- William Bain & Terry Nardin, International relations and intellectual history
- Chris Brown, Political Thought, International Relations theory and International Political Theory: an interpretation
- Ian Hall, The history of international thought and International Relations theory: from context to interpretation
- Richard Devetak, ‘The battle is all there is’: philosophy and history in International Relations theory
- Jennifer Pitts, International relations and the critical history of International Law
- Sinja Graf, ‘A wrong done to mankind’: colonial perspectives on the notion of universal crime
- David C Hendrickson, American diplomatic history and international thought: a constitutional perspective
- Edward Keene, International intellectual history and International Relations: contexts, canons and mediocrities
- Terry Nardin, Kant’s republican theory of justice and international relations
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Lobba & Mariniello: Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights: The Practice of International Criminal Tribunals
- Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Foreword
- Paolo Lobba & Triestino Mariniello, The Grammar of the Judicial Dialogue between International Criminal Tribunals and the European Court: Introductory Remarks
- Sergey Vasiliev, Cross-Fertilisation under the Look of Glass: Transjudicial Grammar and Reception of Strasbourg Jurisprudence by International Criminal Tribunals
- Julia Geneuss, ‘Directory Authority’: Fertilising International Criminal Tribunals’ Human Rights Standards with European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law
- Christoph Burchard, Judicial Dialogue in Light of Comparative Criminal Law and Justice
- Volker Nerlich, Article 21 (3) of the ICC Statute: Identifying and Applying ‘Internationally Recognized Human Rights’
- Christophe Deprez, Article 21(3) of the ICC Statute and ‘Internationally Recognized Human Rights’ as a Source of Mandatory Judicial Dialogue
- Frauke Sauerwein, Beyond Anecdotal Reference: A Quantitative Assessment of ICTY References to the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR
- Damien Scalia, The Nulla Poena Sine Lege: A Symptomatic Sign of Interactions between Strasbourg and The Hague
- Giulio Vanacore, Critical Remarks on the Accessibility/Foreseeability Standard as Applied in International Criminal Justice
- Alice Riccardi, The Judicial Dialogue between the ECtHR and the ad hoc Tribunals on the Right to Rehabilitation of Offenders
- Elena Maculan, Judicial Dialogue and the Definition of Torture: The Importation of ICTs from European Jurisprudence
- Elizabeth Santalla Vargas, Confronting the Divergent Notions of Torture and Other-Ill Treatment under the Rome Statute through the Lens of Cumulative Conviction
- Yvonne McDermott, Absent Witnesses and the Right to Confrontation: The Influence of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on International Criminal Law
- Yael Vias Gvirsman, The Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Misapplication of the European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Hearsay Evidence and Corroboration: The Taylor Appeal Judgment and the Al Khawaja and Tahery Case
- Paolo Caroli, The Interaction between the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights—The Right to the Truth for Victims of Serious Violations of Human Rights: The Importation of a New Right?
- Kerstin Braun, Self- or Cross-Fertilisation? Referencing ECtHR Jurisprudence to Justify Victim Participation at the ICC
Friday, September 22, 2017
Whilst in a constant quest for the sophistication of their craft, international lawyers relish simplistic repetitive narratives. They continuously represent the world that they inhabit as undergoing cataclysmic changes calling for the intervention of international law, itself portrayed as being in a state of crisis and in need of renewal. It is noteworthy that international lawyers’ simplistic narratives are not limited to the image they want to project about the world and international law. Their simplistic historical narratives also pertain to the way in which they represent themselves as a group of professionals and the configuration thereof. Indeed, when it comes to representing themselves, international lawyers generally indulge in some Manichaeism of sort as they portray their discipline as fractured along very binary lines: the centre versus the periphery, orthodoxy versus self-reflectivity, reform versus rehabilitation, the critical versus the non-critical, the scholars versus the practitioners, the idealists versus the realists, the autonomists versus the pluralists, the unitarians versus the fragmenters, etc.
This chapter grapples with one of these mundane self-representations, namely the narrative that pits formalists against non-formalists and that locates the dividing line between them somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. It particularly seeks to challenge the common assumption among international lawyers according to which Europeans are more wedded to formalism than their American counterparts who, as the story goes, have successfully emancipated themselves from the straightjackets of legal forms. The following sections thus take issue with this common self-representation whereby the Europeans are the (naive) believers in formalism and the Americans the (realistic) deniers of formalism. Such a narrative, it is argued here, does not do justice to the subtle and complex role ascribed to legal forms on each side of the Atlantic. This chapter accordingly sheds light on the two deceptive dimensions of this common narrative about formalism with the aim of showing that both Europeans and Americans continue to demonstrate attachment to legal forms, the only significant differences between them lying in the way in which they seek to re-invent formalism and the role of legal forms. This chapter ultimately makes the point that both American and European international lawyers live in denial of their continuous engagement with legal forms.
After lying dormant for more than five decades, WTO 'public morals' exceptions have been more frequently invoked in recent times. During the last fifteen years, the number of disputes settled through the application of GATT 1994 Art. XX(a) and the homologue GATS Art. XIV has gone from zero to four – and it is likely to keep growing. This could be partially due to WTO expanding membership which facilitates trade connections between countries with different, sometimes opposite cultural and social backgrounds. The interpretation and application of the moral clause entail difficult challenges for WTO Panels and for the Appellate Body (AB). They are called to find a balance not only between trade and non-trade values, but also and most of all between WTO Members' regulatory autonomy and their standard of review. However, WTO case law shows an ongoing struggle to find the best way to accomplish this task. Moving on from the analysis of the Colombia – Textiles dispute, this article will discuss the judicial application of the 'moral clause'. It will compare Colombia – Textiles with the former case law, paying particular attention to some crucial aspects of the AB's legal reasoning in Colombia – Textiles and their potential implications for future case law.
- Robin Churchill, Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015, Part II and 2016
- Michael W. Lodge; Kathleen Segerson & Dale Squires, Sharing and Preserving the Resources in the Deep Sea: Challenges for the International Seabed Authority
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, Reflections on Historic Rights in the South China Sea Arbitration (Merits)
- Alexander Lott, The Estonian-Russian Territorial Sea Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Finland
- Ran Guo, China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative and the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage
- Abdullah Al Arif, Legal Status of Maximum Sustainable Yield Concept in International Fisheries Law and Its Adoption in the Marine Fisheries Regime of Bangladesh: A Critical Analysis
- Vasco Becker-Weinberg, Preliminary Thoughts on Marine Spatial Planning in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
- Gabriela A. Oanta, The European Union’s Reform of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the North-East Atlantic
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Zhang: China’s Approach in Drafting the Investor–State Arbitration Clause: A Review from the ‘Belt and Road’ Regions’ Perspective
Investor–State arbitration (ISA) is now a hot topic in China and among its trade and investment partners. The number of ISA cases is still small, and doubts are still widespread at the policy-making level and among scholars. In particular, the drafting and practice of China’s ISA clauses is not flawless in supporting investors in ISA or in defending their national interests as a host country. This article aims to review the main aspects of China’s approach in drafting ISA clauses in the context of the One Belt, One Road Initiative (OBORI). It reviews ISA clauses in bilateral investment treaties and other international investment agreements between China and the One Belt and One Road (OBOR) region countries and discusses the relevant legal issues and controversies. Issues covered include: different generations of ISA clauses, the scope of arbitrable disputes, applicable law, the choice of arbitration institutions, procedural arrangements, the enforcement of arbitral awards, the impact of transition clauses, and so on. Based on the review and analysis of these issues, divergence is identified in the currently existing ISA clauses between China and the OBOR regions, although some degree of policy convergence can be found in a few of the most recent international investment agreements. It is both a challenge and an opportunity for China to learn from its previous experience with ISA clauses and to integrate its treaty-making approach in the context of the OBORI. A more adaptable Model ISA clause and a more consistent approach to the drafting of ISA clauses would benefit both China and its trade and investment partners.
