For many years, it seemed almost a truism to state that EU law and the law of international arbitration were two very distinct areas of law that did not intersect. Most believed each area pursued its own course without impacting on the other. However, a series of matters on which the international arbitral regime and the European Union part ways and, indeed, enter into serious conflict have emerged. The chapters in The Impact of EU Law, which were initially presented at a conference hosted by NYU’s Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law, show that these areas of law are becoming ever more interconnected and that the impact of EU law on the law of international arbitration can be felt over the course of all stages of an international arbitration, from the pre-award stage to the post-award stage--an influence further exacerbated by the dilemma of arbitral tribunals and national courts when facing conflicting mandates from the law of international arbitration and the law of the European Union. Furthermore, and the contributions in this volume make this abundantly clear, EU law has not only impacted international arbitrations seated in EU Member States, but has also influenced arbitrations seated around the world, a fact that makes The Impact of EU Law required reading for all practitioners, arbitrators and all other stakeholders in the arbitration process world-wide.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
- Mikkel Jarle Christensen & Ron Levi, Introduction: An internationalized criminal justice: paths of law and paths of police
- Mikkel Jarle Christensen, Reunited Europe and the internationalization of criminal law: the creation and circulation of criminal law as an international governance tool
- Antoine Mégie, Displacing and replacing the criminal law within the European space
- Jamie Rowen, The transformation of legal ideas: the globalization and politicization of transitional justice in the Middle East
- Valsamis Mitsilegas, The global governance of transnational crime: implications for justice and the rule of law
- Ron Levi, Sara Dezalay & Michael Amiraslani, Prosecutorial strategies and opening statements: justifying international prosecutions from the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg through to the International Criminal Court
- Nicola Langille & Frédéric Mégret, Red Notices and transnational police practices
- Kerstin Bree Carlson, Trading on guilt: the judicial logic of plea bargains at the ICTY and its transplant to Serbia and Bosnia
- Kirsten Campbell, The making of international criminal justice: towards a sociology of the ‘legal field’
- Mark A. Drumbl, Extracurricular international criminal law
- Michiel Luchtman & John Vervaele, Criminal investigation and prosecution by a European public prosecutor’s office in the EU: shared enforcement without procedural safeguards and judicial protection?
- Victor Peskin, Virtual trials revisited: the shifting politics of state cooperation from the UN ad hoc tribunals to the International Criminal Court
- Sigall Horovitz, Rwanda’s Kabgayi Trial between international justice and national reconciliation
- Mark Kerseten, As the pendulum swings – the revival of the hybrid tribunal
Seminar: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Judgment and its Contribution to the Development of International Law
In the year of the judgment’s twentieth anniversary, the seminar aims at reassessing the way in which the case was managed, including as regards the post-judgment phase, and exploring the judgment’s impact on the Law of Sustainable Development, the Law of Treaties and the Law of International Responsibility.
- Guest Editorial Comment
- Claus Kreß & Benjamin Nußberger, Pro-democratic intervention in current international law: the case of The Gambia in January 2017
- Matteo Tondini, The use of force in the course of maritime law enforcement operations
- Chris O’Meara, The relationship between national, unit and personal self-defence in international law: bridging the disconnect
- Francis Grimal & Jae Sundaram, Cyber warfare and autonomous self-defence
- Tobias Kliem, You can’t cyber in here, this is the War Room! A rejection of the effects doctrine on cyberwar and the use of force in international law
- The Global Forum
- Robert C. Johansen, Developing a Grand Strategy for Peace and Human Security: Guidelines from Research, Theory, and Experience
- Abiodun Williams, The Responsibility to Protect and Institutional Change
- Maria Beatriz Bonna Nogueira, The Promotion of LGBT Rights as International Human Rights Norms: Explaining Brazil’s Diplomatic Leadership
- Melanie H. Ram, International Organization Autonomy and Issue Emergence: The World Bank’s Roma Inclusion Agenda
- Jeremy Youde, Global Health Governance in International Society
- Hylke Dijkstra, Collusion in International Organizations: How States Benefit from the Authority of Secretariats
Friday, November 10, 2017
Lane & Hesselman: Governing Disasters: Embracing Human Rights in a Multi-Level, Multi-Duty Bearer, Disaster Governance Landscape
Abstract International and national disaster governance faces multiple challenges given the large variety and amounts of resources, skills and expertise that adequate disaster response commands. Moreover, disasters do not necessarily respect territorial boundaries, or may overwhelm the capacity of any one nation. They may therefore need a truly collective, joint, or even global effort to be overcome. Not seldom, reducing disaster risks and responding to disasters as they occur requires a sustained, concerted and coordinated effort of a broad range of actors, both public and private, acting nationally and internationally, and across the full ‘disaster cycle’. Unfortunately, disaster governance is commonly characterized as patchy, fragmented and inadequate, leading to essential protection gaps for affected communities. In order to strengthen disaster governance, this article first aims to further conceptualize the practice and challenges of ‘disaster governance’, mostly through the lens of ‘Multi-Level Governance’. Secondly, it proposes that disaster governance will greatly benefit from relevant actors more firmly embracing human rights-based approaches, particularly in the context of so-called, emerging ‘multi-duty bearer human rights regimes’.
