New Issue: International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

The latest issue of the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (Vol. 31, no. 4, 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Robin Churchill, Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015—Part I
• Richard Barnes, The Proposed LOSC Implementation Agreement on Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and Its Impact on International Fisheries Law
• Nicholas N. Kimani, The African Union’s Role in the Governance of Offshore Freshwater Aquifers
• Karen N. Scott, The Evolution of Marine Spatial Planning in New Zealand: Past, Present and Possible Future

Wouters & Odermatt: Individual Leadership in Guiding Change in Global Governance Institutions: Theory and Practice

Jan Wouters (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - Law) & Jed Odermatt (European Univ. Institute) have posted Individual Leadership in Guiding Change in Global Governance Institutions: Theory and Practice. Here's the abstract:

It is increasingly accepted that in order for international organizations to address fully the panoply of threats and concerns at the international level the current structure of global governance, particularly the design of major international institutions, requires some level of reform. In different fields and at different levels, this reform has been discussed and debated, but has mostly stalled. Increasingly, it is the executive heads of an organization that are called upon to show stronger leadership during times of crisis and change. No longer viewed as merely managers or administrative posts, the leadership shown by executive heads of international organizations is now strongly linked with the effectiveness of these organizations. This working paper seeks to understand the role of leaders in driving, and responding to, change in international organizations. What does leadership, a term often used in relation to national politics, mean in the context of an international organization? How do leaders drive change within these bodies, and how do they effectively respond to external and internal challenges and threats? This paper argues that individual leaders, particularly during times of crisis, can play an important role in guiding change and reform. The first part discusses the concept of leadership in the context of international organizations, and discusses some of the ways in which executive heads can pursue change and reform in their organization. The second part turns to the specific example of the UN Secretary General, an executive head who, despite having a relatively minor role on paper, in some cases has been able to implement meaningful change in the organization. The paper argues that executive heads can and should show greater political leadership in reforming organizations and improving their effectiveness.

Farrell: Habeas Corpus in International Law

Brian R. Farrell (Univ. of Iowa - Law) has published Habeas Corpus in International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Habeas Corpus in International Law is the first comprehensive examination of this subject. It looks at the location, scope, and significance of the right to a judicial determination of the legality of one's detention as guaranteed by international and regional human rights instruments. First, it examines the history of habeas corpus and its place in human rights treaties, providing a useful resource for understanding the status and application of this internationally-protected right. The book continues by identifying and analyzing the primary challenges to habeas corpus, in particular its applicability during armed conflict, the possibility of derogation, and its extraterritorial application and procedural shortcomings. The book next addresses the significance of habeas corpus guarantees not just in protecting personal liberty, but in promoting the international rule of law by serving as a unique check on executive action. Finally, it offers suggestions on how this right might be strengthened.

Call for Papers: Law and Colonial Violence

A call for papers has been issued for "Law and Colonial Violence: An International Workshop," to be held February 14, 2017, at Queen Mary University of London. Here's the call:

Call for Papers

Law and Colonial Violence: An International Workshop (keynote: prof. D. Moses)

Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), 14 February 2017

Cooperation between QMUL, Cambridge University, and the European University Institute (EUI)

Deadline Abstracts: 17 December 2016

Now more than ever, the relationship between colonial violence and law stands at the centre of public and scholarly attention. While some have sought to position law as a ‘limiting factor’ in restraining the violence of imperial rule, there is plenty of empirical evidence illustrating the degree to which jurists and the law itself have been deeply implicated in the creation and maintenance of empire, including its utility of violence. Growing academic interest in the connections between these two perspectives has been made evident by important new fields of inquiry. These include legal, social scientific, and historiographical debates on colonial violence in the ‘long’ nineteenth century, as well as more recent discussions regarding international criminal law since the end of the Cold War, turns to ‘history', ‘critical theory’, the ‘global’, or ‘postcolonial’ in legal and intellectual history, the laws of war in the post-9/11 epoch, and arguments regarding the ‘breakthroughs’ of human rights in the 1970s and 1990s - or, perhaps, (much) earlier.

In light of recent attempts to engage in interdisciplinary study of new discourses and methodological approaches, this international workshop co-organized by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), the European University Institute (EUI), and the University of Cambridge seeks to examine the genealogy of this complex and frequently contested intersection of law in its broadest sense, imperial violence, and the growing force of internationalism from a truly global perspective by calling for papers that address these questions and themes.

