Saturday, August 26, 2017
This insightful book offers a comprehensive account of the conceptual challenges facing state consent in the framework of treaty making. It highlights the relevant discursive patterns and pinpoints the increasing antagonism between treaty bodies and state parties over the ownership of treaty evolution, with the author warning of the repercussions of treaty institutionalization.
Showcasing the broad and encompassing nature of treaties, the author highlights the surrounding conflicts through chapters on the theory and concept of treaty and case studies on the flexibility of consent to be bound means, treaty withdrawal, the automatic succession doctrine and the law of reservations. The last part of the book explores how the invocation of the collective interest ideal, the institutionalization of treaties and the recurrence of formalism can endanger the legitimacy and effectiveness of treaty regimes.
- Richard L. Lippke, Irreducible Life Sentences and Human Dignity: Some Neglected and Difficult Issues
- Anna Arstein-Kerslake, Piers Gooding, Louis Andrews, & Bernadette McSherry, Human Rights and Unfitness to Plead: The Demands of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- Fiona McGaughey, The Role and Influence of Non-governmental Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review—International Context and Australian Case Study
- Alastair Mowbray, An Examination of the European Court of Human Rights’ Indication of Remedial Measures
- Natasa Mavronicola, Is the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Absolute in International Human Rights Law? A Reply to Steven Greer
- Stijn Smet, On the Existence and Nature of Conflicts between Human Rights at the European Court of Human Rights
- John Ip, The Legality of ‘suspicionless’ Stop and Search Powers under the European Convention on Human Rights
- Maria Tzanou, European Union Regulation of Transatlantic Data Transfers and Online Surveillance
- Lize R. Glas & Jasper Krommendijk, From Opinion 2/13 to Avotiņš: Recent Developments in the Relationship between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts
Friday, August 25, 2017
Pierini: The Momentum of Domestic Criminal Proceedings Supervision Through Investment Treaty Arbitration
Investor-State arbitration represents an intriguing topic whose relationship with EU law remains partially unsettled. It is becoming increasingly relevant for criminal law practitioners as the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals shows to consider interim measures interfering with or impacting upon criminal investigations in the so called “host State”. In the past, Investor-State arbitration has been accused of upholding economic interests of multi-national companies (MNC) against at the detriment of developing States and other values and purported as a vehicle of domination imposing “neo-liberal rule of law”. The intrusions into spaces pertaining to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by host States has further suggested a possible misuse to escape prosecution. Although the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by arbitral tribunals jurisdiction may mostly be praised, its legal base is still questionable and some recent "intra-EU" digressions in the field of criminal law raise even more doubts.
Conference: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Dispute Resolution in the Law of International Watercourses and the Law of the Sea
The settlement of interstate fresh water and maritime disputes is currently undergoing a period of great change, creating both challenges and opportunities. The Conference will bring together internationally renowned experts to evaluate the progress made thus far in these two distinct, yet related, fields, and to discuss the potential for future developments. By focusing on the legal aspects that are common to fresh water and maritime disputes, the Conference aims to yield beneficial comparisons that could serve as the basis for cross-fertilization in both areas. The first day of the Conference will be dedicated to the resolution of international fresh water disputes, while the second day will focus on maritime dispute settlement. Each day will feature four panels that will address the most controversial and salient aspects of these two types of disputes and the methods, forums, and principles used in their resolution. Participants in the Conference will include academics, practitioners, and government officials from Luxembourg, Europe, and around the world. We will also include poster presentations by young researchers working on fresh water and maritime issues.
The resurfacing interest in the New International Economic Order (NIEO) is mainly driven by the ambition of regaining a sense for possibilities of the past so as to question the present and to open up different futures. This ambition resonates with that core of critical thinking which pushes towards an appreciation of contingencies. What else was possible? When approaching this question of how it could have been, however, historical inquiries must not overstate the possibilities of different action at the expense of determining structures. On the international plane in particular they face narrow opportunities for inducing legal change though institutionalized politics. And critical historical inquiries need to counter a tendency towards excess nostalgia for that which was not. More than anything else, the history of the NIEO testifies to the great difficulties when trying to turn claims about contingency into compelling narratives. Another way of approaching the NIEO, however, does not place actual possibilities at its centre, but unrealized potentials.