- International Legal Theory: Symposium: Law between Global and Colonial: Techniques of Empire
- Mónica García-Salmones Rovira & Paolo Amorosa, Introduction
- Maria Adele Carrai, Learning Western Techniques of Empire: Republican China and the New Legal Framework for Managing Tibet
- Kirsten Sellars, Meanings of Treason in a Colonial Context: Indian Challenges to the Charges of ‘Waging War against the King’ and ‘Crimes against Peace’
- Rotem Giladi, The Phoenix of Colonial War: Race, the Laws of War, and the ‘Horror on the Rhine’
- International Law and Practice
- Kubo Mačák, From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rules: Re-engaging States as Law-makers
- Maria Weimer, Reconciling Regulatory Space with External Accountability through WTO Adjudication – Trade, Environment and Development
- Hague International Tribunals: International Court of Justice
- Vincent-Joël Proulx, The World Court's Jurisdictional Formalism and its Lost Market Share: The Marshall Islands Decisions and the Quest for a Suitable Dispute Settlement Forum for Multilateral Disputes
- Cosette Creamer & Zuzanna Godzimirska, The Job Market for Justice: Screening and Selecting Candidates for the International Court of Justice
- International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Harmen van der Wilt, Unconstitutional Change of Government: A New Crime within the Jurisdiction of the African Criminal Court
- Ruth Bettina Birn, How Often Must We Re-Invent the Wheel? Reflections on the Most Efficient Structure of Prosecution Offices in International Courts and Why It is Not Generally Used
- Stewart Manley, Citation Practices of the International Criminal Court: The Situation in Darfur, Sudan
La « vérité » peut-elle faire l’objet d’un droit ? La question aurait de quoi laisser le lecteur perplexe. Pourtant, en l’espace d’une décennie, l’idée d’un « droit à la vérité » dû aux victimes d’atrocités est parvenue à s’imposer de manière globale : elle occupe aujourd’hui une place centrale dans le paysage des institutions de protection des droits de l’homme et dans les politiques internationales de pacification de sociétés en conflit.
Comment ce concept a-t-il pu être consacré aussi rapidement, alors qu’il ne figurait dans aucun catalogue de droits fondamentaux ? S’agit-il d’un nouveau droit justiciable ou d’un simple recyclage sémantique d’autres droits existants ? Le « droit à la vérité » annonce-t-il une révolution juridique, ou se résume-t-il à une façade rhétorique, voire un fétichisme juridique ?
Cet ouvrage inédit reconstitue la généalogie du « droit à la vérité » en droit international, des luttes sociales concrètes pour sa reconnaissance à ses développements contemporains, afin d’en déterminer les enjeux socio-politiques et juridiques. À ce titre, il présente une cartographie complète des mobilisations du « droit à la vérité » et de leurs effets en droit international. D’une part, l’étude examine dans quelle mesure le « droit à la vérité » est reconnu en droit international et quels sont ses contours normatifs et ses bénéficiaires. D’autre part, elle sonde le rôle des entrepreneurs du « droit à la vérité » dans la construction d’un nouveau droit, afin de comprendre les conditions empiriques de sa diffusion internationale et les enjeux qui la sous-tendent.