This workshop will seek to bring together both graduate students and more advanced scholars working with a variety of historical, legal, intellectual, and theoretical methods to explore the relationship between law and imperial violence from roughly the 1800s up to the 1970s, when decolonization was reaching its end phase and the Additional Protocols were being signed. We particularly invite scholars working on those laws regulating policing and violence in an imperial context, such as emergency penal, or martial laws, the laws of war, and human rights.

Potential topics range from, but are not limited to, the implementation of colonial emergency laws at a local, regional or national level; law as a justifier or facilitator of violence; law as an instrument for limiting or ending colonial violence; the laws of war and human rights in colonial and postcolonial contexts; a conceptual or theoretical history of law, civilization, race, and colonial violence; indigenous resistance and the law; historical comparisons across time, geographical locations (metropole/periphery), and empires; the influence of empire on the drafting of new laws or declarations regulating warfare and imperial policing; and the problem of clashing or overlapping legal regimes in imperial contexts (e.g. emergency laws vs. human rights).

The workshop, which is organized by Jacob Ramsay Smith (QMUL), Joseph McQuade (Cambridge), and Boyd van Dijk (EUI/King's College), aims at bringing together scholars into a one-day intensive workshop at QMUL. It will feature a number of panels and a keynote lecture by Professor Dirk Moses, of the University of Sydney. Abstracts (350 words long) should be submitted to lawcolonialviolenceworkshop@gmail.com and are due December 17, 2016.

Boyd van Dijk, EUI/King's College
Jacob Ramsay Smith, QMUL
Joseph McQuade, Cambridge University

Contact Email: lawcolonialviolenceworkshop@gmail.com

AJIL Unbound Symposium: The International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Broadening the Debate

AJIL Unbound has posted a symposium on "The International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Broadening the Debate," which extends the discussion of the tribunals that appeared in AJIL's April issue. The symposium includes an introduction by Eyal Benvenisti and Sarah M.H. Nouwen and contributions by Larissa van den Herik, Kelly-Jo Bluen, Karen Engle, Kirsten Campbell, Kenneth A. Rodman, Veronika Bílková, Bing Bing Jia, David Luban, and Samuel Moyn.

Dupéré: Constitution et droit international

Olivier Dupéré (Université de La Réunion - Law) has published Constitution et droit international : Regards sur un siècle de pensée juridique française (Institut Universitaire Varenne 2016). Here's the abstract:

La Grande Guerre, entre autres bouleversements, contribua de manière décisive à infléchir la manière de penser le droit constitutionnel. En effet, les plus éminents des auteurs français jugèrent alors nécessaire d'intégrer à leur oeuvre, en la matière, une réflexion sur le statut et le développement de ce qu'Édouard Lambert nomma la « conscience juridique internationale ». Une telle conscience peut-elle réellement exister et, le cas échéant, le jeu démocratique est-il de nature à renforcer les assises du droit international, les perspectives de son développement, et donc à permettre la réalisation des objectifs qui sont les siens ? La question, pour ancienne qu'elle soit, n'en a pas pour autant fini de resurgir aujourd'hui. La présence et la prégnance renforcées du droit international ne cessent d'interroger : « consciences juridiques » internationale et constitutionnelle peuvent-elles s'articuler et, si oui, comment et dans quelle mesure ? Telles sont les grandes questions débattues lors de la journée d'études organisée le 15 novembre 2013 à l'Université de Bordeaux, dans le cadre de son Centre d'Études et de Recherches Comparatives sur les Constitutions, les Libertés et l'État, et dont les actes sont ici publiés.

Krieger & Nolte: The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline? Points of Departure

Heike Krieger (Freie Universität Berlin - Law) & Georg Nolte (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Law) have posted The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline? Points of Departure. Here's the abstract:

The paper undertakes a preliminary assessment of current developments of international law for the purpose of mapping the ground for a larger research project. The research project pursues the goal of determining whether public international law, as it has developed since the end of the Cold War, is continuing its progressive move towards a more human-rights- and multi-actor-oriented order, or whether we are seeing a renewed emphasis of more classical elements of international law. In this context the term “international rule of law” is chosen to designate the more recent and “thicker” understanding of international law. The paper discusses how it can be determined whether this form of international law continues to unfold, and whether we are witnessing challenges to this order which could give rise to more fundamental reassessments.

