A defence of the claim that giving effect to the morality of human rights is the formative aim of international human rights law.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Stone Sweet & Grisel: The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy
The development of international arbitration as an autonomous legal order is one of the most remarkable stories of institution building at the global level over the past century. Today, transnational firms and states settle their most important commercial and investment disputes not in courts, but in arbitral centres, a tightly networked set of organizations that compete with one another for docket, resources, and influence.
In this book, Alec Stone Sweet and Florian Grisel show that international arbitration has undergone a self-sustaining process of institutional evolution that has steadily enhanced arbitral authority. This judicialization process was sustained by the explosion of trade and investment, which generated a steady stream of high stakes disputes, and the efforts of elite arbitrators and the major centres to construct arbitration as a viable substitute for litigation in domestic courts. For their part, state officials (as legislators and treaty makers), and national judges (as enforcers of arbitral awards), have not just adapted to the expansion of arbitration; they have heavily invested in it, extending the arbitral order's reach and effectiveness. Arbitration's very success has, nonetheless, raised serious questions about its legitimacy as a mode of transnational governance.
The book provides a clear causal theory of judicialization using original data and analysis, and a broad, relatively non-technical overview of the evolution of the arbitral order. Each chapter compares international commercial and investor-state arbitration, across clearly specified measures of judicialization and governance. Topics include: the evolution of procedures; the development of precedent and the demand for appeal; balancing in the public interest; legitimacy debates and proposals for systemic reform. This book is a timely assessment of how arbitration has risen to become a key component of international economic law and why its future is far from settled.
Maia & Kolb: O Estatuto Internacional da Província Angolana de Cabinda à Luz do Direito Internacional Público
Este estudo visa aplicar alguns conceitos-chaves do direito internacional num contexto relativamente pouco conhecido, a saber, reivindicações de secessão em Angola. Antigos “tratados” celebrados com chefes indígenas podiam ser considerados como convenções de direito internacional ou eram atos de direito interno? Qual o papel que estes podem desempenhar nas atuais reivindicações de autodeterminação? Como apreciar em direito internacional a validade de um acordo relativo à independência de uma colónia concluído no âmbito de um direito constitucional português em plena mutação? A questão suscita comentários tanto do ponto de vista do direito nacional como do ponto de vista do artigo 46.º da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados de 1969, cujo conteúdo poderia eventualmente ser aplicado a título de direito consuetudinário. O que pensar, em seguida, do argumento do direito de secessão a favor do “povo” cabindense? Será que tal povo existe na aceção do direito internacional? Além disso, o que é um povo no sentido do direito de autodeterminação? E como defini-lo neste caso? O que se deve pensar do argumento da secessão-remédio, segundo o qual uma minoria oprimida e sem acesso equitativo ao Governo de um Estado adquiriria um direito de secessão em direito internacional? Será que tal doutrina existe em direito internacional público geral? Como definir a opressão que visa? Qual a prática internacional a este respeito? Qual é, finalmente, a situação concreta dos nativos de Cabinda em relação ao Governo de Angola, ou seja, o seu tratamento em termos de direitos humanos ou de participação ao poder? Estas são algumas perguntas, entre outras, sobre as quais a presente obra tenta trazer esclarecimentos. O espaço lusófono, que serve aqui como pano de fundo, oferece-nos um prisma tangível aos vários aspetos de direito internacional público analisados.
Petersmann: When the Sovereign Sleeps: Who Protects Fundamental Rights and Other ‘Public Goods’ in Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?
EU law requires the EU to place ‘the individual at the heart of its activities’, to take ‘decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’, and protect citizens and their fundamental rights also in the external relations of the EU. Free trade agreements (FTAs) protecting rights and remedies of citizens have been uniquely successful in European integration for providing transnational public goods (PGs) like equal rights of citizens, rule of law, open markets promoting general consumer welfare, and empowerment of citizens to use their ‘republican virtues’ for enforcing trade and competition rules in national and European courts. In FTA negotiations with non-European countries, however, the EU disregards its ‘cosmopolitan foreign policy mandate’ and regulatory ‘consistency’ requirements by emulating intergovernmental power politics of non-European trading countries. Rather than protecting fundamental rights and judicial remedies in domestic courts in economic integration among transatlantic democracies, the EU's transatlantic FTAs risk undermining fundamental rights and judicial remedies. Parliaments in the EU have not challenged the ‘disempowerment’ of citizens and ‘re-feudalization’ of EU trade policies through intergovernmental trade diplomacy. Citizens challenge interest group politics in transatlantic FTAs and the EU’s neglect for participatory and deliberative democracy and ‘subsidiarity’ in EU trade regulations of transnational ‘market failures’ and ‘governance failures’. The EU's new 'investment court provisions' in recent FTAs (e.g. with Canada) risk 're-fragmenting' international investment law; they are no model for reforming international investment law.