En particulier, la thèse montre comment les mobilisations du « droit à la vérité » tentent d’orienter dans un sens particulier certains débats qui demeurent ouverts en droit international et qui sont liés à des enjeux de justice contemporains : les victimes d’atrocités ont-elles un droit à la punition des responsables ? Les amnisties sont-elles licites en droit international ? Peut-on restreindre le secret d’État et contraindre les autorités à communiquer des informations aux victimes de violations des droits de l’homme et à leurs proches ?
En définitive, l’ouvrage révèle l’ambivalence du « droit à la vérité », qui agit tantôt comme ressource, et tantôt comme contrainte pour ses promoteurs, en raison de la diversité de ses représentations et de ses réappropriations successives au fil du temps.
The Junior International Law Scholars Association (JILSA) is holding its annual meeting on Friday, January 12, 2018, at the American University College of Law, Washington, DC. JILSA is an informal network of junior scholars at mostly American law schools who get together annually for a self-funded workshop. Junior scholars should email co-chairs Rebecca Hamilton (email@example.com) and Julian Arato (firstname.lastname@example.org) by Friday, November 24, if they are interested in (a) workshopping a work in progress; (b) workshopping an early stage work; and/or (c) being a discussant at the meeting.
(a) For works in progress: please submit a working title, an abstract, and an indication of how far along you expect the paper to be (i.e. how long you anticipate it being by the time we request papers for distribution around New Years, and whether it has been accepted for publication). As usual, we will accommodate as many proposals as possible, but if we need to make choices we will give preference to people who didn't present last year and to works that have not yet been accepted for publication.
(b) For early stage works, please give us the working title, and a few lines about the idea you want to pursue.
Responses will be sent by the end of November. If your proposal is accepted, we'll ask you to submit your paper by Friday, December 29, to ensure that discussants (and everyone else) have enough time to read thoroughly and prepare comments in advance of the conference.
Membership in JILSA is open to any pre-tenure scholar, and if non-members would like to join they should email the co-chairs.
This paper revisits the sociology of international commercial arbitration on the basis of unexploited archives and data. This material casts new light on the competition between “grand old men” and “young technocrats” in the 1980s and 1990s, a theme that has structured the analysis of international commercial arbitration since the pioneering work of Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth (Dealing in Virtue). In contrast, the data show that the crucial transformative period actually took place between the 1950s and 1970s, when a relatively well-defined group of individuals emerged as the leading arbitrators at the International Chamber of Commerce. These individuals— the “secant marginals”—succeeded in constructing a cooperative interface (rather than competition) between otherwise separate legal systems and professions. In doing so, they created the conditions necessary for the emergence of a new transnational legal profession. At a more general level, the article proposes an alternative narrative of globalization, wherein actors operating at the intersection of various systems, create new arenas of governance on the basis of inter-system cooperation.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Disappearing island states present tip-of-the-iceberg problems for international refugee law in the Anthropocene. Coastal recissions and global inundation prospects adumbrate an assortment of environmental challenges that call into question the relevance of the Refugee Convention. Understanding the limitations of refugee law and its inability or unwillingness to confront extant gaps within its regime structure, and emergent challenges posed by climate change, require a reconsideration of the telluric underpinnings of sovereignty and the nature of the threat posed by exigent human migration. This Article employs the concept of nomos projected by the problematic but increasingly significant twentieth century international lawyer, Carl Schmitt. His biogeographic understanding of international law, inextricably tethered to the organic formation of ‘true law’ through land appropriation within the context of European history, explains limitations in international refugee law that the liberal order must first confront in order to fully operationalize the grand scheme to reframe displacement issues projected by the coming 2018 UN Global Compact on Migration.
Björn P. Ebert analyses forum shopping in international investment law. He focuses on investment treaty and investment contract arbitration, and concludes that forum shopping is legal and legitimate as long as it is not subject to particular limitations derived from applicable law. He assumes that forum shopping is generally a legitimate procedural technique that both parties to the dispute may employ in order to maximise the protection offered to international investment by international law. To validate the underlying thesis, the author analyses and differentiates between different manifestations of forum shopping. The main manifestations are categorised in three categories: forum planning, forum enhancement, and facilitation of procedure. Each category contains different forum shopping techniques. Björn P. Ebert examines and defines limitations for each category, as well as the manifestations of forum shopping that are assigned to them. He thereby addresses several issues of international investment arbitration that are essential to the perceived problem of forum shopping.
Has the Brighton Declaration produced a New Deal on European human rights by assigning a new and more central role to national legal and political institutions and by demanding greater subsidiarity? Against the backdrop of a systematic exploration of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), this article concludes that, after the Brighton Declaration, the ECtHR is indeed providing more subsidiarity. The Court now makes greater use of the terms ‘margin of appreciation’ and ‘wide(r) margin’, particularly regarding two areas of law: Article 8 on the right to privacy and Article 35 on access to the Court. However, as the article further demonstrates, this increase in subsidiarity is not conferred on all Member States equally. The old, Western Member States are generally the greatest beneficiaries of the ECtHR’s new jurisprudential directions. But the analysis also demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the most vocal critics of the system are not given preferential treatment. A final, more general conclusion that follows from these findings is that the ECtHR is receptive to political signals and does not, as is often claimed, operate in a political vacuum. Although currently merely soft law documents, the Brighton Declaration and its associated Protocols, by precipitating change at the Court, have achieved exactly what they set out to do. This has theoretical implications for the understanding of the evolution of international courts.
- Graham Dutfield, TK unlimited: The emerging but incoherent international law of traditional knowledge protection
- Morten Walløe Tvedt & Ellen-Marie Forsberg, The room for ethical considerations in patent law applied to biotechnology
- Rami Olwan, The ratification and implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty for visually impaired persons in the Arab Gulf States
- Olga Gurgula, Monopoly v. Openness: Two sides of IP coin in the pharmaceutical industry
- Fran Humphries, A patent defence approach to sharing aquaculture genetic resources across jurisdictional areas
- Harilal Madhavan, Below the radar innovations and emerging property right approaches in Tibetan medicine
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
- Dianne Otto, Introduction: Embracing Queer Curiosity
- Rahul Rao, A Tale of Two Atonements
- Doris Buss & Blair Rutherford, ‘Dangerous Desires’: Illegality, Sexuality, and the Global Governance of Artisanal Mining
- Monika Zalnieriute, The Anatomy of Neoliberal Internet Governance: A Queer Critical Political Economy Perspective
- Vanja Hamzić, International Law as Violence: Competing Absences of the Other
- Tamsin Phillipa Paige, The Maintenance of International Peace and Security Heteronormativity
- Maria Elander, In Spite: Testifying to Sexual and Gender Based Violence during the Khmer Rouge period
- Ratna Kapur, The Im/possibility of Queering Human Rights
- Aeyal Gross, Homoglobalism: The Emergence of Global Gay Governance
- Anniken Sørlie, Governing (Trans)Parenthood – The Tenacious hold of Biological Connection and Heterosexuality
- Bina Fernandez, Queer Border Crossers: Pragmatic Complicities, Indiscretions and Subversions
- Nan Seuffert, Queering International Law’s Stories of Origin: Hospitality and Homophobia
- Diane Otto, Resisting the Heteronormative Imaginary of the Nation State: Rethinking Kinship and Border Protection
While legitimacy dynamics are paramount in global governance, they have been insufficiently recognized, conceptualized, and explained in standard accounts of international cooperation. This special issue aims to spearhead the empirical study of legitimacy and legitimation in global governance. It addresses the overarching question of when, how, and why international organizations (IOs) gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy in world politics. It engages with this question comparatively, mapping and explaining patterns in legitimacy and legitimation across multiple dimensions. In this introduction, we first conceptualize legitimacy as the belief that an IO’s authority is appropriately exercised, and legitimation and delegitimation as processes of justification and contestation intended to shape such beliefs. We then theorize sources of variation in legitimation processes and legitimacy beliefs, with a particular focus on the authority, procedures, and performances of IOs. Finally, we describe the methods used to empirically study legitimacy and legitimation, and preview the articles of the special issue in the context of the broader research problems they address.
Zielonka: Der Ausgleich zwischen Investorenschutz- und Regulierungsinteressen in internationalen Investitionsschutzabkommen
Wie können Staaten zur Sicherstellung ihres right to regulate ihr jeweiliges Verständnis eines angemessenen Ausgleichs zwischen Investorenschutz- und Regulierungsinteressen in einer Neuen Generation von Investitionsschutzabkommen verankern? Werden diese vertraglichen Vorgaben in künftigen Investor-Staat-Verfahren Beachtung finden oder sind sie vergebliche oder gar risikoträchtige Bemühungen? Entgegen pessimistischerer Stimmen sind in diese Prognose und die Bewertung der vertraglichen Gestaltungsoptionen die gewandelten Interessenslagen der Akteure und die Entwicklung der Schiedspraxis infolge eines massiven, vielfältigen und ausdauernden Widerspruchs gegen eine immer expansivere Auslegung des Investorenschutzes einzubeziehen.
So belegt die Analyse der Schiedspraxis zu indirekten Enteignungen um zum Fair and Equitable Standard, dass dieser Widerspruch in Teilen bereits das bewirkt hat, was die Gestaltungsbemühungen bezwecken: Eine Rekalibrierung zugunsten staatlicher Regulierungsinteressen. Dies spricht dafür, dass vertragliche Präzisierungen, mit denen fortbestehende Auslegungsunsicherheiten ausgeräumt werden sollten, auch zukünftig bei den Schiedsgerichten nicht auf taube Ohren stoßen werden.
- Special Section: International Law and Disasters
- Marie Aronsson-Storrier & Karen da Costa, Regulating disasters? The role of international law in disaster prevention and management
- Marie Aronsson-Storrier, Sanitation, human rights and disaster management
- Marlies Hesselman & Lottie Lane, Disasters and non-state actors – human rights-based approaches
- Karen da Costa, Corporate accountability in the Samarco chemical sludge disaster
- Ronan McDermott, Charlotte Luelf, Laura Hofmann, & Pat Gibbons, International law applicable to urban conflict and disaster
The capture and confinement of human beings has been—and remains—a central feature of warfare and periods of mass violence both within and between nation-states and among non-state actors. Prisoners apprehended and held during times of conflict—whether military or political—have been both blessing and curse to their keepers. While often valued as cheap labor and lucrative bargaining chips, the high costs—economic, social, political, and environmental—associated with mass imprisonment continue to challenge even the best organized bureaucratic states. This conference seeks to explore these historical and contemporary dynamics across geographic time and space. We welcome interdisciplinary scholarship on topics including, but not limited to, the following:
- Prisoner of war camps
- Prison towns
- Civilian prisoners in wartime
- Political imprisonment
- Prison culture
- Prison violence
- Treatment of prisoners
- Prison labor in wartime
- Race, class, gender, and prison in wartime
- Prison architecture and design
- Environmental impacts of mass imprisonment
The one-day conference—the fifth annual of an ongoing series—will be held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, located at 365 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, on Friday, May 11, 2018. We envision a program free of geographical, chronological, or methodological restraints. Individual paper proposals of no more than 300 words and a short CV should be sent to Clarence (Jeff) Hall (email@example.com) and Sarah Danielsson (firstname.lastname@example.org) no later than December 15, 2017. Accepted presenters will be notified in early 2018. Interested presenters may also be considered for publication in an anthology tentatively scheduled for 2019.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Tallberg, Lundgren, Sommerer, & Squatrito: Explaining Policy Norm Adoption by International Organizations
Recent decades have witnessed the emergence, spread, and adoption of a broad range of new policy norms in global governance, among them sustainable development, gender equality, and human security. While existing scholarship can tell us a lot about the specific trajectories of each of these norms, we know little about the broader patterns and sources of norm adoption by international organizations (IOs). This paper offers the first comparative large-N analysis of the spread and adoption of policy norms among IOs. Theoretically, we develop a diffusion argument, focused on prior adoption of norms among peers of IOs, while also assessing the influence of independent factors. Empirically, the paper maps and explains the spread of eight policy norms across 27 IOs over the time period 1980 to 2015 based on a unique dataset. The analysis establishes that variation in norm adoption across IOs is explained mainly by a combination of three factors: the fit between an IO’s policy mandate and the norm; prior adoption of a norm by IOs in the same issue area; and prior adoption of a norm by IOs with overlapping memberships. Norm adoption clearly involves diffusion, but also strong issue area determinacy. These findings have important implications for research on norms, diffusion, and IOs.
