International law and legal institutions are central to the post-Cold War rules-based international order. The multilateral arrangements underpinning this order are coming under visible stress, however, as state and non-state actors seek to challenge, reshape, and in some cases withdraw from international institutions and their associated global and regional regimes, including across economic, environmental, human rights/humanitarian, and security-related spheres. This dynamic raises questions about the ability of governments and international institutions to navigate evolving collective policy challenges (e.g. climate change, financial regulation, terrorism, shifts in trade relationships, and shifting forms of warfare) in an increasingly unstable international political environment.
This workshop will provide an opportunity to consider how (and whether) international law can be considered to be under pressure in different areas, the political, economic and social drivers involved, and the implications of these for the future of international law and governance.
The organisers welcome papers from researchers and practitioners exploring: the nature, extent and manifestations of international legal contestation and resistance; the material and ideational sources and drivers of these processes; the causal and constitutive mechanisms involved; legal and political implications, and the resilience and adaptability of existing regimes and institutions to emerging trends.
Abstracts of not more than 300 words should be submitted to email@example.com by 30 June 2018, and should be accompanied by a one-page CV for each applicant.
We are particularly keen to encourage contributions from PhD students and early career researchers, and can offer modest travel bursaries for a small number of attendees. Please indicate when you submit your abstract whether you would like to be considered for one of these, along with details of the amount sought. Lunch will be provided.
Friday, May 11, 2018
In her Inaugural Lecture Janne E. Nijman explores the so-called ‘Turn to History’ in international legal scholarship. Interest in the intellectual history or ‘history of ideas’ of international law has surged around the last turn of the century. A new sub-field has thus emerged: ‘History and Theory of International Law’. Nijman contextualises this development and stages three possible approaches of why and how to study ideas and theories of the past. A central proposition is that the field of ‘History and Theory of international Law’ ultimately aims to establish a dialogue between international legal thought then and now. In this way (and by employment of e.g. the Cambridge School method) a critical distance emerges with respect to our own international legal thinking and its underlying political and moral ideas. The meaning of international law ideas changes through time – in the study thereof lies the critical potential and value for our own thinking.
International law is often presented as an emancipatory, progressive project in which human dignity has come to be increasingly well-protected. With the ‘turn to history’ however the dark sides of international law, including the influence of European – also Dutch – colonial expansion on the development of international law (and vice versa), come to the fore. Studying for example the thought of Hugo de Groot uncovers this ambivalence. Nonetheless Grotius’ humanist thinking about humankind, society, and (international) law also opens up space for a perspective alternative to the ‘Hobbesian’ international order. Fundamental issues then are: who counts within the international legal order, and on which moral and political presuppositions is this order built? This Lecture makes a connection to the work of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur and points to a possible alternative line of reasoning in which the concept of international legal personality functions as a starting point for questions about just international institutions and law. These are urgent questions at a time of globalisation, interdependency and hyperconnectivity, in which citizens are highly critical towards European and international/global institutions.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
le Roux-Kemp: International and Operational Responses to Disease Control: Beyond Ebola and Epistemological Confines
The content of this article is divided into four parts. First, in Part II, the lifecycle of two epidemics will be considered, Ebola, and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Considering these two outbreaks and the international legal responses thereto provides a valuable lens through which the multiple layers of disease outbreaks and control from the past to the present can be observed. In Part III, this paper provides an overview of the international legal and operational framework for public health emergencies, confined to references and examples from the two outbreaks selected for and discussed in Part II. Part IV considers the national legal responses of those countries most affected by the recent Ebola outbreak and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Part V discusses the question of whether to quarantine or not. Part VI discusses lessons to be learned, and why knowledge production beyond disciplinary confines is necessary. And finally, Part VII of this article concludes with a critical analysis of two observed failings of the current international legal and operational framework for public health emergencies. In considering the shortcomings of the current framework it will be argued that a more holistic approach to disease control is required that looks beyond disciplinary confines.
This chapter makes the simple point that if arbitral lawmaking is not legitimate to the actors who can change that lawmaking, it will likely be unstable and change. Obvious as the point may sound, it helps frame legitimacy debates in international arbitration in a way that makes them practically valuable: it narrows them down to a zone of so-called “conceptual cash-value”.
