- Internationales Meeresumweltschutzrecht
- Till Markus & Harald Ginzky, Editorial: Internationales Meeresumweltschutzrecht?!
- Harald Ginzky & Hans-Peter Damian, Bergbau am Tiefseeboden – Standards und Verfahren für einen effektiven Schutz der Umwelt
- Andrea Weiß, Meeresstrategie-Rahmenrichtlinie: Auf dem Weg zu einem guten Umweltzustand der Meeresgewässer in Europa?
- Sven Mißling & Sebastian Unger, Schutz und nachhaltige Nutzung der marinen Biodiversität in Gebieten jenseits nationaler Hoheitsgewalt
- Valentin J. Schatz, Die Rolle des Flaggenstaates bei der Bekämpfung illegaler Fischerei in der AWZ im Lichte der jüngeren internationalen Rechtsprechung
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Friday, June 16, 2017
- Yvonne Terlingen, A Better Process, a Stronger UN Secretary-General: How Historic Change Was Forged and What Comes Next
- Celia Medrano, Securing Protection for De Facto Refugees: The Case of Central America's Northern Triangle
- Lior Erez, Pro Mundo Mori? The Problem of Cosmopolitan Motivation in War
- Special Section: Legitimate Authority, War, and the Ethics of Rebellion
- Christopher J. Finlay, Jonathan Parry, & Pål Wrange, Introduction: Legitimate Authority, War, and the Ethics of Rebellion
- Jonathan Parry, Legitimate Authority and the Ethics of War: A Map of the Terrain
- Pål Wrange, Does Who Matter? Legal Authority and the Use of Military Violence
- Christopher J. Finlay, The Perspective of the Rebel: A Gap in the Global Normative Architecture
- Review Essay
- Denise Garcia, Shifting International Security Norms
- Ben Saul, The Legal Relationship between Terrorism and Transnational Crime
- Juan-Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo, Victims at the Prospective International Criminal Law Section of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights
- Mohamed Elewa Badar & Noelle Higgins, Discussion Interrupted: The Destruction and Protection of Cultural Property under International Law and Islamic Law - the Case of Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi
- Frederick Cowell & Ana Leticia Magini, Collapsing Legitimacy: How the Crime of Aggression Could Affect the ICC’s Legitimacy
- Nikola Hajdin, The Nature of Leadership in the Crime of Aggression: The ICC’s New Concern?
- Domenico Carolei, Cestaro v. Italy: The European Court of Human Rights on the Duty to Criminalise Torture and Italy’s Structural Problem
- Russell Buchan & Nicholas Tsagourias, The Crisis in Crimea and the Principle of Non-Intervention
- Gabriela A. Oanta, In the Search of an Appropriate Legal Framework to Prevent Environmental Risks Caused by Navigation in the Black Sea
- Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli, The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or the Framing of Scientific Knowledge within the Law of Sustainable Development
- Wei-Chung Lin, Safeguarding the Environment? The Effectiveness of Amicus Curiae Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration
- Ulf Linderfalk, Navigating the Legal Landscape between the General and the Specific: General Concepts as Tools of Legal Reasoning
- Niall Alexander Rand, Reforming the International Whaling Commission: Indigenous Peoples, the Canadian Problem and the Road Ahead
Benvenisti & Lustig: Taming Democracy: Codifying the Laws of War to Restore the European Order, 1856-1874
In this article, we contend that the canonical narrative about civil society’s efforts to discipline warfare during the mid-nineteenth century - a narrative of progressive evolution of Enlightenment-inspired international humanitarian law (IHL) - does not withstand scrutiny. On the basis of archival work and close reading of protocols, we argue that European governments codified the laws of war not for the purpose of protecting civilians from combatants’ fire, but rather to protect combatants from civilians eager to take up arms to defend their nation - even against their own governments’ wishes. We further argue that the concern with placing “a gun on the shoulder of every socialist” extended far beyond the battlefield. Monarchs and emperors turned to international law to put the dreaded nationalist and revolutionary genies back into the bottle. Specifically, we propose that it was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 - 1871 and the subsequent short-lived, but violent, rise of the Paris Commune that prompted governments (more than any other war during this formative era of international law) to adopt the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the first comprehensive text on the laws of war. The new law not only exposed civilians to the war's harms, but also supported the growing capitalist economy by ensuring that market interests would be protected from the scourge of war and the consequences of defeat. The laws of war, in this formative stage, were more about restoring the political and economic order of Europe than about wartime.