- Jens David Ohlin, Remoteness and Reciprocal Risk
- Emily Crawford, The Principle of Distinction and Remote Warfare
- Robert Heinsch, Modern Drone Warfare and the Geographical Scope of Application of IHL: Pushing the Limits of Territorial Boundaries
- Anthony Cullen, The Characterisation of Remote Warfare under International Humanitarian Law
- Gloria Gaggioli, Remoteness and Human Rights Law
- Mark Klamberg, Exploiting Legal Thresholds, Fault-Lines and Gaps in the Context of Remote Warfare
- Nigel D. White & Lydia Davies-Bright, Drone Strikes: A Remote Form of Self-Defence?
- Geoffrey Corn, Drone Warfare and the Erosion of Traditional Limits on War Powers
- William C. Banks, Developing Norms for Cyber Conflict
- Terry D. Gill, Jelle van Haaster, & Mark Roorda, Some Legal and Operational Considerations Regarding Remote Warfare: Drones and Cyber Warfare Revisited
- Ian S. Henderson, Patrick Keane & Josh Liddy, Remote and Autonomous Warfare Systems: Precautions in Attack and Individual Accountability
- Robin Geiß & Henning Lahmann, Autonomous Weapons Systems: A Paradigm Shift for the Law of Armed Conflict
- Peter Margulies, Making Autonomous Targeting Accountable: Command Responsibility for Computer-Guided Lethal Force in Armed Conflicts
- Michael W. Meier, The Strategic Implications of Lethal Autonomous Weapons
This contribution seeks to lay bare some of the main conceptual, theoretical, and normative constructions that have informed the rise of the doctrine of statehood into one of the fundamental doctrines of international law and allowed it to continue to prove most influential in contemporary international legal discourses. In doing so, this contribution will make the point that the doctrine of statehood has been shaped by both modern and post-colonial heritages. It will be shown that the main components of the doctrine of statehood are very modern in that they are directly inherited from liberal legal thought. It will simultaneously be demonstrated that it is only in the second half of the 20th century, and more precisely in the wake of the start of the decolonisation process, that all these modern components were assembled and organised in order to compose what is known today as the doctrine of statehood.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Scholars have long argued that international institutions solve information problems through increased transparency. This article introduces a distinct problem that instead requires such institutions keep information secret. We argue that states often seek to reveal intelligence about other states’ violations of international rules and laws but are deterred by concerns about revealing the sources and methods used to collect it. Properly equipped international institutions, however, can mitigate these dilemmas by analyzing and acting on sensitive information while protecting it from wide disclosure. Using new data on intelligence sharing with the International Atomic Energy Agency and analyses of the full universe of nuclear proliferation cases, we demonstrate that reforms that strengthened the Agency’s intelligence safeguarding capabilities led to greater intelligence-sharing and fewer nuclear-related transgressions. However, our theory suggests that solving these dilemmas provides informed states with a subtle form of influence that creates tension with the normative goal of international transparency.
- Shucheng Wang, Tripartite Freedom of Religion in China: An Illiberal Perspective
- Rachel Wahl, No Justice, No Peace?: The Police, People of Color, and the Paradox of Protecting Human Rights
- Lutz Oette, Document and Analyze: The Legacy of Klemperer, Fraenkel, and Neumann for Contemporary Human Rights Engagement
- Gwilym David Blunt, Is There a Human Right to Resistance?
- Eva Brems, Corina Heri, Saïla Ouald Chaib, & Lieselot Verdonck, Head-Covering Bans in Belgian Courtrooms and Beyond: Headscarf Persecution and the Complicity of Supranational Courts
- Safia Swimelar, The Journey of LGBT Rights: Norm Diffusion and its Challenges in EU Seeking States: Bosnia and Serbia
- Valentina Carraro, The United Nations Treaty Bodies and Universal Periodic Review: Advancing Human Rights by Preventing Politicization?
This seminar concerns the backlash against International Criminal Law in Africa and addresses
- Whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) is able to prosecute acting Heads of State and if so, on whose request (immunities).
