- International Election Observation
- Bård A. Andreassen & Jo Martin Stigen, International Election Observation: Promoting Human Rights-based Governance
- Avery Davis-Roberts & David J Carroll, International Election Observer Recommendations and UN Human Rights Mechanisms: Toward a More Robust System of Global Accountability on Democracy and Human Rights
- Therese Pearce Laanela, Beyond the Checklist: Addressing New Challenges in Election Observation Methodology
- Kåre Vollan, International Election Observation and Standards for Systems of Representation: A Critical View
- Michael Lidauer, Armin Rabitsch & Iris O’Rourke, Mapping Legislation for Citizen and International Election Observation in Europe: A Comparative Analysis on the Basis of OSCE/ODIHR Reports
- Virginia Atkinson, Rebecca Aaberg & Staffan Darnolf, Disability Rights and Election Observation: Increasing Access to the Political Process
- Svetlana Chetaikina & Vasil Vashchanka, Gap for Improvement: Election Observation and Political Representation of Women in the OSCE Region
- Max Grömping, Domestic Election Monitoring and Advocacy: An Emerging Research Agenda
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Call for Papers
The Authoritarian Pushback and the Resilience
of International Institutions
Panel at ICON Society Annual Conference
25-27 June 2018, Hong Kong
The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law invites the submission of proposals for a panel entitled “The Authoritarian Pushback and the Resilience of International Institutions” at the upcoming ICON Society annual conference in Hong Kong. More than a decade after the emergence of public law approaches to international institutions, such as Global Administrative Law (GAL), Global Constitutionalism, or International Public Authority (IPA), the international system has changed dramatically. The Trump presidency and the British Brexit vote are among the most visible examples of a growing trend against global governance and international decision-making as it currently stands. What had once been taken for granted in scholarship as well as in practice – the expansion of international law, the proliferation of institutional institutions, and universal standards of democracy and human rights – is now being challenged on several fronts. All around the globe we observe governments stressing their respective national interest and deciding to opt out of, or terminate, international cooperation mechanisms. The backlash against global governance is in full swing: From withdrawals from the Rome Statute, the Paris Agreement or the TPP, to the non-execution of judgments of international courts. At the same time, most international institutions continue to carry on, sometimes under increasing financial and political constraints. Lastly, new arrangements like the Belt and Road Initiative have emerged, raising questions of whether they contribute to, or rather sideline international regimes already in place.
The panel will address several research questions that emerge from this situation:
Scholars of all levels are invited to submit proposals of up to 500 words until 20 January 2018 to email@example.com. Successful applicants will receive financial support for their travel expenses of up to 1000,- euros.
- How does the authoritarian, nationalist pushback change international institutions, including international courts, and how do these changes affect their problem-solving capacity?
- How does the authoritarian, nationalist pushback affect the legitimacy of international institutions, including international courts?
- How resilient are international institutions, including international courts, against the authoritarian, nationalist pushback, and which strategies do they adopt?
Contact: Matthias Goldmann (firstname.lastname@example.org), Silvia Steini
Friday, December 15, 2017
Call for Papers
Key Biographies in the Legal History of European Union 1950-1993
Frankfurt/Main, 21-22 June 2018
“Legal History of the European Union” is a recently established research field at the Max Planck Institute for European Legal History at Frankfurt. The MPIeR attempts to situate the history of European law in a longue durée perspective, with a strong comparative dimension and taking into account the broader political and socio-economic context.
The activities of the research group include the organization of an annual conference. Last year’s conference explored the legal history and the travaux préparatoires of the 1957 Rome Treaties. The conference proceedings are currently being prepared for publication.
The 2018 conference will scrutinize the history of European law with a distinct focus on professional biographies, both of key personalities in the history of European integration and of less prominent actors – national, transnational and European.
Panels may include, but are not necessarily restricted to the following topics:
We welcome proposals of not more than 150 words by 15th January 2018. Please email your proposal and a short CV to email@example.com.
