Yale Law School is proud to host the Seventh Annual Doctoral Scholarship Conference, to be held on November 10-11, 2017, in New Haven, Connecticut. The conference aims to provide doctoral students and early-stage postdocs with a forum to workshop, present, and debate their work. It seeks to promote quality research and to facilitate meaningful academic dialogue, with a view towards fostering a community of legal scholars.
The conference is open to all current doctoral candidates, in law or related disciplines, and to those who completed their doctoral degrees during the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 academic year. Participants will be selected on the basis of their abstracts’ quality and capacity to provoke thoughtful debate with other submissions.
This year’s conference will be divided into three separate “wheels”—thematic working groups which will run in parallel—comprising around eight participants each. This year’s three wheels will cover papers in the fields of “International Law”, “Law, Society, History”, and “Law, Politics, Theory”. The purpose of this breakdown into wheels is to allow enough time for each paper to be workshopped thoroughly and receive comments from scholars who are well versed in the academic field in which the article is situated. In addition to intensive workshops in small groups, there will be several receptions, and keynotes and workshops by Yale Law School faculty, open to all participants, allowing attendees to get to know one another, advance their professional development, and socialize.
Within individual wheels, authors will be expected to offer brief, 10-minute introductions, to their paper, followed by an intensive workshop-like discussion. Selected participants will be expected to attend all conference events. Additionally, participants will be expected to read, in advance, and come prepared to comment and discuss all papers presented in their respective wheels. We anticipate that the conference will be the beginning of a longer-term collaboration amongst participants.
The Doctoral Scholarship Conference is generously sponsored by the Graduate Programs Office at Yale Law School. We regret that we are unable to provide financial support for travel and accommodation.
Applications will be accepted through this online form until July 1, 2017. Each applicant must indicate which of the three wheels their proposal is to be associated with; each proposal can only be associated with a single wheel. A proposal must consist of (i) an extended abstract of up to 500 words; and (ii) a brief one-paragraph biographical note. Applicants of selected papers will be informed of acceptance no later than August 1, 2017. Selected participants will be required to submit papers of up to 10,000 words in length (excluding footnotes) by October 1, 2017, which will be circulated among the members and participants of their respective wheels.
For any questions or concerns, please contact doctoralconference.law[at]yale.edu.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Thursday, May 25, 2017
The term "genocide"—"group killing"—which first appeared in Raphael Lemkin's 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, had by 1948 established itself in international law through the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Since then the charge of genocide has been both widely applied but also contested. In Genocide: The Act as Idea, Berel Lang examines and illuminates the concept of genocide, at once articulating difficulties in its definition and proposing solutions to them. In his analysis, Lang explores the relation of genocide to group identity, individual and corporate moral responsibility, the concept of individual and group intentions, and the concept of evil more generally. The idea of genocide, Lang argues, represents a notable advance in the history of political and ethical thought which proposed alternatives to it, like "crimes against humanity," fail to take into account.
Aufgrund des sog. »Alien Tort Statute« (ATS), eines kleinen und etwa 100 Jahre lang vergessenen Satzes des US-amerikanischen Gerichtsverfassungsgesetzes von 1789, gründeten die US-Gerichte ein amerikanisches Forum mit weltweit reichender Gerichtsbarkeit für milliardenschwere Schadensersatzklagen wegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Dabei wurden insbesondere deutsche Gesellschaften in Anspruch genommen und Fälle, in denen deutsche Konzerne zu den Hauptbeklagten gehörten, mündeten in Leitentscheidungen der dogmatischen Expansion der ATS-Rechtsprechung. Daniel Felz arbeitet die enorme Masse an US-Entscheidungen auf, um die breitgefächerten dogmatischen Fundamente der ATS-Rechtsprechung zu ordnen. Alsdann widmet er sich der Behauptung der deutschen Bundesregierung, für derlei Klagen stünden die deutschen Gerichte offen, indem Felz einer Untersuchung der mit länderübergreifenden Menschenrechtsklagen verbundenen materiell- und prozessrechtlichen Fragen des deutschen Rechts nachgeht.
Although Emer de Vattel is widely acknowledged as a pivotal figure in the history of international thought, his legacy remains contested. Scholars struggle to find a comfortable intellectual collocation for what is often seen as an incoherent and contradictory thinker. The present article tackles this interpretation and suggests that the supposed inconsistencies in Vattel’s international thought diffuse once we fully grasp the nature of his intellectual intervention. In order to substantiate this view, the paper focuses on Vattel’s reasoning on the legitimacy of international interventions, as disclosed in his The Law of Nations. It recovers his casuistic mode of reasoning with reference to the historical and intellectual context from which it emerged. The article concludes by suggesting that this long-forgotten mode of reasoning offers a different entry point into current debates on international intervention and the use of force, one that might help us move beyond a merely moralistic approach.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
- Damon Barrett, International Child Rights Mechanisms and the Death Penalty for Drug Offences
- Cristy Clark, Of What Use is a Deradicalized Human Right to Water?
- Vian Dakhil, Aldo Zammit Borda, & Alexander R. J. Murray, ‘Calling ISIL Atrocities Against the Yezidis by Their Rightful Name’: Do They Constitute the Crime of Genocide?
- Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez, Is French laïcité Still Liberal? The Republican Project under Pressure (2004–15)
- Erica Howard, Freedom of Speech versus Freedom of Religion? The Case of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders
- Başak Bağlayan & Johannes Hendrik Fahner, ‘One Can Always Do Better’: The Referral Procedure before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
Why have countries increasingly restricted immigration even when they have opened their markets to foreign competition through trade or allowed their firms to move jobs overseas? In Trading Barriers, Margaret Peters argues that the increased ability of firms to produce anywhere in the world combined with growing international competition due to lowered trade barriers has led to greater limits on immigration.