- The African Union’s resistance to ICC jurisdiction over Heads of African States and objection to ICC universal jurisdiction.
- The withdrawal of African states from the ICC and what that means to the ICC and International Criminal Law in general.
- How to move forward from the crisis of the relationship between the ICC and African states.
- Benoît Mayer & François Crépeau, Introduction
- Robert McLeman, Climate-related migration and its linkages to vulnerability, adaptation, and socio-economic inequality: evidence from recent examples
- Calum T.M. Nicholson, ‘Climate-induced migration’: ways forward in the face of an intrinsically equivocal concept
- Carol Farbotko, Representation and misrepresentation of climate migrants Christel Cournil, The inadequacy of international refugee law in response to environmental migration
- Elizabeth Ferris, The relevance of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement for the climate change-migration nexus
- Siobhán McInerney-Lankford, Climate Change, Human Rights and Migration: A Legal Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities
- Ademola Oluborode Jegede, Indigenous peoples, climate migration and international human rights law in Africa, with reflections on the relevance of the Kampala Convention
- Maxine Burkett, International Climate Change Law Perspectives
- Sébastien Jodoin, Kathryn Hansen & Caylee Hong, Displacement Due to Responses to Climate Change: The Role of a Rights-Based Approach
- Benoit Mayer, Climate change, migration and the law of State responsibility
- Erika Pires Ramos & Fernanda de Salles Cavedon Capdeville, Regional responses to climate change and migration in Latin America
- Gervais Appave, Alice Sironi, Mariam Traore Chazalnoel, Dina Ionesco & Daria Mokhnacheva, Organizational perspectives: International Organization for Migration’s role and perspectives on climate change, migration and the law
- Sophia Kagan, Meredith Byrne & Michelle Leighton, Organizational Perspective from the International Labour Organization
- Alex Randall, Engaging the media on climate-linked migration
- Katrina M. Wyman, Ethical Duties to Climate Migrants
- Chloé Anne Vlassopoulos, When climate-induced migration meets loss and damage: a weakening agenda-setting process?
- François Gemenne, The refugees of the Anthropocene
- Frank Biermann & Ingrid Boas, Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Climate Migrants: Taking Stock
- Ilona Millar & Kylie Wilson, Towards a Climate Change Displacement Facility
- Susan F. Martin, Towards an extension of complementary protection?
- James C. Hathaway, Afterword
Sunday, November 5, 2017
The Editors of the Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) and the Conference Convenors welcome submissions for the Cambridge International Law Conference 2018, which will be held at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge on the 3rd and 4th of April 2018.
This year, the Conference invites the submission of papers under the theme ‘Non-State Actors and International Law’. In addition to scholarly research which looks generally at armed groups, civil society, and transnational corporations in international law, the Conference is particularly interested in papers which explore the role of social media actors, as well as those which consider intersections with the economy, development, and society. Papers which fall within the broad spectrum of the Conference and which offer new perspectives and conceptualisations of the theme are also highly welcome.
Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be submitted together with your CV (separately uploaded) via Submittable by Friday, 8 December 2017.
Successful applicants will be notified by email by Friday, 12 January 2018. The authors of selected papers will be required to submit a 2,000-word extended abstract to email@example.com by Friday, 23 February 2018.
Authors who present at the Conference will also be invited to submit their papers to be considered for publication in Volume 7(2), the conference issue of the Journal, to be published in December 2018, subject to the normal double-blind peer-review process. Authors will be contacted about this after the Conference.
Further information will be posted on the CILJ website in due course. In the interim, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or concerns.
- Karsten Nowrot & Emily Sipiorski, Competing Narratives of Global (De-)Constitutionalization in International Investment Law: Identifying Narrators and the Stories They Tell
- Eckart Klein, Zum (völker-)rechtlichen Unter- und Hintergrund von Menschenrechtsverträgen – Gibt es ein menschenrechtliches corpus iuris? –
- Beiträge und Berichte
- Marten Breuer, Das Rechtsfolgenregime des diplomatischen Schutzes unter dem Einfluss der Menschenrechte
- Shu-Perng Hwang, Trägt die (begrenzte) Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit als Verfassungsprinzip zum Ausgleich zwischen internationaler Zusammenarbeit und nationaler Souveränität bei?