Call for papers
2018 ESIL Annual Conference
Interest Group on International Legal Theory and Philosophy
Transcendent principles and pluralism in international law: the complex, the simple, and the universal
Theorists and philosophers disagree on the universalising nature of principles to regulate conduct at the international level. Ideas of an international society of states or of any international legal order may presuppose universalism of what might be thought of as ‘firstorder’ principles (e.g. the good; right; justice; sovereignty; sovereign equality; peaceful coexistence; prohibition of the use of force). The search for transcendent, non-dogmatic principles, which are not hostile to pluralism, may allow for common ground to emerge (no matter how rudimentary) to support mutual exchange, interaction, and coexistence. There may well be significant consensus around ‘first-order’ principles, although consensus may conceal conformity or hegemony. In any event the interpretation and application of such principles are contested. Such contestation may even be virtuous in itself; contestation may be a tool for strengthening solidarity. Hence a focus on universalism problematised promises to open up important debates in contemporary international legal theory and philosophy.
Multiplicity of claims and contested interpretations are evident in what might be called ‘second-order’ transcendent principles based on the worldviews of states (e.g. mixed or neo-liberal economies; prioritisation of civil liberties or basic guarantees to housing, education, and sanitation). With these considerations in mind, the universalising enterprise of international law is perhaps too readily accepting of the need for a common ground with insufficient critique of transcendent principles. This may lead to the avoidance of complexity and to a false simplicity in the development of international law. Examples of the latter might include the reduction of international law to the protection of individuals or to the protection of peoples. A differentiation between ‘first-order’ and ‘second-order’ principles, and a better appreciation of the contestations involved, may assist with this critical project.
With this call, the newly relaunched ESIL Interest Group on International Legal Theory and Philosophy (IGILTP) aims to facilitate dialogue and the exploration of counter-positions between theoretical and philosophical approaches on transcendent principles, on their impact on pluralism in international law and on alternative formulations that recognise but challenge the sway of the universal. Topics for discussion may include:
- 20th century positivism, state consent and the problem of the international community
- Natural law conceptions of a community of interests
- The relationships between realism and pluralism
- Oppenheim’s family of nations bound by common interests
- Pluralism in Critical Legal Theory
- Schmitt’s notion of false universalism
- Solidarity and pluralism
- Cosmopolitan global ethics
- Morality and international law
- Utilitarian conceptions of individual flourishing and international law
- Collective rights and pluralism in international law
- Kantian transcendental philosophy
- The existence, content, and contestedness of ‘first-order’ and ‘second-order’ transcendent principles (e.g. rule of law; legality; neutrality; peaceful coexistence; sovereignty; self-determination)
- The impact of transcendent principles (e.g. oversimplification of international law at the expense of pluralism; accommodation and reflection of pluralism; complementarity between transcendent principles and pluralism)
- The role of transcendent principles in international institutions (e.g. procedural and substantive rule of law; ‘pragmatic human rights’ dialogue between claimants and institutions)
Abstracts no longer than 500 words together with a short author bio (no longer than 250 words containing name, affiliation, email and phone contact details, and relevant publications) should be submitted via email by 31 December 2017 to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
Successful applicants will be informed no later than 15 April 2018.
Full papers should be submitted via email by 15 July 2018 to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Call for Papers: Transcendent Principles and Pluralism in International Law: The Complex, the Simple, and the Universal
Friday, November 3, 2017
- Brendon J. Cannon, Dominic R. Pkalya & Bosire Maragia, The International Criminal Court and Africa: Contextualizing the Anti-ICC Narrative
- Ato Kwamena Onoma, An Epochal Bifurcation: The International Criminal Court, the African Court and the Struggle against Gross Human Rights Abuses
- Michael Imran Kanu, The Fight against Corruption in Sierra Leone: Challenges and Opportunities in the Jurisprudence
- Manuel J. Ventura, The Prosecution of Corporations before a Hybrid International Criminal Tribunal: The New TV and Akhbar Beirut Contempt Jurisdiction Decisions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
This book examines the fundamental juridical nature, classification and enforcement of choice of court agreements in international commercial litigation. It is the first full-length attempt to integrate the comparative and doctrinal analysis of choice of court agreements under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements ('Hague Convention') and the English common law jurisdictional regime into a theoretical framework. In this regard, the book analyses the impact of a multilateral and regulatory conception of private international law on the private law enforcement of choice of court agreements before the English courts. In the process, it both pre-empts and offers innovative solutions to issues that may arise under the jurisprudence of the emergent Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Hague Convention. The need to understand the nature and enforcement of choice of court agreements before the English courts from the perspective of the EU private international law regime and the Hague Convention cannot be understated. This important new study aims to fill an existing gap in the literature in relation to an account of choice of court agreements which explores and reconnects arguments drawn from international legal theory with legal practice. However, the scope of the work remains most relevant for cross-border commercial lawyers interested in crafting pragmatic solutions to the conflicts of jurisdictions.