Making that point requires to do two things. First, to decide what meaning is best given to the concept of “legitimacy”. Second, and on that basis, to develop an analytical framework to easily demarcate those actors whose legitimacy perspective matters from those whose perspective is irrelevant, regardless how ethically compelling it in itself may be. The chapter tackles these two things in turn and to do so reaches out to pragmatic philosophy, the legitimacy literature in international law, and political systems theories.
- Aisya Abdul Rahman, Legitimacy and Legality of Collective Unilateral Humanitarian Interventions
- Barbara Stępień, A Tale of Non-State Actors and Human Rights at Sea: Maritime Migration Crisis and Commercial Vessels’ Obligations
- Ana Paula Lamas Ovando, Delimitación y determinación del margen exterior de la plataforma continental más allá de las 200 M. Dos procesos distintos
- Leopoldo M. A. Godio, Las declaraciones de los Estados y la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar de 1982. Su aplicación al sistema de solución de controversias en el asunto del Mar del Sur de China (Filipinas v. China)
- Arno Dal Ri Júnior & Erika Louise Bastos Calazans, Transnational Corporations Subjectivity Based on the Criteria of the Bernadotte Case and the Traditional International Law Doctrine
- Liliana Ronconi, El acceso a la educación desde una mirada igualitaria: la influencia del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos
- Luciano Meneguetti Pereira, A Convenção Interamericana sobre o Desaparecimento Forçado de Pessoas e seus impactos no Brasil
- Jorge Arturo Ulloa Cordero & Víctor Alonso Vargas Sibaja, El cambio de nombre conforme a la identidad de género en Costa Rica: una revisión a la luz del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos
- Mariana Ferolla Vallandro do Valle, A proibição do retorno à privação socioeconômica: a aplicação do princípio de non-refoulement a partir do Pacto Internacional sobre Direitos Econômicos, Sociais e Culturais
- Cláudio Cerqueira Bastos Netto & Pedro Farias Oliveira, O dano ambiental nos crimes do Estatuto de Roma e o real impacto do Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation
- José Luis Caballero Ochoa & Daniel Antonio García Huerta, Fidelidades democráticas. La participación política del servicio público en condiciones de democracia directa
- Jacqueline Hellman, La superación de la doctrina clásica en torno a la subjetividad internacional en detrimento de las multinacionales
- Javier Dondé Matute, Responsabilidad penal internacional: los nuevos escenarios dogmáticos
- Laura Íñigo Álvarez, La responsabilidad internacional de los grupos armados: ¿responsabilidad individual o colectiva?
- José Luis Marín Fuentes, El nuevo derecho internacional privado chino: cercanía o lejanía con el derecho latinoamericano sobre la materia
- Gustavo A. Beade, Emociones reactivas, inculpación y castigo. ¿También en el derecho penal internacional?
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
- Tendayi Achiume, Governing Xenophobia
- Johanna Aleria P. Lorenzo, “Development” Versus “Sustainable Development”?: (Re-) Constructing the International Bank for Sustainable Development
- Matiangai Sirleaf, Ebola Does Not Fall from the Sky: Structural Violence & International Responsibility
- Simone Molin Friis, ‘Behead, burn, crucify, crush’: Theorizing the Islamic State’s public displays of violence
- Kai Oppermann & Alexander Spencer, Narrating success and failure: Congressional debates on the ‘Iran nuclear deal’
- Ingvild Bode, Reflective practices at the Security Council: Children and armed conflict and the three United Nations
- Ian Clark, Sebastian Kaempf, Christian Reus-Smit, & Emily Tannock, Crisis in the laws of war? Beyond compliance and effectiveness
- Bronwyn Leebaw, Justice and the faithless: The demand for disobedience in international criminal law
- Nadim Khoury, Plotting stories after war: Toward a methodology for negotiating identity
- Gitte du Plessis, When pathogens determine the territory: Toward a concept of non-human borders
- Eren Duzgun, The international relations of ‘bourgeois revolutions’: Disputing the Turkish Revolution
- Martin Coward, Against network thinking: A critique of pathological sovereignty
- Stephen Michael Christian, Autism in International Relations: A critical assessment of International Relations’ autism metaphors
- Heike Krieger, Björnstjern Baade, & Linus Mührel, Introduction: International Humanitarian Law and Areas of Limited Statehood
- Raphael Schäfer, A History of Division(s): a Critical Assessment of the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict
- Katja Schöberl & Linus Mührel, Sunken Vessel or Blooming Flower? Lotus, Permissions and Restrictions within International Humanitarian Law
- Pia Hesse, Comment: neither Sunken Vessel nor Blooming Flower! The Lotus Principle and International Humanitarian Law
- Manuel Brunner, Detention for Security Reasons by the Armed Forces of a State in Situations of Non-International Armed Conflict: the Quest for a Legal Basis
- Anton O. Petrov, Comment: Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict by States – Just a Matter of Perspective on Areas of Limited Statehood?