- Negotiators of European treaties from 1950 until the present-day
- Actors involved in the constitutional practice of the European Court of Justice
- Member-state representatives dealing with the national reception of European law or counteracting the ECJ’s constitutional practice
- Scholars from the emerging academic field of “European law” or “European Studies” in the wider sense and their interpretations of European law
- Members of European movements, lobbies, media or other professional organizations involved in the process of European Union
Professor Stefan Vogenauer
Dr. Philip Bajon
Does a person accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes before the International Criminal Court (ICC) enjoy the same human rights as a person accused of the same crimes before a national jurisdiction? In other words, to what extent does the ICC have an obligation to respect human rights of a suspect or accused person and, if so, can it do so? The purpose of this book is precisely to answer this question by focusing on the right to interim release of an accused. It seeks to draw attention to this issue and improve the practice of the ICC by presenting a clear legal argument from which key actors, such as defense lawyers, can draw from to enforce their clients’ right to freedom. To this end, it identifies the basis of the ICC’s legal obligation and defines the right to provisional release pending trial. On the basis of this definition, the compliance by the ICC with this obligation is analyzed. Like other authors who examined the question of the applicability of human rights to the ICC, the author of this book considers that the particular context in which the ICC acts must be taken into account when assessing its ability to respect human rights. However, unlike such authors, this book demonstrates that, regarding the right to interim release, this particular context is not necessarily an obstacle that defense lawyers must uncritically accept. The practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) offers multiple examples of successful provisional releases in cases where a State agrees to offer guarantees for the reception of an accused in its territory. This book therefore argues for the obligation of the ICC to obtain such guarantees and outlines the remedies available to an accused in case of inaction by the ICC and lack of good will of its State parties, including recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.
- Alexei Kireyev & Chiedu Osakwe, Making trade multilateralism work for all: the role of WTO accessions
- Alexei Kireyev, The WTO and the changing state of the global economy
- Micheline Calmy-Rey & Svenja Rauch, The art and science of negotiation: de-politicizing and technicizing negotiations
- Alexei Kireyev, Chiedu Osakwe & Anna Varyanik, The accession of Kazakhstan: dealing with complexity
- Arancha González, Helping businesses navigate WTO accession
- Maša Lekić & Chiedu Osakwe, WTO rules, accession protocols and mega-regionals – complementarity and governance in the rules-based global economy
- Juneyoung Lee, Nora Neufeld & Anna Varyanik, Promoting good governance: from encouraging a principle to taking concrete action – examples from WTO accession protocols and the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
- Hubert Escaith, Chiedu Osakwe, Vicky Chemutai & Ying Yan, Transforming accessions data into knowledge
- Ellen Johnson Sirleaf & Axel Addy, Accession of Liberia: an agenda for transformation
- Humayoon Rasaw, Afghanistan's accession: challenged by conflict
- Pierre Laporte, Charles Morin & Cillia Mangroo, The WTO accession of Seychelles: lessons from a small island economy
- Atsuyuki Oike, WTO accession negotiations from a negotiator's perspective
- Antony Taubman, How post-TRIPS negotiations reframe the 'trade-related aspects' of intellectual property after TRIPS: the lessons of WTO accessions
- Robert D. Anderson, Anna Caroline Müller & Nivedita Sen, Competition policy in WTO accessions: filling in the blanks in the international trading system
- Tatiana Yanguas Acosta, Geographical indications in the accessions landscape
- Diwakar Dixit, WTO accession commitments on agriculture: lessons for WTO rule-making
- Nannan Gao & Fangying Zheng, The WTO-plus obligations: dual class or a strengthened system?
- Josefita Pardo de León & Mariam Soumaré, Accession protocols and the private sector
- Maika Oshikawa, Post-accession support platform
- Alexei Kireyev & Chiedu Osakwe, Conclusion – trade multilateralism: enhancing flexibility, preserving the momentum
- Volume 386
- Sean D. Murphy, International Law relating to Islands
- Giuseppe Cataldi, La mise en oeuvre des décisions des tribunaux internationaux dans l’ordre interne
In 1999, the Alliance mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Around the same period, allegations were made regarding its involvement in human trafficking and forced prostitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A decade later, NATO airplanes hit a fuel truck causing significant civilian casualties in Kunduz, Afghanistan. After more than 60 years of existence and a track-record of more than 30 missions performed worldwide, it is surprising that there is still uncertainty on the scope and content of NATO’s responsibility for wrongful conduct during its military operations. This timely book deals with the international responsibility of NATO during military operations. It examines, the status of the Alliance, the existence of international obligations and conditions of attribution of conduct in NATO.