Orienté vers le libre-échange, le droit de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce est basé sur plusieurs principes fondamentaux : la non-discrimination, la réciprocité et la réduction progressive des obstacles au commerce. À l’instar des règles du Droit international économique, il existe des mécanismes répondant à l’impératif d’adaptabilité nécessaires aux Membres pour faire face à des situations exceptionnelles afin d’intégrer de la souplesse dans l’application du droit de l’OMC et de déroger aux principes et règles régissant le commerce international. Cela vaut aussi bien en période de crise qu’indépendamment de l’environnement économique général, dès lors que les conditions sont réunies pour que les Membres les mettent en œuvre. La crise économique et financière de 2008 donne à l’analyse de ces mécanismes une acuité particulière puisque la période a fait craindre un recours accru, voire abusif, à ces instruments d’exception, de dérogation, de sauvegarde, recours qui signifierait un retour à des pratiques protectionnistes.
La réflexion sur l’utilisation de ces outils permet la mise en évidence des instruments proposés par le droit de l'OMC pour faire face aux crises et plus généralement à des situations qui nécessitent un frein au libre-échange. Mais au-delà, elle précise les pratiques des Membres dans l’utilisation de ces outils, la logique générale de ces mécanismes de flexibilité et l’équilibre qui existe entre les principes orientés vers le libre-échange et les exceptions qui supposent des restrictions au commerce. Les questions qui se posent alors doivent conduire à étudier l’ensemble de ces instruments de flexibilité, l’articulation entre ces instruments et ceux des autres organisations internationales en lien avec l’OMC, le rôle du juge de l’OMC dans les différends liés à l’utilisation de ces mécanismes, et les perspectives d’évolution des instruments de flexibilité du droit de l’OMC.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
International Law in Practice
Practice reifies and animates international law, shaping what it means, how it is applied, and how effectively it achieves the diverse goals of those who invoke it. Practice is constitutive and contentious. It looks both backward and forward.
The 2018 Annual Meeting will focus on international law in action: how and by whom international law is made, shaped, and carried out, both formally and informally; how it is taught; how the practices of international institutions, law firms, companies, not-for-profit organizations, government offices, and militaries generate international rules; how and in what ways states and other actors interact; and how participants deploy international legal arguments. The meeting will consider how international legal practice has changed and is continuing to change in response to geopolitical shifts and contemporary challenges, including demands for greater transparency, accountability, legitimacy, and inclusion.
At its 112th Annual Meeting, the American Society of International Law invites policymakers, practitioners, academics across the disciplinary spectrum, and students to reflect on the broad manifestations, sources, and implications of international legal practice.
2018 ASIL Annual Meeting Committee Co-Chairs
Jacob Katz Cogan
- International Dispute Resolution
- Criminal Law, Human Rights, Migration
- International Law & Domestic Law
- Armed Conflict, Use of Force, and Terrorism
- Environment, Territory, Sea, and Space
- International Business
- Global Governance and International Organizations
Call for Session Proposals
To suggest a session to the Committee, please complete the form below by no later than July 18, 2017.