Ample research has demonstrated that exposure to inadmissible evidence affects decision-making in criminal and civil cases. However, the difficulty of ignoring information in the context of legal interpretation has not been examined yet. Our study addresses the possible effects that exposure to preparatory work has on the interpretation of treaties. In the present article, we examine the ability of students enrolled in international law courses and of international law experts to ignore preparatory work when they are not allowed to use it. We found that exposure to preparatory work affected the students’ interpretation of treaties, while no such effect was found among the experts. These results reaffirm the practical relevance of the debate over the hierarchy between the rules of treaty interpretation. In particular, our study demonstrates that preparatory work can play a significant role in decision-making, depending on the legal rule that applies to the use of such materials. More generally, our study suggests that legal interpretation by students and experts is qualitatively different, and that international law experts might be better able than non-experts to discount irrelevant information in the process of treaty interpretation.
While an abundance of literature covers the right of states to defend themselves against external aggression, this is the first book dedicated to the right to personal self-defense in international law. Drawing on his extensive experience as a human rights practitioner and scholar, Dr. Hessbruegge sets out in careful detail the strict requirements that human rights impose on defensive force by law enforcement authorities, especially police killings in self-defense. The book also discusses the exceptional application of the right to personal self-defense in military-led operations, notably to contain violent civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities.
Human rights also establish parameters on how broad or narrow the laws can be drawn on self-defense between private persons. Setting out the prevailing international standards, the book critically examines the ongoing trend to excessively broaden self-defense laws. It also refutes the claim that there is a human right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.
In extraordinary circumstances, the right to personal self-defence sharpens human rights and allows people to defend themselves against the state. Here the author establishes that international law gives individuals the right to forcibly resist human rights violations that pose a serious risk of significant and irreparable harm. At the same time, he calls into question prevailing state practice, which fails to recognize any collective right to organized armed resistance even when it constitutes the last resort to defend against genocide or other mass atrocities.
This chapter discusses the provisions in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on the protection of labour and environmental standards and human rights. It first outlines the obligations of the parties to protect labour and environmental standards, human rights and democratic principles. Next, it discusses certain means by which the economic obligations of the parties may be interpreted, either expressly or by implication, to reflect these values. Third, it analyses the rights of the parties, in the context of exceptions, to adopt measures to protect labour and environmental standards and human right obligations, and the extent to which CETA’s obligations might expand the ordinary jurisdictional scope of these rights.
Friday, February 17, 2017
The Department of Law of the University of Naples “Federico II” and the Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development of the National Research Council of Italy are working jointly on the analysis of the link between Migration and Development. In the context of this cooper- ation, and following the publication of the collective volume Migration and Development: Some Re- flections on Current Legal Issues, Rome, 2016 (open access at http://eprints.bice.rm.cnr.it/15914/), they have decided to issue a call for papers for a second volume intended to address the specific issue of the relationship between human migration and the environment.
The link between migration and the environment is not new, environmental conditions have always influenced human mobility. However, the nature, the dynamics and the scale of environment related migration have dramatically changed in recent years, and the complex nexus between migration and the environment has drawn increasing attention in the contemporary international context.
This relationship is not easy to outline for several reasons, including the range of environmental phe- nomena that may cause migration flows (natural disaster as well as gradual process of environmental deterioration), the difficulty of isolating environmental factors from other political, social and eco- nomic drivers of migration, the complexity of differentiating between forced and voluntary migra- tions in cases of environment-induced flows. In addition, from a different perspective, migratory flows may contribute to environmental degradation in the areas of destination and transit, giving rise to phenomena such as unmanaged urbanization or temporary camps or shelter that produce further pressure on the environment.
The complexity of the link between migration and the environment challenges the current legal par- adigm in which migration is largely framed and calls into question the adequacy of the existing pro- tection frameworks. In several international fora, it is increasingly recognized that there are certain groups of people who move for environmental reasons and are in need of assistance and who currently fall outside of the scope of international protection.
