In this paper, we examine the actual and potential roles of silence as an element of jus ad bellum treaty law and customary international law. By silence, we mean a lack of a publicly discernible response either to conduct reflective of a legal position or to the explicit communication of a legal position. We focus here on the silence of States and the United Nations Security Council as the primary actors who are positioned to shape, interpret, and apply jus ad bellum. We evaluate how silence has been employed by various scholars in making legal arguments in this field, and how silence may have the potential to affect the formation, identification, modification, and termination of various doctrines.
We submit that there is no quantum of silence that has clear doctrinal force. We argue that, at least in relation to jus ad bellum, only certain forms of qualified silence — whether of States or of the Security Council — may be capable of contributing to legal effects. We further contend that, due in part to the nature and status of the norms underlying this field, those forms of qualified silence ought not to be lightly presumed. Arguably, there is a strong, if rebuttable, presumption that silence alone does not constitute acceptance of a jus ad bellum claim. Still, States and other international actors should be aware of the possible role that their silence could play in the identification and development of this field.
We complement our analysis with an Annex that offers the most comprehensive catalogue to date of communications made by U.N. Member States to the Security Council of measures taken in purported exercise of the right of self-defense. The catalogue records over 400 communications made since the founding of the United Nations in late October 1945 through 2018. These communications reflect the views of the submitting State(s) on the scope of the right to employ force on the purported basis of self-defense.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
The rights of foreign states under the U.S. Constitution are becoming more important because the actions of foreign states and foreign state-owned enterprises are expanding in scope and the legislative protections to which they are entitled are contracting. Conventional wisdom and lower court cases hold that foreign states are outside our constitutional order and that they are protected neither by separation of powers nor by due process. As a matter of policy, however, it makes little sense to afford litigation-related constitutional protections to foreign corporations and individuals, but to deny categorically such protections to foreign states.
A careful analysis of Article III and of the Fifth Amendment shows that the conventional wisdom and lower court cases are wrong. Foreign states are protected by Article III’s extension of judicial power to foreign-state diversity cases, the purpose of which was to protect foreign states from unfair proceedings and to prevent international conflict. The Article III “judicial power” over “cases” also presupposes both personal jurisdiction (over any kind of defendant) and other process-based limitations. The Fifth Amendment overlaps with Article III in important ways. It also protects foreign states. They are “persons” due the same constitutional “process” to which other defendants are entitled. Modern scholars have struggled to see the connection between due process and personal jurisdiction. The cases involving the immunity of foreign states makes the connection clear for all defendants. “Process” only reached defendants within sovereign power, or jurisdiction, of the issuing court.
Examining the Constitution from the perspective of foreign states thus reveals the document in a new light, illuminating its core features in ways that advance our historical and theoretical understanding of the Constitution, with significant implications for several additional areas of modern doctrine. The analysis of separation of powers and due process also lays the groundwork for determining whether foreign states have additional constitutional rights.
Saturday, July 20, 2019
- Tom Obokata, Combating Transnational Organised Crime through International Human Rights Law
- G. Anthony Giannoumis & Michael Ashley Stein, Conceptualizing Universal Design for the Information Society through a Universal Human Rights Lens
- Majid Nikouei & Masoud Zamani, Jurisprudence of Tolerance: Hate Speech, Article 17 and Theory of Democracy in the European Convention on Human Rights
- Maria Augusta León Moreta, Analysing Benefit Sharing Scheme as Compensation for Damages Caused by Resource Extraction in Indigenous Territory
- Aniel Caro de Beer & Dire Tladi, The Use of Force against Syria in Response to Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons by Syria: A Return to Humanitarian Intervention?
- Laura Hering, Beamtenstreik zwischen Karlsruhe und Straßburg: Art. 11 EMRK und die konventionskonforme Auslegung durch das BVerfG
- Gerd Winter & Koba Kalichava, Rechtstransfer und Eigendynamik in Transformationsländern: Das Beispiel der Verwaltungsrechtsentwicklung in Georgien
- Stellungnahmen und Berichte
Matthias Hartwig, Bericht zur völkerrechtlichen Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahr 2017
Eksteen: The Role of the Highest Courts of the United States of America and South Africa, and the European Court of Justice in Foreign Affairs
This book deals with what the author considers a sorely neglected question, namely the role of the judiciary in states’ foreign policy processes. Eksteen argues that the impact of the judiciary on foreign affairs is understudied and that recognition of its role in foreign affairs is now due. This makes it a ground-breaking scholarly contribution that should first of all prove of value to students, scholars, researchers and practitioners in the two broad fields of politics and law for the wide scope of issues it covers and the very comprehensive reference lists it contains. Secondly, professionals working within politics, including members of the legislatures of the United States, the European Union and South Africa, as well as members of the judiciaries there, should find this book of benefit. A detailed examination has been undertaken of the role of the United States Supreme Court, the two high courts in South Africa, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the European Court of Justice of the European Union, in foreign affairs. The author substantiates the unmistakable fact that these Courts have become involved in and influence foreign affairs. Furthermore, that they have not shied away from using their judicial authority when dealing with cases touching on foreign affairs and especially presidential overreach. The lack of recognition of the judiciary’s role in foreign affairs is still noticeable in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) literature. This book concludes that FPA has to accept and give proper recognition to the judiciary and its increasing relevance in foreign affairs.
Investment arbitration is increasingly making the headlines because of both its potential to overly restrict the policy space of states and its significant costs for parties. Against this background of negative side-effects, it is worth asking whether it is used predominantly in situations that at least appear legitimate. We focus on the hypothesis that investment arbitration is used as a response to the effects of two types of shocks on investors – shocks caused by severely dysfunctional governance at the national level and shocks caused by economic crisis. Whereas investment arbitration could gain legitimacy if used to redress or mitigate severe governance deficiencies, its use in the context of economic crisis could be viewed as putting the countries’ economy in double jeopardy. Investment arbitration would further hurt countries already in great difficulty and would thus be used in a situation that does not appear plainly legitimate. We test links between governance, economic crises and investment arbitration using an original dataset that includes investment claims filed under the rules of all arbitration institutions as well as ad hoc arbitrations. We find that bad governance, understood as corruption and lack of rule of law (using the WGI Corruption and WGI Rule of Law indexes), has a statistically significant relation with investment arbitration claims, but economic crises do not when considered separately. Yet, bad governance and economic crises considered together are a good predictor of when countries get hit by investment arbitration claims.