- Nils W. Metternich, Shahryar Minhas, & Michael D. Ward, Firewall? or Wall on Fire? A Unified Framework of Conflict Contagion and the Role of Ethnic Exclusion
- Katherine Sawyer, Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham, & William Reed, The Role of External Support in Civil War Termination
- Lindsay L. Heger & Danielle F. Jung, Negotiating with Rebels: The Effect of Rebel Service Provision on Conflict Negotiations
- Clionadh Raleigh & Kars De Bruijne, Where Rebels Dare to Tread: A Study of Conflict Geography and Co-option of Local Power in Sierra Leone
- Ursula Daxecker, Dirty Hands: Government Torture and Terrorism
- Matthias Mader, Citizens’ Perceptions of Policy Objectives and Support for Military Action: Looking for Prudence in Germany
- Lisa Hultman & Dursun Peksen, Successful or Counterproductive Coercion? The Effect of International Sanctions on Conflict Intensity
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
This book provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of a key concept in East Asian security debates, sovereign autonomy, and how it reproduces hierarchy in the regional order. Park argues that contemporary strategic debates in East Asia are based on shared contextual knowledge - that of international hierarchy - reconstructed in the late-nineteenth century. The mechanism that reproduces this lens of hierarchy is domestic legitimacy politics in which embattled political leaders contest the meaning of sovereign autonomy. Park argues that the idea of status seeking has remained embedded in the concept of sovereign autonomy and endures through distinct and alternative security frames that continue to inform contemporary strategic debates in East Asia. This book makes a significant contribution to debates in international relations theory and security studies about autonomy and status, as well as to the now extensive literature on the nature of East Asian regional order.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The Dispute Resolution Interest Group (DRIG) of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and the Lewis & Clark Law School are pleased to announce a workshop to discuss academic works-in-progress on international dispute resolution. The purpose of the workshop is to help authors develop draft articles for publication, so authors will be required to submit a working draft before the workshop takes place.
The workshop will take place at the Lewis & Clark Law School on the afternoon of November 10, 2017. All participants will be expected to attend the entire workshop and to be prepared to comment on the other papers, up to a maximum of three. We are unfortunately unable to fund travel. An optional dinner for participants will be held in the evening, although it is not known yet whether the dinner will be hosted or no-host. Authors will not give formal presentations of their work. Rather, each accepted paper will be assigned a discussant, who will briefly introduce the paper, provide feedback to the author, and lead a discussion among participants. This format permits lively discussion of ideas and writings that may be inchoate or not yet fully developed.
Submissions are welcome from academics and practitioners around the world. Junior professionals, including aspiring and untenured academics, are encouraged to submit proposals. Any topic related to international dispute resolution will be considered. Submissions must be works in progress and should not have been submitted for publication.
Abstracts up to 500 words may be submitted by 5pm Pacific Time, July 15, 2016 to this folder. (A Dropbox account is not necessary to submit documents.) Abstracts will be reviewed by DRIG Co-Chairs Perry Bechky and Jennifer Permesley, together with George Foster of Lewis & Clark Law School and Aaron Simowitz of Willamette University College of Law.
The authors whose proposals are chosen will be informed in mid-August. All participants must submit a substantial work in progress by October 21, 2017, which will be circulated in advance of the workshop to all participants. It is expected that this work will consist of a working draft paper at least 20 pages long. Participants whose drafts are longer than 30 pages will be asked to focus the attention of the discussants and other participants on key excerpts.
Please direct any questions to firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com.
The First Bilateral Investment Treaties is the first and only history of the U.S. postwar Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (FCN) treaty program, and focuses on the investment-related provisions of those treaties. The 22 U.S. postwar FCN treaties were the first bilateral investment treaties ever concluded, and nearly all of the core provisions in the modern network of more than 3000 international investment agreements worldwide trace their origin to these FCN treaties. This book explains the original understanding of the language of this vast network of agreements which have been and continue to be the subject of hundreds of international arbitrations and billions of dollars in claims. It is based on a review of some 32,000 pages of negotiating history housed in the National Archives.
This book demonstrates that the investment provisions were founded on the New Deal liberalism of the Roosevelt-Truman administrations and were intended to acquire for U.S. companies investing abroad the same protections that foreign investors already received in the United States under the U.S. Constitution. It chronicles the failed U.S. attempt to obtain protection for investment through the proposed International Trade Organization (ITO), providing the first and only history of the investment-related provisions in the ITO Charter. It then shows how the FCN treaties, which dated back to 1776 and originally concerned with establishing trade and maritime relations, were re-conceptualized as investment treaties to provide investment protection bilaterally. This book is also a work of diplomatic history, offering an account of the negotiating history of each of the 22 treaties and describing U.S. negotiating policy and strategy.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Stiansen, Osterud, Føllesdal, & Ulfstein: Westphalia Waning? The Uneven Acceptance of International Courts
Is the uneven acceptance of international courts (ICs) an indication of different conceptions of state sovereignty? The conventional idea of the Westphalian model is that it involved the principles of state sovereignty, legal equality of states, and non-intervention in internal affairs. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia often serves as a historical reference, even though the modern conceptions of state sovereignty hardly goes back to the 17th century and the Westphalian treaties of Münster and Osnabrück (Osiander 2001; Beaulac 2004). The idea of sovereignty evolved during the 19th and 20th centuries, yielding several versions. The one relevant here is international legal sovereignty, which implies recognition of polity and territoriality by other states and domestic authority structures that exclude external actors (Krasner 1999).