This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in member States of the Economic Community of West African States (‘ECOWAS’) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their investments against actions of their host States. It does so taking into account the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on, in particular, the extent of its substantive jurisdiction. Although it is not suggested that the Court of Justice would be better forum than an international arbitral tribunal, it is argued that it has considerable advantages over national courts.
Madsen: Bolstering Authority by Enhancing Communication: How Checks and Balances and Feedback Loops Can Strengthen the Authority of the European Court of Human Rights
This paper analyses the question of relative authority and separation of powers with regard to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focus is on the specific processes that might perpetuate and even bolster authority in complex regimes of global governance such as the ECtHR. Building on a previous work on the variable authority of ICs, and notably how contexts shape that authority, the paper is particularly interested in how inter-institutional processes and feedback mechanisms operate in practice and create workable ensembles of institutions exercising relative authority. The chapter’s empirical analysis focuses on four instances of law-politics interfaces in the evolution of the ECtHR. It highlights particular moments in which the authority of the ECtHR has been challenged and how such challenges have either been overcome or resulted in insolvable collusions between the Court and the Member States. The analysis concludes that the current informal system of checks-and-balances in some cases is insufficient for avoiding clashes over the Court’s interpretations of the ECHR. Against the background of the empirical analysis, the paper develops original proposals for institutional reform that might help create better feedback loops in the area of European human rights. These include a different role for the Committee of Ministers, a greater participation and transparency with regard to proceedings before the Court, and the introduction of a form of appeals system. All of these proposals can be introduced in the current system with only minor amendments to the existing framework.
Over the years, the conduct of preliminary examinations has gained increasing importance at the International Criminal Court (ICC). One notable aspect in this area is the hugely diverging length of such examinations, ranging from one week for the situation in Libya to 12 years (and rising) for the situation in Colombia. This article critically interrogates the repeated claim of the Prosecutor that the absence of any provisions regulating the length of preliminary examinations was a deliberate decision of the drafters of the Rome Statute, leaving her with unfettered discretion in that area. Instead, it is suggested that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in prioritizing preliminary examinations is legally limited through the obligation to ensure effective investigations, demanding reasonably swift responses because evidence vanishes over time — witnesses disappear, memories fade, and data gets lost (the ‘golden hour’ principle). Furthermore, the conduct of preliminary examinations is also limited through the legal and policy commitment to impartiality, including the appearance of impartiality. A robust debate about a structured and transparent process of prioritization at the preliminary examination stage is thus overdue. It is proposed that the Prosecutor should introduce a policy commitment to conclude preliminary examinations within a defined time limit. Such a policy would be an important step towards a more structured method of situation selection, and would reduce the possibility that decision-making processes in more contentious situations are postponed for obscure reasons.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Dutton: Bridging the Legitimacy Divide: The International Criminal Court's Domestic Perception Challenge
International institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) face significant hurdles that can prevent them from establishing their legitimacy with far-away audiences. The hurdles become almost insurmountable when the ICC intervenes over the government’s objection. This Article explores various factors that may influence the perceived legitimacy of international tribunals. It concludes that because the ICC faces access and communication disadvantages vis-à-vis state leaders, the ICC’s road to achieving domestic perception legitimacy will be a difficult one. Without significant and pervasive in-person outreach, the ICC will probably not be able to overcome any propaganda campaign government leaders wage against it to protect themselves and their cohort from being held accountable to the victims of violence. Yet the literature identifies in-person outreach as the best way to promote a far-removed audience’s awareness and understanding of an international court’s operations and processes, especially because those audiences are likely socialized to distrust judicial institutions. Even with access, the ICC still must overcome cross-cultural communication barriers. State leaders, by contrast, share in-group status with their citizenry. A case study of Kenya, using both documentary and interview evidence, illustrates the ICC’s domestic perception legitimacy challenge. After the ICC brought charges against them for committing crimes against humanity, Kenyan leaders fought back, besieging the public with rhetoric that painted the ICC as biased against Africa and a tool of colonialism. Enough Kenyans were apparently persuaded by the rhetoric that they backed leaders charged by the ICC with serious international crimes instead of supporting the ICC’s efforts to provide justice for Kenya’s victims. To avoid such a situation in the future, states and other stakeholders need to help spread and advance the ICC’s embodied norms of justice and accountability so that those norms are internalized by domestic audiences. This path to achieving domestic perception legitimacy will take time, but the payoff is that the ICC might be able to fulfill its goals.