- Vincent Widdig, Detention by Organised Armed Groups in Non-International Armed Conflicts: the Role of Non-State Actors in a State-Centred International Legal System
- Lars Müller, Comment: Detention by Armed Groups
- Ira Ryk-Lakhman Aharonovich, Foreign Investments as Non-Human Targets
- Charlotte Lülf, The Protection of (Foreign) Investment during Belligerent Occupation – Considerations on International Humanitarian Law and International Investment Law
- Björnstjern Baade, Linus Mührel, & Anton O. Petrov, Concluding Observations: how International Humanitarian Law is Shaped to Meet the Challenges Arising from Areas of Limited Statehood – Theoretical Problems in Practice
- Rory Cormac & Richard J. Aldrich, Grey is the new black: covert action and implausible deniability
- Ian Klinke, Geopolitics and the political right: lessons from Germany
- Marlies Glasius, What authoritarianism is … and is not: a practice perspective
- Masanori Hasegawa, The geography and geopolitics of the renminbi: a regional key currency in Asia
- Andrew B. Kennedy & Darren J. Lim, The innovation imperative: technology and US–China rivalry in the twenty-first century
- Shahar Hameiri & Lee Jones, China challenges global governance? Chinese international developmen finance and the AIIB
- Xiangfeng Yang, China's clear and present conundrum on the Korean peninsula: stuck between the past and the future
- Cinzia Bianco & Gareth Stansfield, The intra-GCC crises: mapping GCC fragmentation after 2011
- Geoffrey Hosking, Trust and distrust in Russia: the heritage of the October Revolution re-examined
Although the historical function of criminal courts tasked with adjudicating episodes of mass violence is well-established, the precise purpose behind narrating history within atrocity trials remains a matter of contestation. This article examines how certain domestic atrocity trials have constructed narratives of the past aligned with the nation-building aspirations of the States in which they were convened. Rather than framing justice primarily in terms of upholding standards of fairness to the accused or responding to the needs of victims and local communities, the domestic atrocity trials examined in this article reflect a notion of ‘justice as identity’ whereby the criminal courtroom becomes a didactic mechanism of nation-building. The article examines two domestic atrocity trials in particular – the German trial of Auschwitz guards and the French trial of Paul Touvier, a former regional chief of the Vichy Milice. By revealing how these trials prioritised competing conceptions of the rule of law – the Auschwitz trial relying on a conservative conception of the rule of law underpinned by a strict legality conception of the principle of legality, and the Touvier trial relying on a more transformative conception of the rule of law underpinned by a substantive justice conception of the principle of legality – this article reveals an important dimension of the mechanics by which domestic atrocity trials have been able to legitimate particular conceptions of national identity out of specific interpretations of a nation’s past.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Rodriguez Correa: Sovereign Bond Disputes Caseload: Basis for Legal Strategies in International Investment Law Arbitration
This article is part of the master thesis “Dispute Settlement after Sovereign Debt Defaults: A Forum Menu for Holdout Creditors”. The article analyses issues that holdout creditors should take into account when initiating arbitral proceedings before an international investment tribunal, particularly under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes rules. The article also analyses aspects of financial law, mainly by examining hypothetical situations where treaty shopping can be executed through International Central Securities Depositories such as Euroclear and Clearstream. The article provides an objective analysis of the main pros and cons of resolving sovereign debt disputes before investment tribunals. Finally, the article demonstrates that bondholders who have acquired their bonds in the secondary market should not go before ICSID looking for full enforcement of sovereign bonds’ terms, as the compensation awarded might be considerably limited, having regard only to the bonds’ market value.
