The chapter argues that the traditional trinity of global constitutionalism can and should be extended to cover a fourth, a social limb. Just as national constitutionalism has embraced the social question, global constitutionalism needs to do the same in times of globalisation fatigue. To this end, global constitutionalism can build on and push further important trends in our post 2015-international legal order, notably the emerging cross-border social responsibility for individuals. The study of inter- and transnational social law standards and entitlements through the lens of global constitutionalism facilitates cross-fertilisation between social and liberal constitutional principles and works against playing those dimensions out against each other in a false competition.
By absorbing the social question, global constitutionalism can mitigate its neo-liberal tilt, and it is rescued from being reduced to a project to deepen the power of capital and to extend a market civilization in which the transnational investor is the principal political subject. With such a renovation from within, global constitutionalism can form part of a fresh ‘post-neoliberal imagination’ of international law.
This book analyses the exercise of authority by the UN Security Council and its subsidiary organs over individuals. The UN Security Council was created in 1945 as an outcome of World War II under the predominant assumption that it exercises its authority against states. Under this assumption, the UN Security Council and those individuals were ‘distanced’ by the presence of member states that intermediate between the Security Council’s international commands and those individuals that are subject to member states’ domestic law. However, in practice, the UN Security Council’s exercise of authority has incrementally removed the presence of state intermediaries and reduced the Security Council’s distance to individuals.
This book demonstrates that this phenomenon has increased the relevance of domestic law in developing the international normative frameworks governing the UN Security Council and its subsidiary organs in safeguarding the rights, obligations, and interests of those affected individuals. This book presents how the UN Security Council’s exercise of authority has been received at the domestic level, and what would be the international implications of the Security Council’s extensive encounter with the actors who primarily reside in a domestic legal order.
Quelle réalité recouvre l’émergence en droit international ? Dans quelle mesure ce phénomène contribue-t-il à l’évolution du discours sur le droit international, voire même à l’évolution des règles de droit international ? Alors qu’elle est devenue un thème récurrent de l’étude des relations internationales et des sciences économiques, l’émergence suscite de nombreuses interrogations en droit international auxquelles le présent ouvrage essaie d’ apporter quelques réponses.
Les contributeurs cherchent ainsi à mieux saisir la place et le positionnement des pays émergents dans les principaux domaines de la discipline (droits de l’homme, droit de l’environnement, droit international économique). Outre la délimitation des contours de la notion d’émergence, il s’agit de s’interroger sur le regard que portent les Etats relevant de cette catégorie sur les normes juridiques internationales, notamment au travers des positions qu’ils adoptent au sein des institutions internationales. D’autre part, il s’agit d’évaluer comment les autres Etats réagissent aux positions adoptées par les pays émergents et, plus largement, de déterminer dans quelle mesure les règles de droit international permettent à ces Etats d’émerger. Ce faisant, les analyses pluridisciplinaires proposées offrent un éclairage nouveau sur la réalité et sur les effets de la catégorie « pays émergents » dans l’ordre international contemporain.
Das völkerrechtliche Institut der dauernden Neutralität als Chance oder Bürde einer jungen Republik? Österreich erhält im Jahr 1955 mit dem Staatsvertrag von Wien seine volle Souveränität zurück. Davor verpflichtete sich Österreich im Moskauer Memorandum zur immerwährenden Neutralität. Die völkerrechtliche Studie zeigt, wie die österreichische Politik, Wissenschaft und Bevölkerung versucht, die Neutralität zu definieren und einen Platz in Europa und der Internationalen Staatengemeinschaft zu finden. Die Analyse zeigt, wie sich die Semantik und die Funktionen der Neutralität im Beobachtungszeitraum gewandelt haben, wie sich das Neutralitätsbewusstsein der ÖsterreicherInnen verändert hat, welche Wechselwirkungen es zwischen innen- und außenpolitischen Ereignissen und der Reaktion der Völkerrechtswissenschaft gegeben hat und nicht zuletzt, wie die immerwährende Neutralität Österreichs definiert wurde und welche Bedeutung ihr nach wie vor zukommt.
CFP: Challenging the Liberal World Order:
The History of the Global South, Decolonization and the United Nations,
1955-2000.
