- Julio J. Nogués, Brexit Trade Impacts’ and Mercosur’s Negotiations with Europe
- Bernard Hoekman, Urgent and Important: Improving WTO Performance by Revisiting Working Practices
- Andrei Suse & Jan Wouters, Exploring the Boundaries of Provisional Application: The EU’s Mixed Trade and Investment Agreements
- Kiliane Huyghebaert, Changing the Rules Mid-Game: The Compliance of the Amended EU Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation with WTO Law
- Salam Alshareef, Technical Standards Liberalization in FTAs of the United States, the European Union and China
- Christina Siyu Tao & Sandeep Gopalan, Piercing the Veil of Foreign Legal Services in China
- Michal Ovádek & Akhil Raina, The Evolution of EU Trade Law Through the Prism of Competence: A Quantitative, Longitudinal Perspective
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Minow: Do Alternative Justice Mechanisms Deserve Recognition in International Criminal Law?: Truth Commissions, Amnesties, and Complementarity at the International Criminal Court
In the aftermath of crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights, should international legal institutions promote the use of criminal sanctions or instead support forgiveness and reconciliation? Either response is better than silence, but comparing prosecutions and reconciliatory steps brings tough choices, both legally and politically. Adversarial criminal prosecution holds the promise of generating facts, holding individuals accountable, and deterring future horrific conduct, but criminal trials also can be time-consuming, expensive, inevitably selective, remote in time and location from the lives of those most affected, and indifferent to the goals of social peace and personal healing. Truth and reconciliation commissions, exemplified by South Africa’s effort following the end of Apartheid, represent an alternative justice mechanism that pursues truth-telling and opportunities for reconciliation, rather than punishment.
Such methods can provide occasions for individual wrongdoers to apologize, and for victims and survivors to forgive, but these methods can also be marred by corruption, compromise, and an appearance of condoning terrible acts. Trading truth for punishment may offer a predicate for social reconciliation, but unconditional amnesties following terrible violence — and pardons following flawed trials — likely signal political pressures to sacrifice justice.
The choice among approaches is left open in the design of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), which seeks to encourage domestic legal systems to pursue international crimes against humanity, genocide, and other gross violations of human rights within their national justice systems. Through its notion of “complementarity,” the ICC seeks to localize international norms through a relationship between domestic courts and a permanent Court with potential jurisdiction across the world; the ICC actually loses its authority to proceed when the domestic jurisdiction does so in an adequate way. To set the standards for international justice — and to build capacity to pursue justice in nations where mass violence occurs — should the international institution treat truth commissions, grants of amnesty, and other alternatives to prosecution as satisfying the predicate of national action that in turn deprives the ICC of authority to proceed? This Article analyzes the debates around alternatives to trials in fulfilling complementarity and advances recognition of some domestic restorative justice processes under specified criteria. The issues this Article explores have implications not only for international criminal justice but also for alternatives to adjudication in national and local responses to any criminal conduct.
Friday, April 26, 2019
- McEwan and Others v. Attorney General of Guyana (C.C.J.), with introductory note by Salvatore Caserta
- Molla Sali v. Greece (Eur. Ct. H.R.), with introductory note by Christina M. Cerna
- Navalnyy v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.), with introductory note by Corina Heri
- Resolution 1106 (2168/18) (OAS), Precautionary Measure No. 731–18, & Precautionary Measure No. 505-18 (IACHR), with introductory note by Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol
- Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, with introductory note by Rizal Abdul Kadir
- Report of the Secretariat on Introduction from the Sea of Sei Whales (Balaenoptera Borealis) by Japan (CITES), with introductory note by Donald R. Rothwell
- Barrie Sander, Democracy Under The Influence: Paradigms of State Responsibility for Cyber Influence Operations on Elections
- Michael Byers & Emma Lodge, China and the Northwest Passage
- Qi Xu, Reflections on the Presence of Third States in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation
- Sang Man Kim & Jongho Kim, Can a Change of Circumstances Qualify as an Impediment under Article 79 of the CISG?
