As part of a symposium on Rosa Brooks’s How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything, this essay explores the concept of an influence operation (IO) from the perspective of international law. It examines common elements of an IO and proffers five criteria for differentiating among them, namely by assessing their (i) transparency; (ii) extent of deception; (iii) purpose; (iv) scale; and (v) effects. Using these criteria, I analyze whether and how international law might constrain the conduct of IOs, with particular attention to the duty of non-intervention, sovereignty, and self-determination. I find that, aside from a few cases like IOs that incentivize genocide, the cognitive quality of IOs raises serious questions about the capacity of international law to govern IOs. Furthermore, I highlight how the difficulty international lawyers face in regulating IOs is equally apparent in assigning responsive authority to militaries or technologists. I conclude with a call for further study of state-sponsored IOs and the potential of hybrid and pluralist responses to regulate this increasingly visible component of international relations.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
- Giovanny Vega-Barbosa, The Admissibility of Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation Claims Before the ICJ Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS
- Zhen Sun, Protection of Cable Ships Engaged in Operations for Submarine Telecommunication Cables
- Yubing Shi & Warwick Gullett, International Regulation on Low-Carbon Shipping for Climate Change Mitigation: Development, Challenges, and Prospects
- Maximo Paulino T. Sison III, Universalizing the Law of the Sea in the South China Sea Dispute
- J. Ashley Roach, Offshore Archipelagos Enclosed by Straight Baselines: An Excessive Claim?
Friday, May 4, 2018
Call for Papers
Lisbon, 19-20 September 2019
Intergovernmental organizations – understood as multilateral institutions created by sovereign states, with their own permanent structures and charged with the long-term pursuit of common goals – are tools for promoting the peaceful resolution of conflicts and facilitating cooperation. By establishing permanent dialogue between governments and trying to promote cooperative relations between peoples at a global level, intergovernmental organizations are a fundamental new element of global politics in the contemporary era. The genealogy and nature of intergovernmental organizations has therefore been the subject of highly relevant political controversy as well as significant debate in academia.
Established in January 1920, at the end of the First World War, the League of Nations was the first permanent multilateral organization set up to maintain peace and collective security, aiming at promoting a new stable and prosperous international order. Although it was meant to be in principle a global organization, European states de facto were the central core of founding members. After a decade, it became increasingly clear that the League’s performance in addressing major conflicts did not live up to the expectations of guarantying the collective security of member states. Resolutions and sanctions were ineffective against increasingly violent conflicts. In the functional areas, regarding minority rights and in the oversight of the role of imperial powers in mandate territories, the League of Nations created an important precedent but also showed important limitations.
With the suspension of the activities of the League of Nations with the beginning of the Second World War and its subsequent replacement came the idea of a total failure of the League of Nations. But current studies have pointed in new directions in the analysis of the knowledge of the organization. This rehabilitation of the importance of the critical study of the League of Nations has led to new and different readings of its various facets. It is, nevertheless, important to pursue these new approaches not only from an institutional perspective, but also by a more multidimensional and comparative analysis that does greater justice to the rich and important history of the organization. The tools of International History, Global and Transnational History, History of Ideas, Comparative History, Social History, Labour History, History of Communications, History of Health, History of Migration and others allow us to consider the presence and the role of the League of Nations in various scales and spaces, as well as its relationship with a diversity of actors and themes.
The relevance of the League of Nations is also justified by how topical and important many of the issues with which it struggled still are. The growing globalization and mobility of the contemporary era, voluntary or not, generates global problems and norms with enormous national and local impact. It has been in and through intergovernmental organizations that global regimes have been defined in a variety of areas – human rights, drug trafficking, terrorism and refugees. This brings us to the controversial but arguably indispensable role of multilateral organizations in international governance, as standards-makers and managers of the problems and challenges of contemporary societies which require a global response.
To promote the debate between those who study the League of Nations and connected topics we will organize an interdisciplinary conference to be held in Lisbon on 19 and 20 September 2019.