Zhao: The ICC and China: The Principle of Complementarity and National Implementation of International Criminal Law
A disconnection has historically existed between international and domestic justice. In China, international justice and domestic justice were long treated as two autonomous yet interconnected systems, akin to the concept of Yin and Yang. With the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002, the two systems began to increasingly work in tandem. The principle of complementarity is one of the cornerstones of the ICC's architecture, according to which states have primary jurisdiction over the ICC. So long as the legal system of a state can efficiently investigate and prosecute the core international crimes prohibited in the Rome Statute, the ICC will not intervene. However, if a state is unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute these crimes, the ICC will invoke the principle of complementarity to step in. Thus, the principle of complementarity has an impact on the national implementation of international criminal law, as well as on its exercise of jurisdiction in many aspects, including for third party states. As a third party state to the ICC, China has ratified a number of international conventions, including those on genocide and torture; China is therefore obliged to prosecute these international crimes by implementing these international conventions into national law. However, the core crimes have thus far not been incorporated into Chinese criminal law. This research work focuses on the possible impact of the principle of complementarity on the implementation of international criminal law in China as a third party state and the future prospects of the relationship between China and the ICC based on this analysis. By so doing, it aims to contribute to the discourse on complementarity for both scholars and practitioners.
This book examines the international regulation of crises bailouts and buy national policies. It undertakes this research with specific reference to the crisis years 2008–2012. The book includes a comparative analysis of the regulation of public procurement and subsidies aid at both multilateral and regional levels, identifying the strengths and weakness in the WTO legal framework and selected regional trade agreements (RTAs). Ultimately, the aim of this work is to provide options for improving the consistency of these laws and the regulation of these markets. This is of immediate relevance for good economic governance, as well as for managing future systemic financial crises in the interests of citizens: as tax payers and consumers.
This Article critically examines the conventional wisdom that most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in investment treaties can always be used to "import" standards of treatment from other treaties with third parties. We argue that tribunals applying MFN clauses have relied on entrenched and unexamined presumptions as to the nature or essence of MFN clauses. This practice has obscured variation among clauses in investment agreements and other treaties, and it has led interpreters to adopt an unduly uniform approach to the function of MFN provisions. A careful analysis of specific clauses leads to a much more nuanced picture and calls into question the prevailing view that all MFN clauses in investment treaties were designed to import standards of treatment. By bringing our treaty-by-treaty, “bottom-up” approach into contact with the prevailing top-down presumptions about MFN importation, we hope to provoke a new debate – one which drives toward a more balanced approach to the interpretation of investment treaties.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
- Coming Soon...? A reappraisal of the legal and ethical implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) ahead of the first meeting of the CCW Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal AWS
- Introduced by Elena Carpanelli and Nicole Lazzerini
- Daniele Amoroso, Jus in bello and jus ad bellum arguments against autonomy in weapons systems: A re-appraisal
- Andrea Spagnolo, Human rights implications of autonomous weapon systems in domestic law enforcement: sci-fi reflections on a lo-fi reality
- Ozlem Ulgen, Kantian Ethics in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
The Interface of National Security and Humanitarian Law in Situations of Low-Intensity Armed Conflict / High Intensity Emergency
Situations of low-intensity internal conflict pose enormous challenges to the international legal and political community, as the types and complexity of internal armed conflict have proliferated in the post-Cold War and 9/11 eras. In parallel, serious challenges to democratic states from violent political challengers continue to manifest and have resulted in extensive reliance on national security and counter terrorism regimes.
This workshop is uniquely positioned to explore the overlap between situations of armed conflict to which the LIAC is applicable and situations of emergency in which it is generally assumed that human rights norms primarily apply, with modifications of derogation and other accommodations as demanded by the exigencies of the situation. Given the unique history of Northern Ireland with vigorous debates as to the applicability of IHL during the recent conflict there is much relevant learning to contemporary situations of protracted violence (including Mexico and Colombia) where the overlap between IHL and human rights norms remains contested.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
- Mariolina Eliantonio & Megi Medzmariashvili, Hybridity Under Scrutiny: How European Standardization Shakes the Foundations of EU Constitutional and Internal Market Law
- Linda Senden, The Constitutional Fit of European Standardization Put to the Test
- Megi Medzmariashvili, Delegation of Rulemaking Power to European Standards Organizations: Reconsidered
- Matteo Gnes, Do Administrative Law Principles Apply to European Standardization: Agencification or Privatization?