Peters explains that businesses relying on low-skill labor have been the major proponents of greater openness to immigrants. Immigration helps lower costs, making these businesses more competitive at home and abroad. However, increased international competition, due to lower trade barriers and greater economic development in the developing world, has led many businesses in wealthy countries to close or move overseas. Productivity increases have allowed those firms that have chosen to remain behind to do more with fewer workers. Together, these changes in the international economy have sapped the crucial business support necessary for more open immigration policies at home, empowered anti-immigrant groups, and spurred greater controls on migration.
Debunking the commonly held belief that domestic social concerns are the deciding factor in determining immigration policy, Trading Barriers demonstrates the important and influential role played by international trade and capital movements.
- Robert W. Emerson, An International Model for Vicarious Liability in Franchising
- Daniel Francis, Exit Legitimacy
- Vera Korzun, The Right to Regulate in Investor-State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve-Outs
- Peter Tzeng, Humanitarian Intervention at the Margins: An Examination of Recent Incidents
- Daniel Abebe, Does International Human Rights Law in African Courts Make a Difference?
- Kishanthi Parella, The Stewardship of Trust in the Global Value Chain
- Serio Puig, Blinding International Justice
Schniederjahn: Das Verschwindenlassen von Personen in der Rechtsprechung internationaler Menschenrechtsgerichtshöfe
Das Verschwindenlassen von Personen ist wohl eines der grausamsten Menschenrechtsverbrechen der Neuzeit und zugleich das unbekannteste. Unter dem Verschwindenlassen versteht man jede Freiheitsentziehung durch Staatsbedienstete oder andere Personen, die mit Unterstützung oder Duldung des Staates handeln, gefolgt von der Weigerung, den Freiheitsentzug anzuerkennen und über den Verbleib des Opfers Auskunft zu geben. Oftmals endet das Verschwindenlassen für die betroffene Person mit dem Tod, ohne dass jemals ein Leichnam gefunden wird und die Angehörigen Gewissheit über das Schicksal des Opfers erhalten. Die Arbeit vergleicht die rasch anwachsende Judikatur des Inter-Amerikanischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu diesem Verbrechen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Beweislastverteilung. Zudem wird der Beitrag der Gerichtshöfe zur Aufarbeitung, Verfolgung und Verhinderung des Verschwindenlassens, insbesondere am Beispiel Perus, untersucht.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
There is widespread agreement that status or standing in the international system is a critical element in world politics. The desire for status is recognized as a key factor in nuclear proliferation, the rise of China, and other contemporary foreign policy issues, and has long been implicated in foundational theories of international relations and foreign policy. Despite the consensus that status matters, we lack a basic understanding of status dynamics in international politics. The first book to comprehensively examine this subject, Fighting for Status presents a theory of status dissatisfaction that delves into the nature of prestige in international conflicts and specifies why states want status and how they get it.
What actions do status concerns trigger, and what strategies do states use to maximize or salvage their standing? When does status matter, and under what circumstances do concerns over relative position overshadow the myriad other concerns that leaders face? In examining these questions, Jonathan Renshon moves beyond a focus on major powers and shows how different states construct status communities of peer competitors that shift over time as states move up or down, or out, of various groups.
Combining innovative network-based statistical analysis, historical case studies, and a lab experiment that uses a sample of real-world political and military leaders, Fighting for Status provides a compelling look at the causes and consequences of status on the global stage.
- Editorial Comment
- Hans Köchler, Justice and Realpolitik: The Predicament of the International Criminal Court
- Nina H.B. Jørgensen, Complicity in Torture in a Time of Terror: Interpreting the European Court of Human Rights Extraordinary Rendition Cases
- Xiaohui Wu, Friendly Competition for Co-Progressive Development: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank vs. the Bretton Woods Institutions
- Gbenga T. Oduntan, Legal and Evidential Implications of Emerging Satellite Imagery of Ancient African Relict Boundaries
- Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, The “Regionalism vs Multilateralism” Issue in International Trade Law: Revisiting the Peru–Agricultural Products Case
Recent decades have witnessed the growing malaise of multilateralism within international economic governance and an inclination for bilateralism and tailor-made solutions. And yet procedural multilateralism does exist in international investment law. The ICSID Convention is a multilateral treaty, and UNCITRAL’s Mauritius Convention, is multilateral – or at least of multilateral ambition. Some limited subject-matter multilateral initiatives also exist outside international investment law and offer inspiration in this respect. This paper assesses the Mauritius Convention and the OECD’s Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in order to draw inspiration for the European Union’s multilateral investment court. Its emphasis is on recent developments, in light of the EU’s 2017 public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution. It argues that while the UNCUTRAL and OECD examples of ‘retroactively’ reforming thousands of existing treaties can offer useful guidance, the establishment of a multilateral investment court ‘applicable’ to existing IIAs would require two instruments: a convention regulating the relationship between IIAs and the multilateral investment court, and a standalone convention (the statute) on the multilateral investment court; and that only the first of these instruments can draw on the UNCITRAL and OECD precedents.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Conference: TTIP and Beyond . . . Negotiating and Implementing the EU's Free Trade Agreements in an Uncertain Environment
Call for Papers: The Emergence of New and Dynamic China-Africa Economic Relationships: International Economic Law Perspectives
Sunday, May 21, 2017
- Michael A. Becker & Cecily Rose, Investigating the Value of Site Visits in Inter-State Arbitration and Adjudication
- Luiz Gustavo Meira Moser, Inside Contracting Parties’ Minds: The Decision-making Processes in Cross-border Sales
- Michal Swarabowicz, Identity of Claims in Investment Arbitration: A Plea for Unity of the Legal System
- Vincent-Joël Proulx, An Incomplete Revolution: Enhancing the Security Council’s Role in Enforcing Counterterrorism Obligations
- Brian McGarry, The Development of Custom in Territorial Dispute Settlement
- Jean d’Aspremont, The International Court of Justice and the Irony of System-Design
- Stefan Talmon, The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Newton: An Assessment of the Legality of Arms Sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Context of the Conflict in Yemen
This White Paper analyzes U.S. statutory obligations regarding arms sales and military assistance to Saudi Arabia in the context of the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The United States has provided significant support for Saudi Arabia, including over $115 billion in arms sales over the last eight years. During the course of hostilities conducted by a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen over the last two years, the United States has provided billions of dollars of equipment for use in Yemen and provided in-flight re-fueling to support bombing operations. In light of credible allegations of widespread violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict resulting in significant civilian casualties over the last two years, concerns have been raised about the legality of further arms sales under U.S. law. In the face of persistent reports of wrongdoing, Saudi Arabia has failed to rebut allegations or provide detailed evidence of compliance with binding obligations arising from international humanitarian law. In the context of multiple credible reports of recurring and highly questionable strikes, even after Saudi units received training and equipment to reduce civilian casualties, the United States cannot continue to rely on Saudi assurances that it will comply with international law and agreements concerning the use of U.S.-origin equipment. Under these circumstances, further sales under both the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act are prohibited until the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes effective measures to ensure compliance with international law and the President submits relevant certifications to the Congress. Congress should utilize the expedited review procedures of both Acts to ensure compliance with the law.