- Xuechan Ma, International Jurisprudence Concerning the Group or Unity Principle in Territorial Allocation
- Chengming Yang,The Implementation of International Law on the Equal Right of Labor of Transgender Minorities in China: Revisiting the Mr. C. Case
- Current Developments
- Keyuan Zou & Jiayi Wang, Enforcing Marine Environmental Law in China: Some New Measures
Since its adoption in 1969 the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has made a significant contribution to the development of international law. This event will examine current issues in the application and the interpretation of the VCLT. The topics to be considered include: treaty interpretation; reservations; the role of treaties in international relations; and the relationship between treaties and domestic law. The event will include an opening address by David H Anderson who was a member of the British Delegation to the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
- L’Union européenne et les 60 ans du Traité de Rome : Enjeux et défis contemporains
- Olivier Delas, Préface
- Jean-Claude Gautron, Conférence introductive – Libres remarques sur les crises de l’Union européenne
- François Alabrune, L’intégration européenne à la croisée des chemins : quelles perspectives d’avenir ? « Surmonter les défis »
- Pierre Berthelet, La lutte contre la cybercriminalité à l’échelle de l’Union : analyse de l’évolution juridique d’un phénomène à la confluence de plusieurs agendas institutionnels
- Giuseppe Cataldi, Migrations in the Mediterranean between protection of Human Rights and border control. An Italian perspective
- Olivier Clerc, L’Union européenne face au défi de l’anthropocène : du droit du développement durable aux droits de la nature ?
- Olivier Clerc, L’Union européenne face à la chimère du gouvernement économique européen
- Christian Deblock, L’Accord économique et commercial global : un accord mal compris, mais pourtant novateur
- Bertrand de Largentaye, Quelques considérations économiques et monétaires sur l’état et le devenir de l’Union européenne
- Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès, À propos de certaines implications juridiques du Brexit dans le domaine de la lutte contre les changements climatiques
- Alexandre Guigue, Le Brexit : une question de droit constitutionnel
- Loïc Grard, La distance entre Bruxelles et ses citoyens. Retour sur le déficit démocratique de l’Union européenne
- Laurence Marquis, L’Accord de partenariat stratégique Canada Union européenne : jumeau politique méconnu de l’Accord économique et commercial global
- Ivana Otasevic, La protection de la diversité des expressions culturelles et l’UE
- Sébastien Platon, « It’s the Final Countdown » : position de l’Union européenne et état des lieux sommaire des négociations du Brexit
- Antoine Rayroux, Réputation et perceptions de l’Union européenne au Canada : un partenaire stratégique superficiel ?
- Dominique Rousseau, La constitution européenne, une solution à la crise de l’Europe
- Benoit Rutten, Face à ces défis, quel futur pour la construction européenne ?
- Sylvie Sarolea, Asile et Union européenne face à la crise : d’une gestion interne à une gestion externe
- Anne-Marie Tournepiche, La différenciation : solution miracle pour l’Union européenne ?
- Manon Thouvenot, La diversification dans l’Union européenne, un véritable défi pour l’intégration
- Isabelle Vestris, La prise en compte de l’outre-mer du traité CEE de Rome à nos jours
- Mulry Mondélice, L’Europe peut-elle faire l’économie du modèle fédéral? Conclusion de la table ronde des experts, avec quelques observations sur la gouvernance et la quête du changement
- Peter Leuprecht, L’intégration européenne à la croisée des chemins. Synthèse et conclusion
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Monday, April 22, 2019
This book deals with the possible investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of crimes allegedly committed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In light of the Rome Statute and the Practice of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Court, among others, it examines the route, possible outcomes, and challenges that may arise were the Palestine situation to be brought before the ICC.
The subject matter is approached using the route the Prosecutor of the Court would generally employ to deal with situations. The publication offers a step-by-step procedure by which to conduct the preliminary examination and investigation of the situation in Palestine and deals with matters of jurisdiction, followed by a discussion of the fundamental concepts of complementarity and gravity to determine the admissibility before the ICC. Alleged crimes particularly unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as the construction of settlements, forced displacement, house demolitions, the expropriation of land, the crime of apartheid and the blockade of Gaza, are dealt with in light of the Rome Statute and international law.
On the basis of the established theories of transitional justice, the possible impacts of an ICC investigation and prosecution on the conflict are analysed and a number of insights are shared with regard to the impacts of the ICC on combatting impunity, fostering Palestine’s statehood, peace negotiations and the stability of the region. Due to the politicisation of the conflict and the various interests at stake, the impact of the ICC’s involvement on the credibility of the ICC itself is also reviewed. Recognizing the numerous impacts of the conflict on the existence of the two nations and the multitude of causes for its perpetuity, it does not limit itself to the ICC, but also provides other conflict resolution alternatives that could enable reconciliation and sustainable peace in the region.
This paper discusses a particular field of climate change law: climate change litigation based on claims stemming from the right to a clean and healthy environment under national and international human rights law. This field is coming under increased scrutiny of both legal scholars and practitioners. While the share of rights-based climate cases within the global body of climate change litigation is still very insignificant, a number of such cases have already been heard by courts all across the globe. The initial assessment of the existing case-law allows for cautious optimism that the use of rights-based claims, notably the right to a clean and healthy environment under national and/or international law, is justified and can yield at least some positive results.