This book moves from the circumstance whereby currently the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment (FET) to foreign investments is included in the majority of international investment agreements and has proved to be the most invoked standard in investor-State arbitration. Hence, it is no overstatement to describe this standard as the basic norm of international investment law. Yet both its meaning and normative basis continue to be shrouded in ambiguity and, as a consequence, to inspire a considerable number of interpretations by legal writers. The book’s precise aim is to unravel such ambiguity, arguing from the idea that FET has become part of the fabric of general international law, but has done so by means of a source somewhat neglected in legal doctrine. This being the category of general principles peculiar to a certain field of international law, i.e. those principles having their own foundations in the international legal order itself, but which, through the mediation of the judge, end up being shaped according to the features typical of a specific normative field. The book, as well as having a solid theoretical backdrop as its basis, offers a careful and critical analysis of pertinent case law, and will prove useful to both scholars and practitioners.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
- Andrea Schneiker & Jutta Joachim, Revisiting Global Governance in Multistakeholder Initiatives: Club Governance Based on Ideational Prealignments
- Larry Crump & Christian Downie, The G20 Chair and the Case of the Global Economic Steering Committee
- Charalampos Efstathopoulos, Middle Powers and the Behavioural Model
- Evangelos Fanoulis & Vjosa Musliu, Sovereignty a-venir: Towards a Normative Understanding of Sovereignty
- Athanasios Gkoutzioulis, With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On Foucault’s Notions of Power, Subjectivity, Freedom and Their (Mis)Understanding in IR
- N.A.J. Taylor, The Problem of Nuclear Harm for Andrew Linklater, Lorraine Elliott and Other Contemporary Cosmopolitans
A key impediment to the ICC’s legitimacy is the tension between its dual mandates to both serve the global community, especially through world-wide crime prevention, and to assist the local communities most affected by the crimes it adjudicates, including by providing reparations. These mandates can sometimes be pursued simultaneously, but some decisions require the ICC to privilege one or the other set of objectives. For instance, effective global crime prevention may require dispersing prosecutorial resources across large geographic areas, whereas the victims in ICC situation countries may prefer a greater depth of prosecutions within a given situation. This Chapter demonstrates that the literature on the ICC’s legitimacy has largely failed to address this “global-local dilemma.” It argues that greater attention should be devoted to clarifying the ICC’s mission in order to promote the institution’s still fragile legitimacy.
- Rebecca Sanders, Human rights abuses at the limits of the law: Legal instabilities and vulnerabilities in the ‘Global War on Terror’
- Marieke de Goede, The chain of security
- Rita Floyd, Parallels with the hate speech debate: the pros and cons of criminalising harmful securitising requests
- Klejda Mulaj, Violence of war, ontopology, and the instrumental and performative constitution of the political community
- Kimberly Hutchings, War and moral stupidity
- Kurt Mills & Alan Bloomfield, African resistance to the International Criminal Court: Halting the advance of the anti-impunity norm
- Paul K. MacDonald, Embedded authority: a relational network approach to hierarchy in world politics
- Matthew Castle, Embedding regional actors in social and historical context: Australia-New Zealand integration and Asian-Pacific regionalism
- Mathew Davies, Regional organisations and enduring defective democratic members
The quest for a unified theory of international criminalization is an important part of a compelling general theory of international criminal law. Any such account would need to have a conceptual and a normative dimension. This chapter addresses these two issues in turn. At a conceptual level, it argues that international crimes are criminal prohibitions provided under international law which are global in scope. This entails, first, that perpetrators of these crimes can be brought to justice by any national authority as well as by international and regional tribunals with no traditional connection to the crime, the perpetrators or the victims. Second, that they can be brought to justice on the basis of international law alone, irrespective of the specific legislation of any national authority allowing or even mandating such conduct. I thereby reject recent accounts, notably advocated by Roger O’Keefe and Kevin Heller, which seek to define international crimes merely by reference to the relevant legal source of the prohibition. I argue that in order to explain what an international crime is, we need to take centrally into consideration also the function that this concept serves as a matter of legal practice. At a normative level, I argue that international crimes are simply those which cannot be in force on the basis of a domestic prohibition alone, essentially because they are perpetrated, instigated