- Raj Bhala, Exposing the Forgotten TPP Chapter: Chapter 17 as a Model for Future International Trade Disciplines on SOEs
- Maureen Irish, Development, Reciprocity and the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
- Rawan Al-Louzi, Bilateral Investment Treaties as Tools for Enhancing Foreign Investment Climate and Increasing Competitiveness
- Anna Chadwick, World Hunger, the 'Global' Food Crisis, and (International) Law
- Ozue Vivian Adaeze, The Decision-Making Process of the WTO in Relation to Developing Countries
Friday, May 19, 2017
- Articles and Commentaries
- Amos Enabulele, Multilateral Treaties and the Effects of the Universality of Customs on State Consent
- Kate Deere, Investment in China’s FTAs: How Well has the FTA with New Zealand Held Up?
- Saeed Bagheri, Iran’s Attitude to Security in the Strait of Hormuz: An International Law Perspective
- Geoffrey Palmer, Whales and Humans: How Whaling went from being a Major Industry to a Leading Environmental Issue then Landed Japan in the International Court of Justice for the First Time
- Gillian Triggs, Human Rights Across the Tasman: A Widening Gulf – Hotung Fellowship Public Lecture, 6 April 2016
- The South Pacific
- Joanna Siekiera, The Pacific Islands Forum 2015, Port Moresby
- Charles Hulley, TPPA No ... Wait: The Scope of Fair and Equitable Treatment
- Tracey Whare, Customary Law and Human Rights in the Pacific – Potential for Convergence or Inevitable Conflict?
The Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered into force in 2002. Now, the ICC faces its most significant challenge -- the prospect of a mass exodus by African countries. Complaints of institutional bias against African leaders, supported by a general critique of western superintendency attaching to international law’s long and close association with colonialism (the mission civilisatrice), haunt the future of atrocity accountability in Africa. Borrowing from the critique of the western juridical tradition, as framed by the spectral imagery of Jacques Derrida and applied as critique to international criminal law by Kamari Maxine Clarke, this Article reshapes that discussion by situating the discussion of atrocity accountability also within the framework of the neopatrimonial state and the lingering ethnographic presence of the politicized Big Man. Post-colonial and ethnographic narratives are then set against the vibrant and less discussed backdrop of African civil society to forward cautious support for the progressive development of the ICC in Africa owing to effective modalities supporting the ICC’s principle of complementarity below the formal structures of the state.
What is international criminal justice? The authors of this book set out a framework for understanding international criminal justice in all its facets. Considering both definition and content, the authors argue for its treatment as a holistic field of study, rather than a by-product of international criminal law.
Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, this book draws on a range of legal and extra-legal disciplines. Whilst addressing crucial legal questions throughout, it also considers the role and impact of politics, history, psychology, terrorism, transitioning society, and even the idea of hope in how we understand international criminal justice. Challenging many of the prevalent paradigms of thinking in this area, Gideon Boas and Pascale Chifflet explore whether it is possible to reconcile some of the enduring intellectual conflict, such as whether and how retributive and restorative approaches to justice can co-exist.
- James D. Fry, Ethiopian Exceptionalism and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission
- Abiodun Jacob Osuntogun, Examination of the Institutional and Regulatory Framework for Corporate Human Rights Accountability in South Africa
- Avitus A. Agbor, Shifting the Matrix from Legal Passivity to a New Domestic Legal Order: Towards the Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Cameroon
- Getachew Mengistie & Michael Blakeney, Geographical Indications and the Scramble for Africa
- Howard Chitimira, A Conspectus of the Functions of the Judiciary under the Zimbabwe Constitution 2013
- Victor O. Ayeni & Matthew A. Olong, Opportunities and Challenges to the UN Security Council Referral under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- Antti Belinskij, Louis J. Kotzé & Oliver Fuo, Domestic Manifestations of International Law's Right to Water: A Comparative Analysis of Emerging Rights Obligations in Finland and South Africa
International law pervades the U.S. Code. This will come as a surprise to many members of Congress, as well as to those who accept the common trope that Congress is ignorant about or hostile to international law. It also may be news to foreign affairs scholars who study those areas in which Congress necessarily must interact with international law, such as where the Senate provides advice and consent to treaty ratification or Congress enacts implementing legislation to further U.S. treaty commitments. Even those who have examined these high-profile congressional interactions with international law likely are not attuned to the breadth and depth of Congress’s voluntary interactions with international law in a wide variety of situations in which it legislates.
The little-discussed proliferation of international law throughout U.S. statutes – termed here “statutory international law” – is the launching point for the article. Because limited attention is paid to congressional engagement with international law, current legal literature lacks a descriptive and theoretical account of when, why, and how Congress engages with these norms to advance its legislative goals. This article is the first to systematically examine the phenomenon of statutory international law.