Call for Submissions: The Interaction Between International Investment Law and Special Economic Zones (SEZs)
- Thijs Etty, Veerle Heyvaert, Cinnamon Carlarne, Bruce Huber, Jacqueline Peel, & Josephine van Zeben, Transnational Environmental Law across the Spectrum of Development
- Nada Ali, Reilly Dempsey Willis, Asim El Moghraby, & Mohammaed Jalal Hashim, Norms, Mobilization and Conflict: The Merowe Dam as a Case Study
- Mohsen Nagheeby, Mehdi Piri D., & Michael Faure, The Legitimacy of Dam Development in International Watercourses: A Case Study of the Harirud River Basin
- Ana Mercedes López-Rodríguez, The Sun Behind the Clouds? Enforcement of Renewable Energy Awards in the EU
- Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty & Anna Huggins, Satellite Measurement of GHG Emissions: Prospects for Enhancing Transparency and Answerability under International Law
- Qi Gao & Sean Whittaker, Standing to Sue Beyond Individual Rights: Who Should Be Eligible to Bring Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China?
- Yue Zhao, Shuang Lyu, & Zhu Wang, Prospects for Climate Change Litigation in China
Friday, July 19, 2019
- Andrea L. Everett, Humanitarian Military Action in the 21st Century: Three Trends Shaping the Contemporary Landscape
- Eglantine Staunton, Iraq (1991, 2003 and 2014), Normative Debates on Human Protection, and the Role Played by France
- Pınar Gözen Ercan, UN General Assembly Dialogues on the Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force for Humanitarian Purposes
- Alex J. Bellamy & Stephen McLoughlin, Human Protection and the Politics of Armed Intervention: With Responsibility Comes Accountability
- Mustafa Kirisci & J. Michael Greig, Reputation, Pressure and Concession-making in Claim Disputes
- Su-Mi Lee, The Philippines’ 1963 Mediation in the Borneo Confrontation
- Annie Herro, The Pre-negotiation of UN Human Rights Treaties: The Case of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- Eric Keels, The Importance of Being Earnest (in Mediation): Rebel Group Structure, Leadership Turnover, and Success in Civil War Mediation
- Allard Duursma& Isak Svensson, Introducing an Agenda-based Measurement of Mediation Success: The Divergent Effects of the Manipulation Strategy in African Civil Wars
- Owen Darbishire, Preparing for Brexit: Substance, Politics and Readiness in an International Re-negotiation
- From the Board: ‘The Paradox of Proliferation and Contestation of Economic Integration’
- Geraldo Vidigal, WTO Adjudication and the Security Exception: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed – Something Blue?
- Arnoud Willems & Maryanne Kamau, Of Binding Provisions and Trust Marks; Roadmap to a Global Legal Framework for the Digital Economy
- Yilly Vanessa Pacheco Restrepo, Enforcement Practice Under Preferential Trade Agreements: Environmental Consultations and Submissions on Environmental Enforcement Matters in the US-Peru TPA
- Marijn Van Der Sluis, Similar, Therefore Different: Judicial Review of Another Unconventional Monetary Policy in Weiss (C-493/17)
- Vicktoria Elazarova, Swedish Match 2018: Can the Court Actually Advise or Make the Commission Consider the Evidence?
The chapters in this book are reworkings of presentations given during a conference held in 2018 at the German Embassy to the Netherlands in The Hague on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute. They provide an in-depth analysis of major points of contention the International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently facing, such as, inter alia, head of state immunities, withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the exercise of jurisdiction vis-à-vis third-party nationals, the activation of the Court’s jurisdiction regarding the crime of aggression, as well as the relationship of the Court with both the Security Council and the African Union, all of which are issues that have a continued relevance and carry a particular controversy.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
- Special Issue: Revisiting State Socialist Approaches to International Criminal and Humanitarian Law
- Raluca Grosescu & Ned Richardson-Little, Revisiting State Socialist Approaches to International Criminal and Humanitarian Law: An Introduction
- Giovanni Mantilla, The Protagonism of the USSR and Socialist States in the Revision of International Humanitarian Law
- Sonja Dolinsek & Philippa Hetherington, Socialist Internationalism and Decolonizing Moralities in the UN Anti-Trafficking Regime, 1947–1954
- Raluca Grosescu, State Socialist Endeavours for the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to International Crimes: Historical Roots and Current Implications
- Ned Richardson-Little, The Drug War in a Land Without Drugs: East Germany and the Socialist Embrace of International Narcotics Law
- Tamás Hoffmann, Crimes against the People – a Sui Generis Socialist International Crime?
- Karen Kong, Human rights activist scholars and social change in Hong Kong: reflections on the Umbrella Movement and beyond
- Hao Duy Phan, Promotional versus protective design: the case of the Asean intergovernmental commission on human rights
- Manuel Góngora-Mera, The ethnic chapter of the 2016 Colombian peace agreement and the afro-descendants’ right to prior consultation: a story of unfulfilled promises
- Eric Freedman, Returning to the mission? Journalists after jail
- Julie Fraser, Challenging State-centricity and legalism: promoting the role of social institutions in the domestic implementation of international human rights law
- Phuong N. Pham, Niamh Gibbons & Patrick Vinck, A framework for assessing political will in transitional justice contexts
- Isabella Moore, Indignity in unwanted pregnancy: denial of abortion as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
- Jeffrey S. Bachman & Jack Holland, Lethal sterility: innovative dehumanisation in legal justifications of Obama’s drone policy
- Ergun Cakal, Political Violence and Its Discontents: A Critique of Refugee Status as Purely Civilian and Humanitarian
- Smadar Ben-Natan, Revise Your Syllabi: Israeli Supreme Court Upholds Authorization for Torture and Ill-Treatment
- Dale Stephens, Roots of Restraint in War: The Capacities and Limits of Law and the Critical Role of Social Agency in Ameliorating Violence in Armed Conflict
- Hin-Yan Liu, Léonard Van Rompaey & Matthijs M Maas, Editorial Beyond Killer Robots: Networked Artificial Intelligence Systems Disrupting the Battlefield?
