International claims commissions have, over the last few decades, established themselves as important and permanent fixtures in international adjudication. This book provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the workings and mechanics of claims commissions to assess their success and predict their utility in the future. The book authors examines the legal framework of an international claims commission and the basic elements its processing procedure, as well as exploring the difficulties and challenges associated with operating costs, remedies and compliance with judgments.
This groundbreaking book offers a compelling articulation of the right of access to justice for individuals facing human rights violations by international organizations. Following an examination of the human rights obligations of a variety of international organizations, the author scrutinizes their dispute settlement mechanisms as well as the conflict between their immunities and the right of access to justice before national jurisdictions.
Highlighting recent examples, such as the cholera outbreak in Haiti, this book reveals how individual victims of human rights violations by international organizations are frequently left in the cold, due to the lack of an independent, impartial dispute settlement mechanism before which they can file such claims. Considering both global mechanisms and current mechanisms established by international organizations such as administrative jurisdictions for employment-related disputes, Pierre Schmitt finds that they either are not competent or that they have a limited scope. He concludes by offering normative proposals addressed both to international organizations and to national judges confronted with such cases.
To what extent are global rule-of-law norms, which external actors promote in post-conflict states, localized? Who decides whether global standards or local particularities prevail? This book offers a new approach to the debate about how the dilemma between the diffusion of global norms and their localization is dealt with in global politics. Studying the promotion of children's rights, access to public information, and an international commission against impunity in Guatemala, Lisbeth Zimmermann demonstrates that rule-of-law promotion triggers domestic contestation and thereby changes the approach taken by external actors, and ultimately the manner in which global norms are translated. However, the leeway in local translation is determined by the precision of global norms. Based on an innovative theoretical approach and an in-depth study of rule-of-law translation, Zimmermann argues for a shift in norm promotion from context sensitivity to democratic appropriation, speaking to scholars of international relations, peacebuilding, democratization studies, international law, and political theory.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) searches for human rights policies that are adopted by the majority of the countries in Europe. Using a doctrine known as "emerging consensus," the court then imposes these policies as an international legal obligation on all the countries under its jurisdiction. But the ECHR sometimes defers to countries, even if their policies fall short of the standard accepted by most of the countries in Europe. This deference is accomplished by using the so-called "margin of appreciation" doctrine. Naturally, emerging consensus and margin of appreciation are often conceived as competing doctrines: the more there is of one, the less there is of another. This paper suggests a novel rationale for the emerging consensus doctrine: the doctrine can allow the ECHR to make good policies by drawing on the independent decision-making of many similar countries. In light of that, the paper demonstrates that a correct application of the margin of appreciation doctrine actually helps emerging consensus reach optimal results, by giving countries an incentive to make their policies independently.
Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker ist eines der komplexesten, ambivalentesten und zugleich erfolgreichsten rechtlich-politischen Konzepte. Dieses Buch wirft einen Blick zurück auf das 20. Jahrhundert – dabei erscheint dieses als Jahrhundert der Selbstbestimmung und seine zweite Hälfte als Zeitalter der Sezession. Im Zentrum der Analyse steht der Fall Kosovo, der bis heute Gegenstand kontroversieller völkerrechtlicher und politischer Debatten ist. Das Buch geht der Frage nach, wie sich das Prinzip der Selbstbestimmung im Sinne einer «konkreten Utopie» weiterentwickeln könnte. Gerade durch seine Humanisierung in den letzten Jahrzehnten appelliert das Völkerrecht an das Gewissen der Staatengemeinschaft und fungiert dabei als Katalysator bei der Realisierung des Fernziels einer gerechten Weltordnung, welche die Menschenrechte und das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung gewährleistet.
The latest issue of the Review of International Political Economy (Vol. 24, no. 4, 2017) is out. Contents include:
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is widely considered to be the most influential statement on religious freedom in human history. Religious Freedom and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a groundbreaking account of its origins and developments, examining the background, key players, and outcomes of Article 18, and setting it within the broader discourse around international religious freedom in the 1940s. Taking issue with standard accounts that see the text of the Universal Declaration as humanity's joint response to the atrocities of World War II, it shows instead how central features of Article 18 were intimately connected to the political projects and visions of particular actors involved in the start-up of the UN Human Rights program. This will be essential reading for anyone grappling with the historical and contemporary meaning of human rights and religious freedom.