The goal of the volume on Migration and the Environment: Some Reflections on Current Legal Issues and Possible Ways Forward is to discuss the extent to which people whose movements are induced by environmental factors are protected under the existing international legal framework, to investigate the main legal issues and the normative gaps and to analyze the solutions being discussed in the international arena.
Contributions can cover, inter alia, the following areas:
- Extent of the protection under international refugee law and the feasibility (and desira- bility) of an expansion of the notion of refugee;
- Human rights law and forms of complementary protection at the regional and national levels (EU, USA, Canada …);
- International instruments for the protection of Internally Displaced Persons;
- The international agenda for the protection of cross-border displaced persons in the con- text of natural disaster and climate change;
- Climate change and human mobility in the context of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and UNSustainable Development Goals;
- The case of low-lying island States;
- International instruments for the protection of stateless people.
The call for papers aims to offer an opportunity for experts, scholars and policy makers, for a critical review of the outcomes, implications and achievements on the relevant questions of international law on international migration and the environment.
Abstracts of no more than 500 words, written in English or French and including the author’s name and e-mail address, should be submitted to the following e-mail address: email@example.com.
A one-page curriculum vitae should be attached to the abstract.
The deadline for submission of abstracts is 30 March 2017.
Successful applicants will be notified via e-mail by 10 April 2017 and are expected to produce the final paper (8000-10000 words approx.) by 15 September 2017.
Papers will be peer-reviewed before final acceptance for publication.
Harvard International Law Journal
ILJ Volume 59 Call for Print Submissions
The Harvard International Law Journal is now accepting article submissions for Volume 59, Issue 1. The Journal seeks to publish innovative, original scholarship that makes a significant contribution to the field of international law. We welcome submissions from legal scholars, practitioners, and doctoral degree candidates on topics of private or public international law and related fields, including interdisciplinary work. (For information about student submissions, visit our website.) Please note that we do not generally publish articles on foreign or comparative law unless they raise and significantly engage with issues of international law.
While we may accept articles of up to 30,000 words, we prefer submissions of between 15,000 and 25,000 words, including footnotes. All articles should be typed in English with text double-spaced. Manuscripts must be submitted online via ExpressO. In addition to the article, submissions should include a short abstract, a CV with a list of recent publications, and current contact information. Footnotes should conform with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th Ed.).
Articles will be reviewed on a rolling basis in February and March by a Submissions Committee comprised of J.D. and LL.M./S.J.D candidates, and may also be reviewed by our faculty advisors and/or scholars in our peer network. If short-listed, the article will be sent to the ILJ Executive Board for a final decision.We endeavor to respond to authors within a month of receiving a submission, but we are unfortunately unable to provide feedback for articles that are not selected. Once an article has been selected, the Editors-in-Chief will contact the author with a contract and further information on the publication process. The ILJ editorial process is a rigorous one, and authors should expect to work closely with Journal staff on substantial substantive and technical revisions prior to the article’s final publication.
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with questions or to request an expedited review.
- Jorun Baumgartner, The Significance of the Notion of Dispute and Its Foreseeability in an Investment
- Tobia Cantelmo, The Inherent Power of Reconsideration in Recent ICSID Case Law
- Siegfried Fina & Gabriel M. Lentner, The European Union’s New Generation of International Investment Agreements and Its Implications for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
- Jarrod Hepburn & Luke Nottage, A Procedural Win for Public Health Measures
- Tania Voon, Philip Morris v. Uruguay: Implications for Public Health
- Rachel Frid de Vries, Stability Shaken? Israeli High Court of Justice Strikes Down the Stabilization Clause in the Israeli Government’s Gas Plan
- Martti Koskenniemi, It’s not the Cases, It’s the System
This Article crystallizes and then critiques a prominent view about the role of international law in the global order. The view — what I call the “cooperation thesis” — is that international law serves to help global actors cooperate, specifically by: (1) curbing their disputes, and (2) promoting their shared goals. The cooperation thesis often appears as a positive account of international law; it purports to explain or describe what international law does. But it also has normative force; international law is widely depicted as dysfunctional when it does not satisfy the thesis. In particular, heated or intractable conflict is thought to betray the limits of international law — to show that, on some issues, international law is not serving its functions.