Irvin-Erickson: Raphaël Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide

Douglas Irvin-Erickson (George Mason Univ. - Genocide Prevention Program) has published Raphaël Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Raphaël Lemkin (1900-1959) coined the word "genocide" in the winter of 1942 and led a movement in the United Nations to outlaw the crime, setting his sights on reimagining human rights institutions and humanitarian law after World War II. After the UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, Lemkin slipped into obscurity, and within a few short years many of the same governments that had agreed to outlaw genocide and draft a Universal Declaration of Human Rights tried to undermine these principles.

This intellectual biography of one of the twentieth century's most influential theorists and human rights figures sheds new light on the origins of the concept and word "genocide," contextualizing Lemkin's intellectual development in interwar Poland and exploring the evolving connection between his philosophical writings, juridical works, and politics over the following decades. The book presents Lemkin's childhood experience of anti-Jewish violence in imperial Russia; his youthful arguments to expand the laws of war to protect people from their own governments; his early scholarship on Soviet criminal law and nationalities violence; his work in the 1930s to advance a rights-based approach to international law; his efforts in the 1940s to outlaw genocide; and his forays in the 1950s into a social-scientific and historical study of genocide, which he left unfinished.

Revealing what the word "genocide" meant to people in the wake of World War II—as the USSR and Western powers sought to undermine the Genocide Convention at the UN, while delegations from small states and former colonies became the strongest supporters of Lemkin's law—Raphaël Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide examines how the meaning of genocide changed over the decades and highlights the relevance of Lemkin's thought to our own time.

Ramji-Nogales: Under the Canopy: Migration Governance in Southeast Asia

Jaya Ramji-Nogales (Temple Univ. - Law) has posted Under the Canopy: Migration Governance in Southeast Asia (UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Contrary to prevailing discourse, migration governance in Southeast Asia is rich and varied, offering a range of regional, bilateral and subnational regimes. Many commentators characterize Southeast Asia as lacking adequate migration governance, and media reports highlight human rights abuses against migrants in the region. These depictions offer only partial truths, overlooking the complexity of law and practice in the region. Though few Southeast Asian nations are signatories to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, many have ratified other multilateral international treaties relating to migration. Looking deeper under the canopy, this article explores the full panoply of migration regimes, noting not only gaps in governance frameworks but also creative approaches, some of which may provide models for other regions. While many migrants in the region suffer serious harms, others benefit from innovative and generous migration policies. These regional, bilateral, and subnational approaches are often more deeply grounded in local value systems than international treaties. As a result, local populations may accord greater legitimacy to these under-the-canopy approaches, which may in the long run be more effective in improving the situation of migrants in Southeast Asia. The view from above the canopy is blocked by a sea of green leaves; one must take the time to peer under the canopy in order to gain an accurate understanding of migration governance in Southeast Asia.

Carvin: Conventional Thinking? The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons Treaty and the Politics of Legal Restraints on Weapons in the Cold War

Stephanie Carvin (Carleton Univ - School of International Affairs) has posted Conventional Thinking? The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons Treaty and the Politics of Legal Restraints on Weapons in the Cold War (Journal of Cold War Studies, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Although it represented the first treaty to successfully regulate conventional weapons for over 70 years, the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (also known as the Convention on Conventional Weapons – or 1980 CCW) and its Protocols constitute a relatively unloved treaty. Largely forsaken by humanitarians and looked upon skeptically by military lawyers and state actors, the treaty is not on the whole well known (especially compared to the 1997 Ottawa Landmine Treaty) nor is the process by which it came about or through which it is reviewed particularly admired.

Why is this the case? This article examines the history of this little known but significant treaty, and how a Cold War context had an impact on its’ negotiation, content and implementation. While there is no doubt that the “humanitarian politics” of weapons negotiations certainly played a role, it is clear that the treaty, negotiated and signed at a highly contentious time between the West, Soviet Bloc and the Non-Aligned Movement, was very much affected by the Cold War environment and the asymmetric wars of the period. The outcome of this process resulted in an agreement that was largely ignored until the 1990s, when it was dismissed by humanitarians as ineffective, and inspired them to create their own NGO-driven process forward which resulted in the 1997 Ottawa Antipersonnel Landmine Treaty.