or allowed by the territorial state, or because this state cannot do anything about them. As a result, individuals in different parts of the world have a fundamental interest in those who perpetrate this type of conduct being called to account by at least some domestic or international court, in order for these prohibitions to be considered in force. The chapter concludes by rejecting two recent proposals to radically expand the scope of international criminalization, either over any serious human rights violation, or over acts which do not show a significant level moral gravity or atrocity. By contrast, it offers a reinterpretation of the scope of international criminalization by putting into question the requirement that international crimes be perpetrated by groups with a significant level of organization, as currently provided for by the laws on crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The signature feature of 21st century global governance is arguably not the international regime but the regime complex. A regime complex is an array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions that includes more than one international agreement or authority. The institutions and agreements may be functional or territorial in nature. International regime complexity refers to political systems of global governance that emerge because of the co-existence of rule density and regime complexes. This review essay highlights insights and questions that emerge from the last fifteen years of scholarship on the politics of international regime complexity, explaining why regime complexes arise, what factors sustain them, and the range of political effects regime complexity creates. Our conclusion explains why in a Post-American world order, the trend of international regime complexity will likely accelerate.
Grosse Ruse-Khan: TRIPS to FTAs and Back: Re-Conceptualising the Role of a Multilateral IP Framework in a TRIPS-Plus World
International intellectual property (IP) protection is increasingly governed by a network of bilateral and regional treaties. Most of these contain obligations on the protection and enforcement of IP that set significantly higher standards than those of the TRIPS Agreement, commonly referred to as ‘TRIPS-plus’. Human rights bodies, NGOs, and academic commentators often criticise these standards for undermining flexibilities available under TRIPS. Such policy space, however, is critical to design national IP laws in light of domestic needs. This chapter makes a case for the continued relevance of the TRIPS Agreement as an overarching, multilateral framework. My argument is based on the role treaty law affords to the object and purpose expressed in Articles 7 and 8 TRIPS. They have not only been recognised as essential for promoting access to medicines in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. As integral objectives and principles of TRIPS, Articles 7 and 8 limit the ability of WTO Members to modify their IP-related treaty obligations inter se. Based on their negotiation history and common understandings expressed by WTO Members, I argue for an enhanced role of TRIPS’ object and purpose as a loose constitutional frame for IP commitments in bilateral and regional treaties.
- The Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute
- Paul Huth, Sunwoong Kim & Terence Roehrig, Special Issue Introduction
- Paul Huth & Sunwoong Kim, Is There a Path to Peaceful Resolution in the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute?
- Hee Eun Lee, South Korea’s Claim to Dokdo
- Hyon Joo Yoo, Domestic Politics in South Korea and the Territorial Issue of Dokdo
- Terence Roehrig, Stuck Between Two Allies: The United States and the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
- NUS Centre for International Law Collection of Articles on an Appellate Body in ISDS
- Meg Kinnear & Christine Sim, Introduction to the Collection
- J. Christopher Thomas & Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, The Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration: The ICSID Convention, Investment Treaties and the Review of Arbitration Awards
- Elsa Sardinha, The Impetus for the Creation of an Appellate Mechanism 503 Mark Feldman, Investment Arbitration Appellate Mechanism Options: Consistency, Accuracy, and Balance of Power
- Mark Huber & Greg Tereposky, The WTO Appellate Body: Viability as a Model for an Investor–State Dispute Settlement Appellate Mechanism
- Chester Brown, Supervision, Control, and Appellate Jurisdiction: The Experience of the International Court
- N. Jansen Calamita, The Challenge of Establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID
- Elsa Sardinha, The New EU-Led Approach to Investor-State Arbitration: The Investment Tribunal System in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement
- Colin M. Brown, A Multilateral Mechanism for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Some Preliminary Sketches
- Lucy Reed & Christine Sim, Potential Investment Treaty Appellate Bodies: Open Questions
- Facundo Pérez-Aznar, Investment Protection in Exceptional Situations: Compensation-for-Losses Clauses in IIAs
- Case Comment
- Tomoko Ishikawa, Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v Romania: A New Approach to Determining Jurisdiction over Counterclaims in ICSID Arbitration?