That view of international law is conceptually flawed. It incorrectly assumes that conflict is an impediment to international law or a problem for international law to mitigate. As scholars from other disciplines have shown, however, conflict is symbiotic with the very functions that the thesis prizes. Even as international law enables global actors to curb their disputes and work toward their shared aims, it also enables them to do the opposite: to hone in on their differences and disagree — at times fiercely and without resolution. It does so because the two kinds of interactions are interdependent, and the legal mechanisms for both are the same. To put the point more starkly, conflict does not necessarily reveal deficiencies in international law because enabling it is inherent in the project of international law.
- Special Issue: Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance
- Jonathan Pickering, Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance
- Carola Betzold & Florian Weiler, Allocation of aid for adaptation to climate change: Do vulnerable countries receive more support?
- Nina Hall, What is adaptation to climate change? Epistemic ambiguity in the climate finance system
- W. Pieter Pauw, Mobilising private adaptation finance: developed country perspectives
- Laurence Delina, Multilateral development banking in a fragmented climate system: shifting priorities in energy finance at the Asian Development Bank
- Jakob Skovgaard, Limiting costs or correcting market failures? Finance ministries and frame alignment in UN climate finance negotiations
- Jonathan Pickering & Paul Mitchell, What drives national support for multilateral climate finance? International and domestic influences on Australia’s shifting stance
- J. Timmons Roberts & Romain Weikmans, Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance
International lawyers and courts discuss the principle of systemic integration as the answer to certain difficulties arising from fragmentation of public international law. This article questions the main propositions pertaining international law scholarship and judicial practice as far as the application of systemic integration of treaties in the human rights area is concerned. The article argues, first, that, in many instances, the application of systemic integration raises serious interpretation and jurisdictional concerns. Second, the article submits that systemic integration may create new hegemonies among international courts and give rise to a less diverse and poorer international law in the future.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
- The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Perm. Ct. Arb.), with introductory note by Ben Love
- N.M. and Others v. UNMIK (H.R. Advisory Panel), with introductory note by Lauren C. Baillie
- Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, with introductory note by Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón
- Declaration of Microcephaly Clusters and Other Neurological Disorders in Zika-Affected Areas as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (WHO), with introductory note by Ana S. Ayala
- Chris Thomale, The forgotten discipline of private international law: lessons from Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum – Part 2
- Horatia Muir Watt, Conflicts of laws unbounded: the case for a legal-pluralist revival
- Zia Akhtar, Act of State, state immunity, and judicial review in public international law
- Nicolás M. Perrone, The international investment regime and local populations: are the weakest voices unheard?
- Matej Avbelj, Transnational law between modernity and post-modernity
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Kulick: From Problem to Opportunity?: An Analytical Framework for Vagueness and Ambiguity in International Law
As law hinges on the imprecise instrument that is language, legal norms or legally relevant acts, accordingly, often may be vague or ambiguous. International law is no exception in this regard. However, in international legal thinking on the interpretation of international norms or acts, vagueness and ambiguity (VaA) are usually perceived as a problem, an obscurity to be resolved. This contribution intends to take a fresh look at vagueness and ambiguity in this latter context. It will present an analytical framework systematizing five different categories of looking at VaA in interpreting international law and thereupon employ these categories to scrutinize, in descending order of abstraction, VaA’s implications vis-à-vis several issues of international legal thinking, including the exercise of authority and international adjudication. Thereby it seeks to demonstrate the benefits of moving vagueness and ambiguity from the periphery to the centre of international legal thinking on interpretation.
Asian SIL Interest Group on International Law in Domestic Courts
24 August 2017
Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
On the occasion of the Sixth Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law (which takes place on 25-26 August), the Society’s Interest Group on International Law in Domestic Courts (IG - ILDC) is organizing a half-day workshop on the ways Asian courts invoke, interpret and apply international law. For decades, judiciaries across Asia have turned to international treaties, and customary international law, to resolve disputes between private actors on the one hand, and between individuals and the states on the other. Despite this widespread practice, insufficient attention has been paid to the Asian countries’ reception of international law. We hope to use this opportunity to spur scholarly reflection on state practice from any Asian jurisdiction.
Participants may wish to address the following topics:
This is by no means an exhaustive list; interested participants are encouraged to reflect on these, and other, topics that would fall within this general category.