Call for Papers: Contingency in the Course of International Law: How International Law Could Have Been
Call for Papers
Contingency in the Course of International Law:
How International Law Could Have Been
14-16 June 2018
Keynote: Fleur Johns (UNSW)
Closing Address: Samuel Moyn (Yale)
Concept: The workshop will ask a question that is deceptive in its simplicity: How might international law have been otherwise? The overarching aim will be to expose the contingencies of international law’s development by inquiring into international law’s past. Such inquiries may be of systematic purport – asking, for example, how a different conception of the sources of international law could have emerged. Or they may focus on specific areas of the law, asking questions like whether the idea of state crimes could have taken hold or whether the NIEO could have achieved greater success (Anghie, 2015; Özsu, 2017; Venzke, 2017). International law’s past is almost certainly ripe with possibilities that we have forgotten. The workshop will seek to reveal and remember them.
The workshop will focus on trying to tell compelling stories about international law’s contingency. To be sure, those attempts may fail and claims to contingency may well turn out to be false (Beckett, 2017; Marks, 2009; Orford, 2015). Either way, though, we will question the present state of international law by challenging its pretence to necessity and by better understanding the forces that have shaped it (Horkheimer, 2002; Menke, 2014; Boucheron, 2016). Put simply with Robert Musil: ‘If there is a sense of reality, there must also be a sense for possibility’ (1995: 13).
While the operation of the law is bound to gloss over any contingency in its course, we wish to draw out those contingencies to learn what could (not) have been. Some contributions will focus on the operation of international law itself, exploring the differential developments that could have taken place concerning seminal judicial decisions (eg, what if France had won the Lotus case?), key treaties (eg, what if states had failed to conclude the Second Additional Protocol in 1977?), or important institutions (eg, what if the International Clearing Union had been established in 1949?). Another set of inquiries will question the development of international law in light of more general historical events that might not have happened or might have happened differently, such as the outbreak of World War I, the processes of decolonization, or the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And yet other angles are welcome.
In the course of concrete inquiries into international law’s past, there are numerous opportunities for theoretical reflection about the nature of contingency itself, ranging from philosophies of legal history to questions about the narrator’s perspective. How should actor- and structure-centered accounts of the past be combined in probing the contingency of past events (Tomlins, 2016)? How should we cope with possible tensions between pursuing interests in the present while avoiding undue anachronisms (Lesaffer, 2007)? And how can we contextualize legal developments without reducing law to its context only (Koskenniemi, 2013)? Not the least, the question of how it could have been provides a renewed take on perennial questions of international law’s relationship with power, culture, and justice.
Logistics: The workshop will be held from 14-16 June 2018 at the University of Amsterdam. It is organized within the Faculty of Law’s Research Priority Area ‘Law and Justice Across Borders’ by the Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL). The workshop will bring together approximately 30 participants from Thursday afternoon to Saturday morning and will feature an opening address by Fleur Johns (UNSW) and a closing address by Samuel Moyn (Yale). Participants will be expected to circulate extended outlines of their contributions prior to the workshop; reworked contributions will be due a few months after the workshop for publication with a leading academic press. (OUP has affirmed their strong interest.) The workshop is organized by Ingo Venzke and Kevin Jon Heller.
Abstract Submissions and Timeline:
- Submit abstracts of ca. 500 words and CV by 1 December 2017 by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org; selection by 15 December 2017.
- Extended outlines of ca. 3.000 words to be circulated by 31 May 2018.
- Revised contributions (8-10.000 words, including footnotes) to be submitted by 1 October 2018.
- Limited funding is available to support travel expenses on a needs basis.
Anghie, A. (2015). Legal Aspects of the New International Economic Order. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 6(1), 145–158.
Beckett, J. (2017). False Contingency. In J. d’Aspremont & S. Singh (Eds.), Fundamental Concepts of International Law: The Construction of a Discipline. Cheltenham: Elgar.
Horkheimer, M. (2002). Traditional and Critical Theory. In Critical Theory: Selected Essays (pp. 188–232). New York: Continuum.
Koskenniemi, M. (2013). Histories of International Law: Significance and Problems for a Critical View. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 27(2), 215–240.