Este artículo es parte de la tesis “Resolución de disputas después de default en la deuda pública: Menú de foros para los acreedores retirados de la reestructuración de la deuda (holdouts)”. Este artículo analiza los aspectos que los acreedores retirados deben tener en cuenta cuando pretenden iniciar procedimientos arbitrales ante tribunales de inversiones, especialmente bajo las reglas del Centro Internacional de Disputas Relativas a Inversiones. El artículo también cubre aspectos de derecho financiero, especialmente hace referencia a situaciones hipotéticas donde se pueden configurar prácticas de “mercado de foros” a través Depositarios Centrales Internacionales de Valores tales como Euroclear y Clearstream. El artículo brinda un análisis objetivo de los principales pros y contras en disputas de deuda soberana. Finalmente, el artículo demuestra que, si los bonistas han adquirido sus bonos en el mercado secundario, estos no deberías ir al CIADI en busca de pago total de su crédito debido a que la compensación podría ser limitada al valor representativo del bono en el mercado de valores.
The German constitution of 1949 prohibits any war of aggression. The deployment of the military abroad is allowed only for purposes of defense and within the framework of a system of collective security. Under the latter heading, the German army has since the 1990s contributed to numerous collective military operations, ranging from UN-peace missions over NATO operations to anti-terror action. The contours of the constitutional regime are judge-made and, so far, based on four lead judgments since 1994, together with further case law. In the seminal judgment of 1994, the Constitutional Court identified a constitution-based requirement of parliamentary approval for each military deployment. The formalities of the involvement of the Bundestag were, in 2005, codified in a statute. The rationale of this requirement is to secure a democratic basis for every deployment, flowing from public deliberation and a vote in the parliament. The requirement has also served to counterbalance the development of the NATO treaty by the government under which NATO has extended its range of activities.
Recent German participation in coalitions of the willing against pirates and terrorists have raised the question whethersuch operations are still covered by the constitution, because they are neither traditional self-defense nor based on authorisations by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
The Constitutional Court can review whether a deployment decision by the government unduly curtails powers of the parliament or of a parliamentary faction and it has, through this lens, frequently examined the constitutional parameters of the use of force and, incidentally, also aspects of international law.
Over the last quarter of a century a new system of global criminal justice has emerged. But how successful has it been? Are we witnessing a new era of cosmopolitan justice or are the old principles of victors’ justice still in play? In this book, Daniele Archibugi and Alice Pease offer a vibrant and thoughtful analysis of the successes and shortcomings of the global justice system from 1945 to the present day.
Part I traces the evolution of this system and the cosmopolitan vision enshrined within it. Part II looks at how it has worked in practice, focusing on the trials of some of the world’s most notorious war criminals, including Augusto Pinochet, Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadić, Saddam Hussein and Omar al-Bashir, to assess the efficacy of the new dynamics of international punishment and the extent to which they can operate independently, without the interference of powerful governments and their representatives. Looking to the future, Part III asks how the system’s failings can be addressed. What actions are required for cosmopolitan values to become increasingly embedded in the global justice system in years to come?
- A Court that Dare Not Speak its Name: Human Rights at the Court of Justice; Vital Statistics; Time for Change: With Thanks to Guy Fiti Sinclair; In this Issue
- The EJIL Foreword
- Eyal Benvenisti, Upholding Democracy amid the Challenges of New Technology: What Role for the Law of Global Governance?
- Wolfgang Alschner & Damien Charlotin, The Growing Complexity of the International Court of Justice’s Self-Citation Network
- Hendrik Simon, The Myth of Liberum Ius ad Bellum– Forgotten Disputes about Justifying War in 19th Century International Legal Discourse
- Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral, A Short History of International Law Journals (1869–2017)
- Focus: International Economic Law
- Sungjoon Cho & Jürgen Kurtz, Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics
- Christopher Vajda, The EU and Beyond: Dispute Resolution in International Economic Agreements
- Roaming Charges
- Roaming Charges: Manila: More than One Way to Heaven
- Symposium: International Law and the First World War - International Law before 1914 and the Outbreak of War
- Gabriela Frei, International Law and the First World War: Introduction
- Jochen von Bernstorff, Violence and International Law before 1914: On Imperial Ordering and the Ontology of the Nation State
- Critical Review of International Governance
- Alan Desmond, The Private Life of Family Matters: Curtailing Human Rights Protection for Migrants under Article 8 ECHR?