- interpretive methods used by courts to enforce obligations under international human rights treaties;
- why courts enforce (or refuse) arbitral awards under the New York Convention;
- direct and indirect applications of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods;
- the rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, or other sources of international humanitarian law; and
- courts’ citation to reports, recommendations and comments issued by treaty-monitoring bodies and international organizations; and
- invocation of unincorporated treaties.
Interested researchers and practitioners should send a 500-word abstract and a short bio to the convenors of the IG-ILDC: email@example.com (Machiko Kanetake) and firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Webster). The deadline is 23 April 2017.
- Selected participants will be informed by 15 May 2017. Preference will be given to current members of the Asian Society of International Law.
- Each participant must submit a short paper (5-10 pages) by 15 August 2017 for distribution to the other participants.
- Panelists will be expected to cover their own travel and lodging costs.
- Special Section: Global Wealth Chains
- Leonard Seabrooke & Duncan Wigan, The governance of global wealth chains
- J.C. Sharman, Illicit Global Wealth Chains after the financial crisis: micro-states and an unusual suspect
- Dick Bryan, Michael Rafferty & Duncan Wigan, Capital unchained: finance, intangible assets and the double life of capital in the offshore world
- Other Research Articles
- Louise Curran & Jappe Eckhardt, Smoke screen? The globalization of production, transnational lobbying and the international political economy of plain tobacco packaging
- Adam William Chalmers & Susanna Theresia Mocker, The end of exceptionalism? Explaining Chinese National Oil Companies’ overseas investments
- Laura-Marie Töpfer, Institutional change in Chinese cross-border finance: foreign investors, the party-state and power resources
Call for Papers
‘The Trajectories of International Legal Histories’
LJIL@30 Anniversary Symposium
20 October 2017, 11am-6pm, The Hague
Keynote by Prof. Gerry Simpson (LSE)
Thirty years ago, the Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL) was born, at a time when the writing of histories was hardly a popular endeavor for international legal scholars. In his 1987 article ‘Probleme der Völkerrechtsgeschichte’ (‘The Problems of International Legal History’), Heinhard Steiger argued that only very few, ‘mostly authors of the older generation’, were interested in international legal history. Despite a few notable exceptions, this field of inquiry was still in an embryonic state in the late 1980s.
Much has changed since that time. On the occasion of its 30th anniversary, the LJIL will convene a symposium on The Trajectories of International Legal Histories. The aim is to pay tribute to the remarkable developments within this field, to engage in critical reflection on the directions that it has taken, and to discuss the potential avenues for future research. We anticipate that participants will seize the occasion to speak to ongoing debates, and possibly trigger new ones. The symposium will engage with questions of methodology and perspective. We hope that it will encourage further historical work on international law and reveal the new possible ways of its application.
Some general, basic—and truly intriguing—questions that we are looking to pursue are: Why do international lawyers write and debate international legal histories, and how do their perspectives differ from those of other scholars? How can legal histories be tied to, and yet transcend, specific disciplinary, geographic, socio-cultural and political contexts? Why, in writing histories of international law, have we asked the questions that we have asked? And which questions have we failed to ask? What drives a historical ‘turn’ in particular areas of international law? In what ways do our understandings of the past shape our perceptions of the present and the future, and vice versa? (How) should we write histories of particular fields and of international law as a whole? Which international legal histories should be (re)written, and by whom?
Panel I. International legal history—Linking Past, Present, and Future
The first panel will focus upon some of the general questions described in the programme, in particular: what drives the growing interest in international legal history, and what enables the pursuit of the historical projects in international law? How have experiences of the past shaped both perceptions of the present and future, and the writing of international legal histories? Conversely, how do present locations affect readings of the past and choices of historical subjects and methodology? How can or should such connections be drawn? The panel will further speak to the different stages in international legal history, and reflect on the question of how international legal histories might be written (well).
Panel II. Writing and mediating legal histories—Plural origins and conceptions of international law
The second panel will focus on recent projects of writing histories of international law. Papers in this session will provide insight into questions of methodology and sources, periodization, selection of subjects, and context taken up in specific projects. With different histories being written on the same subjects in parallel and in relation to different fields of international law, the emerging historical narratives may be complementary, speak past each other, or give rise to tensions and clashes. How can we make sense of the different historical perspectives, and how can (or should) they be mediated? This panel could provide an ideal starting point for investigating how (and whether) international legal histories might be both situated in and transcend their particular contexts.
