making that may result in harmful impact to the local population. Until recent decades, international lawyers have paid scant attention to the UN’s potential to inflict harm in the pursuit of its noble aims. The expansion of the UN’s role over the decades has given rise to greater awareness of its accountability gap under international and municipal laws. The organisation’s response to recent claims from third parties illustrates the challenges that lie before victims in attaining accountability in a manner consistent with international human rights standards. This paper examines the multifarious questions of accountability of the UN toward third parties in peace operations. It argues that greater accountability is most practically achieved not through attempts to close gaps in international law, but through giving effect to existing mechanisms by applying a balancing approach to immunity and strengthening internal oversight and redress mechanisms.
Business corporations can and do violate human rights all over the world, and they are often not held to account. Emblematic cases and situations such as the state of the Niger Delta and the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory are examples of corporate human rights abuses which are not adequately prevented and remedied. Business and human rights as a field seeks to enhance the accountability of business – companies and businesspeople – in the human rights area, or, to phrase it differently, to bridge the accountability gap. Bridging the accountability gap is to be understood as both setting standards and holding corporations and businesspeople to account if violations occur.
Adopting a legal perspective, this book presents the ways in which this dual undertaking has been and could be further carried out in the future, and evaluates the extent to which the various initiatives in the field bridge the corporate accountability gap. It looks at the historical background of the field of business and human rights, and examines salient periods, events and cases. The book then goes on to explore the relevance of international human rights law and international criminal law for global business. International soft law and policy initiatives which have blossomed in recent years are evaluated along with private modes of regulation. The book also examines how domestic law, especially the domestic law of multinational companies’ home countries, can be used to prevent and redress corporate related human rights violations.