- Hin-Yan Liu, From the Autonomy Framework towards Networks and Systems Approaches for ‘Autonomous’ Weapons Systems
- Léonard Van Rompaey, Shifting from Autonomous Weapons to Military Networks
- Matthijs M Maas, Innovation-Proof Global Governance for Military Artificial Intelligence? How I Learned to Stop Worrying, and Love the Bot
- Valentin Jeutner, The Digital Geneva Convention: A Critical Appraisal of Microsoft’s Proposal
- Nathan Edward Clark, Blurred Lines: Multi-Use Dynamics for Satellite Remote Sensing
- Gary Schaub Jr., Controlling the Autonomous Warrior: Institutional and Agent-Based Approaches to Future Air Power
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Is international law equipped to tackle the challenges posed by the dramatic increase in disasters? In Disaster Management and International Space Law Diego Zannoni attempts to answer this crucial question through an analysis of the main legal issues involved, addressing both prevention and relief, with a special focus on major space applications such as remote sensing and telecommunications, and the attendant specific legal regimes.
It is argued that, when lives of human beings are in danger, territorial sovereignty becomes, to a certain extent, porous and bends in front of the value of human life and the urgent need to rescue. On the other hand, specific obligations were identified to cooperate in the prevention and management of disasters, particularly in terms of data sharing.
- Bartosz Soloch, CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea: Single Decision and Its Multi-Faceted Fallout
- Steven William Kayuni & Mtendere Mute Gondwe, Gouverner C’est Prévoir – Trappings of Value Distribution: a Prolegomenon to the African Union’s Hissène Habré Trust Fund for Victims
- Judith Levine, Ethical Dimensions of Arbitrator Resignations: General Duties, Specific Quandaries, and Sanctions for Suspect Withdrawals
- Arman Sarvarian, Procedural Economy at the International Court of Justice
- Fernando Lusa Bordin, Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
- Nina H.B. Jørgensen, The (Unequal) Relationship between Hong Kong’s Waters and China’s Baselines
- Jo Inge Bekkevold, Coast Guard Cooperation in the South China Sea: A Confidence-Building Measure?
- Jae-Gon Lee, International Regulations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping: Issues and Possible Responses
- Xinmin Ma, China and the UNCLOS: Practices and Policies
- Dimitris Liakopoulos, Evolutionary, Dynamic or Contemporary Interpretation in WTO System?
- Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, A Human Rights Focus to Upgrade China’s International Lending
- Min Jung Chung, Analysis of the Territorial Issue regarding the Liancourt Rocks between Korea and Japan
- Ji-Young Lee & Jaehyun Lee, Everyday Politics of “Dokdo” and South Korean National Identity: An Analysis of Education, Media, and Civil Society
- Seokwoo Lee & Seryon Lee, Decision of the Korean Court on Japanese Forced Labor re New Nippon Steel Corporation (Supreme Court, Case 2013 Da 61381, Final Judgment)
- Paul Bradfield, Preserving Vulnerable Evidence at the International Criminal Court – the Article 56 Milestone in Ongwen
- Benedict Abrahamson Chigara, Towards a nemo judex in parte sua Critique of the International Criminal Court?
- Annika Jones, A Quiet Transformation? Efficiency Building in the “Fall” of International Criminal Justice
- Renée Nicole Souris, Virtue Ethics, Criminal Responsibility, and Dominic Ongwen
- Owiso Owiso, The International Criminal Court and Reparations: Judicial Innovation or Judicialisation of a Political Process?
- Philipp Kastner, Teaching International Criminal Law from a Contextual Perspective
- Peter Quayle & Xuan Gao, Introduction: International Organizations and the Promotion of Effective Dispute Resolution
- International Arbitration’s Effectiveness and Affinity with Multilateral Institutions
- Cavinder Bull, An Effective Platform for International Arbitration: Raising the Standards in Speed, Costs and Enforceability
- Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof & Romilly Holland, What makes for Effective Arbitration? A Case Study of the London Court of International Arbitration Rules
- Matthew Gearing & Joe Liu, The Contributions of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre to Effective International Dispute Resolution
- Jingzhou Tao & Mariana Zhong, Resolving Disputes in China: New and Sometimes Unpredictable Developments
- International Organizations as Proponents of the Norms of Dispute Resolution
- Hugo Siblesz, The Role of International Organizations in Fostering Legitimacy in Dispute Resolution
- Locknie Hsu, The Role of International Organizations in Promoting Effective Dispute Resolution in the 21st Century
- The Dispute Resolution Mandates of International Organizations
- Wenwen Liang, The World Bank and the Creation of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Legality and Legitimacy
- Malik R. Dahlan, Dispute Regulation in the Institutional Development of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Establishing the Normative Legal Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative
- Asif H. Qureshi, The World Trade Organization and the Promotion of Effective Dispute Resolution: In Times of a Trade War
- The Role of Dispute Resolution and Economic Development
- Ramit Nagpal & Christina Pak, Development Financing of Dispute Resolution Reform Projects: The Evolving Approach of the Asian Development Bank
- Andreas Baumgartner, Commercial Dispute Resolution: Unlocking Economic Potential Through Lighthouse Projects
- Marie-Anne Birken & Kim O’Sullivan, The Evolution of Mediation in Central Asia: The Perspective of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
- 2018 AIIB Law Lecture and Legal Conference
- Georg Nolte, 2018 AIIB Law Lecture: International Organizations in the Recent Work of the International Law Commission
- Ranjini Ramakrishnan, 2018 AIIB Legal Conference Report
- John W. Holmes Memorial Lecture
- Lorraine Elliott, “We the Peoples” Reclaiming an Ethic of Solidarity
- The Global Forum
- Abiodun Williams, The Legacy of Kofi Annan
- Edward Mortimer, Kofi Annan’s Public Diplomacy
- Gillian Sorensen, Secretary-General Kofi Annan
- Jean Krasno, The Origins of Kofi Annan’s Leadership: Family, Culture, and Historical Roots in Ghana
- Eugenia C. Heldt & Henning Schmidtke, Global Democracy in Decline? How Rising Authoritarianism Limits Democratic Control over International Institutions
- Troels Gauslå Engell & Katja Lindskov Jacobsen, Unintended Consequences of the Primacy of Politics in UN Peace Operations
- Ann Louise Lie, Power in Global Nutrition Governance: A Critical Analysis of the Establishment of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Partnership
- Danita Catherine Burke, Club Diplomacy in the Arctic
- Miriam Cullen, Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes
Recent years have witnessed an upsurge in the literature on the lawfulness, under international law, of forcible interventions in states upon governmental consent. The contemporary discussion mirrors, to an extent, the classic debate between those that view such interventions - at least when a certain level of conflict is reached - as strictly prohibited, and those that presume that in general, governments possess the power to invite external intervention, subject to certain limitations.