Chetail: Conceptualizing International Migration Law

Vincent Chetail (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) has posted Conceptualizing International Migration Law (Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper provides a concise mapping of international migration law. It revisits the movement of persons across borders through the sources of international law with the view of conceptualizing international migration law and highlighting both the unity and diversity of this growing field.

Schulmeister-André: Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit unter sowjetischem Einfluss

Irina Schulmeister-André has published Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit unter sowjetischem Einfluss: Der Beitrag der UdSSR zum Nürnberger Hauptkriegsverbrecherprozess (Duncker & Humblot 2016). Here's the abstract:

Der Nürnberger Hauptkriegsverbrecherprozess gilt weithin als Meilenstein auf dem Weg zur Herausbildung eines modernen Völkerrechts. Während der Beitrag der westalliierten Siegermächte hierzu Gegenstand zahlloser Abhandlungen und Zeitzeugenberichte war, ist eine über Mutmaßungen und anekdotische Referenzen hinausreichende Auseinandersetzung mit dem Einfluss der UdSSR bislang kaum je ernsthaft unternommen worden. Die Untersuchung wirft zunächst die Frage nach dem im Prozessvorfeld auf sowjetischer Seite anzutreffenden Verständnis des Völkerrechts als internationaler Ordnungskategorie auf, um vor diesem Hintergrund sodann die geistesgeschichtlichen Einflüsse der sowjetischen Parteidoktrin auf die Genese des IMT-Statuts nachzuzeichnen. Sie rekonstruiert den sowjetischen Beitrag zur Anklage, zur Durchführung der Hauptverhandlung und schließlich zur Urteilsentstehung. Anhand archivalischer Materialien legt die Autorin die hierfür jeweils maßgeblichen internen Entscheidungsprozesse offen.

New Volume: Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy

The latest volume of the Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy (2014-2015) is out. Contents include:

• Part One
• Michael V. Gestrin, Trends in International Investment and the Activities of Multinational Enterprises: 2014-2015
• Lise Johnson, Lisa Sachs, & Jesse Coleman, International Investment Agreements, 2014: A Review of Trends and New Approaches
• Ian A. Laird, George D. Ruttinger, & James J. Saulino, International Investment Law and Arbitration: 2014 in Review
• Part Two
• Yannick Radi, Labour Provisions and Dispute Settlement in International Investment Agreements: An Inquiry into the Politicization of the Settlement of 'Labour Disputes'
• Andrea K. Bjorklund, Can International Investment Law be Restated? Or is Jurisprudence Constante the El Dorado of Investment Treaty Lawyers?
• Part Three: General Articles
• Arwel Davies, Group Comparison Versus Best Treatment in International Economic Law Non-discrimination Analysis
• Lorenzo Cotula, ''Land Grabbing' and International Investment Law: Towards a Global Reconfiguration of Property?
• Robert Ginsburg, Legitimizing Expectations in Arbitration through Political Risk Analysis
• Lucas Bento, From Anarchy to Rational Design: Direction and Perception in International Investment Law
• Dessislav Dobrev, Reforming International Investment Law: Is it Time for a New International Social Contract to Rebalance the Investor-State Regulatory Dichotomy?
• Christian Vidal-Leon, A New Approach to the Law of Foreign Investments: The South African Case
• Mahdev Mohan, Asian Perspectives on Investment Agreements and Arbitration: An Evolving Marcottage
• Cristelle Maurin & Pichamon Yeophantong, China and the Regulation of Outbound Investment: Towards a 'Responsible Investment' Policy Framework
• Rodrigo Polanco, Beyond ICSID Arbitration - The Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes of UNASUR
• Dominic N. Dagbanja, The Investment Treaty Regime and Development Policy Space in Ghana: Analysis in Constitutionalism and General International Law

Lagoutte, Gammeltoft-Hansen, & Cerone: Tracing the Roles of Soft Law in Human Rights

Stéphanie Lagoutte (Danish Institute for Human Rights), Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen (Raoul Wallenberg Institute for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law), & John Cerone (Univ. of Windsor - Law) have published Tracing the Roles of Soft Law in Human Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Contents include:

• Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Stephanie Lagoutte, & John Cerone, Introduction: Tracing the roles of soft law in human rights
• John Cerone, A taxonomy of soft law
• Kasey McCall-Smith, Interpreting international human rights standards - treaty body general comments as a chisel or hammer?
• Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko, The role and impact of soft law on the emergence of the prohibition of violence against women within the context of the CEDAW
• Mátyás Bódig, Soft law, doctrinal development and the General Comments of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Rachel Murray & Debra Long, The role and use of soft law instruments in the African human rights system
• Bruce Oswald, The Copenhagen Process: some reflections concerning soft law
• Peter Vedel Kessing, The use of soft law in regulating armed conflict: from jus in bello to 'soft law in bello'?
• Megan Bradley & Angela Sherwood, Addressing and resolving internal displacement: reflections on a soft law "success story"
• Felipe Gómez Isa, The role of soft law in the progressive development of indigenous peoples' rights
• Léticia Villeneuve, Could the progressive 'hardening' of human rights soft law impair its further expansion? Insights from the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Stéphanie Lagoutte, The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights - a confusing smart mix of soft and hard international human rights law
• Christoph Good, Mission creeps: the (unintended) re-enforcement of the actor's discussion in international law through the expansion of soft law instruments in the business and human rights nexus
• Anette Faye Jacobsen, Soft law within participation rights: tools in development
• Sally Holt, Zdenka Machnyikova & John Packer, The role of soft law in minority rights protection and diversity management: reflections from practice

Mavroidis, Meagher, Prusa, & Yanguas: Ask for the Moon, Settle for the Stars. What is a Reasonable Period to Comply with WTO Awards?

Petros C. Mavroidis (Columbia Univ. - Law), Niall Meagher (Advisory Centre on WTO Law), Thomas J. Prusa (Rutgers Univ.), & Tatiana Yanguas (Advisory Centre on WTO Law) have posted Ask for the Moon, Settle for the Stars. What is a Reasonable Period to Comply with WTO Awards? Here's the abstract:

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement process allows a defending Member a “reasonable period of time” (RPT) to implement any findings that its contested measures are inconsistent with WTO law. If agreement on this RPT cannot be reached, Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) provides for the possibility of arbitration on the length of the RPT. The DSU provides limited guidelines on the RPT, stating only that it should not normally exceed 15 months. In practice, Arbitrators have developed the standard that the RPT should reflect the shortest possible period under the domestic legal system of the defending Member to make the changes necessary to comply with the WTO rulings. Our research confirms that in practice Arbitrators have determined this period by “splitting the difference” approximately between the periods suggested by the complaining and defending Member. In addition, the process appears to reward defending Members that request an RPT that exceeds the 15-month guideline in Article 21.3(c).

New Additions to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

The Codification Division of the UN Office of Legal Affairs recently added two lectures to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. They were given by Christian J. Tams on “The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice” and “Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law.”

Call for Submissions: Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy

A call for submissions has been issued for the Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy. Here's the call:

The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) is pleased to announce a call for papers for Part Two of the Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy published by Oxford University Press (OUP). The Yearbook monitors current developments in international investment law and policy. Part One focuses on trends in foreign direct investment, international investment agreements, and investment disputes. Part Two looks at central issues in the contemporary discussions on international investment law and policy. The chapters in Part Two may be detailed analyses or short think-pieces. All papers must be original texts and are subject to double-blind peer review.

Original contributions to be considered for publication in the Yearbook are accepted on a rolling basis until January 15, 2017; please send submissions to lsachs1@law.columbia.edu. Please include an abstract; a table of contents is also recommended. More information about the Yearbook may be found here.

Call for Nominations: Francis Lieber Prize 2017

The American Society of International Law's Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict has issued a call for nominations for the Francis Lieber Prize. Here's the call:

The American Society of International Law's Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict awards the Francis Lieber Prize to the authors of publications that the judges consider to be outstanding in the field of law and armed conflict. Both monographs and articles (including chapters in books of essays) are eligible for consideration — the prize is awarded to the best submission in each of these two categories.

Criteria: Any work in the English language published during 2016 or whose publication is in proof at the time of submission may be nominated for this prize. Works that have already been considered for this prize may not be re-submitted. Entries may address topics such as the use of force in international law, the conduct of hostilities during international and non international armed conflicts, protected persons and objects under the law of armed conflict, the law of weapons, operational law, rules of engagement, occupation law, peace operations, counter terrorist operations, and humanitarian assistance. Other topics bearing on the application of international law during armed conflict or other military operations are also appropriate.