- Review Essay
- Charlotte Peevers, Liberal Internationalism, Radical Transformation and the Making of World Orders. Review of Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
- Book Reviews
- Jan Klabbers, reviewing Manfred Nowak, Human Rights or Global Capitalism: The Limits of Privatization
- Alina Miron, reviewing Nathalie Clarenc, La suspension des engagements internationaux
- Paolo Palchetti, reviewing Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto and Raphaëlle Nollez-Goldbach eds., Les motifs non-juridiques des jugements internationaux
- Wolfgang Münch, reviewing Joachim Müller ed., Reforming the United Nations: A Chronology
- The Last Page
- Stephen Haven, Monolith
Since the turn of the century, investment treaty arbitration (ITA) tribunals have begun citing past decisions with increasing frequency. They do so despite the absence of any formal doctrine of stare decisis and the presence of structural obstacles to the use of precedent in this context. Scholarship in this area has focused on explaining the rise of this de facto doctrine of precedent and evaluating the merits of the practice. Few have grappled with more practical questions about how precedent should operate in this unique sphere, but even a cursory examination of ITA decisions would reveal that some order and discipline are needed if the practice is to continue.
This Article is the first to offer a comprehensive framework to guide ITA tribunals in the practice of precedent. It does so from the dual standpoints of interpreting precedent (how much deference is owed) and authoring precedent (how broadly or narrowly to write). The framework is designed to help tribunals at each stage balance the three key values of predictability, accuracy, and legitimacy that any system of precedent is expected to serve. And it shows how that balancing should be conducted in light of the distinctive institutional features that make ITA different from common law systems. At a high level, the proposal is to replace the common law approach of stable, incremental decisionmaking with a model of robust and contentious dialogue. That means tribunals should view past decisions skeptically and, in writing their own decisions, seek not just to resolve the immediate dispute at hand but to advance the broader conversation of which each case forms one part.
Die Arbeit widmet sich einem Problem, das die Völkerrechtswissenschaft seit längerem beschäftigt und das im Zuge des Kampfes der Staatengemeinschaft gegen den sog. Islamischen Staat weiterhin an Aktualität und Bedeutung gewonnen hat. Finanziell teils beträchtlich ausgestattete, technologisch hochgerüstete und straff organisiert auftretende nicht-staatliche Akteure verüben Anschläge in Dimensionen, wie ursprünglich nur von staatlicher Seite bekannt. Die Grundlagen des klassischen Völkerrechts berührend, befasst sich die Studie mit der Frage, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Staat gegenüber privaten Akteuren das in Art. 51 UN-Charta verankerte Selbstverteidigungsrecht ausüben kann und welchen Grenzen es insoweit unterliegt. Die Autorin geht diesem Thema durch Normanalyse und Auswertung von Staatenpraxis umfassend nach, greift hierfür bisherige völkerrechtswissenschaftliche Überlegungen auf und erörtert Sinn und Risiken von Anpassungen der rechtlichen Vorgaben.
This thesis critically analyses the highly topical and controversial issue of a state's recourse to the right of self-defence, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, in cases of attacks by non-state actors, a problem that has gained further relevance in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. Indeed, non-state actors - who are often financially strong, technologically well-equipped and highly organised - attack states in ways that previously only nation states were capable of. Here, the author critically evaluates this topic through norm interpretation, analysis of relevant state practices and previous academic thinking to illustrate how this seminal topic has impacted on the foundations of public international law.
Monday, May 7, 2018
The increasing plurality of actors and places in the international "rule" making of international environmental issues has drawn much attention in international legal scholarship. Yet, the question of how "bindingness" is created remains underexplored and current doctrines of sources and law-making have failed to provide appropriate evaluative tools and explanatory frameworks. The aim of this workshop is to generate new insights with respects to the creation of bindingness in international environmental law (with a special focus on climate change). Participants will be expected to shed light on the question of the "who" (the actors) and the "how" (the process), that are question usually obfuscated in the dominant theories and discourses with regard to sources of international law.