- Morten Kallestrup, Stakeholder Participation in European Standardization: A Mapping and an Assessment of Three Categories of Regulation
- Mariolina Eliantonio, Judicial Control of the EU Harmonized Standards: Entering a Black Hole?
- Jörgen Hettne, Standards, Barriers to Trade and EU Internal Market Rules: Need for a Renewed Approach?
- Björn Lundqvist, European Harmonized Standards as ‘Part of EU Law’: The Implications of the James Elliott Case for Copyright Protection and, Possibly, for EU Competition Law
Commissions of inquiry (‘commissions’) have been loosely characterised as a new form of adjudication. This Chapter assesses the current and potential role of commissions in the overall legal framework regarding the use of force. The Chapter thus aims to locate commissions within the greater jus ad bellum architecture. While inquiry reports are formally non-binding, they interact with other institutions and actors, and may have wider normative ramifications. The Chapter portrays the diversity of the inquiry landscape and zeroes in on the Kosovo and Iraq Inquiries as concrete examples of inquiry practice operating in situations that evoked fundamental jus ad bellum questions. Given the Human Rights Council’s frequent practice of establishing commissions, the Chapter specifically examines whether future HRC commissions may become more active in the jus ad bellum domain in light of the potential activation of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The Chapter concludes with some reflections on the accountability-potential of commissions of inquiry.
Twenty-first century international law holds that territory is a fundamental characteristic of a state. Indeed, the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which articulated the most widely-cited modern definition of the state, lists territory as the second of four vital characteristics of a state under international law: a population, a territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Yet, territory was not always essential to the conception of statehood. As little as a century ago, territory was a more contested characteristic than the Montevideo Convention implies, particularly in the colonial world, but also elsewhere. It was argued that people, rather than territory, formed the basis of statehood. Cadastral mapping, the Torrens system, the movement of peoples, and legal protection, for example, all bespoke alternative modes of “being a state,” in which territory was either secondary or absent. This IILJ fall 2017 mini-workshop rereads historical state practices to problematize the unquestioned relationship between territoriality and the state.
The key premises and institutions of the international order, which have endured since the end of the Second World War, are increasingly being challenged by powerful states, rising powers, populist movements, non-state organizations and multinational corporations. Fundamental questions are being asked in all areas of international law as to how the international legal framework and institutions may be reshaped.
In this context, the CCIL’s Annual Conference will encourage discussion and analysis on the following questions: What is the impact on international law of these changes? Where does Canada fit in the international order at a crucial point in history? How have experiences over the past 150 years prepared Canada for this evolving environment and affected Canada’s current approach to international law? What should Canada contribute to the reshaping of the international legal framework and institutions and how should Canada engage in this respect?
In the second half of the 20th century, discourses about the requirement for States to comply with standards of democratic governance have acquired prominence in international thought and practice. Such discourses came to be nurtured by a dramatic wave of writings in the 1990s and 2000s. It is commonly said that such a turn in international legal scholarship was triggered by, inter alia, the 1992 seminal article The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance of Thomas Franck in the American Journal of International Law. The scholars concerned argued that the legitimacy of governments would increasingly be evaluated through democratic standards. They also advocated that the democratic character of the government is determinative of the effects of some key international legal rules.
Twenty-five years after the burgeoning in international legal thought and practice of discourses centred on democratic governance, the time has come to re-evaluate the debates, both in legal practice and legal scholarship, about the places, roles, agendas, successes, failures of democratic governance. This is why the Manchester International Law Centre (MILC) is organising a workshop dedicated to the question with a view to revisiting the state of the practice and debates about democratic governance in international law twenty-five years after this narrative gained grounds in international legal scholarship. The workshop aims to foster the debate about current problems surrounding the theory of democratic governance. The workshop will take a critical look at international legal discourses and practice pertaining to democratic governance, including the practice of the European Union.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
The United Nations, whose specialized agencies were the subject of an Appendix to the 1958 edition of Oppenheim's International Law: Peace, has expanded beyond all recognition since its founding in 1945.This volume represents a study that is entirely new, but prepared in the way that has become so familiar over succeeding editions of Oppenheim.