Leiden University, 8-9 May 2018
Keynote Speaker: Vijay Prashad (Trinity College, Connecticut)
The United Nations is the central node in the system of global governance, organizing and managing the interaction and cooperation of the organs and specialized agencies of the institution with NGOs, corporate and civil society actors and increasingly, the global public. Despite the important role of the UN in this nexus, existing histories of the organization place an emphasis on the role of Western actors and often overlook the agency of countries from the Global South. This workshop will investigate how individuals, organizations, civil society actors and states from the Global South impacted upon the UN and the system of global governance in the latter half of the 20th century as they expanded the meaning of decolonization to address a range of North/South inequalities.
Significance of workshop:
From the moment of its inception, counties from the Global South began to organize in formal and informal groups around specific issues at the UN, an organization that was perceived as being full of promise for the construction of a more equitable and just world order. Through discussions and public debates in the General Assembly, and in the corridors and working groups of the UN, the campaign for decolonization became the primary focus of countries from Africa and Asia. As more countries became independent, the decolonization movement shifted from the assertion of sovereignty and the right to self-determination, to a host of other claims for a broad range of social, economic and political rights. Alongside Latin American countries and smaller neutral nations, the African and Asian groups and the Afro-Asian bloc cooperated at the UN on a range of issues from economic development to human rights, to the struggle against apartheid. The workshop seeks to analyze this cooperation to trace the way this dynamic activity changed the UN and impacted upon the various issues around which the Global South groups came together through issue based alliances and solidarity networks.
In recent years the historical role of international organizations has been the subject of increased attention from historians seeking to reassess their role in shaping the global order. Leading historians from Mark Mazower to Matthew Connolly have encouraged scholars to ‘take off the Cold War lens’ in analyzing international institutions and their impact on local, national and international politics. Others, such as Susan Pedersen have reminded us about the long-term significance of organizations in functioning as networked platforms and agents of international change. Drawing on this scholarship, the workshop will invite proposals which take innovative views of the UN as a space for international and transnational cooperation, a dynamic forum which reveals interactions between the Global South and the West as the latter tried to challenge the liberal world order leading to the resurgence of UN activism from 1990-2000.
This workshop will consider a variety of contributions using sources from empirical research while also taking account of interdisciplinary reflections on the historical role of international organizations from a transnational and global perspective. Topics may include:
- The emergence of ‘Third-Worldism’;
- How decolonization interacted with the Cold War at the UN;
- The evolution of the Afro-Asian Bloc and cooperation between the African and Asian groups;
- Economic Development, NIEO, UNCTAD, etc.;
- The response of the major powers to Global South demands for reform;
- The role of Global South countries in the campaign for human rights;
- The dynamism of Latin American states at the UN;
- The role of UN officials and the UN Secretariat;
- The participation of non-state actors and NGOs;
- The influence of officials from the Global South across these dimensions;
- The formation and import of transnational groups such as the G77 and the Non-Aligned movement;
- South-South and South-Soviet interactions;
- The resuscitation of the UN in 1990.
The workshop will take place from 8-9 May with a Keynote Lecture from Vijay Prashad during the afternoon of 8 May followed by a selection of workshop panels on 9 May. Adopting a different format in order to allow for more panels, there will be no formal presentations of work but a commentator will give a brief reflection of the papers to kick-off each panel. In this way it is hope that all participants will read the papers and a deep discussion will follow.
Submission of abstracts
Please send an abstract of max. 500 words and a short CV to the following email address: a.m.omalley@hum.leidenuniv.nl by 1 January 2018. Authors will be notified regarding the acceptance of their contribution by 31 January. Invited speakers will be expected to submit a draft paper 1 month prior to the event, which will be circulated among all other participants. Some funding will be available for travel and accommodation.
Contact Info:Alanna O'Malley
Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Contact Email: a.m.omalley@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Presidents have come to dominate the making, interpretation, and termination of international law for the United States. Often without specific congressional concurrence, and sometimes even when it is likely that Congress would disagree, the President has developed the authority to:
- make a vast array of international obligations for the United States, through both written agreements and the development of customary international law;
- make increasingly consequential political commitments for the United States on practically any topic;
- interpret these obligations and commitments; and
- terminate or withdraw from these obligations and commitments.
While others have examined pieces of this picture, no one has considered the picture as a whole. For this and other reasons, commentators have failed to appreciate the overall extent of presidential unilateralism in this area, as well as the extent to which presidents are able to shift between different pathways of authority in order to circumvent potential restraints. This trend, moreover, has become more pronounced in recent years.