The keynote speakers are:
- Erez Manela (Harvard University)
- Mark Mazower (Columbia University) – to be confirmed
- Nicolas Werth (CNRS)
- Patricia Clavin (University of Oxford)
- Patrick Finney (Aberystwyth University)
- Philippe Rygiel (École Normale Supérieure - Lyon)
- William Mulligan (University College Dublin)
Proposals for 20-minute presentations on issues related to the League of Nations will be accepted, including but not limited to the following topics:
- The genealogy of the concept of intergovernmental organizations;
- Concepts and methodologies for the study of intergovernmental organizations;
- History of intergovernmental organizations;
- The Paris peace talks, the Peace Treaties and the creation of the League of Nations;
- Institutional structure and dynamics of the League of Nations;
- The League of Nations and the relationship with its member states;
- The League of Nations and international civil service;
- The League of Nations and international peace and security;
- The League of Nations and the rights of minorities and refugees;
- The League of Nations, empires and international mandates;
- The League of Nations, social issues and the International Labour Organization (ILO);
- The League of Nations and technical areas;
- The League of Nations and non-state actors;
- The League of Nations and other international organizations;
- The League of Nations, international law and justice;
- The transition from the League of Nations to the United Nations (UN).
Abstracts of presentations (300 words) and biographical notes (250 words) should be sent in English or French or Portuguese to: email@example.com
Deadline for submission of abstracts: 31 October 2018.
Date of notification of acceptance: 15 December 2018.
N.B. Submissions can be made in English, French or Portuguese. However, to facilitate debate the organizers encourage participants to use English in their oral presentation.
A publication of some of the papers presented at the conference is a future aim.
The registration will have a fee of 25 EUR.
Aurora Almada e Santos (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Cristina Rodrigues (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Bruno Cardoso Reis (ISCTE-IUL)
João Paulo Avelãs Nunes (CEIS20 – Universidade de Coimbra)
Pedro Aires Oliveira (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Yvette Santos (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Álvaro Garrido (CEIS20 – Universidade de Coimbra)
Aurora Almada e Santos (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Bruno Cardoso Reis (ISCTE-IUL)
Cristina Rodrigues (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Erez Manela (Harvard University)
Fernando Tavares Pimenta (IPRI – NOVA FCSH)
Filipe Ribeiro Meneses (Maynooth University)
Hipolito de la Torre Gómez (UNED)
Luís Nuno Rodrigues (ISCTE-IUL)
Maria Manuela Tavares Ribeiro (CEIS20 – Universidade de Coimbra)
Mark Mazower (Columbia University)
Nicolas Werth (CNRS)
Patricia Clavin (University of Oxford)
Patrick Finney (Aberystwyth University)
Pedro Aires Oliveira (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Philippe Rygiel (École Normale Supérieure - Lyon)
William Mulligan (University College Dublin)
Yvette Santos (IHC – NOVA FCSH)
Diplomatic Institute / Portuguese Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Thursday, May 3, 2018
An unprecedented political, economic, social, and legal storm was unleashed by the United Kingdom’s June 2016 referendum to leave the European Union and the government’s response to the vote. After decades of strengthening European integration and independence, Brexit necessitates a deep understanding of its international law implications on both sides of the English Channel in order to chart the stormy seas of negotiating and advancing beyond separation.
In Complexity’s Embrace, international law practitioners and academics from the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada and the United States look beyond the rhetoric of “Brexit Means Brexit” and “no agreement is better than a bad agreement” to explain the challenges that need to be addressed in the diverse fields of trade, financial services, insolvency, intellectual property, environment, and human rights. The authors in this volume articulate, with unvarnished clarity, the international law implications of Brexit, providing policy makers, commentators, the legal community, and civil society with critical information they need to participate in negotiating their future within or outside Europe.
- Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France): Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (I.C.J.), with introductory note by Anton Moiseienko
- Mendoza et al. v. Argentina (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.), with introductory note by Christina M. Cerna
- Reyes v. Al-Malki and Another (U.K. Sup. Ct.), with introductory note by Philippa Webb
- Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with introductory note by Melina Lito
- Interim Resolution CM/RESDH(2017)429: Execution of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ilgar Mammadov Against Azerbaijan (Council of Eur. Comm. of Ministers), with introductory note by Julie-Enni Zastrow
Workshop: Challenging the Liberal World Order: The History of the Global South, Decolonization and the United Nations, 1955-2000
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.
- Eleonora Del Gaudio & Stephen Phillips, Detention of Child Asylum Seekers in the Pursuit of State Interests: A Comparison of the Australian and EU Approaches
- Janelle M Diller, Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights: The Journey towards Peremptory Norms in International Law
- Ann Quennerstedt, Carol Robinson & John I’Anson, The UNCRC: The Voice of Global Consensus on Children’s Rights?