To explore whether different conceptions of sovereignty within the modern states system affect states’ acceptance of ICs, we categorize states according to a set of variables which includes colonial background, geopolitical position, political regime, legal system and resources. We then analyze how these factors correlate with the ratification of different types of ICs – two independent courts and two conflict resolution mechanisms connected to states’ broader acceptance of international organizations.
We analyze the acceptance of four ICs with a global reach – the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the WTO dispute settlement mechanism (DSM), and the dispute settlement system under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). These ICs vary in interesting respect. Acceptance of the WTO dispute settlement follows from ratification of the treaty establishing the WTO, and similarly for dispute settlement under UNCLOS and for the criminal jurisdiction of the ICC. However, acceding to UNCLOS implies that states have the opportunity to use ITLOS, the ICJ or ad hoc arbitration for dispute settlement. The ICJ was established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, but the UN member states are only bound by the competence of the ICJ if this is explicitly accepted by the relevant state. This selection allows us to explore the difference between accepting substantive treaty obligations sanctioned by an IC, and only accepting the IC. The motivation of states may be to ensure general acceptance of the substantive obligations, or of the IC – or both.
We employ a full dataset for when or if a country accepted each of these four courts. Using logistic regression analysis, we look for the links between a selected number of independent variables and the tendency to join the treaty that established each court. Is there a systematic pattern that indicates how the uneven judicialization of international law works?
- Ljiljana Biukovic & Pitman Potter, Introduction
- Thomas Cottier, International Trade, Human Rights and Policy Space
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Cosmopolitan Constitutionalism: Linking Local Engagement with International Economic Law and Human Rights
- Daniel Drache, Politics of Anti-dumping in Dispute Settlement: The Trade Predator’s Persistent Dilemma—National Tribunals Square Shooters or a Minefield of Bias?
- Ljiljana Biukovic, Transparency Evolution: More than the Right to Know
- Naayeli Ramirez-Espinosa, Challenging an Investment Agreement in Canada: Hupacasath First Nation’s Application for Judicial Review against the CCFIPPA
- Erika Cedillo, The Impact of Mexico’s 2011 Human Rights Constitutional Amendment on Arbitral Practice: A View from Local Actors
- Mor Mitrani, Demarcating the International Community: Where do International Practices Come from?
- Valentina Vadi, Local Communities, Cultural Heritage and International Economic Law
- Moshe Hirsch, Identity Matters: The Enforcement of Global Human Rights Treaties by European Union's Trade Instruments
- Lisa Toohey, Observing the Small Gestures: Human Rights Vectors in the Vietnamese Trade Law Environment
- Pitman B. Potter, Coordinating Human Rights and Trade Policy in China: The Case of Environmental Protection
- Sarah Biddulph, Structuring China’s Engagement with International Human Rights: The Case of Wage Protection Law and Practice
En 2003, les Etats, les organisations internationales et la société civile se réunissaient dans le cadre du Sommet mondial sur la Société de l’information (SMSI). Ce plus grand sommet alors jamais organisé par l’ONU a démontré l’importance du numérique pour le développement des sociétés et des individus. L’essor des applications dans tous les domaines, de la santé à l’éducation en passant par le commerce et l’administration, témoigne de la place centrale qu’occupe le numérique dans nos vies. Le SMSI a mis en lumière deux objectifs pour le développement des réseaux et des applications numériques : la lutte contre la fracture numérique et la gouvernance de l’Internet.