Tracking how these norms find their way into statutes reveals the critical but often unseen influence of the Executive on the language of legislation. Further, the presence of statutory international law in the U.S. Code has important implications for the development of customary international law. It accelerates the amount of state practice that the Executive and courts produce and correspondingly empowers the United States to shape customary international law. This, in turn, reduces customary international law’s notorious democracy deficit. In the domestic context, statutory international law introduces new factors to inform ongoing debates about the Charming Betsy canon of statutory interpretation, while highlighting confounding effects on the separation of powers in foreign affairs.
The case for the desirability of the modern system of investment treaty arbitration rests on certain stylized historical claims. Those claims serve to demonstrate that the pre-modern system of dealing with investor-state disputes was inferior compared to current arrangements, which allow foreign investors to initiate highly legalized (or “depoliticized”) arbitration against host state governments for alleged violations of investment treaties. The implication of the historical comparison is that we should accept, and perhaps even expand, investment treaty arbitration to avoid a return to the bad old days. This Article challenges the historicity of this standard story through an in-depth examination of a forgotten but important episode of expropriation from the 1970s, Mauritania’s seizure of the MIFERMA iron ore operations. As I show below, politicized dispute settlement need not entail, nor even risk, resort to force. It can even be successful, especially where both home and host state government perceive mutual gains from continued cooperation. This does not mean that investors get everything they want, when they want it. In politicized dispute settlement the investor does not control the process — though he can certainly influence it — and the investor’s interests are not the only ones in play. More generally, the Article suggests the utility of micro-historical analysis of investor-state disputes as a methodology for gaining a more realistic understanding of how legalized investor-state dispute settlement coexists and interacts with, and may even support, “diplomatic protection”, broadly construed, and negotiated outcomes.
- Alexander Peukert, Intellectual property and development—narratives and their empirical validity
- Gabriele Spina Alì, TRIPS and disclosure of clinical information: An intellectual property perspective on data sharing
- Candra Irawan, Protection of traditional knowledge: A perspective on Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia
- Narendran Thiruthy, Open source—Is it an alternative to intellectual property?
Thursday, May 18, 2017
- Patrick Butchard & Christian Henderson, A Functional Typology of Commissions of Inquiry
- Michelle Farrell & Ben Murphy, Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: The Politics of Establishing United Nations Commissions of Inquiry
- Rob Grace, Lessons From Two Regional Missions: Fact-finding in Georgia and South Sudan
- Stephen Samuel & James A Green, Domestic Commissions of Inquiry and International Law: The Importance of Normative Authority
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, Commissions of Inquiry and Traditional Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement
- Christine Schwöbel-Patel, Commissions of Inquiry: Courting International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Triestino Mariniello, The Impact of International Commissions of Inquiry on the Proceedings before the International Criminal Court
- Marco Odello, The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law in the Practice of Commissions of Inquiry
- Shane Darcy, Laying the Foundations: Commissions of Inquiry and the Development of International Law
- Russell Buchan, Quo Vadis? Commissions of Inquiry and their Implications for the Coherence of International Law
- Théo Boutruche, Selectivity and Choices in Human Rights Fact-finding: Reconciling Subjectivity with Objectivity?
- Alison Bisset, Commissions of Inquiry and Procedural Fairness
- Corinne Heaven, A Visible College: The Community of Fact-finding Practice
Children are the victims of some of the most devastating examples of state-sanctioned and private human rights abuse. In increasing numbers, they are attempting to find international protection, and are forced to navigate complex administrative and legal processes that fail to take into account their distinct needs and vulnerabilities. The key challenges they face in establishing entitlement to refugee protection are their invisibility and the risk of incorrect assessment. Drawing on an extensive and original analysis of jurisprudence of leading common law jurisdictions, this book undertakes an assessment of the extent to which these challenges may be overcome by greater engagement between international refugee law and international law on the rights of the child. The result is the first comprehensive study on the manner in which these two mutually reinforcing legal regimes can interact to strengthen the protection of refugee children.
This paper explores two questions of the recent China-Australia FTA (ChAFTA): what is the approach of the ChAFTA? What are the challenges to the ChAFTA? It argues first that the ChAFTA adopts a problem-solving approach to harvest “low-hanging fruit” (e.g. tariff cuts). Containing WTO-based and WTO-friendly rules, it focuses on trade and investment facilitation through market liberalization and carefully written good governance norms. In spite of its short form investment chapter, the agreement is not as shallow as one may first think. It stimulates development concerning, among other things, regulatory issues (e.g. regulatory transparency and cooperation in financial services, regulatory autonomy in investment), the negative list approach for services and investment, investor-state dispute settlement, and the investment facilitation arrangement. The development appears to be often affected by the position of Australia. Second, the ChAFTA will meet challenges in implementation and future negotiations. The former includes vague rules, soft obligations, the considerable need for wide-ranging cooperation, and the usage rate. The latter is probably the complexity of legal issues, as well as internal (including sensitive issues such as labor mobility and review of investment by Chinese SOEs) and external uncertainties (including the WTO law, the US-China investment treaty negotiations). Finally, the future of the ChAFTA depends on bilateral cooperation in FTA implementation, and the political willingness to develop a rule-based system. The ChAFTA could bring an incremental paradigm shift of China’s FTAs, which will carry vast implications for China’s participation in international economic legal order.
The Australian Journal of Human Rights (AJHR) is currently accepting submissions for Volume 23, Issue 3, 2017.
The Australian Journal of Human Rights is a peer reviewed journal that aims to raise awareness of human rights issues both in Australia and internationally. This is a general issue and you are invited to submit articles in the range of 6,000-8,000 words on any legal aspect of human rights, along with associated philosophical, historical, economic and political issues for consideration.
The deadline for submission of articles for consideration in the AJHR is:
The AJHR uses an online management system for submission of articles and book reviews for publication.
- 1 June 2017 for Issue 23 (3), with a publishing date of November 2017
- 1 December 2017 for Issue 24 (1), with a publishing date of April 2018
SUBMIT YOUR MANUSCRIPT HERE
Please visit here to begin the process. Registration takes only a few minutes.