International organizations (IOs) have developed into important policy venues beyond the state. Yet our understanding of the broader dynamics of IO policy-making is limited. This article offers the first comparative analysis of macro patterns in IO policy-making. Theoretically, we draw on punctuated equilibrium theory to develop hypotheses about stability and change in the orientation of IO policy agendas. Empirically, we examine novel data on the policy output of five general-purpose IOs between 1980 and 2015, combining statistical analysis and comparative case illustrations. The analysis yields two central results. First, the policy agendas of all five IOs display patterns of punctuated equilibria, with longer periods of stability interrupted by shorter periods of dramatic change. Second, the level of institutional friction in decision-making contributes to variation in punctuations across IOs and within IOs over time. The results suggest four broader implications: (1) punctuated equilibrium theory applies to a broader empirical domain than previously thought; (2) patterns of change in IOs are more complex than conventionally expected; (3) institutional friction matters for IOs’ responsiveness to societal demands and problem pressures; and (4) deeper integration of punctuated equilibrium theory into the study of IOs can pave the way for a promising IR research agenda.
Is American international law distinctly legal realist? The claim is often made, but underexplored. What would it mean for American international law scholarship and practice to be legal realist in its orientation? Where would such an orientation come from, and what do those origin stories mean for current international law work? Are there common realist-inspired approaches within the varied schools of American international law scholarship? Does wielding those approaches produce distinctly American views on international law doctrine, its operation, or its function? And if American international law scholarship and practice is, in these ways, somewhat distinct, what does it mean for the broader, global project of international law?
This chapter takes the claim seriously and explores the ways in which American international law may in fact be tinged with legal realism. It explores how a number of intellectual trends—American jurisprudential legal realism, post-World War II international relations scholarship, utopian strands in American foreign policy thinking, and U.S.-specific foreign relations law—converged to bring a series of specific methods or attitudes to the forefront in American approaches international law. Perhaps provocatively, this chapter argues that all the major schools of American international law—New Haven, International Legal Process, Transnational Legal Process, Law and Economics, International Relations and International Law, and others—have picked up these methods, attitudes, or approaches—enough to warrant labeling all of them as essentially “legal realist.”
And it explores how legal realism translates into four noticeable trends in American approaches to international law:
(1) a focus on norms rather than rules,
(2) a focus on process rather than doctrine,
(3) a focus on institutions and power rather than substantive rules, and
(4) an emphasis on pragmatism and practicality.
What does it mean to say we live in a permanent state of emergency? What are the juridical, political and social underpinnings of that framing? Has international law played a role in producing or challenging the paradigm of normalised emergency? How should we understand the relationship between imperialism, race and emergency legal regimes? In addressing such questions, this book situates emergency doctrine in historical context. It illustrates some of the particular colonial lineages that have shaped the state of emergency, and emphasises that contemporary formations of emergency governance are often better understood not as new or exceptional, but as part of an ongoing historical constellation of racialised emergency politics. The book highlights the connections between emergency law and violence, and encourages alternative approaches to security discourse. It will appeal to scholars and students of international law, colonial history, postcolonialism and human rights, as well as policymakers and social justice advocates.
The guiding principle of postwar global governance was multilateralism. From the grandest multilateral project — the United Nations — to the many organizations created in the years following the end of the Second World War, global governance followed a familiar state-centric template. 21st century global governance continues to reflect multilateral principles. But it is increasingly characterized by flexible structures, greater tolerance for informality, and, most strikingly, an increasingly active role for non-state actors. In short, multilateral governance is increasingly supplemented, and in some cases even supplanted, by multistakeholder governance. The move to meaningfully include private actors in the exercise of power is one of the most striking contemporary trends in global governance. Why is the shift to greater inclusion occurring? States remain the most powerful actors in world politics, and as organizations like the WTO and the UN Security Council show, they can readily cabin the role of private stakeholders when they choose to. This paper argues the rise of private actors has not come at the expense of public actors, but instead often works to the benefit of those public actors. Private actors bring many informational and political benefits to the exercise of regulatory power. This symbiotic relationship between public and private actors is insufficiently appreciated and helps to explain the striking rise of multistakeholderism in global governance. To be sure, the commitment to multistakeholderism varies markedly across issue areas. While more research is needed to move beyond the impressionistic, the overall pattern is broadly consistent. The inclusion of private power, far from threatening public power, often helps it to thrive.
This book sets out a measure of authority for seventy-six international organizations (IOs) from 1950, or the time of their establishment, to 2010 which can allow researchers to test expectations about the character, sources, and consequences of international governance. The international organizations considered are regional (e.g. the EU, Andean Community, NAFTA), cross-regional (e.g. Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), and global (e.g. the UN, World Bank, WTO). Firstly, the book introduces carefully constructed estimates for the scope and depth of authority exercised by international governments. The estimates are unique in their comparative scope, their specificity, and time span. Secondly, it describes describe broad trends in IO authority by comparing delegation and pooling, over time, across IOs, and across decision areas. Thirdly, it presents the evidence gathered by the authors to estimate international authority by carefully discussing forty-seven international organizations, and showing how their bodies are composed, what decisions each body makes, and how they make decisions.