- David Glazier, Zora Colakovic, Alexandra Gonzalez & Zacharias Tripodes, Failing Our Troops: A Critical Assessment of the Department of Defense Law of War Manual
- Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Sergio Puig & David G. Victor, Against Secrecy: The Social Cost of International Dispute Settlement
- Frédéric Gilles Sourgens, The Privacy Principle
- Jeremy Julian Sarkin, How Conditional Amnesties Can Assist Transitional Societies in Delivering on the Right to the Truth
- Anna Mlynarska-Sobaczewska, Utopian Concept, Mixed Structure, Digital Extent and New Claims
- Jessica Lynn Corsi, Drone Deaths Violate Human Rights: The Applicability of the ICCPR to Civilian Deaths Caused by Drones
- Sylvanus Gbendazhi Barnabas, The Legal Status of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) in Contemporary International Human Rights Law
- Ronagh J.A. McQuigg, The CEDAW Committee and Gender-Based Violence against Women
- Marine Environmental Protection in Asia: Regional Implementation of IMO Conventions
- David Freestone, Moon Sang Kwon & Seokwoo Lee, Marine Environmental Protection in Asia
- Robert Beckman & Zhen Sun, The Relationship between UNCLOS and IMO Instruments
- Keyuan Zou & Lei Zhang, Implementing the London Dumping Convention in East Asia
- Millicent McCreath, Burgeoning Practice of Southeast Asian States to Protect the Marine Environment from the Effects of International Shipping
- Monacelli Nicholas, Applying Cold-Ironing Regulation in Southeast Asian Ports to Reduce Emissions
- State Law of the Sea Practice in Asian Pacific States
- Hadyu Ikrami, Indonesia’s Reform of Its Fisheries Law and Policy & Cooperation with ASEAN in Combating IUU Fishing
- James Wraith, The Irony behind the Curtains
Mitchell, Munro, & Voon: Importing WTO General Exceptions into International Investment Agreements: Proportionality, Myths and Risks
General exceptions are increasingly ‘imported’ from the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Article XX) and General Agreement on Trade in Services (Article XIV) into the different context of international investment agreements. Such importation is effected through various forms of language and structures in different treaties, with the general intention of enhancing the ability of host States to regulate in the public interest, as exemplified in several recent treaties, including a number signed in 2016. However, this approach does not appear to have been accompanied by rigorous analysis of the different forms of policy flexibility presented in core investment disciplines on the one hand (expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and non-discrimination) and WTO-style general exceptions on the other. In practice, investment norms have already evolved to encompass policy space, albeit sometimes subject to a stringent proportionality test. Understanding the impact of general exceptions on the interpretation of existing investment obligations requires close investigation of those developments as well as WTO jurisprudence and the law of treaties in public international law. While the WTO general exceptions offer greater deference to regulatory sovereignty than is usually recognised, their inclusion in investment treaties risks undermining host States’ policy objectives in unintended ways unless carefully delineated and situated in the treaty alongside relevant clarifications.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Who makes international law? That is the subject of this article, with a focus on the particular case of the law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law). Is it states and only states? Or are other actors also involved? What is the role of international courts and tribunals? And where does the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross fit? Drawing on ideas of communities of practice and interactional international law, the article argues that it is the community of international humanitarian lawyers that makes international humanitarian law through a process of dialogic interaction. This community includes states, international courts and tribunals, the International Committee of the Red Cross, academics, and others. Through interaction in the selection of issues, during the drafting of outputs, and following the publication of the finished product, the community makes and shapes international humanitarian law. States thus play a crucial role in law-making, particularly insofar as the conclusion of treaties and the formation of customary international law are concerned. However, states have tended not to react to the interpretation, application and identification of the law by other members of the community. This relative silence on the part of states has had a number of consequences. Silence has been taken as acquiescence. The response of other members of the community to the publication of an output has taken on a greater significance. And states have been side-lined. The Article concludes by discussing ways in which states can re-engage in the making and shaping of international humanitarian law.