The AJHR is published three times per year. For more about the AJHR, visit our website.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is generally under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by this act. This article argues however that there are general limitations to the obligation to make full reparation. It reviews the practice of States in endorsing less-than-full reparation or even actively campaigning against full reparation in certain circumstances. It also notes the importance of the recognition of less-than-full reparation by judges and scholars in order, in particular, to facilitate the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Lastly, it identifies three alternative criteria explaining less-than-full reparation.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Public deliberation is essential for democracy to flourish. Taking decisions away from elected bodies and transferring them to courts seems to diminish deliberation. The damage appears even greater when decisions are taken away from domestic bodies and given to international courts — organizations considered to be completely independent from the public. But this view is mistaken. It stems from perceiving courts as saying the last word on the issues on their agenda. International courts are in fact engaging in a dialogue with the public, with governments, and with an elite of professional lawyers. International courts can spark a debate instead of silencing it. This paper explains how international courts shape public discourse by supplying legal arguments to the public and by building networks of activists, how these courts interact with governments, and how they form an international community of lawyers. Considering all this, the paper concludes that international courts improve public deliberation.
- L’accomplissement par le mineur d’actes juridiques en droit français et en droit koweïtien à la lumière du droit musulman
- S.F. Sobze, Existe-t-il un ordre juridique africain ?
- Y. Hamuli Kabumba, Enfants et femmes victimes de violences sexuelles — évaluation judiciaire du préjudice individuel en droit congolais
- G.T. Foumena, Le juge administratif, protecteur de l’environnement au Cameroun ?
One of the most fascinating developments in the domain of international law in the last few decades is the astonishing proliferation of non-binding legal instruments, generally referred to as soft law. The forms and origins of various nonbinding legal instruments are quite varied, but what they have in common is the promulgation of norms, commitments, or directives, explicitly avoiding the imposition of legal obligations on the relevant parties. The legal status of soft law is debated in the literature, but my concern in this essay is different: I aim to provide an account of the rationale of soft law from the perspective of the practical reasons that can rationalize such instruments. The argument is focused on analyzing the idea of authoritative advice, suggesting that when authorities advise their putative subjects, they purport to give the subject what I call presumptive reasons for action. I explain here what presumptive reasons are and what their rationale is, suggesting it as a model for the practical reasons in play when soft law operates vertically, in cases of nonbinding directives of international authorities. Horizontal soft law, that normally comes in the form of international treaties, is also explained by employing the idea of presumptive reasons, coupled with the mutual accountability relations that such agreements invariably constitute.
Les Entreprises militaires et de sécurité privées ( EMSP ) – définies comme des entités commerciales privées qui fournissent des services militaires et/ou de sécurité − ont fait l’objet de nombreuses études spécifiques par les juristes anglosaxons, depuis une vingtaine d’années. Mais, jusqu’à présent, aucune étude globale ne leur a été consacrée en langue anglaise et surtout en Français.
La grande originalité de cet ouvrage réside dans l’étude de manière transversale des EMSP, sous différents angles juridiques incluant toutes ses dimensions : internationale, régionale, nationale et comparée.
La conception retenue consiste à se demander de quelle manière les EMSP sont appréhendées par ces différents droits. La dynamique de cette approche comparatiste permet de percevoir les évolutions en ce domaine, ainsi que d’établir les éléments de divergence et de convergence. L’harmonisation et la combinaison entre ces ordres juridiques sont alors prescrites dans cet ouvrage afin de saisir de manière effective et efficace ces entreprises.
Customary principles regarding contracts concluded with foreigners are deeply rooted in ancient rules of customary international law governing the treatment of aliens. The recent intense development of investment arbitration has been a golden opportunity to further clarify how these principles have developed and are applied to current contractual practices. Admittedly, there is now in general international law a set of principles recognizing and taking into consideration the distinct features of State contracts, beyond the specific rules regarding the protection of foreign investment. Moreover, this process of internationalization has progressively been enriched by principles that are more familiar to international commercial arbitration, and in particular those related to the "ordre public transnational". However, the scope of these principles is limited and it would be exaggerated to suggest the existence of a consistent and complete international law regime of State contracts. Some differences remain as regards issues for which the law applicable to the contract or the doctrinal conception of State contracts has an impact on the principles and rules applicable by the tribunal.
Les investisseurs étrangers jouissent-ils d’une liberté d’investissement garantie par le droit international ? Le droit du commerce international contribue-t-il au renforcement des règles contenues dans les accords d’investissement ? Les accords de protection de l’environnement peuvent-ils être appréhendés comme des instruments de promotion des investissements ? L’étendue de la protection offerte aux investisseurs étrangers par les accords internationaux estelle si étendue qu’elle ne trouve aucun équivalent en droit international ou en droit interne ? Le droit des investissements internationaux peut-il s’affranchir du lien fusionnel entre traités d’investissement et arbitrage et pourrait-il gagner en effectivité et en légitimité à s’en remettre à la compétence des juridictions nationales ? Ces questions, avec de nombreuses autres, sont examinées dans cet ouvrage comme autant de perspectives croisées qui permettent de repousser les horizons du droit des investissements internationaux. Celui-ci n’est plus limité à la somme des milliers d’accords internationaux spécifiquement dédiés à la protection des investissements réalisés par des opérateurs étrangers et qui trouvent quasi-exclusivement à s’appliquer dans le cadre du contentieux arbitral. Les mécanismes permettant d’encourager, de faciliter, de réglementer, de contraindre ou encore de protéger l’activité des investisseurs à l’étranger sont ici recherchés dans toutes les sphères du droit international mais aussi dans certains ressorts du droit interne. Il en résulte une approche holistique du droit des investissements internationaux qui rend compte de toute la complexité d’envisager un régime juridique cohérent en la matière mais qui ouvre également de nouvelles perspectives d’évolution de cette branche du droit international économique qui est, plus que jamais, au cœur de nombreuses contestations.