This brief contribution addresses a question which is frequently glossed over in the discussion: on either approach, what do we mean when we say that in a certain situation, an intervention is unlawful? Or, in other words, which international norm is violated when a consensual intervention is wrongful? As a point of departure, this contribution urges to distinguish between situations in which consent is void ab initio,and situations where the consent itself is valid, but the actions committed pursuant to it are unlawful. This is crucial since if consent lacks any legal effect, it could be said that the intervention violates the prohibition on the use of force. The contribution then offers a brief typology of circumstances that fall under these categories.
- Special Issue: China’s External Energy Security—Energy Trade and Investment Along the ‘Belt and Road’
- Anatole Boute, China’s External Energy Security: Energy Trade and Investment Along the ‘Belt and Road’: An Introduction
- Andrei V. Belyi, North Asian Hydrocarbon Markets Regionalised
- Kaho Yu, Energy Cooperation Under the Belt and Road Initiative: Implications for Global Energy Governance
- Wenhua Shan & Peng Wang, The International Legal Framework for Belt and Road Energy Cooperation: Progress and Prospect
- Kaj Hobér, Arbitration of Energy Disputes Under the Energy Charter Treaty: Added Value for the Belt and Road Initiative
- C.L. Lim, The Function of the Transnational Chinese Contract
- Hao Zhang, The Carbon Externality of Investments Financed by China’s Development Banks: The Case of Energy Investments in Central Asia
- Sergey S. Seliverstov & Vsevolod D. Krivonosov, Structuring Chinese Energy Investments Under the Russian Law on Strategic Investments
- Marc Bungenberg & Angshuman Hazarika, Chinese Foreign Investments in the European Union Energy Sector: The Regulation of Security Concerns
- Zhenis Kembayev, The Emerging Eurasian Common Energy Market: What is Its Potential Impact on China’s Belt and Road Initiative?
- Cees Verburg, Modernising the Energy Charter Treaty: An Opportunity to Enhance Legal Certainty in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
The ASIL International Law in Domestic Courts Annual Workshop will take place on Friday, December 6 at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. If you have a work-in-progress that you would like to present, please send an abstract (or more if you prefer) to interest group co-chairs Andrew Kent and Kristina Daugirdas (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) by Friday, September 6. Five or six papers will be selected. Preference will be given to papers that focus on U.S. courts, but all proposals are welcome. Please note that those whose papers are selected will need to submit a complete draft by November 15 for circulation to the other workshop participants. Following the selection of papers, we will solicit volunteers to serve as commentators.
De Lucia: Rethinking the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction – From ‘Not Undermine’ to Ecosystem-Based Governance
The Promise of International Law
In a world of increasing polarization and threats to individual and collective security, many turn to international law for guidance and protection, while others consider this body of law and the institutions that apply it ill-equipped to address evolving needs. Has international law lived up to its full potential and is it equipped to safeguard the peaceful coexistence of its subjects, to protect human rights and the environment, and to contribute to the attainment of shared prosperity?
The year 2020 will give us much to reflect upon and to reaffirm. Even as states have withdrawn or sought to withdraw from agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Treaty on European Union, the international community will commemorate other enduring institutions and commitments in 2020. For example, the United Nations will mark its 75th anniversary amidst calls for significant reforms to global governance. The year 2020 also will see the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, and the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. At the same time, the year 2020 will serve as a reminder that we have but ten years left to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which envisage "a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination."
At its 114th Annual Meeting in 2020, the American Society of International Law (ASIL) invites policymakers, practitioners, academics, and students of international law to reflect upon the successes and failures of international law. Has international law held states, military forces, multinational corporations, and other actors – both public and private – to account for their international obligations? What role do regulatory bodies, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations play in actualizing the objectives of international law? Can and should international law be expected to produce just outcomes in all circumstances? The Annual Meeting presents an opportunity for the Society to take stock of the past successes and failures of international law while reaffirming the promise it holds for the future.
- International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Criminal Justice
- Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute Resolution
- Trade, Investment, Finance, and Technology
- Sustainable Development and Global Governance
- Security, Foreign Relations, and Use of Force
- Energy, Environment, Sea, and Space
Call for Session Ideas
To suggest a session to the Committee, please complete the form below by no later than July 16, 2019.