Lesaffer, R. (2007). International Law and Its History: The Story of an Unrequited Love. In M. C. R. Craven, M. Fitzmaurice, & M. Vogiatzi (Eds.), Time, History and International Law (pp. 27–42). Leiden: Nijhoff.
Marks, S. (2009). False Contingency. Current Legal Problems, 62, 1–21.
Menke, C. (2014). Die Möglichkeit eines anderen Rechts. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 62(1), 136–143.
Musil, R. (1995). The Man Without Qualities (transl. So). New York: Vintage.
Orford, A. (2015). Food Security, Free Trade, and the Battle for the State. Journal of International Law & International Relations, 11(2), 1–67.
Özsu, U. (2017). Neoliberalism and the New International Economic Order: A History of “Contemporary Legal Thought.” In C. L. Tomlins & J. Desautels-Stein (Eds.), In Search of Contemporary Legal Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlins, C. (2016). Historicism and Materiality in Legal Theory. In M. Del Mar & M. Lobban (Eds.), Law, Theory and History: New Essays on a Neglected Dialogue (pp. 57–83). Oxfrod: Hart.
Venzke, I. (2017). Possibilities of the Past? The Histories of the NIEO and the Travails of Critique. Journal of the History of International Law, forthcoming, available here.
- Erika de Wet, The Collective Right to Indigenous Property in the Jurisprudence of Regional Human Rights Bodies
- Xiuli Han, The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties between China and Africa
- Patrick Vrancken & Frans Marx, Birth, Marriage and Death at Sea in South African Law
- George Barrie, Failed States: The New Challenge to International Law
- Mutsa Mangezi & Sarah Swart, Back to Basics: The Path to Enhancing African Adherence to International Humanitarian Law
- Annet Wanyana Oguttu, Resolving Double Tax Treaty Disputes: The Challenges of Mutual Agreement Procedure with a Special Focus on Addressing the Concerns of Developing Countries in Africa ― The South African and Ugandan Experience
- International Law in Practice
- Dire Tladi, Progressively Developing and Codifying International Law: The Work of the International Law Commission in its Sixty-Seventh Session
- Arnold N Pronto, The Work of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in 2014 and 2015
- JGS de Wet, Highlights from the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor (International Law): Introduction
- Notes and Comments
- Vishal Surbun, Shifting Sand and Shifting Jurisdiction: Sea Level Change and Its Implications for Maritime Sovereignty in Southern Africa
- Dire Tladi & Maryam Shaqra, Assessing the Legality of Coalition Air Strikes Targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in Syria under International Law
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
What are the prospects for multilateral trade law and for megaregional agreements such as the TTIP in the Trump era? Are existing tools in international economic law sufficient to address popular grievances and issues of global justice? In the context of U.S. policy discourse, what similarities and what differences characterize the Trump- and Sanders-esque critiques of trade and globalism? And on the other side of the Atlantic, what is the significance of Brexit and other anti-EU movements? This conference will address these questions as scholars from local law schools and others gather to debate the impact of the Trump Era policies on the global economy.
- Part 1: Special Theme: Selected Papers on International Law and Development in Africa Presented at the 2015 AAIL Conference, Libreville Gabon
- Robert S.M. Dossou, Introductory Remarks
- Oliver C. Ruppel, Foreign Direct Investment Protection in Africa – Contemporary Legal Aspects between BITS and BRICS
- Rostand Banzeu, L’impact des organisations régionales d’intégration sur le développement économique de l’Afrique : Regards croisés sur l’expérience de la CEEAC et de la CEDEAO
- Thierry Ngosso, Défis intergénérationnels pour l’Afrique subsaharienne: est-il possible de concilier l’urgence du developpement et l’urgence de la protection de la planete?