- Erik Roxstrom & Mark Gibney, Human Rights and State Jurisdiction
- Nicole Detraz & Dursun Peksen, In the Aftermath of Earth, Wind, and Fire: Natural Disasters and Respect for Women’s Rights
- Johan Brännmark, Respect for Persons in Bioethics: Towards a Human Rights-Based Account
- Anna Lundberg & Jacob Lind, Technologies of Displacement and Children’s Right to Asylum in Sweden
- Md. Kamal Uddin, Human Rights Abuses in Bangladeshi Policing: the Protection Capacity of National Human Rights Commission
Monday, May 15, 2017
- Sección de Artículos de Investigación desde el Derecho Internacional Penal
- Carlos Julio Lascano, La autoría mediata en el asesinato del obispo Enrique Angelelli de La Rioja, perpetrado por el terrorismo de Estado en Argentina
- Sección de Ensayos de Investigación seleccionados en la V edición del Certamen Blattmann, Odio Benito y Steiner
- Joana Loyo Cabezudo, La justicia transicional en Colombia: ¿Un instrumento creado para erradicar la impunidad?
- Flavio Pimenta De Souza & Diogo De Oliveira Machado, La doble naturaleza de la recuperación de activos por la Corte Penal Internacional: disuasión de la práctica delictiva y reparación de las víctimas
- Ana Morell Sanz, El derecho a no ser discriminado o a vivir como iguales
- Sección de Artículos de Investigación desde otras áreas de las Ciencias Humanas y Sociales
- María José Caram, El amor en un mundo de opresión: Aportes de la Teología de la Liberación a la reflexión sobre las relaciones entre justicia y misericordia
- Pascual G. García Macías, Sumak Kawsay: Una cosmovisión desde el sur con sentido de justicia bio-social
- Sección de Reporte de Jurisprudencia
- María Camila Ospina & Jannluck Canosa Cantor, con el acompañamiento de Andrea Mateus Rugeles, Situación en África Central, caso del Fiscal contra Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, Sentencia conforme al artículo 74 del ECPI, ICC-01/05- 01/08, de 21 de marzo de 2016
Among the most significant developments in international investment law and policy in the past decade has been China’s adoption of a new model of bilateral investment treaty that embraces disciplines commonly found elsewhere. This has been celebrated by some scholars as heralding the arrival of a universal model for investment protection that will be transformative of Chinese domestic policy. Others have expressed skepticism that Chinese policy portends liberalization of the Chinese economy. Nor does it indicate that China has embraced neo-liberal norms requiring the state to recede from controlling the levers of economic power. Both sides purport to derive their readings from shifts in Chinese investment policy and internal legislative change. We propose another reading derived from shifts in Chinese Communist Party leadership and the Party’s perception of what is required to guarantee its stability and continued dominance. The object is to understand Chinese BIT policy as a product of the complex and interacting influences reflected in debates within the CCP. By examining four main eras in which China BIT policy has evolved, we propose bringing the Party back into discussions about investment treaty policy.
The American Society of International Law calls for submissions of scholarly paper proposals for the ASIL Research Forum to be held during the ASIL Midyear Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri at Washington University School of Law.
The Research Forum, a Society initiative introduced in 2011, aims to provide a setting for the presentation and focused discussion of works-in-progress. All ASIL members are invited to attend the Forum, whether presenting a paper or not.
Papers may be on any topic related to international and transnational law and should be unpublished (for purposes of the call, publication to an electronic database such as SSRN is not considered publication). Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome.
Proposals should be submitted via the form here by June 26, 2017. Interested paper-givers should submit an abstract (no more than 500 words in length) summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the Forum. Abstracts will be considered via a blind review process. Papers that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered. Notifications of acceptance will go out by the end of July.
Papers accepted for presentation will be assembled into panels. The organizers welcome volunteers to serve as discussants who will comment on the papers. All authors of accepted papers will be required to submit a draft paper four weeks before the Research Forum (September 29, 2017). Accepted authors must commit to being present on both Friday, October 27 and Saturday, October 28, 2017. Draft papers will be posted in advance of the Forum on an asil.org website accessible only by attendees of the Forum.
Hesselman, Hallo de Wolf, & Toebes: Socio-Economic Human Rights in Essential Public Services Provision
Despite the clear overlap in the aims and purposes of socio-economic human rights law protection and securing adequate access to essential public services for all in society, there is little academic literature that analyses these topics in tandem. This volume is the first comprehensive work to fill this gap by identifying the common challenges for essential public services provision and socio-economic human rights realisation, and by exploring how socio-economic rights law can be harnessed to reinforce better access to services. An important aim of this book is to understand how international socio-economic human rights law and guideposts can be used and strengthened to improve access to services, and assess socio-economic legal and policy decisions in this field.
The volume includes contributions on a range of different services (e.g. water, energy, health care, medicines, clean air, disaster management) and engages with the realities of different regulatory settings, e.g. on different continents, in different countries and in particular regimes (i.e. EU, WB, WTO, Uganda, Sweden, Mozambique, Colombia. China, India and Brazil). The key challenges engaged with in the volume include: sufficient (public and private) resources mobilisation, private actor involvement and regulation, planning for adequate services provision, and the underexplored themes of 'participation’ and ‘accountability'.
This review “diagnoses” climate change as an international governance challenge and explores the political feasibility of alternative “cures.” Human activities’ growing effect on Earth's climate system is extremely challenging, characterized by, inter alia, very long time lags between mitigation measures (∼costs) and environmental effects (∼benefits) and by stark asymmetries between “guilt” in causing the problem and vulnerability to climate change. Two main cures have been suggested. Some analysts argue that because climate change is a global process, adequate solutions must likewise be global. Others shift attention from the challenge's format to the sources of human motivation, arguing that a decentralized (bottom-up) approach will more directly engage a wider spectrum of motivations and actors. These cures are neither mutually exclusive nor easily combined. IR research contributes more to the former cure than to the latter but can play a constructive role in linking them.