- Campbell McLachlan, The Assault on International Adjudication and the Limits of Withdrawal
- Philippa Webb & Rosana Garciandia, State Responsibility for Modern Slavery: Uncovering and Bridging the Gap
- Thérèse O'donnell, Vulnerability and the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters
- Peter Cumper & Tom Lewis, Blanket Bans, Subsidiarity, and the Procedural Turn of the European Court of Human Rights
- Filip Saranovic, Jurisdiction and Freezing Injunctions: A Reassessment
- Claire Kilpatrick, Taking The Measure of Changing Labour Mobilization at the International Labour Organisation in the Wake of the EU Sovereign Debt Crisis
- Shorter Articles
- Paul Gragl & Malgosia Fitzmaurice, The Legal Character of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
- Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, Distorted Terminology: The UK's Closure of Investigations into Alleged Torture and Inhuman Treatment in Iraq
- Johannes Hendrik Fahner & Matthew Happold, The Human Rights Defence in International Investment Arbitration: Exploring the Limits of Systemic Integration
- Niccolò Zugliani, Human Rights in International Investment Law: The 2016 Morocco–Nigeria Bilateral Investment Treaty
- Re-visioning war and the state in the twenty-first century
- Tracey German, Introduction: re-visioning war and the state in the twenty-first century
- Warren Chin, Technology, war and the state: past, present and future
- James J. Wirtz, Nuclear disarmament and the end of the chemical weapons ‘system of restraint’
- Matthew Uttley, Benedict Wilkinson, & Armida van Rij, A power for the future? Global Britain and the future character of conflict
- Bettina Renz, Russian responses to the changing character of war
- Harsh V. Pant & Kartik Bommakanti, India's national security: challenges and dilemmas
- Maryanne Kelton, Michael Sullivan, Emily Bienvenue, & Zac Rogers, Australia, the utility of force and the society-centric battlespace
- Alice Pannier & Olivier Schmitt, To fight another day: France between the fight against terrorism and future warfare
- Peter Viggo Jakobsen & Sten Rynning, Denmark: happy to fight, will travel
Monday, July 15, 2019
Call for Papers: Mixed Arbitral Tribunals, 1919–1930: An Experiment in the International Adjudication of Private Rights
- Mehdi J. Hakimi & Erik G. Jensen, Rethinking Legal Education in Afghanistan: The Law Program at the American University of Afghanistan
- Sara L. Ochs, In Need of Prosecution: The Role of Personal Jurisdiction in the Khmer Rouge Tribunal
- Scott J. Shackelford, Should Cybersecurity Be a Human Right? Exploring the 'Shared Responsibility' of Cyber Peace
- Michael A. Mehling, Harro van Asselt, Kasturi Das, Susanne Droege, & Cleo Verkuijl, Designing Border Carbon Adjustments for Enhanced Climate Action
- Alan O. Sykes, The Economic Structure of International Investment Agreements with Implications for Treaty Interpretation and Design
- Bennett Ostdiek & John Fabian Witt, The Czar and the Slaves: Two Puzzles in the History of International Arbitration
- International Decisions
- Jorge Contesse, Case of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru
- Lorenzo Cotula & James T. Gathii, Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited, and Stirling Capital Limited v. Republic of Kenya
- Yulia Ioffe, Case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction)
- Machiko Kanetake, María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice
- Seokwoo Lee & Seryon Lee, Yeo Woon Taek v. New Nippon Steel Corporation
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Jean Galbraith, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- David P. Stewart, reviewing Jurisdictional Immunities of States and International Organizations, by Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke
- David A. Gantz, reviewing The Wealth of a Nation: A History of Trade Politics in America, by C. Donald Johnson
- Tara J. Melish, reviewing Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law, by Anne Peters
- Eliav Lieblich, reviewing The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier, by Tom Dannenbaum
- Beth Van Schaack, reviewing The Kenyan TJRC: An Outsider's View from the Inside, by Ronald C. Slye
- Original Articles
- Benoit Mayer, Interpreting States’ general obligations on climate change mitigation: A methodological review
- María Eugenia Recio, Dancing like a toddler? The Green Climate Fund and REDD+ international rule‐making
- Belén Olmos Giupponi, Fostering environmental democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: An analysis of the Regional Agreement on Environmental Access Rights
- Caiphas Brewsters Soyapi, The courts and the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment in Uganda
- Refia Kaya, Environmental vulnerability, age and the promises of anti‐age discrimination law
- Xiaoou Zheng, Key legal challenges and opportunities in the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol: The case of China
- Andri G. Wibisana, The many faces of strict liability in Indonesia's wildfire litigation
- Sara Kymenvaara Lasse Baaner Helle Tegner Anker Laura Leino Antti Belinskij, Variations on the same theme: Environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive in environmental permitting in the Nordic countries
- Minna Pappila, Summer loggings and bird protection: On regulation and derogations
- Case Note
- Ricardo Abello‐Galvis & Walter Arevalo‐Ramirez, Inter‐American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC‐23/17: Jurisdictional, procedural and substantive implications of human rights duties in the context of environmental protection
Sunday, July 14, 2019
Nolte: How to Identify Customary International Law? – On the Final Outcome of the Work of the International Law Commission (2018)
How to identify customary international law is an important question of international law. The International Law Commission has in 2018 adopted a set of sixteen conclusions, together with commentaries, on this topic. The paper consists of three parts: First, the reasons are discussed why the Commission came to work on the topic “Identification of customary international law”. Then, some of its conclusions are highlighted. Finally, the outcome of the work of the Commission is placed in a general context, before concluding.
- Hao Liu & Fabio Tronchetti, Regulating Near-Space Activities: Using the Precedent of the Exclusive Economic Zone as a Model?
- Jeffrey Smith, International Law and Western Sahara’s Maritime Area
- Henrik Ringbom, Regulating Autonomous Ships—Concepts, Challenges and Precedents
- Zhen Lin, Jurisdiction Over Underwater Cultural Heritage in the EEZ and on the Continental Shelf: A Perspective From the Practice of States Bordering the South China Sea
- Andreas Østhagen & Andreas Raspotnik, Why Is the European Union Challenging Norway Over Snow Crab? Svalbard, Special Interests, and Arctic Governance
- Bingying Dong & Ling Zhu, Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection With the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances: Chinese Perspective
- Ronan Long, The World Maritime University—Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute: A New Institute in a Unique University
- Jianping Guo & Peng Wang, Due Diligence and Overlooked Evidence in the South China Sea Arbitration: A Note
- Øystein Jensen, Defining Seaward Boundaries in a Domestic Context: Norway and the Svalbard Archipelago
- Valentin J. Schatz & Dmytro Koval, Russia’s Annexation of Crimea and the Passage of Ships Through Kerch Strait: A Law of the Sea Perspective
- S. Da Lomba, Vulnerability, International Human Rights Adjudication and Migration Governance
- L.A. Cantoral Benavides, Análisis de la Ley 6.815/80, Estatuto del Extranjero de Brasil, y los derechos de los inmigrantes a la libertad de expresión, de asociación y de reunión
- G. Sebis, Sustainable Development and Refugee Crises – Does a Lack of Refugees Equal a Well-Performing System of Sustainability?