In many ways, the growth of this vast executive control over international law resembles the rise of presidential power in other modern contexts ranging from administrative law to covert action. Unlike in those other contexts, however, there is no systematic regulatory or judicial apparatus to guide or review the exercise of presidential discretion in this context. This is true even though international law often plays a significant role in the U.S. legal system and has direct and indirect effects on U.S. institutions and persons. After presenting a descriptive account of the rise of presidential control over international law, the Article turns to normative issues. It argues that, although much of this practice has a plausible legal foundation, some recent presidential actions relating to international agreements, and some supportive claims made by commentators, are questionable in light of generally accepted principles relating to the separation of powers. It also explains why presidential control over international law should become significantly more transparent, and it considers the costs and benefits of additional accountability reforms.
The latest issue of Global Trade and Customs Journal (Vol. 12, nos. 11/12, 2017) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (Vol. 16, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:
Challenges to the Liberal World Order
A Call for Papers for the 75th Anniversary Issue of International Organization
David A. Lake, Lisa L. Martin, and Thomas Risse
We invite proposals for papers for a special issue to celebrate the 75th anniversary of International Organization. The deadline is March 15, 2018. We are reaching out broadly to the global International Relations community. Please feel free to forward this call to colleagues who you believe are well suited to contribute to the special issue.
Scope of the Special Issue
IO grew up with and has been deeply engaged in studying what has been called the post-World War II, liberal or Western international order. Liberal elements of the world order include principles such as respect for human rights, democracy, economic freedom, and multilateralism. IO was founded to document and analyze the United Nations, which stood at the core of the initial vision of a postwar order. The journal broadened its focus empirically and analytically as that order evolved into an open world economy composed of multiple international regimes that helped produce unprecedented peace and prosperity. IO further expanded its purview as the liberal international order spawned a global civil society and heterogeneous forms of governance.
Today, the international order faces new challenges, both inside its Western core and outside it. Driven in part by rising economic inequality, populism and economic nationalism in the United States and Europe threaten support for the free movement of goods, capital, and people across international borders, as well as multilateralism and multilateral institutions more generally. Brexit both reflects unease with the European Union and challenges the union itself by the defection of one of its major members. Parts of the international order that never bought into liberal principles, or that were never allowed to participate fully in the Western order, offer increasingly prominent alternative organizing principles.
Moreover, the Western triumphalism immediately following the end of the Cold War has been replaced by increasing challenges to core principles and features of the liberal order. Peace and stability are threatened by Russian authoritarianism and revanchism, as in Ukraine, social unrest and civil war in the greater Middle East, terrorism, and the problem of ungoverned spaces more generally. On top of these challenges, the legitimacy of U.S. leadership, multilateralism, and international organizations are increasingly called into question by nationalists and autocratic regimes worried about the loss of sovereignty. The Chinese development model of autocratic state capitalism calls into question the liberal mantra that capitalist development, human rights, and democracy have to go together. Global leadership will be shared by liberal, democratic, capitalist states with countries espousing state-capitalism and autocratic systems. Last not least, on the global level, climate change poses a nearly unprecedented challenge to all nations and the system of global governance, revealing the inadequacy of multilateral institutions in the face of opposition from individual members, as well as highlighting the increasingly prominent role of private regulatory authorities.
The liberal international order has survived past periods of challenge. It may well prove resilient. But current challenges do raise important questions that scholars need to reflect upon and that will shape the agenda of the field of international relations in the decades ahead. The special issue, we hope, will serve to help define that agenda. The role of IO in promoting the study of multilateralism and international governance makes the 75th anniversary of this journal the ideal time to reflect on another round of fundamental challenges to the international order.
Papers
We seek papers for the 75th anniversary special issue that are: 1) problem-driven, in the sense that they begin with and focus on current challenges to the liberal international order; 2) theory-driven, with the aim to assess what our theories tell us about the challenges and, importantly, what elements of these challenges are “missed†by our theories; and 3) agenda-setting, not stock-taking papers but efforts to define the research agenda for the future.
A paper on climate change, for instance, might briefly sketch the scope of the problem, familiar to many of us, identify what current theories get right or importantly get wrong about cooperation and governance on climate change, and how theory must change to capture more accurately or fully the challenge. We imagine each paper will take up a different challenge, defined by the author, and we will seek to address a broad array of issues. The editorial team will provide an introduction to the volume as a way to emphasize the holistic nature of this issue.