This year, the London-Leiden conference will revisit a theme it explored in 2009: preliminary references at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The UK's notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU has cast into doubt the future of its relationship with the CJEU, and the fate of the Unified Patent Court. In its 56th year, the London-Leiden meeting on EU will examine the uncertain nature of these relationships, in Sessions I and II, and host a Brexit Roundtable in Session III. Please join us to discuss these important and complex issues with experts from the UK and abroad.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
- Eric White, The Obstacles to Concluding the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Lessons for the Future
- Dennis Ndonga, Addressing the Challenges Facing the Use of E-Signatures Within the ASEAN Single Window
- Sandra L. Bell, Meeting the Challenges of Customs Compliance in a Post TFTEA and Reinvigorated Trade Enforcement Environment
- Cezary Sowinski & Luke Parker, WCO Immediate Release Guidelines State of Application in CEFTA
- Hoang Thi Bich Ngoc, Vietnamese Businesses Not Yet Taking Advantage of Trade Remedies: Realities and Solutions
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction—it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Scholars have long been fascinated by the role of international courts in the enforcement of international rule of law. They start with a foundational question: Can international courts affect how international law is implemented? In this review, we lay out four of the most common theoretical arguments for why international courts matter. We then interrogate these accounts. In particular, we examine their views on how much influence courts have and what the likely welfare consequences are for the signatories of an agreement. In so doing, we identify critical conditions that must obtain for court influence under each of the arguments. We then bring more recent scholarship to bear on the plausibility of these conditions. In particular, we examine what research on the structure of law, the preferences of judges, and institutional design implies about the efficacy of international courts based on the four foundational arguments. We conclude with suggestions for future research.
Føllesdal: Constitutionalization, Not Democratization: How to Assess the Legitimacy of International Courts
Several authors - including Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane, Gráinne De Búrca, and Nienke Grossman address the legitimacy deficits of international courts (ICs). They propose the 'democratization' of ICs, by which they often mean to increase their transparency, accountability or participation by various parties. There are other, better reasons to value transparency, accountability and participation concerning ICs than as building blocks of democracy, namely insofar as they contribute to valuable forms of constitutionalization of the global basic structure. More transparency, accountability or participation is often but not always beneficial. Moreover, they can be valuable even when such changes do not advance democracy of the kind worth having: widely dispersed institutionalized control in the form of elections based on prior public deliberation, whereby individuals can influence the rules that shape their lives. We should not assume that democracy is the touchstone for all legitimate modes of governance. Three related issues should be isolated to foster constructive discussions and sound extrapolation of normative premises for legitimacy familiar from domestic constitutional thought and political theory. We should distinguish between democratic institutions of decision-making, the normative principles that justify such institutions, and important features of such institutions that contribute to their justification, such as accountability, participation and transparency. It is only calls for the first of these – formalized institutions of decision-making – which should be considered democratication proper.
In International Law of Sharks, Erika J. Techera and Natalie Klein provide an in-depth analysis of the current legal frameworks that relate to these important species. The authors offer ways in which to overcome obstacles that prevent existing laws from working better and identify best practice global governance options while highlighting opportunities for legal reform.
Scientific evidence indicates that sharks play a critical role in maintaining marine ecosystem health, yet current governance regimes have not been effective and many shark species continue to diminish. In this context, effective laws are critical to improve sharks’ conservation status. This volume also explores the broader relevance of oceans governance by identifying appropriate legal frameworks and regulatory mechanisms that balance conservation and utilisation of marine species in general.
As the World Trade Organization (WTO) begins its third decade, its future is uncertain. The initial expectation that the WTO would be the fulcrum for future international trade agreements has not been met. At best, its tenure has had mixed results. This review addresses the political consequences of WTO membership, focusing on the rules and norms of the regime and why they have become less functional over time; looks at the effectiveness of the WTO and the dispute settlement system in encouraging trade and compliance with agreements; and offers some general thoughts on the impact of shifting mass opinion on the virtue of trade agreements and other stumbling blocks the WTO faces.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
- Wolfgang Alschner, The Impact of Investment Arbitration on Investment Treaty Design: Myth Versus Reality
- Rebecca Ingber, Co-Belligerency
- Lesley Wexler & Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Designing Amends for Lawful Civilian Casualties
Conference: 50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation
- Ruth Blakeley & Sam Raphael, British torture in the ‘war on terror’
- Ty Solomon & Brent J. Steele, Micro-moves in International Relations theory
- Madeleine Fagan, Security in the anthropocene: Environment, ecology, escape
- Sandra Destradi, Reluctance in international politics: A conceptualization
- Tony Heron & Peg Murray-Evans, Limits to market power: Strategic discourse and institutional path dependence in the European Union–African, Caribbean and Pacific Economic Partnership Agreements
- Erin R. Graham, The institutional design of funding rules at international organizations: Explaining the transformation in financing the United Nations
- Bernd Bucher & Ursula Jasper, Revisiting ‘identity’ in International Relations: From identity as substance to identifications in action
- Daniel R. McCarthy & Matthew Fluck, The concept of transparency in International Relations: Towards a critical approach
- David Rampton & Suthaharan Nadarajah, A long view of liberal peace and its crisis
- Philip Cunliffe, The doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’ as a practice of political exceptionalism
The New Zealand Yearbook of International Law (Brill), launched in June 2004, is an annual, internationally refereed publication intended to stand as a reference point for legal materials and critical commentary on issues of public international law. The Yearbook serves as a valuable tool in the determination of trends, state practice and policies in the development of international law in New Zealand, the Pacific region, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica and to generate scholarship in those fields. In this regard the Yearbook contains an annual ‘Year in Review’ of developments in international law of particular interest to New Zealand as well as a dedicated section on the South Pacific.
The Editor of the Yearbook is currently Dr Roisin Burke (University of Canterbury, NZ) and the Associate Editor is Dr Christian Riffel (University of Canterbury, NZ). The Book Reviews Editor is Prof Annick Masselot. The Editorial Team is advised by members of the Advisory Board who are leading New Zealand-based and international academics and practitioners within the field of international law.