- Hans Schmeets, How World Bank Governance Indicators May Predict the Assessment of Elections by International Observers: Evidence From the OSCE-Region
- Gudrun Monika Zagel, International Organisations and Human Rights: The Role of the UN Covenants in Overcoming the Accountability Gap
- Juan Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo, The Katanga Reparation Order at the International Criminal Court: Developing the Emerging Reparation Practice of the Court
International Law Weekend 2018 (ILW 2018) – the premier international law event of the fall season – is scheduled for October 18-20, 2018 in New York City. The conference will be held at the New York City Bar Association (42 West 44th Street) on October 18, 2018 and at Fordham Law School (150 West 62nd Street) on October 19-20, 2018.
ILW 2018 is sponsored and organized by the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) – which welcomes new members from academia, the practicing bar, and the diplomatic world – and the International Law Students Association (ILSA). This annual conference attracts an audience of more than one thousand academics, practitioners, diplomats, members of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and law students.
The unifying theme for ILW 2018 is Why International Law Matters
Like any legal system, international law is a reflection of the past. Its norms, rules, and institutions are built upon a foundation that is moored in prior decades and steeped in previous centuries. And yet, international law plays an important role today, while setting the stage for the future. Current developments and emerging trends will form into future law. International lawyers must, therefore, serve as both historians and fortune tellers, while applying international legal norms in the present. How does the past inform our present? What current events and movements will most impact our future? And why does international law matter today? Wading through these moments in time, panels at ILW 2018 will consider the past, reflect on the present, and survey the future of our discipline and our profession, while addressing the fundamental question of why international law matters.Proposal Submission
The ILW Organizing Committee invites proposals to be submitted online by May 25, 2018. Panels will only be accepted through the online ILW Panel Proposal Submission Form located here.
When submitting your proposal, please consider the following points.
- Panel proposals may concern any aspect of contemporary international law and practice including, but not limited to, international arbitration, international environmental law, national security, cyber law, use of force, human rights, international humanitarian law, international organizations, international criminal law, international intellectual property, the law of the sea and outer space, and trade law. When submitting your proposal, please identify the primary area(s) of international law that your proposed panel will address.
- Provide the names, titles, and affiliations of the chair and likely speakers. One of the objectives of ILW 2018 is to promote dialogue among scholars and practitioners. Panels should include presenters with diverse experiences and perspectives.
- Please identify what format you are proposing for your panel. We welcome various formats, such as debates, roundtables, lectures, and break-out groups, as well as the usual practice of panel presentations.
- Please indicate whether you are an ABILA member and whether or not your panel is sponsored by an ABILA committee. Panel organizers are encouraged to include at least one ABILA member on the panel.
- We hope to offer several CLE panels at ILW 2018. The CLE accreditation is very easy. More information will be provided once panels have been selected for the conference. If asked, we encourage you to consider taking the necessary steps to qualify your panel for CLE credit.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
- Editorial Comment
- Jiuyong Shi, Prohibition of Use of Force in International Law
- Luca Ferro & Nele Verlinden, Neutrality During Armed Conflicts: A Coherent Approach to Third-State Support for Warring Parties
- Francis Grimal & Jae Sundaram, The Incremental Militarization of Outer Space: A Threshold Analysis
- Bradly J Condon, Does International Economic Law Impose a Duty to Negotiate?
- Chunlei Zhao, Investor-State Mediation in a China-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty: Talking About Being in the Right Place at the Right Time
- Giovanni Zarra, The Issue of Incoherence in Investment Arbitration: Is There Need for a Systemic Reform?
- Sienho Yee, AALCO Informal Expert Group’s Comments on the ILC Project on “Identification of Customary International Law”: A Brief Follow-up
The aim of this study is an analysis of complicity of States in internationally wrongful acts of other States or international organizations, set forth by art. 16 of the Draft of articles on the international responsibility of States and art. 58 of the Draft of articles on the responsibility of international organizations. The work is divided into two parts: in the first one, the author examines whether the rule on complicity may be ascribed to customary international law as well as the constitutive elements of such a rule. The second part deals with complicity of States in the wrongful acts committed by international organizations in the performance of their normative and operative functions.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
The “progressive codification of international law” has long been an ideal on par with disarmament and economic integration. In the 19th century, it was considered an essential condition for peace. Throughout the 20th century, it inspired lawyers and diplomats pursuing a stable legal basis for international relations. The Charter of the United Nations lists codification of international law as one of the primary responsibilities of the General Assembly, which in 1948 established a permanent organ for this purpose: the International Law Commission.