This review article treats the booming scholarship on the history of international law over the past decade. Works with a broader view (1), including the recent big-book syntheses and collective works, are contrasted with monographs (2), from studies of treaties and doctrine, over diplomatic practice to scholarship by historians and, finally, interdisciplinary scholarship. This texts provides a personal panorama of the wide array of scholarly perspectives on a common object: rules recognised in the community or society of states. New insights from history and social sciences, especially the turn to global history, open fresh prospects for ‘traditional’ legal historical research. Studying the encounter between ‘European’ international law and other continents rises our indispensable intercultural awareness. Yet, it should also serve to better understand the specificity of European legal thinking or diplomatic practice, and does not render research on the latter obsolete or redundant.
The impact and legacy of the 1917 Russian Revolution are of crucial significance across the world. For Russia and countries of the former socialist bloc, the revolution led to the foundation of a completely new legal tradition which influences are still felt today. For the rest of the world, the Russian Revolution led to emergence of new international legal norms, transformation of the whole international law system and its eventual democratization, and caused some of the most significant changes in domestic law and politics of various countries in the first half of the XXth century.
Among the manifold of its effects, the 1917 Russian Revolution also became the starting point of the disconnection between scientific communities of the socialist bloc of countries and other regions of the world. Such isolation persisted throughout the Soviet time, and to a significant extent continues today.
The workshop is intended to bring together Russian and international academics and practitioners in the fields of law (international, constitutional or otherwise), international relations, history, sociology, philosophy and political science. We aim to mark the 100 years of the 1917 Revolution in St Petersburg - a city where the revolution started - with an international interdisciplinary academic discussion about the influence of the 1917 Revolution on the development of law in Russia and elsewhere, including on the development of international law.
The organizers issue a call for abstracts on the following topics:
- How did the 1917 Revolution transform the international law system? How do the international legal norms that emerged from the 1917 Revolution function today?
- What was the impact of the 1917 Revolution on contemporary Russian approaches to international law?
- How did the 1917 Revolution’s influence domestic law and policies of various countries in the first half of the XX century? Why has one country’s historical event affected the whole world?
- How has the 1917 Revolution influenced Soviet law compared to other legal systems? Is its impact still present in Russian law?
- What mechanisms related to revolution has international law developed? Is it efficient in countering or containing revolution?
- Was the 1917 Revolution a Marxist revolution? What was the influence of the 1917 Revolution on the Western left in the XX century?
- Is there a place for philosophy in studying historical events like the 1917 Revolution and its legal impact? Should the interdisciplinary approach be adopted when studying the revolution?
- How did the 1917 Revolution develop the Russian identity? Is it possible to objectively evaluate the 1917 events a hundred years later or is the red and white division inevitable?
- The 1917 Revolution and Soviet totalitarianism: was the turn to totalitarianism unavoidable?
- What is the value of fiction against the legal documents and non-fiction literature in understanding the 1917 Revolution?
- Gaps in studying the 1917 Revolution – is there still information not available for research?Working language of the workshop: English.
Email abstract submission of no more than 1,500 words (minimum 500 words) to main@threefold.ru by 15 September 2017. Please submit your short bio (up to 250 words) together with the abstract.
Successful applicants will be notified by 25 September 2017.
The workshop is held in partnership with the Russian Law Journal. The journal is accepting articles for publication in the special issue on the 1917 Russian Revolution by 31 August 2017. A separate call for papers for publications in the Russian Law Journal can be found here.
The phenomenal growth of digital trade in the Asia-Pacific region has opened up a world of new opportunities as well as difficult policy challenges. Restrictions on digital trade make it tougher for technology companies, as well as SMEs, to access new markets and develop economically efficient business models, and also reduce consumer choice. Further, the interconnected nature of the internet raises concerns about digital trade and the protection of personal data, online consumer protection, commercial and government surveillance, cybersecurity and prevention of cybercrimes. All of these issues are multi-faceted and complex, and necessitate engagement and cooperation among various stakeholders including governments, international organisation, companies, civil society and the academic community.
This conference, jointly organised by Melbourne Law School and Singapore Management University School of Law on 6 December 2017 in Singapore is aimed at engaging in a deep, transparent, and multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues relevant to digital trade and collectively seek solutions for these complex policy issues. The conference is organised around the following four broad themes:
Keynote speaker: Abdel-Hamid Mamdouh (Director, Trade in Services and Investment Division, World Trade Organization).