Eligibility: Anyone may apply for the article or book prize. For those in academia or research institutions, the prize is open to those who are up to 8 years post-PhD or JD or those with up to 8 years in academic teaching or research position. Membership in the American Society of International Law is not required. Multi-authored works may be submitted if all the authors are eligible to enter the competition. Submissions from outside the United States are welcomed.

Submission: Submissions, including a letter or message of nomination, must be received by 9 January 2017. Three copies of books must be submitted. Electronic submission of articles is encouraged. Authors may submit their own work. All submissions must include contact information (e mail, fax, phone, address) and relevant information demonstrating compliance with eligibility criteria. The Prize Committee will acknowledge receipt of the submission by e mail.

Printed submissions must be sent to:

Professor Laurie Blank
Emory University School of Law
1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
USA

Electronic submissions must be sent to:

Lblank[at]emory.edu

Please indicate clearly in the subject line that the email concerns a submission for the Lieber Prize. Prize: The Selection Committee will select one submission for the award of the Francis Lieber Prize in the book category and one in the article category. The Prize consists of a certificate of recognition and a year's membership in the American Society of International Law. The winner of the Lieber Prize in both categories will be announced at the American Society of International Law's Annual Meeting in April 2017.

In 2016, the winners were:

Book prize:

— Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne, “Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict" (OUP 2016)

Essay prize:

— Roy Ariav, “Hardly the Tadić of Targeting: Missed Opportunities in the ICTY’s Gotovina Judgments,” 48 Israel Law Review (2015)

New Issue: Goettingen Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Goettingen Journal of International Law (Vol. 7, no. 2, 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Peter H. Sand & Jonathan B. Wiener, Towards a New International Law of the Atmosphere?
• Robert Frau, Law as an Antidote? Assessing the Potential of International Health Law Based on the Ebola-Outbreak 2014
• Avidan Kent, The EU Commission and the Fragmentation of International Law: Speaking European in a Foreign Land
• Sondre T. Helmersen, The Use of Scholarship by the WTO Appellate Body
• Tom Coppen, The Evolution of Arms Control Instruments and the Potential of the Arms Trade Treaty
• Valentin J. Schatz, Combating Illegal Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone - Flag State Obligations in the Context of the Primary Responsibility of the Coastal State

Call for Papers: 12th Franco-German Workshop for Young Researchers on Comparative Public Law

A call for papers has been issued for the 12th Franco-German Workshop for Young Researchers on Comparative Public Law, which will take place June 7-9, 2017, at the Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. Here's the call:

Ausschreibung zum 12. deutsch-französisches Doktorandenseminar zur Rechtsvergleichung im öffentlichen Recht, Völker- und Europarechts

Heidelberg, 7. bis 9. Juni 2017

Die juristische Fakultät der Sorbonne, die Universität Straßburg, die Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, die Deutsche Universität für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer, die juristische Fakultät Heidelberg und das Max-Planck Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (MPIL) veranstalten in Zusammenarbeit mit der Universität Mailand vom 7. bis 9. Juni 2017 in Heidelberg das 12. Deutsch-Französische Doktorandenseminar zur Rechtsvergleichung im öffentlichen Recht, Völkerrecht und Europarecht unter der Leitung von Frau Professor Dr. Anne Peters (MPIL Heidelberg). Das Seminar findet im Rahmen des deutsch-französischen Doktorandenkollegs „Rechtsvergleichung im öffentlichen Recht angesichts der europäischen Integration“ und der deutsch-französischen akademischen Partnerschaft „HeiParisMax“ statt und wird durch die Deutsch-Französische Hochschule gefördert.

Leitthemen des Seminars sind aktuelle Entwicklungen des vergleichenden öffentlichen Rechts in Europa sowie des Völker- und Europarechts.

Ihr Beitrag kann sich auf einen Aspekt Ihrer Dissertation beziehen oder ein anderes Ihrer Forschungsthemen betreffen. Er soll vorzugsweise einen Bezug zu Frankreich, Deutschland (oder Italien) haben. Falls es sich um ein Thema des innerstaatlichen Rechts handelt, sollte der Vortrag Parallelen zum Europarecht oder Bezüge zum Völkerrecht aufzeigen.

Teilnahmevoraussetzungen:

Die Veranstaltung bietet ein Forum für junge Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die zu Themen von gemeinsamem Interesse forschen. Sie wendet sich an DoktorandenInnen, NachwuchswissenschaftlerInnen, Post- Docs, HabilitandenInnen sowie wissenschaftliche MitarbeiterInnen. Die Bewerbung ist nicht an eine bestimmte Nationalität gebunden.

Jede(r) Teilnehmer/-in trägt in der Sprache seiner Wahl vor, Französisch oder Deutsch, ausnahmsweise Englisch. Die Teilnahme am Seminar setzt hinreichende zumindest mündliche Sprachkenntnisse in beiden Sprachen voraus. Die Themen sollen durch 20-minütige Referate vorgestellt werden. Dem Vortrag schließt sich der Kommentar eines anderen Seminarteilnehmers/-in an (5 Minuten). Es folgt eine von einem/ einer deutschen oder französischen Hochschullehrer/in moderierte Diskussion. Das Seminar ist thematisch offen, das Vortragsthema soll daher einem fachlich breit gefächerten Publikum von Forschern näher gebracht werden.

Die Auswahl der TeilnehmerInnen obliegt dem wissenschaftlichen Beirat des Seminars. Die Teilnahmekosten (Reise, Verpflegung und Unterbringung) werden dank der Unterstützung durch die Deutsch-Französische Hochschule übernommen.

Wenn Sie an dem Seminar teilnehmen möchten, bitten wir Sie, uns möglichst bald, spätestens bis zum 15. März 2017, eine Zusammenfassung Ihres Vortragsthemas (maximal eine halbe Seite) sowie Ihren Lebenslauf ggf. mit Literaturverzeichnis an folgende Adresse zu schicken:

dfdk2017@gmail.com

Unter dieser Adresse stehen wir Ihnen für Rückfragen gern zur Verfügung!

Weitere Informationen unter: http://www.jus-publicum.eu

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat des Seminars:

Prof. Dr. David Capitant (Paris 1), Prof. Dr. Emanuel Castellarin (Straßburg), Prof. Dr. Aurore Gaillet (Toulouse 1), Prof. Dr. Diana-Urania Galetta (Mailand), Prof. Catherine Haguenau-Moizard (Straßburg), Prof. Dr. Matthias Jestaedt (Freiburg), Prof. Dr. Olivier Jouanjan (Paris 2), Prof. Dr. Evelyne Lagrange (Paris 1), Prof. Dr. Ute Mager (Heidelberg), Prof. Dr. Johannes Masing (Freiburg), Prof. Dr. Anne Peters (MPIL Heidelberg), Prof. Dr. Karl-Peter Sommermann (Speyer)

----

Appel à participation à la 12ème rencontre franco-allemande des jeunes chercheurs en droit public comparé, international et européen

Heidelberg, du 7 au 9 juin 2017

Les Écoles de droit de la Sorbonne et d’Assas, l’Université de Strasbourg, l’Université Albert-Ludwig de Fribourg-en- Brisgau, l’Université allemande des sciences administratives de Spire (DHV Speyer), de l’Université Ruprechts-Karls d’Heidelberg et l’Institut Max Planck pour le droit public comparé et le droit international organisent, en collaboration avec l’Université de Milan, le 12ème séminaire franco-allemand de jeunes chercheurs en droit public comparé, en droit international public et en droit européen sous la direction de Madame le professeur Anne Peters (MPIL Heidelberg). Celui-ci se tiendra à Heidelberg du 7 au 9 juin 2017. Il se déroulera dans le cadre d’une coopération entre le Collège Doctoral Franco-Allemand « Les droits publics nationaux face à l´intégration européenne », et le partenariat académique franco-allemand « HeiParisMax » et sera soutenu par l’Université Franco-Allemande.

Le thème général du séminaire porte comme les années précédentes sur les développements récents en droit public comparé, international et européen.

Votre contribution pourra porter sur un aspect de votre sujet de thèse, ou sur tout autre thème se rapportant à vos travaux de recherche. Ceci dans une perspective privilégiant des comparaisons entre la France, l’Allemagne (ou l’Italie). S’il s’agit d’un sujet de droit interne, celui-ci devra établir des parallèles avec le droit européen ou faire référence au droit international.