We hope to include papers from authors outside the usual IO community who can reflect on the field of international relations in general, ideally identifying blind spots that have prevented us from anticipating or fully understanding current challenges. In this context, we would particularly encourage submissions by authors from other disciplines (e.g. economics, sociology, law, social anthropology, geography) and from outside North America and Europe. Our goal is to incentivize authors to write papers that otherwise would not be written. We welcome coauthored submissions. Understanding challenges to the liberal order requires that we better understand parts of the world, or issue-areas, that were never fully integrated into a liberal framework. Thus, we also envision including one or more contributions that focus on alternative visions of world order.
Procedures
Scholars interested in writing a paper for the anniversary issue should submit a short precis of no more than three pages by March 15, 2018. Each precis should identify the problem or issue to be addressed, what theories and approaches will be reviewed, and the vision of a future research agenda. From these extended abstracts, we will invite authors to develop longer memos, which will then be discussed at an initial workshop in September 2018 at UC San Diego. After the workshop, a limited and select number of authors will be invited to develop full papers for presentation at a conference tentatively scheduled for June 2019 at the Freie Universität Berlin.
After the Berlin conference, papers will be selected for revision and submission as part of the special issue to IO and undergo the usual review process for special issues.
Interested authors should be aware that at no stage of this selection process is there a guarantee that any paper will progress to the next stage. The IO editorial team also reserves the right to demand revisions and to reject papers based on peer reviews. Accepted papers would go into production in Fall 2020 to appear in Volume 75, sometime in 2021.
Paper proposals should be submitted here.
Timeline
Winter 2018: Call for papers
March 15, 2018: Submission deadline for precis
Sept. 2018: First authors’ workshop in San Diego (based on extended memos)
June 2019: Second authors’ workshop in Berlin, Germany (discussion of draft papers)
Fall 2019: Submission of papers to IO for review process
Fall 2020: Accepted papers in production for special issue per IO vol. 75, 2021
David A. Lake (UC San Diego)
Lisa L. Martin (University of Wisconsin)
Thomas Risse (Freie Universität)
The latest issue of the International Organizations Law Review (Vol. 14, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:
The 2018 Research Forum addresses challenges to the international legal order emanating from dynamics of disengagement from multilateral governance, a perceived erosion of support by states and other stakeholders in existing international institutions, contestation of universal values, shifts in hegemonic power at the global and regional level, and the rise in populist, antiliberal, anti-institutional and isolationist political sentiments in various regions of the world. Such processes occur in tandem with growing concerns about the suitability of the existing international legal structures and approaches to address global phenomena such as migration, cyber-security threats and climate change, and to influence the conduct of non-state actors such as corporations. It is the combination of the ‘re-emergence of the state’ from out of the shadows of multilateralism and international governance, a growing discontent and backlash from multiple sectors of society directed against existing international norms and institutions and the limited ability of the latter to address serious contemporary problems, which generate a sense of crisis and a possible plunge towards world disorder (Although, it may also be claimed that the current state of affairs creates new opportunities for introducing much needed reforms in international law).
Complexity thinking underscores that, while international law must provide stability to interactions around global climate change, it must also be flexible and highly adaptable. But what are the implications of this functional imperative for the international rule of law? The emergence and evolution of the UN climate regime lends itself to exploring the trajectory of international law in its encounter with complexity. For present purposes, the perhaps most significant trend in international environmental law-making has been the rise of a spectrum of more or less formal amendment processes, and of various modes of informal standard-setting under the auspices of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Is this rise of informality indicative of a decline of the international rule of law? The paper pursues the argument that the “hard” vs. “soft” law distinction is not the most salient metric when it comes to exploring the trajectory of the international rule of law. It begins by highlighting the main features of climate change as a complex policy challenge. Next, drawing on the interactional account of international law developed elsewhere by Brunnée and Toope, it identifies key traits of legality and the rule of law in the international context. It then explores the evolution of customary, “soft” and treaty-based international environmental law. It focuses primarily on how treaty-based law has evolved to grapple with complexity on the one hand, and with meeting the demands of the rule of law on the other. The 2015 Paris Agreement, adopted under the auspices of the FCCC and employing an unprecedented range of legal “modes,” provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on this question.
I advance and test a theoretical argument of how participation in UN peacekeeping affects the likelihood of coup attempts in troop-contributing countries (TCCs). The argument highlights the interplay between the economic incentives of militaries in poor TCCs and the UN’s preference for contributors with stable civil-military relations. Fearing the loss of UN reimbursement funds, militaries for which such funds are important will avoid visible acts of military insubordination, such as coup attempts, that would place their future participation in UN peacekeeping at risk. I test this proposition against time-series cross-sectional data on 157 countries in the 1991–2013 period using panel regression and matching. The data show that countries where the armed forces are more dependent on peacekeeping revenues experience fewer coup attempts than comparable peers, even when taking coup-proofing measures and other alternative explanations into account. I also find that the coup-restraining effect is only observed in periods where member states contribute enough troops to award the UN a real choice over alternative contributors. The study introduces a novel theoretic logic, presents empirical results at odds with the existing literature, and suggests important policy implications with regard to UN vetting and standards for troop-contributing countries.