An authoritative and comprehensive study of the United Nations' legal practice, this volume covers the formal structures of the UN as it has expanded over the years, and all that this complex organization does. All substantive issues are addressed in separate sections, including among others, the responsibilities of the UN, financing, immunities, human rights, preventing armed conflicts and peacekeeping, and judicial matters.
In examining the evolving structures and ever expanding work of the United Nations, this volume follows the long-held tradition of Oppenheim by presenting facts uncoloured by personal opinion, in a succinct text that also offers in the footnotes a wealth of information and ideas to be explored. It is book that, while making all necessary reference to the Charter, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and other legal instruments, tells of the realities of the legal issues as they arise in the day to day practice of the United Nations.
- Peter Haggenmacher, Sources in the Scholastic Legacy: Ius Naturae and Ius Gentium Revisited by Theologians,
- Annabel S. Brett, Sources in the Scholastic Legacy: The (Re)construction of the Ius Gentium in the Second Scholastic
- Dominique Gaurier, Sources in the Modern Tradition: An Overview of the Sources of the Sources in the Classical Works of International Law
- Randall Lesaffer, Sources in the Modern Tradition: The Nature of Europe's Classical Law of Nations
- Miloš Vec, Sources in the 19th Century European Tradition: The Myth of Positivism
- Lauri Mälksoo, Sources in the 19th Century European Tradition: Insights from Practice and Theory
- Ole Spiermann, The History of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: 'A Purely Platonic Discussion'?
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, The History of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: The Journey from the Past to the Present
- Monica García-Salmones Rovira, Sources in the Anti-Formalist Tradition: A Prelude to Institutional Discourses in International Law
- Upendra Baxi, Sources in the Anti-Formalist Tradition: 'That Monster Custom, Who Doth All Sense Doth Eat'
- Tony Carty & Anna Irene Baka, Sources in the Meta-History of International Law: A Phenomenological Reversal of Hegel-From Liberal Nihilism and the Anti-Metaphysics of Modernity to an Aristotelian Ethical Order
- Mark Weston Janis, Sources in the Meta-History of International Law: A Little Meta-Theory-Paradigms, Article 38, and the Sources of International Law
- Robert Kolb, Legal History as a Source: From Classical to Modern International Law
- Samuel Moyn, Legal History as a Source: The Politics of Knowledge
- David Lefkowitz, Sources in Legal Positivist Theories: Law as Necessarily Posited and the Challenge of Customary Law Creation
- Jörg Kammerhofer, Sources in Legal Positivist Theories: The Pure Theory's Structural Analysis of the Law
- Jean d'Aspremont, Sources in Legal Formalist Theories: The Poor Vehicle of Legal Forms
- Frederick Schauer, Sources in Legal Formalist Theories: Source Formality, With Special Attention to International Law,
- Ingo Venzke, Sources in Interpretation Theories: The International Law-Making Process
- Duncan B. Hollis, Sources in Interpretation Theories: An Interdependent Relationship,
- Matthias Goldmann, Sources in the Meta-Theory of International Law: Exploring the Hermeneutics, Authority, and Publicness of International Law
- Alexandra Kemmerer, Sources in the Meta-Theory of International Law: Hermeneutical Conversations,
- Iain Scobbie, Legal Theory as a Source: Institutional Facts and the Identification of International Law,
- Alain Papaux & Eric Wyler, Legal Theory as a Source: Doctrine as Constitutive of International Law
- Pierre d'Argent, Sources and the Legality and Validity of International Law: What Makes Law 'International'?
- Mary Ellen O'Connell & Caleb Day, Sources and the Legality and Validity of International Law: Natural Law as Source of Extra-Positive Norms
- Michael Giudice, Sources and the Systematicity of International Law: A Philosophical Perspective
- Gleider I. Hernández, Sources and the Systematicity of International Law: A Co-Constitutive Relationship?
- Erika de Wet, Sources and the Hierarchy of International Law: The Place of Peremptory Norms and Article 103 of the UN Charter Within the Sources of International Law
- Mario Prost, Sources and the Hierarchy of International Law: Source Preferences and Scales of Values
- Detlef von Daniels, Sources and the Normativity of International Law: A Post-Foundational Perspective
- Nicole Roughan, Sources and the Normativity of International Law: From Validity to Justification,
- Richard Collins, Sources and the Legitimate Authority of International Law: A Challenge to the 'Standard View'?