Conditions et modalités de participation :

Cette manifestation vise à réunir des jeunes chercheurs travaillant sur des thèmes d’intérêt commun quel que soit l’angle disciplinaire choisi. Elle s’adresse ainsi aux doctorant(e)s, jeunes docteurs, post-doctorants, docteurs habilitants et collaborateurs scientifiques intéressés, sans condition de nationalité.

Chaque intervenant présentera sa communication dans la langue de son choix, français ou allemand, exceptionnellement en anglais, et devra disposer d’une compréhension orale suffisante des autres langues, afin de pouvoir participer aux débats. Les sujets sont abordés sur la base de contributions présentées par les participants (20 min.). Ces interventions font l’objet d’un commentaire par un autre participant (5 min.), puis d’une discussion approfondie encadrée scientifiquement par les professeurs français et allemands participant à ce séminaire. L’orientation thématique du séminaire étant ouverte, les contributeurs doivent présenter leur sujet d’une manière adaptée à un public de chercheurs dans des domaines divers.

La validation de la candidature des intervenants incombe au Comité scientifique du séminaire. L’ensemble des frais (transport, restauration et hébergement) sera pris en charge grâce au soutien de l’Université Franco-Allemande. Si vous souhaitez participer à ce séminaire, nous vous invitons à nous faire parvenir dans les meilleurs délais, et au plus tard le 15 mars 2017, un résumé de votre projet de communication (au maximum une demi-page) accompagné d’un C.V. et le cas échéant d’une liste de publications, à l’adresse suivante :

dfdk2017@gmail.com

N’hésitez pas à nous joindre à cette adresse pour toute question éventuelle !

Pour plus de renseignements : http://www.jus-publicum.eu/

Comité scientifique :

Pr. David Capitant (Paris 1), Pr. Emanuel Castellarin (Strasbourg), Pr. Aurore Gaillet (Toulouse 1), Pr. Diana- Urania Galetta (Milan), Pr. Catherine Haguenau-Moizard (Strasbourg), Pr. Matthias Jestaedt (Freiburg), Pr. Olivier Jouanjan (Paris 2), Pr. Ute Marger (Heidelberg), Pr. Johannes Masing (Freiburg), Pr. Karl-Peter Sommermann (Speyer), Prof. Dr. Evelyne Lagrange (Paris 1), Prof. Dr. Anne Peters (MPIL Heidelberg)

New Issue: Business and Human Rights Journal

The latest issue of the Business and Human Rights Journal (Vol. 1, no. 2, July 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Articles
• Doug Cassel, Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence
• David Bilchitz, The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty
• Sarah Joseph, ‘Is Fox News a Breach of Human Rights?’: The News Media’s Immunity from the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
• Denis G Arnold, Corporations and Human Rights Obligations
• George G Brenkert, Business Ethics and Human Rights: An Overview
• Developments in the Field
• Thomas A Hemphill & George O White III, The World Economic Forum and Nike: Emerging ‘Shared Responsibility’ and Institutional Control Models for Achieving a Socially Responsible Global Supply Chain?
• Faris Natour, Respecting Human Rights in the On-Demand Economy: Closing the New Governance Gap
• Zorka Milin, Mapping Recent Developments in Transparency of Extractive Industries
• Jessica Evans, The Record of International Financial Institutions on Business and Human Rights
• Brynn O’Brien, Extraterritorial detention contracting in Australia and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
• Donna Jean Guest, Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business—A Pioneering Country-Based Initiative
• Lise Smit, Binding corporate human rights obligations: A few observations from the South African legal framework
• Alejandra Gonza, Integrating Business and Human Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System

Widder: A Fair Trial at the International Criminal Court? Human Rights Standards and Legitimacy

Elmar Widder has published A Fair Trial at the International Criminal Court? Human Rights Standards and Legitimacy (Peter Lang 2016). Here's the abstract:

This book approaches the question of whether or not the court procedure at the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be regarded as fair from two angles: First, does the ICC provide a fair trial according to the accepted standards of international human rights law? Secondly, is it substantively fair so as to establish the legitimacy of the court on a sound footing? Practitioners and academics are increasingly conscious of the need for an approach to evidence which spans civil law and common law traditions, national and international law. This is what this monograph does, in meticulous detail, for the law of confrontation and disclosure.