Panel III. Fields of engagement: International legal history and …?
The third panel will have a dual focus. First, it will explore the intersections of international legal history with other fields and overarching conceptual frameworks (e.g. political economy, critical studies, postcolonial theory etc.). Second, it will address the turn to legal history in the specialized subject-matter areas of international law and examine whether and how its ethic and method reshape the disciplinary agenda and discourses. First, this angle might deepen our understanding of international law’s structure, and broaden our awareness of the material relevant to its analysis. Secondly, it might reflect upon the ultimate objectives of historical work in international law, allowing us to think about why it is that we write the histories we write, and what questions we fail to explore. We anticipate that the papers will go beyond exposing certain histories as conquerors’ histories, and turn their attention also to the less obvious blind spots and structural determinants of our historical projects in specific fields and in international law more generally.
Submission of Proposals and Timeline
The Board of Editors of the Leiden Journal of International Law
- Paper proposals should include a description of ca. 500 words and the applicant’s curriculum vitae.
- Email to: email@example.com.
- The deadline is 15 March 2017. Selected participants will be notified by 1 April 2017.
- Participants must submit draft papers by 1 October.
- We plan to publish a selection of the contributions in the LJIL.
- Please note that we can contribute to travelling and accommodation expenses, but of a select number of participants only.
- The Global Forum
- Ramesh Thakur, Choosing the Ninth United Nations Secretary-General: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
- Thomas Doyle, A Moral Argument for the Mass Defection of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Regime
- Special Section: The Power of Numbers in Global Governance
- Isabel Rocha de Siqueira, Christopher C. Leite & Monique J. Beerli, Powered and Disempowered by Numbers: Data Issues in Global Governance
- Hans Krause Hansen & Tony Porter, What Do Big Data Do in Global Governance?
- Isabel Rocha de Siqueira, Symbolic Power in Development Politics: Can “Fragile States” Fight with Numbers?
- Monique J. Beerli, The Power to Count and the Stakes of Counting: An Inquiry into the Quantified Production of Humanitarian Insecurity
- Christopher C. Leite & Can E. Mutlu, The Social Life of Data: The Production of Political Facts in EU Policy Governance
- Tetsuro Iji, The UN as an International Mediator: From the Post–Cold War Era to the Twenty-First Century
- Katharina P. Coleman, Extending UN Peacekeeping Financing Beyond UN Peacekeeping Operations? The Prospects and Challenges of Reform
- Simon Hollis, Localized Development Gaps in Global Governance: The Case of Disaster Risk Reduction in Oceania
- Gérard Cahin, Le droit de la guerre d’Alberico Gentili
- Nathalie Clarenc, La guerre juste selon Grotius
- Isabelle Lassée, La guerre juste chez Vattel, concept central à la portée limitée ?
- Niki Aloupi, L’intervention d’humanité dans la pensée française de la fin du XIXème siècle (Pillet, Rougier)
- Yaï Gonzales-Murillo, La guerre économique selon Carlos Calvo et le blocus contre Cuba
- Natalia Chaeva, Sir Arnold McNair et la survie des traités internationaux à la guerre
- Frédérique Coulée, La guerre comme état exceptionnel. Retour sur l’œuvre de Bluntschli Le droit international codifié
- Yulia Dyukova, Les droits de l’homme en temps de guerre d’après Fiodor Martens
- Anne-Marie Thevenot-Werner, Le projet de paix perpétuelle de Kant
- Eric Wyler, Kelsen et la paix par la juridiction obligatoire : Jus potestas ou Jus auctoritas ?
- Maryline Grange, La paix par l’union des Etats chez Paul-Henri Spaak
- Pascale Martin-Bidou, L’organisation internationale de la sécurité chez Maurice Bourquin
- Carlo Santulli, Violence et morale dans l’ordre international A propos de l’ordre juridique pacifique de Lauterpacht et Aron
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Arbitral Awards as Investments analyzes the treatment of arbitral awards as investments within international investment law. The rise of international investment arbitration has resulted in the emergence of a number of intriguing legal and political challenges. One of those is the question of whether or not arbitral awards may constitute investments pursuant to existing investment treaties. In approaching the problem, it is the interconnection between theory and practice that delivers solutions. This book presents the first detailed analysis of tribunals’ approaches to this question to date and examines the interpretative outcomes.