Somos & Gostwyck-Lewis: A New Architecture of Justice: Dan Kiley's Design for the Nuremberg Trials’ Courtroom
Courtroom 600 in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice is one of the most iconic sites in the history of international criminal law. Yet the extensive literature on Courtroom 600 neglects the original 1945 drawings of the architect Dan Kiley, now in the archives of the Harvard Design School. This article revises our understanding of Courtroom 600 in light of these drawings. Among other findings it argues that Kiley, rather than Jackson or the OSS, was the main source of design decisions; that the secondary literature overemphasises film at the expense of architecture; and that the design of both Courtroom 600 and the entire reconstructed Palace of Justice offer valuable insights into this key moment in the history of international law.
Asia is currently confronted with unprecedented challenges in all areas of international law. While some of them are repercussions of developments on a global scale, others reflect the diversity of Asia, which fuels growth but also creates complexity. As political and economic relations expand and social and cultural exchanges grow in the region, local interests and concerns become more intricately intertwined with international, transnational, and regional interests and concerns, which deepens the complexity in Asia. As the driving force of the world economy amid the advancement of information networks and the globalization of business in a new era, Asia requires the evolution of international rules and institutions. This conference seeks to explore how international law can address these challenges in relation to regional frameworks and initiatives in Asia.
- Motoko Aizawa, Daniel Bradlow & Margaret Wachenfeld, International Financial Regulatory Standards and Human Rights: Connecting the Dots
- Yenkong Ngangjoh-Hodu & Collins C. Ajibo, Legitimate Expectation in Investor-State Arbitration: Re-contextualising a Controversial Concept from a Developing Country Perspective
- Stephanie Switzer, Liminal Spaces: Special and Differential Treatment as an Incompletely Theorised Agreement
- Tanjina Sharmin, Application of MFN to the Substantive Standards: Why Should We Re Investigate the Uncontested?
- Rafael Tamayo-Álvarez, Colombia’s Land Restitution Programme and International Investment Law: Normative Tensions and Possible Convergences Concerning Investor Diligence
Is there a point to international justice? Many contend that tribunals deliver not only justice but truth, reconciliation, peace, democratization, and the rule of law. These are the transitional justice ideals frequently invoked in relation to the international hybrid tribunal in Cambodia that is trying senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime for genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the mid-to-late 1970s. In this ground-breaking book, Alexander Hinton argues these claims are a facade masking what is most critical: the ways in which transitional justice is translated, experienced, and understood in everyday life. Rather than reading the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in the language of global justice and human rights, survivors understand the proceedings in their own terms, including Buddhist beliefs and on-going relationships with the spirits of the dead.
While the political, social and economic impact and consequences of World War I, World War II and subsequent conflicts have been well-documented, many questions remain regarding the legal structures and restrictions introduced during those hostilities. This is despite the fact that engagement by belligerent countries in such conflicts often required formal declarations be made according to law in order to be valid. Extensive, unique legal structures were also needed to facilitate the war effort on the home front and beyond. At the end of World War I many countries maintained their wartime restrictions in the post-war period; in some jurisdictions those controls remain in force to this day. One of the world’s most famous legal documents, the Treaty of Versailles, contributed to the eventual outbreak of World War II. In more recent times, engagement in conflicts has occurred without formal proclamation, further complicating the role and rule of law.
With a view to further investigating and interrogating the legal histories of war, scholars are invited by guest editor Dr Catherine Bond, to submit contributions to a forthcoming special edition of Legal History focusing on ‘Law and War’.
Articles should be between 6000-8000 words and contributions may address any area that intersects with law, war and history. Contributions may also focus on any jurisdiction and submissions by international and comparative scholars are welcomed. While the timing of this special edition coincides with the end of centenary commemorations of World War I and will be published during the centenary of the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles, articles may explore any prior conflict.
The deadline for the call for papers is 31 October 2018, with a view to publication in mid-2019. All submissions will be subject to peer review.
All submissions should subscribe to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation.
Papers must include an abstract of approximately 200 words and a short author biography
Enquiries should be directed to Dr Catherine Bond at firstname.lastname@example.org.