As the International Law Commission celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, it is time to take stock of the past achievements and future challenges of the codification movement. This panel assesses the lofty objectives and practical results of two centuries of codification, paying special attention to the role of the International Law Commission. To what extent has the Commission fulfilled its mission? Have the codification efforts by the Commission and others contributed to a more peaceful world? And what is the future of codification in the 21st century?
Speakers include Sean Murphy (ILC and Georg Washington University), Patricia Galvão Teles (ILC and Autonomous University Lisbon), Hélène Tigroudja (Aix-Marseille and NYU) and Patrick Luna (Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN). The event will be moderated by Kristen Boon (Seton Hall) and is convened by Christiane Ahlborn and Bart Smit Duijzentkunst (ABILA UN Law Committee). It is co-sponsored by the NYC Bar Association (International Law and UN Committees), Seton Hall Law School, and the ASIL International Organizations Interest Group.
Tit-for-tat is a strategy of immediate and proportional responses. Game theorists showed that this strategy often leads to fruitful cooperation. Indeed, many legal regimes resemble a tit-for-tat strategy and benefit from its ability to avoid unnecessary conflicts. But in situations of uncertainty—when actors cannot be sure about the actions of their adversaries—a tit-for-tat strategy would destroy cooperation and lead to continuous clashes. Because tit-for-tat responds immediately, a single mistake about the intentions of the adversary can lead to retaliation and start an endless string of counter-strikes. When uncertainty prevails, a strategy of many-tits-for-many-tats is optimal. Actors applying this strategy study the actions of their adversary over multiple rounds without issuing an immediate response. Only when the actor is convinced that the adversary intentionally defects, the actor will issue a disproportionately forceful response. The laws of war, criminal law, and international sales law all face some situations of uncertainty. This paper argues that each of these legal fields adopts a strategy of many-tits-for-many-tats to address conditions of acute uncertainty.
- Cedric M. J. Ryngaert & Duco W. Hora Siccama, Ascertaining Customary International Law: An Inquiry into the Methods Used by Domestic Courts
- Elena Fasoli & Alistair McGlone, The Non-Compliance Mechanism Under the Aarhus Convention as ‘Soft’ Enforcement of International Environmental Law: Not So Soft After All!
- Renshan Liu, Determination of Habitual Residence in Chinese Private International Law: Lessons from Extraterritorial Experience
- Cedric Ryngaert, Accountability for Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Lessons from the Possible Exercise of Dutch National Criminal Jurisdiction over Multinational Corporations
- Ali Emrah Bozbayindir, The Advent of Preventive Criminal Law: An Erosion of the Traditional Criminal Law?
- Manisuli Ssenyonjo, State Withdrawal Notifications from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: South Africa, Burundi and the Gambia
- Paromita Chattoraj & Bernd-Dieter Meier, Legal Responses and Sentencing in Murder Cases – A Comparison of Law and Judicial Reactions in India and Germany
Cimiotta: L’uso della forza nei rapporti tra Nazioni Unite e organizzazioni regionali e sub-regionali
This book addresses the relationships between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organizations endowed with powers of military intervention for collective security purposes. It argues that over time regional and sub-regional organizations have developed a degree of autonomy, both at the decisional and operational level, in resorting to armed force. Particular attention is paid to Article 53(1) of the UN Charter, the relevant regional and sub-regional legal systems, the interactions among them, the role and effects of the UN Security Council’s authorization to use force, the most recent practice of regional and sub-regional military operations, the growing partnership between the organizations involved in military crisis management.
- Marta Iñiguez de Heredia, The Conspicuous Absence of Class and Privilege in the Study of Resistance in Peacebuilding Contexts
- Walt Kilroy & Helen S. A. Basini, Social Capital Made Explicit: The Role of Norms, Networks, and Trust in Reintegrating Ex-combatants and Peacebuilding in Liberia
- Joanne Richards, High Risk or Low Risk: Screening for Violent Extremists in DDR Programmes
- Bryce W. Reeder, The Spatial Concentration of Peacekeeping Personnel and Public Health During Intrastate Conflicts
- Charles P. Martin-Shields & Nicholas Bodanac, Peacekeeping's Digital Economy: The Role of Communication Technologies in Post-conflict Economic Growth
- Allard Duursma, Information Processing Challenges in Peacekeeping Operations: A Case Study on Peacekeeping Information Collection Efforts in Mali
Vadi: Proportionality, Reasonableness and Standards of Review in International Investment Law and Arbitration
International investment law is one of the most dynamic fields of international law, and yet it has been criticised for failing to strike a fair balance between private and public interests. In this valuable contribution to the current debate, Valentina Vadi examines the merits and pitfalls of arbitral tribunals’ use of the concepts of proportionality and reasonableness to review the compatibility of a state’s regulatory actions with its obligations under international investment law.