This live online briefing, the second in the Society's new series on "International Law and the Trump Administration," will feature two former U.S. deputy assistant secretaries of state for international organization affairs: Bathsheba Crocker (2014-2017) and Mark P. Lagon (2004-2007). They will discuss the role of the U.N. on a broad range of global issues; the challenges it faces in advancing its mission; its relationship to the United States and its importance to U.S. national interests; criticisms of the institution and proposed reforms; and the prospects for continued U.S. support.
- Michael Wood, Foreword
- Brian D. Lepard, Introduction: why does customary international law need reexamining?
- J. Patrick Kelly, Customary international law in historical context: the exercise of power without general acceptance
- Fernando R. Tesón, Fake custom
- Niels Petersen, The role of consent and uncertainty in the formation of customary international law
- Thomas Kleinlein, Customary law and general principles: rethinking their relationship
- Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Els Debuf, The ICRC and the clarification of customary international humanitarian law
- Noora Arajärvi, From the 'demands of humanity': the formulation of opinio juris in decisions of international criminal tribunals and the need for a renewed emphasis on state practice
- Brian D. Lepard, Towards a new theory of customary international human rights law
- Anna Williams Shavers, Using customary international law to improve women's lives
- Sofia Michaelides-Mateou, Customary international law in aviation: a hundred years of travel through the competing norms of sovereignty and freedom of overflight
- Frans von der Dunk, Customary international law and outer space
- Brian D. Lepard, Concluding reflections: insights from reexamining customary international law
Monday, February 13, 2017
The idea that international law requires that a breach is undone and reparation is provided is central to law as such – no less so to international law. Take away the notion of responsibility, and much of how we think about international law and why it matters starts to transform. This paper explores the structuring role of responsibility in international legal discourse, and discusses how transformations in the international legal system that move the dominant interstate system to the background inevitably affect the structuring role of international responsibility.
- Harry Badera, Tribute to Walt Parker
- Mead Treadwell, Support and Opposition: An Informal History of the Law of the Sea Convention in the United States and Alaska, Including a Tribute to Walter B. Parker
- Lisa Parker, Responsible Resource Development in Alaska: A Developer’s Perspective on the Red Dog Mine
- Rachael Lorna Johnstone, Respectful Neighbourliness: The United Kingdom’s Arctic Approach
- Simon Marsden, From the High North to the Roof of the World: Arctic Precedents for Third Pole Governance
- Kathryn Mengerink; David Roche & Greta Swanson, Understanding Arctic Co-Management: The U.S. Marine Mammal Approach
- Bent Ole Gram Mortensen & Ulrike Barten, The Greenland Self-Government Act: The Pitfall for the Inuit in Greenland to Remain an Indigenous People?
- Akiho Shibata & Maiko Raita, An Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation: Only for the Eight Arctic States and Their Scientists?
- Kristoffer Svendsen, The Impact of Choice-of-Law Rules in Cross-Border Pollution Damage Caused by Petroleum Spills from Offshore Rigs and Installations: The Case of the Barents Sea
- Małgorzata Śmieszek, Adam Stępień & Paula Kankaanpää, The Recent Arctic Council Assessments: Influential Tools in Policy-Making in the Council and Beyond?
- Matti Niemivuo & Lotta Viikari, The Nordic Welfare State and the Development of Northern Finland
- Johnny Grøneng Aase & Julia Jabour, How Satellites Can Support the Information Requirements of the Polar Code
- Aileen M. Nimick & Bradley P. Harris, Essential Fish Habitat Regulation in the United States: Lessons for High Latitudes?
PALESTINE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Call for papers (Volume XX)
The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is now inviting submissions of scholarly articles for publication for Volume XX (2017). This is a general call for papers, but the Yearbook would particularly welcome submissions that focus on the themes associated with three anniversaries that will be marked in 2017 and which are relevant to Palestine. These are the 100 year anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the 70 year anniversary of the UN Plan of Partition for Palestine, and the 50th anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. As always, the editors also encourage the submission of scholarly pieces of relevance to public international law in general, including but not necessarily in relation to Palestine.
The Yearbook is published in the English language, is edited at Birzeit University’s Institute of Law (Birzeit, Palestine), and published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (The Hague, The Netherlands). The Editor-in-Chief of the Yearbook is Mr. Ardi Imseis.