- Benjamin J. Appel, In the Shadow of the International Criminal Court: Does the ICC Deter Human Rights Violations?
- Thomas Zeitzoff, Does Social Media Influence Conflict? Evidence from the 2012 Gaza Conflict
- Oliver Kaplan & Enzo Nussio, Explaining Recidivism of Ex-combatants in Colombia
- Michaela Mattes, “Chipping Away at the Issues” Piecemeal Dispute Resolution and Territorial Conflict
- Nizan Feldman & Tal Sadeh, War and Third-party Trade
- Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, & Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War Events Related to More Acceptance of Collective Guilt?
- Christoph Mikulaschek & Jacob N. Shapiro, Lessons on Political Violence from America’s Post–9/11 Wars
- Jóhanna K. Birnir, David D. Laitin, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, David M. Waguespack, Agatha S. Hultquist, & Ted R. Gurr, Introducing the AMAR (All Minorities at Risk) Data
- Darryl Robinson, A Justification of Command Responsibility
- Ekaterina A. Kopylova, The Offence of Giving False Testimony under Solemn Declaration in the Rome Statute
- Emma Charlene Lubaale, Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda
- Marta Picchi, Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Some Remarks on the Operative Solutions at the European Level and their Effects on the Member States. The Case of Italy
- Octavia Cerchez, Trade Facilitation Benefits – Equal Distribution for Both Big and Small Firms?
- Rosa Amilli Guzmán Pérez, Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. The Republic of Panama: Investor – State Arbitration; Award by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
- Eddy Jabnoune, Third Generation Treaties: A Call for an Evolution in the Investment Dispute Resolution System
- Karina Ramírez Díaz, The Precautionary Principle and Article 5.7 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Call for Papers: Le principe d’autodétermination un siècle après le traité de Versailles / Das Selbstbestimmungsprinzip ein Jahrhundert nach dem Versailler Vertrag
20 August - 7 September 2018
Directors of Research: Prof. Christian J. Tams (University of Glasgow); Dr. Anne-Laure Chaumette (Paris Nanterre University)
The usefulness of ‘international inspections’ is recognised in many areas of international law: in one way or another, inspections form part of international legal regimes in fields as diverse as international economic law (World Bank Inspection Panels), disarmament (IAEA, CWC, etc.), the law of the sea (e.g. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) and human rights law (e.g. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), to name but a few. While the context varies, and with it the specifics of the inspectors’ mandate, inspections seek to assess whether a certain conduct is in line with international expectations/obligations. As such, inspections are best viewed as a form of exercising control of internationally regulated conduct: of variable effectiveness, they form part of international law’s administrative/executive function.
While particular forms of international inspections have been the subject of research, the concept as such remains under-researched and elusive. The 2018 Centre for Research and Studies of The Hague Academy of International Law aims to fill the existing gap by bringing together researchers embarking on a cross-cutting analysis of international inspections. Proceeding from examples in particular fields, the overarching aim of the analysis is
- to enhance our understanding of the concept of international inspections by distilling, in a comparative analysis, common features and differences of inspection regimes;
- identify and classify their key functions;
- assess the potential and limits of inspections; and
- identify best practices of designing and implementing inspection procedures.
- To what extent are international inspections distinct from inquiries or related forms of exercising international control over State conduct? What is the link between inspections on the one hand, and concepts such as ‘guarantees’ or ‘fact-finding’ on the other?
- What are commonalities, what are differences between the different forms of inspections recognised in international regimes? Is there a common core to the concept of inspections, and if so, what does it consist of?
- What lessons, if any, can be learned from the actual practice of inspections in different areas of international law? Have ‘best practices’ emerged, and should they be recorded?
- What is the role of individuals and NGOs in the framework of international inspections?
- Is there a tension between the powers of international inspectors and the sovereignty of States, and if so, how can the two be accommodated?
- How are international inspections regulated, and to what extent does international law restrict the powers of inspectors (e.g. with respect to human rights, to rules governing the conduct of inspections, and/or the protection of confidentiality)?
- What is the nature of powers enjoyed by international inspectors? Do they enjoy proper authority, or are they merely instruments of verification?