- M.V. Zecca, The Protection of Human Rights in the European Union-Turkey Statement
- M. Canepa, Solicitud de asilo en base a la persecución por motivos de orientación sexual
- Frontiers in Research on Peacekeeping Effectiveness
- Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, & Michelle Benson, Advancing the Frontier of Peacekeeping Research
- Jacob Kathman & Michelle Benson, Cut Short? United Nations Peacekeeping and Civil War Duration to Negotiated Settlements
- Vincenzo Bove & Andrea Ruggeri, Peacekeeping Effectiveness and Blue Helmets’ Distance from Locals
- Karin Johansson & Lisa Hultman, UN Peacekeeping and Protection from Sexual Violence
- Kyle Beardsley, David E. Cunningham, & Peter B. White, Mediation, Peacekeeping, and the Severity of Civil War
- Victor Asal, Brian J. Phillips, R. Karl Rethemeyer, Corina Simonelli, & Joseph K. Young, Carrots, Sticks, and Insurgent Targeting of Civilians
- Paul W. Thurner, Christian S. Schmid, Skyler J. Cranmer, & Göran Kauermann, Network Interdependencies and the Evolution of the International Arms Trade
- Data Set Feature
- Laura H. Atuesta, Oscar S. Siordia, & Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, The “War on Drugs” in Mexico: (Official) Database of Events between December 2006 and November 2011
- Lucy Greenwood, Revisiting Bifurcation and Efficiency in International Arbitration Proceedings
- Dorothee Ruckteschler & Tanja Stooss, International Commercial Courts: A Superior Alternative to Arbitration?
- Mingji Qu, Status Quo of Enforcing Commercial Arbitral Awards in the People’s Republic of China: An Empirical Study of the Enforcement Practices in China’s Two Economically Less-Developed Regions
- Julio César Betancourt, What Are the Arbitral Tribunal’s Powers in Default Proceedings?
- Michael Kotrly & Barry Mansfield, 'Recent Developments in International Arbitration in England and Ireland
- Alain Farhad, The United Arab Emirates’ New Arbitration Legislation: A Giant Leap Forward?
- Special Issue: Beyond 'Rights-Based' Approaches?
- Hannah Miller & Robin Redhead, Beyond ‘rights-based approaches’? Employing a process and outcomes framework
- Hannah Miller, Human rights and development: the advancement of new campaign strategies
- Jeff Halper & Tom Reifer, Beyond ‘the right to have rights’: creating spaces of political resistance protected by human rights
- Emma Larking, Mobilising for food sovereignty: the pitfalls of international human rights strategies and an exploration of alternatives
- Peter Manning, Recognising rights and wrongs in practice and politics: human rights organisations and Cambodia’s ‘Law Against the Non-Recognition of Khmer Rouge Crimes’
- Chetan Bhatt, Human rights activism and salafi-jihadi violence
- Paul Dixon, ‘Endless wars of altruism’? Human rights, humanitarianism and the Syrian war
- Javier Trevino-Rangel, Magical legalism: human rights practitioners and undocumented migrants in Mexico
- Ruth Kelly, Translating rights and articulating alternatives: rights-based approaches in ActionAid’s work on unpaid care
- Kathryn Tomlinson, Indigenous rights and extractive resource projects: negotiations over the policy and implementation of FPIC
- Muyiwa Adigun, The Rome Statute Complementarity Principle and the Creation of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights
- Benson Chinedu Olugbuo, Civil Society Perspectives on the Criminal Chamber of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights
- Charles Chernor Jalloh, A Proposal for the International Law Commission to Study Universal Criminal Jurisdiction
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
- Special Issue: Norm Contestation and its Effects: Challenges to the Responsibility to Protect and the Responsibility to Prosecute
- Gregor P. Hofmann & Lisbeth Zimmermann, Introduction: Norm Contestation and its Effects: Challenges to the Responsibility to Protect and the Responsibility to Prosecute
- Nicole Deitelhoff, Is the R2P Failing? The Controversy about Norm Justification and Norm Application of the Responsibility to Protect
- Antonio Arcudi, The Absence of Norm Modification and the Intensification of Norm Contestation: Africa and the Responsibility to Prosecute
- Shirley V. Scott & Roberta C. Andrade, Sovereignty as Normative Decoy in the R2P Challenge to the Charter of the United Nations
- Gregor P. Hofmann & Kavitha Suthanthiraraj, Norm Contestation and Norm Adaptation: R2P’s Reframing over Time
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Prefigurative politics is a form of activism harnessing theories of social change. In essence, it means a group’s adoption of structures and styles of reasoning that the group is promoting, a modelling of the desired political and social outcomes; the aphorism ‘be the change you want to see’ sums up the practice of prefiguration. The term ‘prefigurative tradition’ first emerged in the 1970s in the context of Marxist methods, describing them as a movement embodying ‘within the ongoing political practice … those forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate goal.’ The idea was that Marxist prefigurative politics would undermine ‘the division of labor between everyday life and political activity.’ The women’s camp at Greenham Common, established in 1981 to protest against the presence of Cruise missiles at a US Air Force base in the United Kingdom, was a prefigurative venture in challenging traditional family structures. Another example is the Occupy! movement in 2011, which set out to establish public spaces in the heart of large urban areas where free food, medical care and education were available.
Friday, July 5, 2019
Hathaway, Francis, Haviland, Kethireddy, & Yamamoto: Aiding and Abetting in International Criminal Law
To achieve justice for violations of international law such as genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it is essential to address complicity for international crimes. Beginning in the 1990s, there was a proliferation of international and hybrid criminal tribunals, which sought to hold perpetrators of these crimes accountable and in turn, generated an explosion of international criminal law jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the contours of aiding and abetting liability in international criminal law remain contested. Courts — both domestic and international — have long struggled to identify the proper legal standard for holding actors liable for aiding and abetting even the most serious violations of international law. That confusion has, in turn, produced inconsistent decisions. In the United States, for example, it has resulted in a circuit split, leading many to predict the issue will only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This Article aims to provide context and clarity in this area of international law. It explains and categorizes the existing jurisprudence on aiding and abetting, based on a comprehensive survey of every case decided by an international or hybrid criminal tribunal since Nuremberg. It argues that the search by U.S. courts for a single standard for aiding and abetting liability under international law when deciding cases arising under the Alien Tort Statute misunderstands the nature of the aiding and abetting jurisprudence — and, indeed, misunderstands the structure of international criminal law more generally. It explains that differentiated standards for aiding and abetting liability are often a result of purposive and functional pluralism. Put simply, different standards may be appropriate to different contexts. What appears to be a discontinuous and contradictory jurisprudence is, in fact, a set of calibrated standards that are often responsive to the particular context at hand. The Article concludes with recommendations for strengthening and enabling this functional pluralism in order to strengthen and enable international justice.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world's largest regional security organisation, possesses most of the attributes traditionally ascribed to an international organisation, but lacks a constitutive treaty and an established international legal personality. Moreover, OSCE decisions are considered mere political commitments and thus not legally binding. As such, it seems to correspond to the general zeitgeist, in which new, less formal actors and forms of international cooperation gain prominence, while traditional actors and instruments of international law are in stagnation. However, an increasing number of voices - including the OSCE participating states - have been advocating for more formal and autonomous OSCE institutional structures, for international legal personality, or even for the adoption of a constitutive treaty. The book analyses why and how these demands have emerged, critically analyses the reform proposals and provides new arguments for revisiting the OSCE legal framework.
The article examines the evolution of Taiwan’s engagement in Southeast Asia since the 1990s as a unique case study in international law and international relations (IR). Under the one-China policy, the evolution of bilateral relations with Taiwan highlights the theoretical concept of recognition premised on identity and status in interstate affairs. The article argues that the states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have established diverse forms of recognition of Taiwan in line with a policy of non-recognition. While such recognition has not amounted to recognition of statehood in international law, it demonstrates the IR concept of recognition as a gradual process in state practice. To substantiate the contention, the article examines the diplomatic privileges and immunities that ASEAN countries have accorded to Taiwan. The conclusion of bilateral trade and investment agreements has also galvanized various modes of recognizing Taiwan’s treaty-making capacity and the legitimacy of official cooperation. Hence, the findings not only enrich the study of IR, but also contribute to a broader understanding of the role of China and contemporary Asia-Pacific politics.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Santos, Thomas, & Trubek: World Trade and Investment Law Reimagined: A Progressive Agenda for an Inclusive Globalization
World trade and investment law is in crisis: new and progressive ideas are needed. Rules that facilitated globalization and supported global economic growth are being challenged. A system of global governance that once seemed secure is now at risk as the US ignores the rules while developing countries struggle to escape restrictions. Some want to tear global institutions and agreements down while others try desperately to maintain the status quo. Rejecting both options, a group of trade and investment law experts from 10 countries, South and North, have joined hands to propose ideas for a new world trade and investment law that would maintain global growth while distributing costs and benefits more fairly. Paying special attention to those who have suffered from trade dislocation and to restrictions that have hampered innovative growth strategies in developing countries, they outline a progressive trade and investment law agenda in ‘World Trade and Investment Law Reimagined’ that includes new ways to link trade with protection for labour; measures to ensure that gains from trade are used to offset losses; new rules that can protect foreign investments without hamstringing developing governments or harming local communities; innovative procedures to allow developing countries the freedom to try innovative growth strategies; and methods to cope with new products.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Blattner: Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization
Extraterritorial jurisdiction stands at the juncture of international law and animal law and promises to open a path to understanding and resolving the global problems that challenge the core of animal law. As corporations have relocated and the animal industry (agriculture, medical research, entertainment, etc.) has dispersed its production facilities across the territories of multiple states, regulatory gaps and fears of a race to the bottom have become a pressing issue of global policy. This book provides enough background to allow readers to understand why extraterritorial jurisdiction must respond to these developments, counters objections that readers might raise, and describes how to improve animal law in tandem. The heart of the work is a fully-fledged catalogue of options for extraterritorial jurisdiction, which states can employ to strengthen their animal laws. The book offers top-down perspectives drawn from general international law and trade law, and complements them by a bottom-up up view from the perspective of animal law. The approach connects the law of jurisdiction to substantive law and opens up deeper questions about moral directionality, state and corporate duties owed animals, and the comparative advantages of constitutional, criminal, and administrative animal law. To ensure that extraterritorial animal law does not become complicit in oppressing ethnic and cultural minorities, the book offers critical interdisciplinary perspectives, informed by posthumanist and postcolonialist discourse. Readers will further learn when and how extraterritorial jurisdiction violates international law, and the consequences of exercising it illegally under international law. This work answers questions about how and why extraterritorial jurisdiction can overcome the steepest hurdles for animal law and help move us toward a just global interspecies community.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Monday, July 1, 2019
- Joram Tarusarira, The Anatomy of Apology and Forgiveness: Towards Transformative Apology and Forgiveness
- Anna Macdonald, ‘Somehow This Whole Process Became so Artificial’: Exploring the Transitional Justice Implementation Gap in Uganda
- Grace Akello, Reintegration of Amnestied LRA Ex-Combatants and Survivors’ Resistance Acts in Acholiland, Northern Uganda
- Janine Natalya Clark, ‘Leaky’ Bodies, Connectivity and Embodied Transitional Justice
- Robert Muharremi, The Kosovo Specialist Chambers from a Political Realism Perspective
- Flora Ferati-Sachsenmaier, Postwar Kosovo: Global and Local Dimensions of Interethnic Reconciliation Processes
- Leiry Cornejo Chavez, Juan-Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo & Jemima García-Godos, The Presidential Pardon of Fujimori: Political Struggles in Peru and the Subsidiary Role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- Beate Goldschmidt-Gjerløw & Merel Remkes, Frontstage and Backstage in Argentina’s Transitional Justice Drama: The Niet@s’ Reconstruction of Identity on Social Media
- Klaus Bachmann, Gerhard Kemp, Irena Ristić, Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc, Ana Ljubojević, Aleksandra Nędzi-Marek, Fortunee Bayisenge, Mohammed Ali Mohammed Ahmet, & Vjollca Krasniqi, Like Dust before the Wind, or, the Winds of Change? The Influence of International Criminal Tribunals on Narratives and Media Frames
- Notes from the Field
- Cheryl Lawther, Rachel Killean, & Lauren Dempster, Working with Others: Reflections on Fieldwork in Postconflict Societies
- Review Essay
- Nicola Palmer & Felix Kroner, Anthropology, Transitional Justice and Criminal Law
Sunday, June 30, 2019
- Special Issue: Implementing the Paris Agreement: Lessons from the Global Human Rights Regime
- Annalisa Savaresi & Joanne Scott, Implementing the Paris Agreement: Lessons from the Global Human Rights Regime
- John H. Knox, Bringing Human Rights to Bear on Climate Change
- Lavanya Rajamani, Integrating Human Rights in the Paris Climate Architecture: Contest, Context, and Consequence
- Sébastien Duyck, Delivering on the Paris Promises? Review of the Paris Agreement’s Implementing Guidelines from a Human Rights Perspective
- Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Remedies for Human Rights Violations Caused by Climate Change
- Annalisa Savaresi & Juan Auz, Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights: Pushing the Boundaries
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Fung: Rhetorical adaptation, normative resistance and international order-making: China’s advancement of the responsibility to protect
How do rising powers execute normative resistance to shape international order? Contrary to the existing literature, I argue that rising powers are productive agents of normative change and international order-making, through the use of rhetorical adaptation to contest pre-existing orders. Rhetorical adaptation is a strategy and set of tactics that simultaneously modifies norm content, while reducing critiques of obstructionism. To make this argument, this article traces China’s efforts as a ‘norm shaper’ regarding the responsibility to protect through the inception, institutionalization and implementation of the norm in the landmark 2011 Libya intervention. China layers traditional sovereignty norms under the responsibility to protect, focusing and narrowing the emerging norm by fortifying the primacy of the state. While I show how China resists co-option into an evolving ontological order that challenges traditional sovereignty, the article also addresses the unforeseen consequences of China’s normative efforts that ‘backfired’ to permit the use of the responsibility to protect to justify Libyan regime change. More broadly, this article speaks to rising powers as agents crafting international order, and the process of normative resistance that occurs throughout the norm life cycle. I draw from publicly available documents and semi-structured interviews with Chinese foreign policy and United Nations elites.
- Yutaka Arai-Takahashi, Unearthing the Problematic Terrain of Prolonged Occupation
- Ramute Remezaite, Challenging the Unconditional: Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States
- Antal Berkes, Human Rights Obligations of the Territorial State in the Cyberspace of Areas Outside Its Effective Control
- Klaus D Beiter, Where Have All the Scientific and Academic Freedoms Gone? And What Is ‘Adequate for Science’? The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications
- Lorenzo Gradoni, Un-procedural Customary Law
- Niccolò Ridi, The Shape and Structure of the ‘Usable Past’: An Empirical Analysis of the Use of Precedent in International Adjudication
- Isuru C Devendra, State Responsibility for Corruption in International Investment Arbitration
- Benjamin Salas Kantor & María Elisa Zavala Achurra, The Principle of res judicata before the International Court of Justice: in the Midst of Comradeship and Divorce between International Tribunals
- Antoine Cottin & Panagiotis A Kyriakou, Revisiting the Dispute Requirement in International Interpretation Proceedings: Deeds, not Words
- Current Developments
- Mihaela-Maria Barnes, The ‘Social License to Operate’: An Emerging Concept in the Practice of International Investment Tribunals
Friday, June 28, 2019
Call for Submissions: Rosalyn Higgins Prize of The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (Reminder)
The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals now invites submissions for the Rosalyn Higgins Prize
In light of her outstanding and inspiring achievements in the field of international dispute settlement, the Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (LPICT) has named a Prize in honour of H.E. Rosalyn Higgins.
The Rosalyn Higgins Prize is an annual prize which awards EUR 1.000 of Brill book vouchers and a LPICT subscription to the author of the best article on the law and practice of the International Court of Justice, either solely focusing on the ICJ or with the ICJ as one of the dispute settlement mechanisms under consideration. The winning article will also be published in LPICT and made freely available online to maximize its dissemination.
Competition for the Prize is open to all: scholars as well as practitioners, junior as well as senior professionals. Submissions will be selected via a double-blind peer review process by a Prize Committee, including both co-Editors-in-Chief.
Exceptionally, two papers of an equally high standard can be selected. The Committee is also able to choose not to award the Prize if in its opinion none of the submitted papers reaches the required standards.
Submissions should be between 6.500 and 8.000 words in length, not yet published or under review elsewhere. Other submission requirements are the same as for regular LPICT submissions (instructions available here).
Submissions now open! Deadline: 31 August 2019
All papers for consideration of the 2019 prize should be sent directly to Pierre Bodeau-Livinec (email@example.com) and Freya Baetens (firstname.lastname@example.org), LPICT Co-Editors- in-Chief.
The winner(s) will be announced in September 2019.
- Research Articles
- Noah L. Nathan, Electoral Consequences of Colonial Invention: Brokers, Chiefs, and Distribution in Northern Ghana
- Benjamin Barber & Charles Miller, Propaganda and Combat Motivation: Radio Broadcasts and German Soldiers’ Performance in World War II
- Timm Betz & Amy Pond, Foreign Financing and the International Sources of Property Rights
- Jack Paine, Democratic Contradictions in European Settler Colonies
- Margarita H. Petrova, Naming and Praising in Humanitarian Norm Development
- D.W. Macdonald, Brushes with the Law: A Conservation Scientist’s Perspective on Legal Solutions and Impediments from Scottish Wildcats to African Lions
- Habte Jebessa Debella, “Command and Control”: 75 Years of Quasi Wildlife Policy Analysis of Ethiopia
- Simon Jolivet, Protected Areas Managers, Local Authorities, and Transboundary Conservation: The French Experience
Conference: Les enjeux contemporains des communications numériques : aspects de droit international et européen
Thursday, June 27, 2019
CALL FOR AUTHORS
Smit & Herzog on the Law of the European Union
Herzog, Campbell & Zagel eds
This four-volume loose-leaf founded by Prof Hans Smit and Prof Peter Herzog more than 30 years ago was the first English-language and remains the most comprehensive article-by-article commentary of the treaties through which the European Union is established and operates.
The editors seek to refresh Smit & Herzog’s stable of authors on the occasion of the recent or impending retirement of several of the highly regarded academics and practitioners who have contributed to Smit & Herzog for many years. For the relevant (groups of) articles, see here.
We invite expressions of interest from holders of doctoral (or higher) degrees in European Union law (with teaching and research or practice experience).
The parameters for engagement would be (i) to prepare, over the next 12-18 months, updates or rewrites of existing commentary or in some cases submit new manuscripts on articles as yet without commentary and (ii) to commit to update said commentary (at least once) in the ensuing 3-5 years. The publication issues update releases every six months.
A very general template is to be followed in preparing the commentaries, but this still allows ample scope for each author to analyse the provisions according to her or his own expert approach.
For additional information, please contact email@example.com referencing “Smit & Herzog” in the subject line.