The starting point for this paper is the problem of limited individual access to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights under Article 5(3) and Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the Court. While such a restriction imposed upon its personal jurisdiction is a standard element of political constraint introduced by states to protect their interests, it is argued that the aforementioned provisions may be also perceived differently, namely as constituting a platform enabling dialogue between the judicial organ and the sovereigns. It is asserted in particular that judges of the Court may stimulate expansion of the individual access striking a fair balance between the tendency to interpret human rights obligations of the states progressively and the relevant policy considerations echoing the more conservative approach in their perception of human rights. The paper presents such a judicial tactic as reflecting a particular environment of the international society and possibly remaining in line with international law of treaty interpretation and judicial impartiality.
In the Shadow of Vitoria: A History of International Law in Spain (1770-1953) offers the first comprehensive treatment of the intellectual evolution of international law in Spain from the late 18th century to the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral recounts the history of the two ‘renaissances’ of Francisco de Vitoria and the Spanish Classics of International Law and contextualizes the ideological glorification of the Salamanca School by Franco’s international lawyers. Historical excursuses on the intellectual evolution of international law in the US and the UK complement the neglected history of international law in Spain from the first empire in history on which the sun never set to a diminished and fascistized national-Catholicist state.
The proposed African Criminal Court, which will form part of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights, is designed to be complementary to national courts in Africa, as well as to sub-regional courts with criminal jurisdiction. This book chapter analyzes the complementarity provision of the statute of the proposed court, which largely replicates article 17 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It seeks to elucidate the likely relationship between the proposed African Court and the ICC, as well as between the African Court and national and regional courts in Africa. The chapter then addresses the normative question of how the proposed African Court should interact with these other institutions. While a great deal of theoretical work remains to be done in this area, the chapter suggests that as regional and sub-regional criminal courts such as the proposed African Court emerge, they should not be viewed as forming a jurisdictional hierarchy, with national courts at the top and the ICC at the bottom, but rather as providing a menu of adjudicative options. Jurisdictional priority should be decided by balancing a range of factors from practical considerations such as ease of obtaining evidence and custody, to defendants’ rights. Particular attention should be paid to the interests of each institution’s constitutive community in adjudicating a particular case. In this way, national, regional, and international criminal courts can truly complement each other.
The volume offers a concept of transnational corporate groups for international criminal law. It thus fills a gap in the discussion about criminalising corporate behaviour. Drawing from international law, EU competition law, UK and US law and economic theory, it defines a transnational corporate group as an economic entity and thus potential addressee of international criminal law if the parent has the power to control its subsidiaries and it also exercises this power. The book adds a company law perspective. It provides a uniform, independent and economically sound concept of business entities, aiming at adding clarity as to what a transnational corporate group is and according to which criteria it may be defined. The criteria are derived from a comparative in-depth analysis of transnational, overarching structural elements found in main legal orders. They are synthesised in a detailed set of criteria emphasising and describing substantial and effective control mechanisms.
This Article discusses the constitutional turn in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ recent jurisprudence, exemplified in the adoption of the conventionality control doctrine. Building on previous work and inquiring for the first time into the legal theory of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, who created the doctrine, I show that conventionality control lacks solid legal footing and reveals a problematic understanding of the Court as a regional constitutional tribunal. I propose, therefore, an alternative account of the doctrine that rests more on state practice. Reviewing how two states, Peru and Argentina, have internalised the Inter-American Court’s case law on amnesty laws—a prominent feature of the Court’s jurisprudence—I argue that the Court should embrace such domestic developments to, first, provide a robust justification for its assertion of international authority; and second, to strengthen the Court in the face of increasing challenges and criticisms raised by states and other actors.