In spite of the wide use of animals for military purposes, the law of armed conflict has almost exclusively focused on the protection of human beings. The present article is the first ever in-depth study of how the law of armed conflict applies to animals and fills a serious gap in the literature. The problem has become of great significance in the light of the public opinion’s increasing sensibility towards animal welfare and the emergence of animal rights theories. The main purposes of this article, then, are to assess whether the existing rules of the law of armed conflict provide adequate protection to animals and to highlight the fault lines in the law. The article distinguishes the general provisions of the law of armed conflict, i.e. those that were not adopted with specific regard to animals but the application of which might restrict the killing and injuring of animals, from the provisions that specifically provide protection to animals. The analysis essentially focuses on the killing and injuring of animals in the conduct of hostilities, and only incidentally refers to the exploitation of natural resources, pillage, and seizure of property in occupied territories.
L'Afrique est le terrain de prédilection du pluralisme juridique qui favorise la juxtaposition de l'ordre juridique moderne et l'ordre juridique traditionnel. L'articulation du droit international pénal avec les ordres juridiques africains est une condition de sa diffusion. Il importe pour les Etats africains de favoriser une coopération effective avec les juridictions pénales internationales qui ne sera possible qu'au sein de régimes politiques démocratiques. Ceci est nécessaire pour un véritable universalisme du droit international pénal.
Call for Papers
‘Turkey and International Law: History, Present and Future’
Date: 14 December Thursday
Koç University, İstanbul
Call for Papers
International law’s encounters with Turkey and Turkey’s encounters with international law have a long-standing and rich history. Ranging from the Ottoman Empire’s history of treaty engagement with the Concert of Europe states to the Treaty of Lausanne that underpins the international legal personality of the Turkish Republic, and from arguably one of the most cited cases of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Lotus/Bozkurt, to the development of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights through Turkish cases, Turkey is ever present in international law. Yet, scholarship that takes a comprehensive look at international law’s encounter with Turkey and Turkey’s encounter with international law is underdeveloped. This workshop aims to contribute to a better understanding of Turkey’s engagement with international law by asking the ‘Turkey’ question in international law. How has Turkey contributed to international law and how has international law shaped Turkey’s encounters with international relations, law and legal reasoning? Is there a Turkish approach to international law and if so, what are the core features and markers of such an approach?
With this dual research question in mind, Center for Global Public Law of Koç University invites submissions from international law, international history, international relations and domestic law scholars assessing the two-way relationship between Turkey and international law. We therefore encourage paper proposals to address at least one of two interrelated themes below:
A) Turkish approaches to international law: Turkish perspectives on the history, theory, sources, doctrine, branches and teaching of international law (in scholarship, domestic judicial pronouncements and political discourse).
B) Turkey’s role in shaping international law: Turkey's contribution to international custom, treaties and doctrine.
We encourage papers to look beyond specific cases and instead offer theoretical accounts and aggregate perspectives. The workshop also welcomes submissions that focus on a particular historic period of engagement, including engagement during the Ottoman Empire with international law, or papers that focus on a particular branch or field of international law, for example, Turkey’s engagement with international law of the sea, international trade law, international human rights law, international law of state responsibility, or international law on the use of force. The workshop invites papers to develop theoretical takes on the relationship between Turkey and international law. It also encourages inter-disciplinary approaches.
We invite submissions of paper abstracts of 500 words alongside a one page brief CV in one single document. The selection process will be based on the relevance of the proposal to the theme of the workshop as outlined above and its scholarly merit. The language of the workshop will be Turkish and English. Please indicate your language preference with respect to delivery.
Applications should be submitted by 1 November 2017 to email@example.com.
All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 15 November 2017. Outline of papers are due by 10 December 2017.
Center for Global Public Law will be able to cover one night accomodation in Istanbul, economy air fare for those that do not receive support from their own institutions.
All paper givers are invited to the official workshop dinnner on 14 December 2017, Thursday.
The Military Law and the Law of War Review
Call for Papers
The Military Law and the Law of War Review / Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre is a journal specialised in matters of interest for both civilian and military legal advisors as well as legal scholars and academics. Published since 1962, it is among the oldest publications at the international level in the areas of military/security law and the law of war. For decades, the Review has been an important forum of discussion for scholars and practitioners from all over the world.
The Review is published under the auspices of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War. It features original and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries of the latest legal developments, as well as book reviews. As a distinct trait, it accepts contributions in six languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Dutch.
For its coming issue (vol. 55/2), the Review’s editorial board welcomes submissions from scholars and practitioners that come within the broader scope of the Review (including military law, law of armed conflict, law on the use of force, as well as international criminal law and human rights law (inasmuch as related to situations of armed conflict)).
The deadline for submission is 15 November 2017.
Submissions should be sent by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and will be subject to double-blind peer review. Articles should normally not be longer than 15.000 words (footnotes included), although longer pieces may exceptionally be considered. Inquiries as to whether a possible submission comes within the scope of the Review can be sent to the abovementioned e-mail address.
Selected papers will be published online on the Review’s website in advance access (in a non-downloadable and non-printable form) as well as on Hein Online following editing and type-setting. The print version of the issue is scheduled to come out in Spring 2018.
Evidence for Hope makes the case that, yes, human rights work. Critics may counter that the movement is in serious jeopardy or even a questionable byproduct of Western imperialism. They point out that Guantánamo is still open, the Arab Spring protests have been crushed, and governments are cracking down on NGOs everywhere. But respected human rights expert Kathryn Sikkink draws on decades of research and fieldwork to provide a rigorous rebuttal to pessimistic doubts about human rights laws and institutions. She demonstrates that change comes slowly and as the result of struggle, but in the long term, human rights movements have been vastly effective.
Attacks on the human rights movement’s credibility are based on the faulty premise that human rights ideas emerged in North America and Europe and were imposed on developing southern nations. Starting in the 1940s, Latin American leaders and activists were actually early advocates for the international protection of human rights. Sikkink shows that activists and scholars disagree about the efficacy of human rights because they use different yardsticks to measure progress. Comparing the present to the past, she shows that genocide and violence against civilians have declined over time, while access to healthcare and education has increased dramatically. Cognitive and news biases contribute to pervasive cynicism, but Sikkink’s investigation into past and current trends indicates that human rights is not in its twilight. Instead, this is a period of vibrant activism that has made impressive improvements in human well-being.
Exploring the strategies that have led to real humanitarian gains since the middle of the twentieth century, Evidence for Hope looks at how these essential advances can be supported and sustained for decades to come.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Over the past decades the European Court of Human Rights has been increasingly engaged in constitutional decision-making. In this time the Court has decided whether abortion, assisted suicide, and surrogate motherhood are human rights. The Court’s judgments therefore do not just affect the parties to a particular case, but individuals, other member states, and often European society at large. Unsurprisingly, a variety of entities such as non-governmental organisations, try to participate in the Court’s proceedings as third-party interveners. Acknowledging a certain public interest in its decision-making, the Court accepted the first intervention in 1979. Since that time, interventions by individuals, member states and non-governmental organisations have increased. Yet despite this long-standing practice, third-party interventions have never been fully theorised.
Third-Party Interventions before the European Court of Human Rights is the first comprehensive and empirical study on third-party interventions before an international court. Analysing all cases between 1979 and 2016 to which an intervention was made the book explores their potential influence on the reasoning and decision-making of the Court. It further argues that there are three different type of intervention playing different roles in the administration of justice: amicus curiae interventions by organisations with a virtual interest in the case which strengthen the Court’s legitimacy in its democratic environment; member state interventions reinforcing state sovereignty; and actual third-party interventions by individuals who are involved in the facts of a case and who are protecting their own legal interests. As a consequence, the book makes a plea for applying distinct admissibility criteria to the different type of interventions as well as a more transparent procedure when accepting and denying interventions.
Frei, Stahl, & Weinke: Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention: Legitimizing the Use of Force since the 1970s
- Daniel Stahl & Annette Weinke, Intervening in the Name of Human Rights. On the History of an Argument
- Bronwyn Leebaw, Legitimating Interventions. Humanitarianism and Human Rights
- Eleanor Davey, The Language of ingérence. Interventionist Debates in France, 1970s – 1990s
- Jan Eckel, Humanitarian Intervention as Global Governance. Western Governments and Suffering »Others« before and after 1990
- Julian Bourg, From the Left Bank to Libya. The New Philosophy and Humanitarianism
- Robert Albro, Culture’s Iron Cage. U.S. Anthropology, Human Rights, and the Recalcitrant Defense Intellectual
- Matthias Nass, Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica. The Media and the Case for Interventionism
- Andrea Böhm, From Success to Crisis. Human Rights and the Transformation of the Media since the Late Twentieth Century
- Patricia Daley, Celebrities, Geo-Economics, and Humanitarianism. The Significance of Racialized Hierarchies
- Fabian Klose, Protecting Universal Rights through Intervention. International Law Debates from the 1930s to the 1980s
- Oliver Jütersonke, Responsibility to Protect and Tû-Tû Concepts. A Legal-Realist Contribution
- Gerd Hankel, Claus Kress, & Annette Weinke, The Slow Pace of International Law. A Conversation about the Past and Future of Humanitarian Intervention
- Interaction between human rights: 50 years of the Covenants
- Lauren Neumann & Tara Van Ho, A Tribute to Professor Sir Nigel Rodley, KBE: Reflections on 50 Years of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Chiara Macchi, Right to Water and the Threat of Business: Corporate Accountability and the State's Duty to Protect
- Vito Todeschini, The ICCPR in Armed Conflict: An Appraisal of the Human Rights Committee’s Engagement with International Humanitarian Law
- Shreya Atrey, Fifty Years On: The Curious Case of Intersectional Discrimination in the ICCPR
- Elena Abrusci, A Tale of Convergence? Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation in Regional Human Rights Bodies and the Human Rights Committee
- Eduardo Gill-Pedro & Xavier Groussot, The Duty of Mutual Trust in EU Law and the Duty to Secure Human Rights: Can the EU's Accession to the ECHR Ease the Tension?
- Other Articles
- Eric P Tudzi, John T Bugri & Anthony K Danso, Human Rights of Students with Disabilities in Ghana: Accessibility of the University Built Environment
- Nastassja White, Youth for Human Rights: Rising to the Challenge of New Threats against Rights Advocacy and Institutions
This book takes the reader on a sweeping tour of the international legal field to reveal some of the patterns of difference, dominance, and disruption that belie international law's claim to universality.
Pulling back the curtain on the "divisible college of international lawyers," Anthea Roberts shows how international lawyers in different states, regions, and geopolitical groupings are often subject to distinct incoming influences and outgoing spheres of influence in ways that reflect and reinforce differences in how they understand and approach international law. These divisions manifest themselves in contemporary controversies, such as debates about Crimea and the South China Sea.
Not all approaches to international law are created equal, however. Using case studies and visual representations, the author demonstrates how actors and materials from some states and groups have come to dominate certain transnational flows and forums in ways that make them disproportionately influential in constructing the "international." This point holds true for Western actors, materials, and approaches in general, and for Anglo-American (and sometimes French) ones in particular.
However, these patterns are set for disruption. As the world moves past an era of Western dominance and toward greater multipolarity, it is imperative for international lawyers to understand the perspectives and approaches of those coming from diverse backgrounds. By taking readers on a comparative tour of different international law academies and textbooks, the author encourages them to see the world through the eyes of others -- an essential skill in this fast changing world of shifting power dynamics and rising nationalism.
- Stefan Griller, Walter Obwexer, & Erich Vranes, Mega-Regional Agreements: New Orientations for EU External Relations?
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, CETA, TTIP, and TiSA: New Trends in International Economic Law
- Erich Vranes, The Contents of CETA, TTIP, and TiSA: The (Envisaged) Trade Disciplines
- Christian Tietje & Kevin Crow, The Reform of Investment Protection Rules in CETA, TTIP, and other Recent EU-FTAs: Convincing?
- Stephan Schill, Authority, Legitimacy, and Fragmentation in the (Envisaged) Dispute Settlement Disciplines in Mega-Regionals
- Thomas Cottier, Intellectual Property and Mega-Regional Agreements: Progress and Opportunities Missed
- Walter Berka, CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Data Protection
- Christoph Ohler, CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and Financial Services
- Lorand Bartels, Human Rights, Labour Standards, and Environmental Standards in CETA
- Panos Delimatsis, TTIP, CETA, TiSA Behind Closed Doors: Transparency in the EU Trade Policy
- Stefan Mayr, CETA, TTIP, TiSA, and their Relationship with EU Law
- Christoph Moser, On the Expected Economic Effects of Trade Liberalisation and the (TTIP)
- Sonja Puntscher Riekmann, The Struggle for and against Globalisation: International Trade Agreements and the Democratic Question
- Stefan Griller, Three Salient Issues of the New Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements
- Verena Madner, A New Generation of Trade Agreements: An Opportunity not to be Missed?
- Stefan Griller, Walter Obwexer, & Erich Vranes, Conclusions
Monday, September 18, 2017
Call for Papers – 2018 ASIL Annual Meeting New Voices
From April 4-7, 2018, the American Society of International Law will convene its 112th Annual Meeting. The theme of the 2018 Meeting is "International Law in Practice." As in the past, the Annual Meeting will include at least one "New Voices" session that will provide a platform for junior scholars and practitioners to present their work.
ASIL invites submissions from non-tenured scholars and junior practitioners on any topic of international law in connection with the Meeting's theme. Those who submitted an abstract as part of the call for session proposals need not re-submit; those abstracts remain under consideration. Abstracts should be well-developed and reflect advanced progress on a paper that will be presented at the Meeting. Final papers will be due by March 26, 2018. Send your abstract to email@example.com by no later than Monday, October 9, 2017, with the subject line "New Voices Proposal." Please send the abstract as a Microsoft Word attachment, including your name and contact information (email address & affiliation). Abstracts should be no longer than 1000 words. Notifications will be made by the end of October.
The political and legal theory of
international courts and tribunals
Oslo, June 18-19, 2018
Call for Papers
PluriCourts announces a workshop that brings together scholars of philosophy, political theory and legal theory who study one or more regional and international courts and tribunals (ICs). States have established manifold regional and international ICs to resolve disputes, interpret treaties, and deter illegal behavior. These ICs cover a range of issues including, human rights, trade, investment, border disputes, and international crimes. ICs’ competences, level of authority, method of interpretation, and geographical reach widely vary. ICs’ increase in number and influence has spawned controversy and complaints, often phrased as charges that they are illegitimate. The workshop aims at clarify the various senses in which they might be illegitimate, and to evaluate such criticism and proposed responses. The workshop welcomes both abstract and practice-focused perspectives on those issues.
We invite papers that address one or more such IC, on such themes as:
Some travel grants are available upon request.
- The appropriate legitimacy standards for ICs from the perspectives of history of ideas and/or contemporary legal and political theory, such as human rights, transparency, or rule of law;
- Their multilevel separation of authority, and its impact on adjudication;
- Law and morality in international adjudication;
- Norm-indeterminacy and international adjudication;
- Specialization and fragmentation in ICs;
- ICs and the international rule of law;
- Independence and accountability of ICs;
- International judicial review and democracy;
- IC performance, ranging from securing states’ objectives to global justice;
- The comparative advantages of ICs;
- Best practices and models for ICs;
- IR theory perspectives on ICs.
PluriCourts is a multidisciplinary Centre of Excellence whose overriding research objective is to analyze and assess the legitimate present and future roles of this international judiciary in the global legal order: Why and when are these international courts and tribunals legitimate authorities, whose decisions should enjoy deference by various domestic and international ‘compliance communities’? The PluriCourts Research Plan is available here.
November 1, 2017 Expression of interest with provisional paper title, abstract, travel grant request can be submitted here
December 15, 2017 Decisions on acceptance of proposals and travel grants announced
May 15, 2018 Draft papers due
June 18-19, 2018 Workshop
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Benvenisti & Downs: Between Fragmentation and Democracy: The Role of National and International Courts
Between Fragmentation and Democracy explores the phenomenon of the fragmentation of international law and global governance following the proliferation of international institutions with overlapping jurisdictions and ambiguous boundaries. The authors argue that this problem has the potential to sabotage the evolution of a more democratic and egalitarian system and identify the structural reasons for the failure of global institutions to protect the interests of politically weaker constituencies. This book offers a comprehensive understanding of how new global sources of democratic deficits increasingly deprive individuals and collectives of the capacity to protect their interests and shape their opportunities. It also considers the role of the courts in mitigating the effects of globalization and the struggle to define and redefine institutions and entitlements. This book is an important resource for scholars of international law and international politics, as well as for public lawyers, political scientists, and those interested in judicial reform.