- Dominic N. Dagbanja, The Limitations Environmental Protection Duty Places on Investment Treaty Making and Interpretation: Perspectives from Ghana
- Didier Prince-Agbodjan, Accord de partenariat économique entre l’Union Européenne et l’Afrique de l’Ouest : Droit international economique, droits humains indivisibles et économie politique
- Mohamed Oudebji, Les accords bilatéraux d’investissement signés par le Maroc avec d’autres pays africains et leurs incidences sur le developpement économique
- Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, The Law of the Sea’s Role in Steering Africa’s Blue Economy
- Romy Klimke, How to Unleash the Economic Potential of Women in Africa – Challenges and Opportunities in the Context of the Post-2015 Agenda
- Gérard Aïvo, L’impact des conflits armés et du terrorisme sur le développement socio-économique de l’Afrique
- Part 2: Notes and Comments / Notes et Commentaires: General Articles/ Articles Generaux
- Gino J. Naldi & Konstantinos D. Magliveras, The International Criminal Section of the African Court of Justice, Human and Peoples’ Rights: An Appraisal
Scholars of Holocaust trials have emphasised law's potentiality as a tool of physical atrocity, and the part played by liberal trials in obscuring this dark side of legality. That responses to mass atrocity should better acknowledge law's contribution to violence is all the more pressing in light of authoritarian regimes' reliance on courts, and the growing and paradoxical obsession with legal form accompanying widespread violence in the neo-liberal era. If trials of atrocity, intensely publicized and reported upon, do not acknowledge the legality of much violence, we - lawyers and members of the public, including potential perpetrators - might fail to recognise mass atrocity when it is before us, cloaked with legal rationality and familiarity. Yet the principal legal mechanisms used to address mass atrocity, namely domestic and international criminal trials as well as truth commissions, do not appear to expose the legality of violence better than the post-WWII criminal trials. This paper explores the possibility of developing what it terms "self-reflexive law": a mass atrocity trial that could expose the part played by law in violence. It does so by exploring a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. courts against Ferdinand Marcos where at trial law's contribution to violence was made very clear for doctrinal, evidentiary and strategic reasons. Part of a collection of essays on "minor historical jurisprudence," this paper offers a distinct version of such jurisprudence as the attempt to derive normative insights from minor practices within law, here oral trial proceedings.
The Irish Yearbook of International Law is now accepting submissions for the next Volume (Volume XIII (2018)). Edited by Professor Siobhán Mullaly (incoming at NUI Galway) and Professor Fiona de Londras (University of Birmingham) and published by Hart Publishing, the Yearbook is internationally peer reviewed and publishes longer and shorter articles on all areas of international law. The Irish Yearbook of International Law is committed to the publication of articles of general interest in international law as well as articles that have a particular connection to, or relevance for, Ireland. Articles are usually 10,000 to 12,000 words in length, although longer pieces will be considered. The Yearbook also publishes a small number of shorter articles and notes, which should not exceed 6,000 words.
Authors are asked to conform to the Hart Publishing house style. Submissions, comprising a brief 100-word abstract, article and confirmation of exclusive submission, should be sent to both Siobhán Mullally (email@example.com) and Fiona de Londras(firstname.lastname@example.org) by October 31 2017. Initial inquiries can be directed to either or both Editors.
If you wish to review a title in the Yearbook’s book review section, please contact the book reviews editor Dr. Dug Cubie, email@example.com (University College Cork).
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently terminated the last trial in the “Kenyan cases” declaring, as a consequence of a finding of no case to answer, a “mistrial without prejudice” for subsequent prosecutions. The Chamber found the prosecution not to be “genuinely weak” due to the politicization of the case, a hostile climate against the Court and interferences with the proceeding and estimated an acquittal to be grossly unjust. The paper focusses on the premises and possible consequences of the majority opinion and particularly on the assertion that article 20 of the ICC Statute is no longer in with criminal legislations progressively introducing “extraordinary remedies” in order to retrial in the interest of justice acquitted individuals. Accordingly, the paper analyzes the current stand of the ne bis in idem rule in its “international” application (characterized by a relevant potential for domestic and cross-jurisdictional influence) having regard to the jurisprudence of Human Rights bodies, and international criminal tribunals. The aim of this analysis is to verify if the current trend towards the extension of the principle is to some extent “balanced” by the progressive introduction of extraordinary remedies allowing the retrial of finally acquitted defendants.