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
Regional Conference of the Brazilian and Portuguese Branches of the International Law Association
The Brazilian and Portuguese Branches of the International Law Association, in conjunction with the Jean Monnet Chair, are pleased to invite professors and those who have finished at least one postgraduate degree to submit abstracts for their 2018 Regional Conference. The conference will be held in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, from May 23rd to May 25th, 2018, at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Abstracts must not exceed 2500 characters and must be submitted to the following e-mail: regionalconference2018@gmail.com until December 20th, 2017. An updated resumé should also be included. Preference will be given to abstracts concerning the following subjects:
Decisions will be made by January 10, 2018. Authors of accepted abstracts will be responsible for covering the cost of their own travel to and accommodations in Belo Horizonte, but will be exempted of paying registration fees for the conference. For any questions or inquiries please contact the organisation committee: helpregionalconference2018@gmail.com
- Theoretical approaches to International Law.
- History of International Law in Latin America.
- New trends in international lawmaking.
- Codification of International Law.
- Procedure before International courts and tribunals.
- International Institutional Law: New challenges, which responses? Law and practice of American and European organisations.
- International taxation: paths to the future.
- Uniformisation of Private International Law: European and American experiences.
- The politics of International Law.
- Forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking.
- European and International Environmental Law and access to justice.
- Empirical evidences on International Law
- Theorizing International Economic Law.
- International Humanitarian Law.
- European and International foreign policy and Euroamerican relations
- Immunities and International Law.
- Geopolitics of the Amazon
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.
THEME
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
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 conference@cilj.co.uk 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
Further information will be posted on the CILJ website in due course. In the interim, please contact conference@cilj.co.uk with any questions or concerns.
The latest issue of the Journal of International Arbitration (Vol. 34, no. 6, 2017) is out. Contents include:
Performing world politics through rituals
at the 5th EISA European Workshops in International Studies (EWIS)
University of Groningen, 6-8 June 2018
Workshop convenors: Anna Leander (Copenhagen Business School/CePTL) and Tanja Aalberts (VU/CePTL)
This workshop explores the constitutive role of rituals in the production of contemporary world politics. Core institutions of international society such as diplomacy and international law are obviously replete with rituals, some public and grandiose ceremonies other more mundane practices. But rituals also pervade a range of world political practices including for example migration, digital communication, humanitarianism, peacekeeping, torture, or marketing. If rituals traditionally functioned to strengthen the bond between believers and their god(s), what role do they play in their secularized form in the creation and enactment of world political order?
This workshop seeks to bring together recent scholarship that has developed around practices, materiality, institutions, performativity and aesthetics within different disciplines to discuss this question.
Deadline: 10 January 2018. For the full call and submission details see here.
The latest issue of the Journal of World Trade (Vol. 51, no. 6, 2017) is out. Contents include:
Although dissents are not generally encouraged in international arbitration, they are a reality of investment treaty disputes. About one in five cases includes at least one separate or dissenting opinion. The ICSID Convention is rare among investment arbitration rules to expressly recognise the right of the arbitrator to attach his or her personal opinion to the award. Other investment arbitration rules are silent on the topic. And yet dissenting opinions are an established feature of several international courts and tribunals and their role is often viewed upon more benevolently than in investment arbitration. The article explores the perceived advantages and disadvantages of dissents as identified in different legal settings, including in public international courts and municipal legal systems, and critically applies them to investment arbitration. Normatively, it expects that dissents function in broadly similar manner in investment arbitration and in other public international courts and tribunals. But it also recognises that this is nuanced by particularities of context and notably the terms of appointment of the adjudicator.
Der Begriff der „Intervention“ bzw. der „Einmischung“ gehört seit langer Zeit schon sowohl zum Grundarsenal der internationalen Politik als auch zum Begriffshaushalt des Völkerrechts. Kaum eine zwischenstaatliche Auseinandersetzung wird nicht – wenigstens auch oder zeitweise – vom Vorwurf der verbotenen Einmischung oder vergleichbarer Einwürfe begleitet, was für den Völkerrechtler seit nun gut sechzig Jahren stets die Frage aufwirft, welche juristische Substanz dieser Vorwurf hat und wie er rechtsdogmatisch zu strukturieren ist. Insbesondere in der Staatenpraxis steht die Häufigkeit der Geltendmachung des Interventionsverbots in einem umgekehrt-proportionalen Verhältnis zur konkreten Benennung seiner Voraussetzungen und Rechtsfolgen. Wie genau der Tatbestand beschaffen ist und welche Reichweite er besitzt, spielt in Doktrin und Praxis bislang eine nachgeordnete Rolle. Die Arbeit versucht diese Lücke zu schließen und der Staatenpraxis ein völkerrechtsdogmatisches Gerüst an die Seite zu stellen.
The latest issue of the International Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 22, no. 1, 2018) is out. Contents include:
