This chapter focuses on the role of the international community in fostering pre-transition transitional justice. This is a project that can take multiple forms, including documentation efforts initiated by states, the UN Human Rights Council, and the General Assembly. States and NGOs also surveyed and trained Syrian actors to prepare them for undertaking a program of transitional justice, including the psychosocial rehabilitation of victims and perpetrators. With access to the International Criminal Court effectively barred by Russia’s veto, accountability alternatives included promoting a potential regional tribunal or specialised chambers that could be inserted within the Syrian judicial system, as well as national trials under principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the pre-transition work that has been achieved to date, much will remain to be done once the war is at a close. What can be achieved from the perspective of transitional justice will depend on the composition of the next Syrian regime and the role of Bashar al-Assad, who has become a symbol of sectarian repression and is unlikely to countenance robust justice or truth-telling processes. Whether he will be open to making a genuine commitment to reconciliation and the rehabilitation of victims remains to be seen. In any case, the most enduring legacy of the international community’s pre-transition transitional justice enterprise will likely prove to be twofold. First, the international community has invested heavily in the documentation of abuses with an eye towards preserving a cache of evidence that can be tapped into as accountability processes go forward. Second is the creation of a cadre of Syrian practitioners with enhanced skills in the challenges and possibilities of transitional justice. It will be for these actors to decide what is feasible and what is desirable and whether and how to involve the international community to achieve the optimal balance between the two. With Assad still in power, there may be limited opportunities for international engagement in this regard, so Syrians across the political spectrum will have to determine for themselves whether the field of transitional justice has anything to offer as they work to rebuild their society and body politic.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Friday, October 26, 2018
Export of cyber technology can be a vehicle to bring not only business opportunities but also human rights risks into trading partners. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, political controversies have arisen around EU-exported cyber surveillance technology, which allegedly helped autocratic states monitor and arrest dissidents. In response to the European Parliament’s call, the European Commission proposed, in September 2016, the integration of human rights due diligence in the process of export control. A particular emphasis was put on the protection of the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. The European Commission’s proposal, however, invited strong contestations both from industry and member states. Essentially, dual-use export control has developed in order to mitigate military risks. Attempts to integrate human rights risks in export control have thus invited opposition from stakeholders. As of 20 July 2018, the proposal is under the first reading before the Council of the EU. Regardless of the EU’s legislative outcomes, the fact that the Commission’s initiatives invited a great deal of resistance is intriguing in itself. Contestations levelled against the proposal reveal some of the pragmatic obstacles that the EU encounters in achieving its rights-based international trade.
We are in a moment where peoples and states are interested, directly or indirectly, in asserting their "national interest," unilaterally if necessary. In the White House, the national security policy is premised on "America First," while Catalans and Iraqi Kurds have taken steps to unilaterally declare their independence. All of these actions have generated tension both domestically and internationally. However, even though the potential for unilateral action has been receiving a lot of attention, the larger issue of the legality of unilateral acts is often hard to discern. This book provides a history of the doctrine of unilateral acts in international law, tracing their treatment in the international sphere from consent based acts, to obligations erga omnes, to acts of estoppel.
Through chapter-by-chapter case studies, this book traces the "legalization" of the category of unilateral acts from its 19th Century foundations into a broad category of obligation. To understand why and how this occurred, this book examines the history of the legal doctrine of unilateral acts, which shows that in spite of efforts to progressively make unilateral acts "legal" they are still not precisely defined or easy to apply, challenging the very commitment these acts are meant to establish.
International law, we are taught, is the law made by states to govern their relations. Unsurprisingly, international law scholarship has traditionally embraced a corresponding methodological statism. Despite common perceptions, however, statism remains dominant: at most, elite non-state actors are studied alongside states. This article advocates a turn to ‘constructivist methodological individualism’: a commitment to studying the making, interpretation, implementation, development and breaking of international law by ordinary, individual people, together with the reciprocal engagement of international law with them.
- Special Issue: Cannabis Regulation and the UN Drug Control Treaties
- David R. Bewley-Taylor & Malgosia Fitzmaurice, The Evolution and Modernisation of Treaty Regimes
- Rick Lines & Damon Barrett, Cannabis Reform, ‘Medical and Scientific Purposes’ and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
- Neil Boister & Martin Jelsma, Inter se Modification of the UN Drug Control Conventions
- Piet Hein van Kempen & Masha Fedorova, Regulated Legalization of Cannabis through Positive Human Rights Obligations and Inter se Treaty Modification
Thursday, October 25, 2018
From Trump to Brexit, from an assertive Russia to the continuing migrant crises, and from the public outcry towards multilateral trade to the rise of populism, these days working in hardly any EU policy area is ‘business as usual’. The EU and its Member States face unprecedented challenges, in globalisation, trade, multilateralism and changes in the global order. How to attain the external objectives as laid down in the EU treaties?
CLEER, the Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, celebrates its 10th Anniversary with a two-day academic conference on EU External Relations: Tackling global challenges? This conference brings together world-leading academics, practitioners and policy makers from the extensive international network of CLEER.
The conference takes stock of the EU actions (and reactions) through external action instruments in areas such as migration, trade, and neighbouring policies. It reflects on the EU as a global actor and a ‘normative power’, both empowered and constrained by its unique legal framework. Top speakers will discuss the appropriateness and effectiveness of the institutional structures underpinning EU external action in addressing today’s challenges. They will discuss key developments in migration, asylum and human rights, sustainability, trade agreements, investment and Brexit, and will suggest possible ways forward.
In recent years there has been a flourishing body of work on the Law of Treaties, crucial for all fields within international law. However, scholarship on modern treaty law falls into two distinct strands which have not previously been effectively synthesized. One concerns the investigation of concepts which are fundamental to or inherent in the law of treaties generally - such as consent, object and purpose, breach of obligation and provisional application - while the other focuses upon the application of treaties and of treaty law in particular substantive (e.g. human rights, international humanitarian law, investment protection, environmental regulation) or institutional contexts (including the Security Council, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization). This volume represents the culmination of a series of collaborative explorations by leading experts into the operation, development and effectiveness of the modern law of treaties, as viewed through these contrasting perspectives.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Has government protection of human rights improved? The answer to this and many other research questions is strongly affected by the assumptions we make and the modeling strategy we choose as the basis for creating human rights country scores. Fariss (2014) introduced a statistical model that produced latent scores showing an improving trend in human rights. Consistent with his stringent assumptions, his statistical model heavily weighted rare incidents of mass killings such as genocide, while discounting indicators of lesser and more common violations such as torture and political imprisonment. We replicated his analysis, replacing the actual values of all indicators of lesser human rights violations with randomly generated data, and obtained an identical improving trend. However, when we replicated the analysis, relaxing his assumptions by allowing all indicators to potentially have a similar effect on the latent scores, we find no human rights improvement.
- Marcelo Kohen & Mamadou Hébié, Introduction
- Marcelo Kohen & Mamadou Hébié, Territorial conflicts and their international legal framework
- Mamadou Hébié, The acquisition of original titles of territorial sovereignty during colonial expansion
- Mamadou Hébié, The acquisition of derivative titles of territorial sovereignty from local political entities during colonial expansion
- Marcelo G. Kohen, Titles and Effectivités in Territorial Disputes
- Kate Parlett, State conduct in territorial disputes beyond effectivités: Recognition, acquiescence, renunciation and estoppel
- Giuseppe Nesi, Boundaries
- Pierre Klein & Vaios Koutroulis, Territorial disputes and the use of force
- Seokwoo Lee, Territorial settlements in peace treaties
- Mariano J. Aznar, The human factor in territorial disputes
- Theodore Christakis & Aristoteles Constantinides, Territorial disputes in the context of secessionist conflicts
- Giovanni Distefano, Time factor and territorial disputes
- Katherine Del Mar, Evidence in territorial disputes
- Marcelo Kohen & Mamadou Hébié, Conclusion
- Special Issue: The Inter-American Human Rights System
- Par Engstrom & Courtney Hillebrecht, Institutional change and the Inter-American Human Rights System
- Bruno Boti Bernardi, Silence, hindrances and omissions: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Brazilian military dictatorship
- Luis van Isschot, Assessing the record of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Latin America's rural conflict zones (1979–2016)
- Jorge Contesse, The international authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: a critique of the conventionality control doctrine
- Clara Sandoval, Two steps forward, one step back: reflections on the jurisprudential turn of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on domestic reparation programmes
- Geneviève Lessard, Preventive reparations at a crossroads: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Colombia’s search for peace
- Cristiane Lucena Carneiro & Simone Wegmann, Institutional complexity in the Inter-American Human Rights System: an investigation of the prohibition of torture
- Gabriela Kletzel, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ new Strategic Plan: an opportunity for true strengthening
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Buisseret & Bernhardt: Reelection and Renegotiation: International Agreements in the Shadow of the Polls
We study dynamic international agreements when one of the negotiating parties faces a threat of electoral replacement during negotiations, when agreements made before the election are the starting point for any subsequent renegotiation, and when governments cannot commit to future negotiation strategies. Conflicts of interest between governments may be softened or intensified by the governments’ conflicts of interest with voters. We characterize when the threat of electoral turnover strengthens the prospect for successful negotiations, when it may cause negotiations to fail, and how it affects the division of the surplus from cooperation. We also show how changes in domestic politics—including uncertainty about the preferences of domestic political parties—affect a domestic government’s ability to extract greater concessions in negotiations.
- Le Dossier Thématique : La lutte contre la corruption, de quelques aspects de droit international
- Eloïse Glucksmann, Juliette Mignot &Timothée Andro, Introduction
- Claudine Desrieux & Bruno Deffains, Dispositifs de Compliance et lutte contre la corruption : quelques éléments d'analyse économique du droit relatifs à la Loi Sapin 2
- Victor Grandaubert, La saisie des « des biens mal acquis » à l'épreuve du droit des immunités internationales : quelques observations à propos du différend opposant la Guinée équatoriale à la France
- Agnès Maitrepierre, Robert Luskin & Lucy B. Jennings, Foreign corrupt practices in US law
- Le GRECO, l'organe anticorruption du Conseil de l'Europe : Quelles spécificités, quelles réalisations, quels défis ?
- Anne-Marie Thévenot-Werner, La qualification du système de sanctions du Groupe de la Banque mondiale
- Pauline Dubarry, La création d'un parquet européen, l'européanisation de la lutte contre la délinquance économique et financière
- La Recherche à L’École Doctorale
- Thèses présentées dans les laboratoires et centres de recherche
- Constance Castres Saint-Martin, Les conflits d'intérêts en arbitrage commercial international
- Yann Heyraud, Le droit non-étatique dans les rapports internationaux privés
- Adeline Jeauneau, Existe-t-il un « ordre public de l'Union européenne »
- Maud Minois, Recherche sur la qualification en droit international privé des obligations. Pour une unité de la qualification
- Lukas Rass-Masson, Les fondements du droit international privé européen de la famille
- Publication de conférences organisées au sein de l’école doctorale
- Rencontre doctorale du CRDI du 16 avril 2017 - Les immunités d’exécution des Etats étrangers après l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi Sapin 2
- Clara Boulanger, La consécration de l'autorisation préalable à la saisie en France des biens d'un Etat étranger
- Joseph Dalmasso, Les incertitudes persistantes relatives aux conditions de saisie des biens des Etats et de leurs émanations affectés à une activité relevant du droit privé
- Eloïse Glucksmann, L'affirmation de la protection des biens des Etats étrangers déstinés aux missions diplomatiques, l'apport de la Loi Sapin 2
- Justin Vanderschuren, La saisie de biens appartenant à une puissance étrangère en droit belge
- Paul Giraud, La restriction des mesures conservatoires et d'exécution forcées exercées par les fonds dits vautours : le syndrome du « milieu de gué »
- Justin Vanderschuren, La lutte contre les activités des fonds vautours en Belgique
- Rencontre doctorale du CRDI du 9 juin 2016 - L’efficacité des clauses attributives de for en droit international
- Caroline Cohen, Les clauses d'élection de for dans les relations asymétriques, les leçons de l'affaire Facebook en droit de la communication
- François Mailhé, Les clauses attributives de compétence asymétriques dans les relations d'affaires
- Jérémy Jourdan-Marques, Le juge face à la clause d'élection de for : aspects procéduraux de droit français
- Alix de Zitter, New Uncertainty for Choice of Court Agreements in this Brexit Period
- Comptes-Rendus de Conférences
- Araceli Turmo & Loriane Alem, Conférence-débat du 19 juin 2017 -L'avis 2/15 de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne : quelles conséquences pour le CETA et le Brexit ? (intervenants : Francesco Martucci, Edouard Dubout, Emanuel Castellarin, Arnaud de Nanteuil)
- Libres Propos
- Chris Thomale, Apports et limites de l'encadrement de la gestation pour autrui en droit international privé allemand
- Augustin Gridel, The consequences of the withdrawal from the European Union on the English conflict of laws (Brexit and the conflict of laws)
- Jimmy Messineo, L'élaboration d'un traitement international des GPA transfrontalières, les enseignements de la Convention de la Haye du 29 mai 1993 sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale
This book explores the international law framework governing the use of armed force in occupied territory through a rigorous analysis of the interplay between jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. Through an examination of state practice and opinio juris, treaty provisions and relevant international and domestic case law, this book offers the first comprehensive study on this topic. This book will be relevant to scholars, practitioners, legal advisors, and students across a range of sub-disciplines of international law, as well as in peace and conflict studies, international relations, and political science. This study will influence the way in which States use armed force in occupied territory, offering guidance and support in litigations before domestic and international courts and tribunals.
- Leaders, Crisis Behavior, and International Conflict
- Michael C. Horowitz & Matthew Fuhrmann, Studying Leaders and Military Conflict: Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda
- Cathy X. Wu & Scott Wolford, Leaders, States, and Reputations
- Elizabeth N. Saunders, Leaders, Advisers, and the Political Origins of Elite Support for War
- Keren Yarhi-Milo, Joshua D. Kertzer, & Jonathan Renshon, Tying Hands, Sinking Costs, and Leader Attributes
- Michael C. Horowitz, Philip Potter, Todd S. Sechser, & Allan Stam, Sizing Up the Adversary: Leader Attributes and Coercion in International Conflict
- Regular Articles
- Renato Corbetta & Molly M. Melin, Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions
- Full Access Shivaji Mukherjee, Colonial Origins of Maoist Insurgency in India: Historical Institutions and Civil War
- Lord Mance, Justiciability
- Alan Boyle, Climate Change, The Paris Agreement and Human Rights
- Marko Milanović & Tatjana Papić, The Applicability of the ECHR in Contested Territories
- Lene Korseberg, The Law-Making Effects of the FAO Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines
- Hayley Roberts, The British Ratification of the Underwater Heritage Convention: Problems and Prospects
- Ming Du, WTO Regulation of Transnational Private Authority in Global Governance
- Jan Kleinheisterkamp, Overriding Mandatory Laws in International Arbitration
- Virginie Barral, Towards Judicial Coordination for Good Water Governance?
- Barnali Choudhury , Balancing Soft and Hard Law for Business and Human Rights
- Shorter Articles and Notes
- Trevor C Hartley, Jurisdiction in Tort Claims for Non-Physical Harm Under Brussels 2012, Article 7(2)
- Uglješa Grušić, Acts of Torture as an Instrument of Government Policy in the Colony of Cyprus in the 1950s and Choice of Law
- Tomohiro Mikanagi, Establishing a Military Presence in a Disputed Territory: Interpretation of Article 2(3) and (4) of the UN Charter
In The Right to Be Present at Trial in International Criminal Law Caleb H. Wheeler analyses what it means for the accused to be present during international criminal trials and how that meaning has changed. This book also examines the impact that absence from trial can have on the fair trial rights of the accused and whether those rights can be upheld outside of the accused’s presence. Using primary and secondary sources, Caleb Wheeler has identified four different categories of absence and how each affects the right to be present. This permits a more nuanced understanding of how the right to be present is understood in international criminal law and how it may develop in the future.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Wang: How May China Respond to the U.S. Trade Approach? Retaliatory, Inclusive and Regulatory Responses
The paper endeavours to conceputalize and provide an analytical framework for China’s response to U.S. trade policy. It analyses the following questions: what is the new U.S. trade approach? How might China respond to the United States’ trade approach? What are the trend and implications of China’s response to the U.S. trade approach? It argues, first, that the U.S. trade approach has not changed regarding most of the U.S.-style regulatory disciplines. However, it has changed in terms of the shift toward managed trade, unilateralism and trade enforcement. Second, China will likely adopt a three-track approach: consisting of retaliatory, inclusive and regulatory responses. Third, these responses exist on a political-legal spectrum that spans from a more political retaliatory response through to an inclusive one, or a more legalized approach (regulatory response). The inclusive response is likely to be given primacy by China over the other two responses, and China’s responses carry profound implications.
Call for Papers: The 'Greek Case' in the Council of Europe: A Game Changer for International Law and Human Rights?
The ‘Greek Case’ in the Council of Europe:
A Game Changer for International Law and Human Rights?
Athens, 12–14 December 2019 (to be confirmed)
Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of Greece’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe, following pressure by European countries and institutions for the violation of human rights by the military junta in Greece (1967–74). The Athens-based Netherlands Institute and the Danish Institute, in collaboration with the Swedish Institute and the Norwegian Institute are organizing an international conference on the history and legacy of this emblematic case.
In 1967 Denmark, Norway, and Sweden – later joined by the Netherlands – used the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR) system against the Greek Colonels. On 12 December 1969 Greece withdrew from the CoE to avoid expulsion. The reports of the ECHR constituted a paradigmatic condemnation of the regime by an international body. In light of the growing debates about the usefulness and impact of international pressure on authoritarian states for democratization and the rule of law, the so-called ‘Greek case’ emerges as an important moment in the history of international law, human rights, and transnational justice. The case marked the first time a member of the CoE risked expulsion because of human rights violations. Thus it became one of the pioneer inter-state cases over fundamental rights in European human rights law, generating important discussions about the Junta’s brutal regime in other European parliaments. The ‘Greek case’ was also exceptional in that there were no apparent national interests (at least at first sight) on behalf of the plaintiff countries. A decisive moment in the protection of human rights, it was, moreover, instrumental in shaping human rights standards and policy, particularly with regard to torture. Finally, it established non-governmental transnational movements, such as Amnesty International, and solidarity campaigns as important players in international law and politics.
Addressed to early-career researchers and established specialists, this conference welcomes papers across disciplines, including history, politics, law and international relations, human rights, trauma studies, social movements, and European studies. Topics may include the following:
The conference languages are English (preferred) and Greek. Simultaneous translation will be provided if needed. Abstracts for 20-minute papers should be submitted in English (300 words maximum), accompanied by a 100-word biographical note, contact information, and affiliation; independent scholars are welcome to submit. Proposals should be submitted to GreekCase1969@gmail.com by Monday, 14 January 2019. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by 15 March 2019. Draft papers of maximum 2500 words (in English) will be pre-circulated, and they will be due for submission by 15 October 2019, at the very latest.
- What drove the ‘plaintiff’ countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, to sue Greece?
- What made the ‘plaintiff’ countries take the lead in this case in a European context, as opposed to the passivity of other liberal governments in Western Europe? Did internal pressure (such as press, NGOs, public opinion) play a role in their pro-active engagement?
- How did the ‘Greek Case’ contribute to the delegitimization of the Junta at home and abroad?
- What was the role of transnational activism locally and internationally? How did the 1969 events affect solidarity campaigns?
- What was the impact of the ‘Greek Case’ on the definition of torture? How did testimonies about the Junta’s torture practices affect international public opinion?
- Did the ‘Greek Case’ have an impact on other authoritarian regimes in Europe at the time?
- What were the short- or long-term socio-legal effects on countries like West Germany, Great Britain, France and the USA?
- What was the impact of the 1969 mobilisation on transitional justice in Greece during the Metapolitefsi era? To what extent and in what ways was the ‘Greek case’ instrumentalized in national politics?
- What lessons can be drawn from the ‘Greek case’ regarding the current legitimacy crisis of the ECHR system and the limits of European integration in influencing national (authoritarian) politics?
- What was the impact of and what issues are raised from the ‘Greek case’ regarding trauma, the politics of responsiveness, and the judicial process in light of the survivor testimonies presented in Strasburg.