Investment law scholars have hitherto given greater attention to the concept of proportionality than to reasonableness; this pivotal book combats this trajectory by examining both concepts in such a way that it does not advocate one over the other, but instead enables the reader to make informed choices. The author also explores the intensity of review as one of the main tools to calibrate the different interests underlying investor-state arbitrations.
- Disaster risk reduction: An International Law perspective
- Introduced by Giulio Bartolini and Tommaso Natoli
- Flavia Zorzi Giustiniani, Something old, something new: Disaster risk reduction in international law
- Emanuele Sommario and Silvia Venier, Human Rights Law and disaster risk reduction
AJIL Unbound Symposium: Batifort & Heath's “The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties: Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization”
Monday, April 30, 2018
- Francesca De Vittor, Responsabilità degli Stati e dell’Unione europea nella conclusione e nell’esecuzione di ‘accordi’ per il controllo extraterritoriale della migrazione
- Andrea Saccucci, Il divieto di espulsioni collettive di stranieri in situazioni di emergenza migratoria
- Enzamaria Tramontana, Uccisioni mirate, legittima difesa preventiva e diritti umani
- Alice Riccardi, The Use of UN Smart Sanctions in Connection with ICC Proceedings: A (Human Rights-Oriented) Rebuttal
- International Protection of Human Rights in Africa, Asia and the Middle East
- Giuseppe Pascale, Introduction
- Konstantin D. Magliveras, The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the League of Arab States and in the Arab-Islamic World: An Overview
- Yota Negishi, Homo Oeconomicus or Homo Juridicus? Human Rights as Neoliberal Governmentality of Asian Sovereign States
- Giuseppe Pascale, An Optimistic Perspective on the Proliferation of Human Rights Monitoring Bodies in Africa
- Luigi Crema, Le consultazioni popolari in Catalogna e nel Kurdistan iracheno
- ElenaKaiser, Libertà di espressione e tutela della privacy: la pronuncia della Grande Camera della Corte di Strasburgo nel caso Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy
- Federico Ferri, Il Codice di condotta per le ONG e i diritti dei migranti: fra diritto internazionale e politiche europee
- Laura Salvadego, I respingimenti sommari di migranti alle frontiere terrestri dell’énclave di Melilla
The American Society of International Law calls for submissions of paper proposals for the 2018 ASIL Research Forum to be held at ASIL Academic Partner UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles, California as part of the Society's Midyear Meeting.
The Research Forum, a Society initiative introduced in 2011, aims to provide a setting for the presentation and focused discussion of works-in-progress. All ASIL members are invited to attend the Forum, whether presenting a paper or not.
Papers may be on any topic related to international and transnational law and should be unpublished (for purposes of the call, publication to an electronic database such as SSRN is not considered publication). Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome.
Proposals should be submitted here by Monday, June 25, 2018. Interested authors should submit an abstract (no more than 500 words in length) summarizing the paper to be presented at the Forum. Abstracts will be considered via a blind review process. Papers that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered. Notifications of acceptance will go out in late July.
Papers accepted for presentation will be assembled into panels based on common themes of international law addressed by the authors. The organizers welcome volunteers to serve as discussants who will comment on the papers. All authors of accepted papers will be required to submit a draft paper four weeks before the Research Forum, on Thursday, October 11, 2018. Accepted authors must commit to being present on both Friday, November 9 and Saturday, November 10, 2018. Draft papers will be posted in advance of the Forum on the Midyear Meeting App, accessible only by participants in the Meeting.
Call for Papers: Taking Stock of Global Constitutionalism – To What Extent Did It Really Change International Law?
Call for papers
Taking Stock of Global Constitutionalism – To What Extent did it Really Change International Law?