The Editors call for both short notes and commentaries and longer in-depth articles for publication in the 2016 edition of the Yearbook (volume 14). Notes and commentaries should be between 3,000–7,000 words (including footnotes). Articles may be from 8,000 to 15,000 words (including footnotes).
The Editors seek contributions on any issue of public international law and are particularly interested in receiving submissions that are relevant to New Zealand, Australasia, the Pacific, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica.
The closing date for submissions is 30 May 2017. Submissions before that date are encouraged.
Submissions should be provided in English, using MSWord-compatible word processing software, and delivered by email to the Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Contributions must be original unpublished works and submission of contributions will be held to imply this. We do not consider submission that are currently under review with another publisher. Manuscripts must be word-processed and in compliance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (3rd edition).The Guide is available online here.
Further details on the Yearbook and the table of contents for volumes 1–13 are available online here.
This chapter contains general reflections on the rule of law and international courts, and it discusses the significance of international courts for the rule of law in the Asian context. I argue that we may expect increasing pluralism between the approaches of different Asian states, between different issue areas, and between different geographic levels as regards international courts. We may expect more judicialisation involving Asian states in trade and investment than in human rights. Finally, while there is a general reluctance to enter into regional dispute resolution mechanisms, we see support for a mosaic of bilateral (BITs), subregional (ASEAN), transregional (TPP) and global (ICJ, ITLOS, WTO) international courts. The scepticism of Asian states may weaken the development of more international rule of law protection and constitutionalisation. But the rule of law provided by existing international courts will continue to expand, also for Asian states: through their constant dispute resolution, their interpretation of treaties and general international law, and through their judicial law-making functions.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
The disaffection of States towards investment treaties has grown considerably in the last few years and triggered the upgrading of BITs (i.e. BIT between Morocco and Nigeria), the revision of treaty models (i.e. India and Indonesia) or the conclusion of much less ambitious facilitation agreements (i.e. Brazil-Mozambique). South Africa has opted instead for the termination of several investment treaties and adoption of a piece of domestic legislation. The South African Protection of Investment Act (2015) is largely pegged to the Constitution and based on the extension to foreign investors of the protection granted to nationals, including the provisions on expropriation and regulatory powers. This chapter attempts to discuss and compare the protection foreign investors may expect to enjoy under the Act. It argues that from both substantive and procedural standpoints, the Act offers a level of protection definitely lower of that normally provided by international investment treaties. It remains to be seen whether such rather drastic departure from treaty standards is appropriate and what the consequences of the replacement of investment treaties with the Act may be on the flow of foreign investment to South Africa.
‘Unseen actors’ are central to the ‘institutional makeup’ of international courts and tribunals as registries and secretariats, law clerks and legal officers may exert varying levels of influence on the judicial process. At this conference, legal and political science scholars and members of adjudicatory institutions will consider and discuss the legitimacy of assigning ‘unseen actors’ certain roles in the judicial process as well as the implications thereof for the legitimacy of the dispute settlement mechanism as such.
Call for Papers: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Sustaining Peace: Developing New Insights into Peacebuilding
Call for Papers:
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Sustaining Peace:
Developing New Insights into Peacebuilding
Knowledge Exchange Symposium, Wednesday 5th July 2017
The topic of human rights and conflict transformation is not a new one. However, increasingly attention is being given to the lack of consideration of economic, social and cultural rights within peacebuilding. This one day knowledge exchange symposium to be held at Lancaster University Law School in Lancaster, UK on Wednesday 5th July 2017, is the second event of a collaborative project between the Quaker UN Office (QUNO), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) and Dr Amanda Cahill-Ripley of Lancaster University Law School. The project aims to enhance knowledge and understanding of the role of economic, social and cultural rights (ECSRs) in sustaining peace. In particular, we aim to:
Further information on the project can be found here.
- Assist in networking traditional and non-traditional actors in peacebuilding (including ESCRs actors)
- Advance innovative practice and thinking on peacebuilding and ESCRs
- Strengthen the relationship between academia, human rights actors and peacebuilding actors and expand space for dialogue about realising rights, building peace and resolving conflict across different institutions and sectors.
- Develop an enhanced and broader understanding amongst practitioners and academics of promising practices in the peacebuilding and economic and social rights fields.
This event will build on a previous workshop held in Geneva in February 2017 which brought together academics and representatives of peacebuilding and human rights organisations to identify the intersections between ESCRs and peacebuilding in theory, policy, and practice. As a result of this workshop, the need for further exploration of ideas and exchange of dialogue in order to strengthen mutual knowledge and understanding was clearly identified. With this in mind, the purpose of this symposium is to provide an opportunity for a wider group of academics and practitioners to present their research and experiences in relevant areas, to further enrich the debate and build upon the initial discussions.
The event will be organised around a number of panels where speakers will present their academic, practitioner and policy insights on a theme or experiences related to the central topic concerning ESCRs and Sustaining Peace, including but not limited to:
Time will be included within each panel session to ask questions and debate issues raised.
- Economic Crimes And Corruption
- Local /Grassroots Peacebuilding
- Gender /Women, Peace And Security
- Conflict Transformation
- Early Warning, Risk Analysis and Conflict Prevention
- Post-Conflict Peacebuilding
- Transitional Justice
- Non-State Actors (Including Business; NSAC)
- Structural Violence
- Human Security
- Discrimination/Vulnerable Groups
- Political Settlements/Legal Agreements
- Specific ESCRs in a peacebuilding context
- NB. Cross-cutting themes and presentations on particular case studies/ programme level experiences are also encouraged.
In the evening all symposium participants will be invited to attend supper on board The Kingfisher canal barge for a cruise through the countryside of Lancaster. There is a nominal fee of £25 per person for the evening cruise including dinner.
We look forward to receiving your abstract. Please submit a 200-500 word abstract to: email@example.com by Friday 26th May 2017.
I really hope you can join us for what promises to be a very interesting and formative event.
For any queries please contact the event organiser:
Dr Amanda Cahill-Ripley, Lecturer in Law, Lancaster University Law School.
+44(0)1524 (5) 94930