Keynote Speakers will include:
Judge Linos-Alexandros Sicilianos (European Court of Human Rights)
Professor Manfred Nowak (Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Vienna)
Professor Barbara Keys (University of Melbourne)
Professor Wolfgang Benedek (Karl Franzens University, Graz)
Professor Mogens Pelt (Saxo Institute, Copenhagen)
Víctor Fernández (Free University, Brussels)
Kristina Kjaersgaard (University of Southern Denmark, Odense)
Kostis Kornetis (University of Oxford)
Willem Ledeboer (Netherlands Institute at Athens)
Nikolas Manitakis (University of Athens)
Alexandros Nafpliotis (Maastricht University)
Anna Papaeti (Panteion University, Athens)
Vassilis Tzevelekos (University of Liverpool)
- Jingxia Shi, The Belt and Road Initiative and international law: an international public goods perspective
- Samuli Seppanen, Performative uses of sovereignty in the Belt and Road Initiative
- Jaemin Lee, The Belt and Road Initiative under existing trade agreements: some food for thought on a new regional integration scheme
- Sarah Wersborg, Anti-monopoly law in China: administrative and private enforcement and the Belt and Road Initiative from an anti-monopoly law perspective
- Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, The Belt and Road Initiative: cooperation in trade liberalization and antitrust enforcement
- Wei Shen, The Belt and Road Initiative, expropriation, and investor protection under BITs
- Christopher Chen, ASEAN financial integration and the Belt and Road Initiative: legal challenges and opportunities for China in Southeast Asia
- Yue Peng, Prognostic view of the applicable law for AIIB loan agreements
- Yongmin Bian, The role of environmental impact assessment in the governance of Nu-Salween River: a comparative study of the Chinese and Myanmar approaches
- Yun Zhao, Role of regional space cooperation in procuring space security in the Asia-Pacific region: prospects for the future
- Yuhong Chai, Regional dispute resolution: an international civil dispute resolution model for East Asia
- Weixia Gu, Enforcement of arbitral awards in Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative: implications for international governance and the Chinese rule of law
- Shengli Jiang, Establishment of an international trade dispute settlement mechanism under the 'Belt and Road Initiative'
Why do some governments start backlashes against international courts whereas others continue to accept or avoid adverse judgments? Existing theories point to rising implementation costs and democratic reversals. I argue that a large number of backlashes are initiated by governments that rely on the support of populist movements and over court judgments that reinforce local populist mobilization narratives. Populist backlashes against international courts are not just about sovereignty. Populist attacks on international courts often follow efforts to curb domestic courts, usually for similar reasons. International courts do not just constrain governments but they also protect liberal limits on majoritarianism. This sometimes puts these courts in a position to protect the property rights of the ‘corrupt elites’ that are targeted by populists or the civil liberties of those who are targeted in domestic populist identity politics. Moreover, populism offers an ideology to attack the authority of a court rather than just its individual rulings. An empirical examination illustrates the plausibility of this theoretical argument. Yet, populist backlashes do not always succeed, either because leaders do not follow up on their exit threats or because populism is too thin an ideology for creating successful multilateral reform coalitions.
Leventhal: The 2018 Proposals for Amendments of the ICSID Rules: ICSID Enters the Era of Trump, Populism, and State Sovereignty
- Editorial Comments
- Keyuan Zou & Wenxian Qiu, The Belt and Road Initiative and the Common Heritage of Mankind: Some Preliminary Observations
- Sienho Yee, Attention to the Chinese Society’s Critical Study and Our Standing Invitation to Respond
- Bardo Fassbender, What’s in a Name? The International Rule of Law and the United Nations Charter
- Wei Shen, Evolution of Non-discriminatory Standards in China’s BITs in the Context of EU-China BIT Negotiations
- Xiaohui Wu, Case Note: Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment on Preliminary Objections
- Ukri Soirila, Humanity Discourse and the Disciplining of the State
- Olivier Barsalou & Michael Hennessy Picard, International Environmental Law in an Era of Globalized Waste
- Sienho Yee, Dispute Settlement on the Belt and Road: Ideas on System, Spirit and Style