Since 1962, when Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act, every new U.S. trade deal has had the same essential bargain at its core. Congress agrees to give the president the power to lower trade barriers in exchange for adjustment assistance for those workers displaced by competition with new imports. This bargain illustrates what I refer to as the Misalignment Thesis: when a legislative bargain is struck over two or more interdependent policies, the policy subject to more frequent or costlier renegotiation and implementation will be disfavored in the long run. In the trade context, the misalignment occurs because trade liberalization commitments are indefinite, enshrined in international agreements, and implemented by the executive branch; the adjustment assistance provisions are temporary, purely domestic, and require renegotiation and reauthorization in Congress.
As a consequence, proponents of policies to help displaced workers must constantly renegotiate and defend laws to help their constituents. Moreover, they must do so within an institution, Congress, in which the transaction costs of securing favorable policy outcomes are very high. The result is that policies aimed at helping workers displaced by trade liberalization are chronically undersupplied.
Proponents of trade liberalization, on the other hand, never have to renegotiate their gains. Each trade agreement goes into the pocket of trade proponents, and then they move on to securing the next trade agreement. Nor does Congress maintain a meaningful role in the implementation of trade agreements. Once the agreement is in effect, implementation is left to the executive branch, where the transaction costs of enacting a trade liberalizing agenda are quite low.
This Article makes three contributions. First, it introduces the Misalignment Thesis in the context of U.S. trade policy. The Misalignment Thesis is a descriptive claim about how the structure of legislative bargains influences the long-term stability and effectiveness of that bargain. Second, the Article introduces the normative corollary to the Misalignment Thesis: if political stability hinges on respecting the legislative bargain, interdependent policies should be subject to renegotiation on the same time line and implementation on the same terms. In light of this prescription, I offer three concrete proposals for aligning trade liberalization and trade adjustment assistance in order to protect and promote the goals of both policies. Most importantly, I argue — contrary to most commentary — that the Trump Administration’s proposal to limit the duration of trade agreements like NAFTA would better align trade liberalization and trade adjustment assistance. Third, the Article discusses the Misalignment Thesis’s broader application to deregulatory bargains struck in a wide variety of fields, including transportation, telecommunications, and healthcare. The Misalignment Thesis suggests that deregulation often has unintended consequences because the structure of deregulatory bargains undermines their long-term effectiveness.
Call for Submissions: Italian Yearbook/Challenges to Multilateralism in International Economic Law (Reminder)
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
Italian Yearbook of International Law, Volume XXIX (2019)
Challenges to Multilateralism in International Economic Law
Volume XXIX-2019 of the Italian Yearbook of International Law (IYIL) will include a Symposium on “Challenges to Multilateralism in International Economic Law”, which will be edited in cooperation with the Interest Group on International and Supranational Organizations of the Italian Society of International and European Union Law.
Established at the end of WWII in a joint effort to promote international economic exchanges and foster international peace and security, the current multilateral framework governing international economic relations is under pressure. A new economic world order seems to be emerging in which states intensively use protectionist tools “to achieve strategic and political goals” thus limiting the role of law and increasing the use of power politics (Puig). The role of international adjudication to settle international economic disputes is also jeopardized by the growing recourse to unilateral sanctions, unilateral responses to such moves, and attempts to block the effective functioning of the Appellate Body of the WTO. It is now time to take stock of these challenges to multilateralism from an international law perspective.
The Editors welcome submissions of abstracts showing a critical and/or innovative perspective on any of the following aspects:
Abstracts of no more than 500 words, written in English and including the author’s name and e-mail address should be submitted to the IYIL Editors, e-mail address: email@example.com. A half-page (max one-page) curriculum vitae must be included in the file containing the abstract. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 10 May 2019. Successful applicants will be notified via e-mail by 1 June 2019 and must submit the final draft paper (10.000-12.000 words, including footnotes) by 15 October 2019. A colloquium on “Challenges to Multilateralism in International Economic Law” will be convened in November 2019 and on that occasion the authors of the accepted papers will be invited to present their works, which will eventually be published in the Italian Yearbook of International Law after a double-blind peer-review process.
- The future of multilateralism and mega-agreements (i.e. CETA, EU-Japan, CTPP, NAFTA/USMCA, RCEP, or AfCTFA): is Article XXIV GATT still relevant?
- Trade Wars: legal implications for multilateralism
- The future of WTO dispute settlement mechanism and its independence
- Prospects for international investment law and implications for bilateralism, regionalism and multilateralism
- The future of international investment dispute settlement between the reform of ICSID Rules and the proposal of a Multilateral Investment Court
- The main challenges to multilateralism in the field of international development assistance and peace support
- The state of multilateralism in international financial institutions
- Empirical support for (or against) the assumption that multilateralism is the preferred approach in international economic law