Important dates and contact information
Prospective authors should express interest by e-mailing an abstract (of under 750 words) of the suggested paper as indicated above, along with a CV by 15 March 2017. If full manuscripts are available by that date, prospective authors should feel free to send those instead by that date. All submissions should be made to:
- Mr. Ardi Imseis: firstname.lastname@example.org;
- Mr. Jamil Salem: email@example.com; and
- Mr. Ata Hindi: firstname.lastname@example.org.
For more on the Palestine Yearbook of International Law, see here.
On the occasion of the ESIL 13th Annual Conference (Naples, 7-9 September 2017) the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law hereby invites submissions, in English or in French, for its annual Workshop.
Call for Papers
During the past two decades the history of international law has evolved from a relatively marginal enterprise into a core professional concern and, in certain fields, a controlling vocabulary. The phenomenon, which is often captioned as a “turn to history”, is marked both by an exponential growth in publications and activities (journals, conferences, interest groups, blogs) and a re-invention of historical work as mode of critical analysis. One could begin to list several characteristics of the turn to history: the move away from trans-historical evolutionary accounts towards global, micro-, and subaltern histories; critiques of Eurocentrism; the emergence of histories of sub-fields of international law; socio-historical accounts of the international law profession; a renewed interest in archival work; an unprecedented interest in methodological questions; the role of historical accounts in judicial decisions; and so on. The purpose of the Workshop of the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law is to trace these disciplinary developments and evaluate their impact on contemporary international law scholarship and practice.
In this context, the IGHIL invites submissions by scholars working within the fields of international law, history, and politics on the following inter-related themes:
Each submission should include
- The impact of the historical turn on the methods of international legal history
- The impact of the historical turn in sub-fields of international law (e.g. human rights, international criminal law, diplomatic history etc)
- The impact of the historical turn on evaluating the historical function of international courts and tribunals
- The impact of the historical turn on Eurocentrism
- The impact of global, micro, subaltern, and other histories on international law historiography
a) An abstract of no more than 400 words;
b) The intended language of presentation;
c) A short curriculum vitae containing the author’s name, institutional affiliation, contact information and e-mail address.
Abstracts must be submitted no later than 15 March 2017 to email@example.com on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Interest Group, which shall collectively supervise the blind peer-review process of the abstracts. Applicants will be notified on the outcome of the selection process by 30 March 2017.
Selection will be based on scholarly merit and with regard to producing an engaging workshop, without prejudice to gender, seniority, language or geographical location. Please note that the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law is unable to provide funds to cover the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation costs.
The IG currently investigates publication possibilities for selected abstracts.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
- Ank Santens & Jaroslav Kudrna, The State of Play of Enforcement of Emergency Arbitrator Decisions
- Beata Gessel-Kalinowska Vel Kalisz, UNCITRAL Model Law: Composition of the Arbitration Tribunal Re-considering the Case upon Setting Aside of the Original Arbitration Award
- Jakob B. Sørensen & Kristian Torp, The Second Look in European Union Competition Law: A Scandinavian Perspective
- César R. Ternieden, Tarek Badawy, & Sarwat Abd El-Shahid, Arbitrability and Choice of Law in Transfer of Technology Agreements Under Egyptian Law
- Philippe Hovaguimian, The Res Judicata Effects of Foreign Judgments in Post-Award Proceedings: To Bind or Not to Bind?
- David B. Carter & Paul Poast, Why Do States Build Walls? Political Economy, Security, and Border Stability
- Seung-Whan Choi & James A. Piazza, Foreign Military Interventions and Suicide Attacks
- Erica Chenoweth & Jay Ulfelder, Can Structural Conditions Explain the Onset of Nonviolent Uprisings?
- Andrew H. Kydd & Roseanne W. McManus, Threats and Assurances in Crisis Bargaining
- Angelo Antoci, Alessandro Fiori Maccioni, Pier Luigi Sacco, & Mauro Sodini, Self-protection, Psychological Externalities, and the Social Dynamics of Fear
- Rotem Nagar & Ifat Maoz, Predicting Jewish-Israeli Recognition of Palestinian Pain and Suffering
- Christina L. Davis & Krzysztof J. Pelc, Cooperation in Hard Times: Self-restraint of Trade Protection
- Michael A. Bailey, Anton Strezhnev, & Erik Voeten, Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data
- Fırat Bilgel & Burhan Can Karahasan, The Economic Costs of Separatist Terrorism in Turkey