- Identifying and defining policy challenges and opportunities in digital trade
- The role of International Trade Agreements in boosting the digital economy
- How trade rules can boost digital innovation
- Potential solutions within national, regional or international legal and policy frameworks to address contemporary challenges in digital trade
Other speakers include: Andrew Ure (Google); Deborah Elms (Asian Trade Centre); Andrew Cooke (Microsoft); Ken Chia (Baker & McKenzie Weong & Low LLC); Jared Ragland (BSA | The Software Alliance); Professor Shin-yi Peng (National Tsing Hua University (NTHU)); Jia Wang (Hong Kong Polytechnic University); Simon Lacey (Huawei Technologies); Professor Kung Chung Liu (SMU); Professor Andrew Mitchell (Melbourne Law School); Professor Irene Calboli (SMU); Associate Professor Henry Gao (SMU); Renuka Medury (SMU); Neha Mishra (Melbourne Law School).
This volume of the Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law presents an overview and selective analysis of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). These agreements encompass the regulating aspects of the protection, conservation, management, use and exploitation of living and natural resources in various areas: from biodiversity to fisheries, marine environment, shared freshwater resources, atmosphere, climate change, procedural obligations and rights and human rights, as well as Polar Regions. This book guides the reader through the multifarious conventional regulation of such areas of environmental protection, both at the global and regional levels, and details the path from the first post-war sectorial attempts at introducing international pieces of conventional environmental regulation to the booming of environmental instruments of the ‘90s and the recent fertile period of creation of new MEAs and their exponential growth.
On 14 December 2017, the Asser Institute and the Research Group on “Constitutional Responses to Terrorism” within the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL) will jointly organise an international conference on ‘Human Dignity and Human Security in Times of Terrorism: International (Human Rights) Law Challenges and Opportunities’. This conference, which is co-funded by the Municipality of The Hague, will critically analyse human dignity and human security challenges in the lead up to terrorism and in the responses to terrorism (both legal frameworks and specific issues). It aims to map how human dignity and human security can be secured, and how law can constitute a source of trust, in times where Europe and the rest of the world continue to be plagued by terrorism.
The Conference will feature the participation of a number of keynote speakers.
Moreover, the organisers of the Conference welcome submissions on papers dealing with topics addressing human dignity and human security in times of terrorism, including but not limited to:
- UN Security Council Resolution 2178 and its implementation
- the new EU Directive on Combating Terrorism
- national emergency regimes: the new normal?
- administrative measures in the context of countering terrorism
- terrorism, mental health and the law of patient confidentiality
- the right to non-discrimination and its effect on radicalisation
- terrorism kill teams versus the protection of nationals abroad
- incitement to and glorification of terrorism, a comparative analysis
Abstracts (of maximum 1000 words) should be submitted to Dr. Christophe Paulussen, c.paulussen@asser.nl, by 23 September 2017. Please include your name, e-mail address and a CV. The abstracts will be selected by Dr. Christophe Paulussen and Prof. Martin Scheinin. The authors of the selected abstracts will be invited to present their work during the conference, which will take place at the Asser Institute in The Hague on 14 December 2017. The Asser Institute aims to cover – taking into account the available funds – the travel and accommodation costs of the selected speakers.
Full papers (of around 10,000 words, including footnotes) are to be submitted by 1 March 2018. The organisers seek papers that are characterised by a critical legal reflection, that make an explicit link to the concept of human dignity and human security, and that think out of the box. The organisers will collect the final papers, which will be edited by Christophe Paulussen and Martin Scheinin, published by T.M.C. Asser Press and distributed by Springer in March 2019.
Who Are We
The T.M.C. Asser Instituut carries out research on developments in international and European law and its potential for serving the cultivation of trust and respect in the global, regional, national and local societies in which the law operates. This conference and the ensuing book are activities of the institute’s research strand on ‘Human Dignity and Human Security in International and European Law’.
The IACL Research Group on “Constitutional Responses to Terrorism” is a flagship research network of the International Association of Constitutional Law, connecting over one hundred scholars working in the field of national security, comparative constitutional law and international human rights law. The Research Group has held research activities on a yearly basis since 2009, convening workshops around the globe and delivering a stream of international publications on topics like secrecy and transparency, surveillance and privacy, and torture and transnational accountability.
‘Unseen actors’ are central to the ‘institutional makeup’ of international courts and tribunals as registries and secretariats, law clerks and legal officers may exert varying levels of influence on the judicial process. At this conference, legal and political science scholars and members of adjudicatory institutions will consider and discuss the legitimacy of assigning ‘unseen actors’ certain roles in the judicial process as well as the implications thereof for the legitimacy of the dispute settlement mechanism as such.