Alors que la gouvernance internationale de l’Internet et des réseaux numériques reste encore très embryonnaire, la connexion de tous les villages de la planète est désormais une réalité et les usages du numérique se multiplient dans tous les domaines. Dans le même temps, la couverture numérique des territoires ainsi que la mise en place d’une société de l’information inclusive ont ouvert la voie à de nouvelles menaces, plaçant la sécurité au cœur du débat.
Cet ouvrage met l’accent sur les questions que soulève le développement des TIC et de l’écosystème numérique sous l’angle du droit international du point de vue de la gouvernance, du développement et de la sécurité.
La diversité des thèmes abordés traduit l’importance et la transversalité des enjeux liés à l’avènement d’une société de l’information inclusive que l’ONU appelait de ses vœux lors du lancement du SMSI.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
- Special Issue: Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law
- Kai Ambos & Stefanie Bock, Brexit and the European Criminal Justice System – An Introduction
- Valsamis Mitsilegas, European Criminal Law After Brexit
- Annika Suominen, Brexit and EU Criminal Law – The Norwegian Approach
- Frank Meyer, The “Swiss Model” as an Option for the Future UK–EU Relationship
- Olivier Cahn, Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law – A French Perspective
- Stefanie Bock, Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law: A German Perspective
- Andrzej Światłowski & Barbara Nita-Światłowska, Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law – A Polish Perspective
- Mar Jimeno-Bulnes, Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law – A Spanish Perspective
- Coastal and Resource Management
- David L. VanderZwaag, Megan Bailey & Nancy L. Shackell, Canada–U.S. Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Maine: Taking Stock and Charting Future Coordinates in the Face of Climate Change
- Rebecca Dunham, A Cultural Legacy under Threat: Managing Eroding Coastal Heritage at the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site
- Polar Oceans Governance
- Rob Huebert, The Melting Ice and the Transforming Arctic Ocean
- Henning Dobson & Fugleberg Knudsen, No Heavy Fuel Oil at Svalbard—A Legal Ban?
- Dimitrios Dalaklis & Evi Baxevani, Maritime Routes in the Arctic: Examining the Level of Traffic and Port Capabilities along the Northern Sea Route
- Refugees, Migrants and the Law of the Sea
- Seline Trevisanut, Recognizing the Right to be Rescued at Sea
- Kyriaki Noussia, The Rescue of Migrants and Refugees at Sea: Legal Rights and Obligations
- The Law of the Sea and Ocean Governance
- Yunus Emre Acikgonul, Equitable Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries: The Uncontested Supremacy of Coastal Geography in Case Law
- Michael Sheng-ti Gau, The Jurisdictional Rulings of the South China Sea Arbitration: Possible Errors in Fact and in Law
- Nuwan Peiris, Advisory Opinion on Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: The Birth of Regional Treaty-based Advisory Jurisdiction
- Oil and Gas Governance
- Olga Koubrak, Responding to Oil Spills while Protecting the Marine Environment: Review of Product Authorization and Net Environmental Benefit Analysis in the IMO Dispersant Use Guidelines
- Jorge M. Radovich & Aldo Brandani, The Need for International Regulation of Offshore Liability and Financial Security
- Maritime Transport and Security
- Ngwatung Akamangwa, Understanding Environmental Requirements and Their Implementation Aboard Merchant Ships
- Laurent Fedi, The Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Ships’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A European Substantial Policy Measure towards Accurate and Transparent Carbon Dioxide Quantification
- Cassidy Gale, The Shiprider Shadow: Situating U.S.-Caribbean Interdiction Agreements within the Law of the Sea
- Edmund Hughes, Sarah Flagg, Heike Deggim & Stefan Micallef, Control of Emissions to Air from International Shipping
- Azmath Jaleel & Devinder Grewal, A Perspective on Safety and Governance Issues of Fishing Vessels
- Mohammad Vaferi, Hadi Ghaderi & Jagan Jeevan, The Impact of Low-sulphur Fuel Requirements in Shipping on Seaport Competitiveness: A Study on LNG Bunkering in Dubai, UAE and Sohar, Oman