A Workshop at the Annual Ius Commune Conference,
Amsterdam, Thursday 29 November 2018, 14.00-18.00h
Over the past twenty years or so the study of international law has been confronted with an abundant attention for ‘constitutionalism’. The main reason was that international law had changed, at least in the eyes of its observers. No longer was international law a law between states; it had become a law within states, with a clear impact on individuals. Examples include rules on terrorism, on climate change, on migration and refugees, on health and food safety, on trade or on technical standards. The idea was that with the transfer of the regulation of these issues from the state to the global level – using all kinds of formal and informal international cooperation fora – constitutional safeguards (mainly in terms of rule of law principles) needed to be reassessed and perhaps recreated at different levels. Studies on global constitutional law, global administrative law, post-national rule-making, the exercise of public authority or informal international lawmaking suddenly became a main focus of attention. Public international law was believed to change into international public law, underlining the more hierarchical public dimension rather than the original private or contract law dimension; and terms like law-making by international organizations and international legislation became more commonly used. It is very well accepted to think in terms of an existing global constitution, both in general terms or in relation to specific issue areas (e.g. the global economic constitution).
This workshop aims to collect papers that either clearly confirm that these developments (or at least our perception of them) have indeed changed the nature and/or the study of international law, or that argue that in the end nothing really changed in the nature or the study of international law. The workshop takes place in the framework of the research theme Constitutional Processes in the Global Legal Order.
Paper proposals (no longer than 500 words) can be sent to the organisers of the workshop: Cedric Ryngaert (UU), Denise Prevost (UM), Jan Wouters (KUL) and Ramses Wessel (UT) at firstname.lastname@example.org by 15 June 2018. We welcome proposals by both Ius Commune members and other interested colleagues (hence, feel free to share this call). The result of the selection process will be made known by 1 July 2018. The deadline for draft papers is 15 November 2018. Depending on the quality of the papers, the organisers will consider drafting a proposal for a special issue of a journal in the field. Unfortunately, Ius Commune will not be able to cover travel and accommodation. Further information on the Annual Congress will soon be available here.
The 2018 conference will take a hard and unflinching look at the multitude of roles and functions played by universality in international legal discourses as well as its associated narratives of progress and virtues. In doing so, it will provide a critical appraisal of the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that come with international law and its universalist discursive strategies. This will require that universality is not reduced to the question of the geographical outreach of international law, but instead, is understood in terms of boundaries. This will also entail examining how the idea of universality – which does not lend itself to a translation in all languages – was developed in some of the dominant vernaculars of international law – primarily English and French – before being universalised and imposed upon international lawyers from all traditions. This will simultaneously offer an opportunity to revisit the ideologies that constitute the identity of international lawyers today, as well as the socialisation, reproduction and legal educational processes which they undergo to become international lawyers. Special attention will be paid to the place which Europe has secured for itself by virtue of the progress and historical narratives built around the idea of universality.
In recent decades, however, the virtues and ostensible progress commonly associated with universality have been contested. As is illustrated by the several generations of Third World Approaches to International Law, international lawyers have argued that universality can function as an ideology as well as an instrument of domination and exclusion. They have come to realise that the way in which universality is deployed in international legal discourses constantly creates a periphery and an otherness which suppresses memory and struggle. Just as the use of the idea of humanity fuelled scepticism in the middle of the 20th century (see e.g. Schmitt), the invocation of universality has come to arouse suspicion among international lawyers. For many TWAIL and post-colonialist theorists, “whoever invokes universality wants to cheat”.
Aust: Zwischen Freirecht und Völkerpsychologie: Hermann Kantorowicz und die völkerrechtliche Kriegsschuldfrage
Hermann Kantorowicz is mostly remembered for his contributions to legal history, legal theory and criminal law. In 1923, he was asked by a Committee of the German Reichstag to write an expert opinion on the "war guilt question". It took Kantorowicz several years to submit an extremely rich an detailed opinion which was, however, never published during his lifetime for political reasons. This contribution sheds light on this expert opinion from the perspective of international law. In particular, it asks whether Kantorowicz' views might be seen as forerunners of a later turn to international criminal law. On balance, this is not the case. The contribution focuses in particular on the methodological bases of Kantorowicz' opinion on the outbreak of the First World War. His approach can be characterized by a mixture between his preference for a "Freirecht" approach and a rather suprising turn to collective psychology. Although the opinion would have been a much needed counterpoint to the nationalistic discourse in wide circles of the Weimar international law community, it convinces less as a contribution to the doctrinal development of international law.