- Tonya L. Putnam & Jacob N. Shapiro, International Law and Voter Preferences: the Case of Foreign Human Rights Violations
- Nisha Mukherjee Bellinger, Voting and Human Rights in Democratic Societies
- Diya Uberoi & Beatriz Galli, In Pursuit of a Balance: the Regulation of Conscience and Access to Sexual Reproductive Health Care
- Peter Hilpold, Unilateralism in Refugee law—Austria’s Quota Approach Under Scrutiny
- Alan J. Simmons, Domestic Attitudes Towards International Jurisdiction over Human Rights Violations
- Karel Wellens, The International Court of Justice, Back to the Future: Keeping the Dream Alive
- Aslan Abashidze & Svetlana Shatalova, International Crimes Exception to the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: The Russian Perspective on the Work of the International Law Commission
- Pauline Janssen & Renée Kool, Recognising Victimhood: Lessons from the International Criminal Court and Mass Claim Programmes for the Compensation Procedure Parallel to the Trial of International Crimes in the Netherlands
- Manisuli Ssenyonjo, The Influence of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa
- Martin D. Fink, Naval Blockade and the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen
- Jie Huang, Comparison of E-commerce Regulations in Chinese and American FTAs: Converging Approaches, Diverging Contents, and Polycentric Directions?
- Bryan Druzin, Towards a Theory of Spontaneous Legal Standardization
- Freya Baetens, Judicial Review of International Adjudicatory Decisions: A Cross-Regime Comparison of Annulment and Appellate Mechanisms
- David Collins, Loss Aversion Bias or Fear of Missing Out: A Behavioural Economics Analysis of Compensation in Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- Suar Sanubari, Arbitrator’s Conduct on Social Media
- Ilias Bantekas, Interstate Arbitration in International Tax Disputes
- Catharine Titi, International Dispute Settlement in Cultural Heritage Law and in the Protection of Foreign Investment: Is Cross-Fertilization Possible?
- Lorenzo Palestini, Forget About Mavrommatis and Judicial Economy: The Alleged Absence of a Dispute in the Cases Concerning the Obligations to Negotiate the Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament
Monday, August 21, 2017
- Jong Woo Kang & Dorothea M. Ramizo, Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers on International Trade
- Joachim Monkelbaan, Using Trade for Achieving the SDGs: The Example of the Environmental Goods Agreement
- Wonkyu Shin & Dukgeun Ahn, Firm’s Responsive Behaviours in WTO Trade Disputes: Countervailing Cases on Korean DRAMs
- Ole Gunnar Austvik & Carolina Lembo, EU-Russian Gas Trade and the Shortcomings of International Law
- Bradly J. Condon, Disciplining Clean Energy Subsidies to Speed the Transition to a Low-Carbon World
- Christopher S. Wong, Regulating Currency Manipulation: Political, Legal and Economic Barriers to Reform
- Giulia Meloni & Johan Swinnen, Standards, Tariffs and Trade: The Rise and Fall of the Raisin Trade Between Greece and France in the Late Nineteenth Century
- Chris Downes, The Post-Brexit Management of EU Agricultural Tariff Rate Quotas
Sunday, August 20, 2017
1917 was nothing if not eventful. The October Revolution and the revolutionary Mexican Constitution shook the foundations of the international order and international law in profound, unprecedented, and lasting ways. One hundred years later, living again through eventful times, we propose to revisit 1917 as an international legal event and to examine its multidimensional impact on the discipline of international law. More specifically, we are interested in analysing the importance of these revolutions for various international legal fields, including the law of armed intervention, the laws of state succession, state responsibility and state immunity as well as international investment law and the rules governing statehood for the purposes of international law.
This conference draws together speakers from law, history, and politics to explore the place of revolution in the international legal order. How did or does international law conceptualise or juridify revolution? What different mechanisms did international law employ in response to the various challenges posed by revolution to particular interests, regimes, or paradigms (of property, peace, or politics)? What different forms of intervention (through the laws of war, of expropriation, or of restitution) did they prompt? In the wake of a revolutionary event, should we speak of international law, or rather of rival international laws? Is international law's structure a means of countering or containing revolution?
Unrecognized states are characterized by stagnant or crumbling economies and political instability, often serve as havens for illicit trade, and challenge the territorial sovereignty of recognized states. Their persistence is both intellectually puzzling and normatively problematic, but unrecognized statehood can be a remarkably stable outcome, persisting for decades. Our dynamic four-player model reveals that unrecognized statehood emerges as an equilibrium outcome when a patron state is willing and able to persistently invest resources to sustain it. We assess options available to actors in the international community who seek to impose their preferred outcomes in these disputes and find that, although sanctions are the most frequently employed, they can often lead to renewed conflict instead of the intended resolution.