- What is the role of sanctions in relation to international inspections? Are inspections a substitute for, or subsidiary to, international sanctions? Do they complement sanctions? Or are they a (necessary) first step before sanctions are imposed?
- What are the legal consequences of inspections? Can they result in accountability or responsibility? Could they dilute the regime of responsibility?
- Are inspections effective? Are they efficient?
- What is the probative value of information obtained through inspections?
Monday, December 11, 2017
Studies reveal that academics who engage in doctrinal research in the discipline of law rarely describe their reasons for doing so or how they go about it. Perhaps this is because doctrinal research does not lend itself to straightforward explanation but rather is a genre of research “…that is largely intuitively, rather than rationally, understood amongst lawyers and researchers”. Doctrinal legal research in the field of international human rights scholarship appears to be no different: while this method of research infuses a great deal of human rights scholarship, there is a dearth of reflection on its intrinsic value or indeed purpose in the field and even less concrete instruction on what it entails in terms of its methodological requirements. In an attempt to fill this lacuna, this chapter begins with an overview of the doctrinal method in general terms, highlighting its strengths as well as its weaknesses. It goes on to consider the specific challenges facing the doctrinal analyst when researching in the field of international human rights, before analysing some concrete examples of the doctrinal method in action in this context.
There is little doubt that res iudicata is a general principle of law. But its application in investment treaty arbitration remains varied. A recent fracture in the case law of investment tribunals concerns the apparent dilemma of the res iudicata effect, if any, of interlocutory decisions rendered under the ICSID Convention. The article explores res iudicata and its scope in light of the formal distinction between awards and decisions under the ICSID Convention. It engages critically with the relevant case law and argues that, in contrast to awards, decisions do not carry res iudicata effect. But the absence of res iudicata does not mean that the reopening of a decision is always justified and special regard must be had to the specific circumstances.
Sinclair: A Shifting Field of Battle: The United Nations and the Struggle Over Postcolonial Statehood
This draft chapter argues that decolonization effected a profound transformation in the legal structures and powers of the UN. The chapter traces a series of battles or struggles in the early UN, centred on the nature and functions of the postcolonial states, each of which resulted in innovations in the institutional framework and powers of the UN. In particular, the chapter focuses on three axes of struggle, in relation to the meaning of self-government, the values and practices of modern government, and the import of sovereign equality. These three axes of struggle eventually came together in the invention of a new institutional form, which has become the most visible ‘face’ of the UN today: the peacekeeping operation.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop 2018: International Investment Law and Constitutional Law (9-10 March 2018)
For many years, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop – jointly organized by Rainer Hofmann (Frankfurt), Stephan W. Schill (Amsterdam), and Christian J. Tams (Glasgow) – has been a forum for the discussion of foundational issues of international investment law.
The 2018 workshop addresses the increasingly relevant relationship between international investment law and constitutional law. While both fields, for a long time, have kept maximum distance to each other, they are beginning to interact as constitutional courts around the world, such as the German Federal Constitutional Court, the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the Court of Justice of the European Union, are being called to address the constitutional limits of international investment law and investment dispute settlement. Similarly, investment tribunals increasingly face constitutional law arguments, and investment law scholarship promotes the use of constitutional legal analysis to step up to the challenges the field is facing as an instrument of global governance.
The 2018 Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop will explore the different facets of the increasing interaction between international investment law and constitutional law and critically analyze the opportunities and challenges this interaction creates. The Workshop will bring together academics and practitioners and provide them with a forum for open and frank exchanges.
If you are interested in attending, please contact Sabine Schimpf, Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order, University of Frankfurt, E-Mail: S.Schimpf@jur.uni-frankfurt.de by 23 February 2018.
The current refugee and migration crisis, first and foremost the events during fall 2015, also has profound legal aspects. Recent state practice and academic discussions have shed new light on the status of the right to asylum and the non-refoulement principle. The principal finding is clear: There is still no generally accepted universal right to asylum. There nevertheless exists a far-reaching prohibition of extraditing, expelling, or deporting individuals to countries where they face a serious risk of mistreatment. States are not free to regulate the entry and stay of foreigners at will.