- José Luis Marti, Sources and the Legitimate Authority of International Law: Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law
- Robert McCorquodale, Sources and the Subjects of International Law: A Plurality of Law-Making Participants
- Bruno de Witte, Sources and the Subjects of International Law: The European Union's Semi-Autonomous System of Sources
- Yuval Shany, Sources and the Enforcement of International Law: What Norms International Law-Enforcement Bodies Actually Invoke?
- Antonios Tzanakopoulos & Eleni Methymaki, Sources and the Enforcement of International Law: Domestic Courts-Another Brick in the Wall?
- Samantha Besson, Sources of International Human Rights Law: How General is General International Law?
- Bruno Simma, Sources of International Human Rights Law: Human Rights Treaties
- Raphaël van Steenberghe, Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: Specific Features
- Steven R. Ratner, Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: War Crimes and the Limits of the Doctrine of Sources
- Catherine Redgwell, Sources of International Environmental Law: Formality and Informality in the Dynamic Evolution of IEL Norms
- Jutta Brunnée, Sources of International Environmental Law: Interactional Law
- Jan Klabbers, Sources of International Organizations' Law: Reflections on Accountability
- August Reinisch, Sources of International Organizations' Law: Why Custom and General Principles are Crucial
- Joost Pauwelyn, Sources of International Trade Law: Sources of Law in WTO Dispute Settlement
- Donald H. Regan, Sources of International Trade Law: Understanding What the Vienna Convention Says About Identifying and Using 'Sources for Treaty Interpretation'
- Jorge E. Viñuales, Sources of International Investment Law: Theoretical Foundations of Unruly Practices
- Stephan W. Schill, Sources of International Investment Law: Multilateralization, Arbitral Precedent, Comparativism, Soft Law
- Ingrid B. Wuerth, Sources of International Law in Domestic Law: Domestic Constitutional Structure and the Sources of International Law
- Cedric Ryngaert, Sources of International Law in Domestic Law: Relationship Between International and Municipal Law Sources
- G.S. Starodubtsev, The 1917 October Russian Revolution and International Law
- V.G. Butkevych, The International-Legal Ideology of Pre-Slavic Chiefdoms of the Ukrainian Ethnos (Part Three)
- O.O. Merezhko, On the Origins of the Ukrainian Science of International Law
- Olga Butkevych, The Nezabytovskyĭ Concept of the Law of International Community
- A. N. Vylegzhanin, Legal Status of the Bering Strait: Historical and Legal Context
- W.E. Butler & V.S. Ivanenko, On the History of Teaching International Law at St. Petersburg University
- Eglė Bendikaitė, Interwar Lithuania as a Laboratory of International Law
- Notes and Comments
- W.E. Butler, Vladimir Grabar, Peter Lombard, John Mair, and the History of International Law
- W.E. Butler, The Charles Cramer Archive: A Russian Consul in America and Europe
- International Legal Doctrine
- W.E. Butler, Biographical Note: On the Life and Work of Tikhon Fedorovich Stepanov
- T.F. Stepanov, All-People’s Law in Aggregate with Diplomacy
Monday, October 30, 2017
- Kendall Houghton & Helen Naughton, Trade and sustainability: the impact of the International Tropical Timber Agreements on exports
- Paul G. Harris & Taedong Lee, Compliance with climate change agreements: the constraints of consumption
- Hussam Hussein & Mattia Grandi, Dynamic political contexts and power asymmetries: the cases of the Blue Nile and the Yarmouk Rivers
- Prudence Dato, Economic analysis of e-waste market
- Geoff Law & Lorne Kriwoken, The World Heritage Convention and Tasmania’s tall-eucalypt forests: can an international treaty on environmental protection transcend the vicissitudes of domestic politics?
- Ulrike Kornek, Jan Christoph Steckel, Kai Lessmann, & Ottmar Edenhofer, The climate rent curse: new challenges for burden sharing
- Lambert Schneider, Michael Lazarus, Carrie Lee, & Harro van Asselt, Restricted linking of emissions trading systems: options, benefits, and challenges
- Ning Liu & Carl Middleton, Regional clustering of chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements to improve enforcement
- Michael W. Manulak, Leading by design: Informal influence and international secretariats
- Stephen C. Nelson & Geoffrey P. R. Wallace, Are IMF lending programs good or bad for democracy?
- Michal Parízek, Control, soft information, and the politics of international organizations staffing
- Brian Lai & Vanessa A. Lefler, Examining the role of region and elections on representation in the UN Security Council
- Magnus Lundgren, Which type of international organizations can settle civil wars?