- Caleb H Wheeler, The Scales of Justice: Balancing the Goals of International Criminal Trials
- Constance Gikonyo, The Jeddah Amendment and the Fight Against Wildlife Trafficking
- Marie Manikis, A New Model of the Criminal Justice Process: Victims’ Rights as Advancing Penal Parsimony and Moderation
- Aisha Tariq, Deficient Monitoring Mechanisms Against Bail in Pakistan: A Challenge for the Protection of Rights of the Parties
Saturday, June 15, 2019
- Vivian Motzfeldt, The Need to Safeguard an Official Language by Law: The Case of Greenland
- Evan T. Bloom, Two Key Developments in Polar Law and Diplomacy: A New Arctic Science Agreement and Establishment of the World’s Largest Marine Protected Area in Antarctica’s Ross Sea
- Enrico Albanesi, Sámi’s Reindeer Husbandry and EU Legislation (beyond Finland and Sweden’s Accession Treaty)
- Leena Heinämäki, Indigenous Persons with Disabilities: The Quest for Legal Recognition of Intersectionality and the Prohibition of Multiple Discrimination using the Example of the Sámi People in Finland
- Ekaterina Andreyevna Zmyvalova, The Place of Indigenous Languages in the Russian System of School Education: A Legal Analysis
- Matti Niemivuo & Lotta Viikari, Nordic Cooperation at a Crossroads
- Sarah E. Mackie, Region Building and Regional Cooperation in Response to Environmental Challenges: A Case Study from the Barents Region
- Paula Kovari, Comparison of the Nordic Chairmanship Programmes and the Outputs of the Arctic Council in 2000–2013
- Outi Penttilä, Transboundary Environmental Harm in the Arctic – In Search of Accountability for an Oil Spill
- Joseph F.C. DiMento, Christine Schrottenbaum & Elizabeth Taylor, Environmental Governance of the Arctic: Next Steps – Diverse, Compatible, Needed
- Marcin Dymet, Digital Language Divide in the European High North: The Level of Online Presence of Minority Languages from Northern Finland, Norway and Sweden
- Kamrul Hossain, The Evolving Information-Based Society and Its Influence on Traditional Culture: Framing Community Culture and Human Security of the Sámi in the European High North
- Gerald Zojer, The Interconnectedness of Digitalisation and Human Security in the European High North: Cybersecurity Conceptualised through the Human Security Lens
- Mirva Salminen, Refocusing and Redefining Cybersecurity: Individual Security in the Digitalising European High North
- Xueping Li, Arctic Governance and China’s First Arctic Policy: An UNCLOS Perspective
- Krittika Singh & Timo Koivurova, The South China Sea Award: Prompting a Revived Interest in the Validity of Canada’s Historic Internal Waters Claim?
- Marc Lanteigne, The ‘Greenland Factor’ in China’s Expanding Arctic Diplomacy
- Timo Koivurova, China & the Arctic: Why the Focus on International Law Matters
- Nengye Liu, China’s Arctic Policy and Belt and Road Initiative: Synergy or Conflict?
- Zia E. Madani & Julia Jabour, Developing an Iranian Antarctic Science Roadmap: A Legal and Policy Outlook
All states have pursued what James C. Scott characterised as modernist projects of legibility and simplification: maps, censuses, national economic plans and related legislative programs. Many, including Scott, have pointed out blindspots embedded in these tools. As such criticism persists, however, the synoptic style of law and development has changed. Governments, NGOs and international agencies now aspire to draw upon immense repositories of digital data. Modes of analysis too have changed. No longer is legibility a precondition for action. Law‐ and policy‐making are being informed by business development methods that prefer prototypes over plans. States and international institutions continue to plan, but also seek insight from the release of minimally viable policy mock‐ups. Familiar critiques of law and development work, and arguments for its reform, have limited purchase on these practices, Scott's included. Effective critical intervention in this field today requires careful attention to be paid to these emergent patterns of practice.
- Development of the Law of the Sea in Historical Perspective and Prospect
- Akio Morita, Introductory Note
- Akio Morita, Interference with Ships on the High Seas: Historical Development Hidden in the "Right of Visit" Argument
- Kentaro Wani, Development of the Law of the Sea and the Legal Status of International Strait in Time of International Armed Conflict
- Shizuka Sakamaki, Measures Against Non-Innocent Passage of Warships and Other Government Ships Operated for Non-Commercial Purposes
- Tomoaki Nishimura, Complications and Mutual Supportiveness Between the Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law: A Study on Climate Geoengineering
- Dai Tamada, UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Contribution to the Integrity of UNCLOS
- International Development of Consumer Collective Redress
- Dai Yokomizo, Introductory Note
- Kazuhiko Yamamoto, Special Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by Consumers — About So-Called "Japanese Class Action" —
- Dai Yokomizo, Consumer Collective Redress and Japanese Conflict of Laws
- Stefaan Voet, Europe's Collective Redress Conundrum
- Catherine Piché & Geneviève Saumier, Consumer Collective Redress in Canada
- Half a Century with the International Covenants on Human Rights: Long-Term Impacts on the World, Asia and Japan: Part Three
- Lauri Mälksoo, The Controversy over Human Rights, UN Covenants, and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union
- Private International Law
- Masato Dogauchi, The Aftermath of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Accident: How Japanese Lawyers Have Been Playing Their Roles with Regard to the Nuclear Damage?
Recent developments suggest that we might be moving past the International Economic World Order that has flourished since the end of the Cold War and toward a new Geoeconomic World Order. This new order, which is characterised by a growing ‘securitisation of economic policy and economisation of strategic policy,’ has the potential to significantly reshape the rules, norms and institutions of international trade and investment law. We explore this shift through the prism of U.S.-China great power rivalry with particular respect to their emerging tech/trade war.
- Lukas Linsi & Daniel K. Mügge, Globalization and the growing defects of international economic statistics
- Ayse Kaya & Mike Reay, How did the Washington consensus move within the IMF? Fragmented change from the 1980s to the aftermath of the 2008 crisis
- Adrienne Roberts & Ghazal Mir Zulfiqar, The political economy of women’s entrepreneurship initiatives in Pakistan: reflections on gender, class, and “development”
- Deborah Mabbett & Waltraud Schelkle, Independent or lonely? Central banking in crisis
- Aditi Sahasrabuddhe, Drawing the line: the politics of federal currency swaps in the global financial crisis
- Herman Mark Schwartz, American hegemony: intellectual property rights, dollar centrality, and infrastructural power
- Juvaria Jafri, When billions meet trillions: impact investing and shadow banking in Pakistan
- Richard Collins, Two idea(l)s of the international rule of law
- Qerim Qerimi, The contents and contours of contemporary cosmopolitan constitution-making: Immanuel Kant in the twenty-first century
- Ana Micaela Alterio, Reactive vs structural approach: A public law response to populism
- Maartje de Visser & Ngoc Son Bui, Glocalised constitution-making in the twenty-first century: Evidence from Asia
- David Kc Huang & Nigel Nt Li, Why China finds it difficult to appreciate democracy
- Ruth Kinna, Alex Prichard, & Thomas Swann, Occupy and the constitution of anarchy
- Ronald Car, A reply to Sujit Choudhry’s ‘Resisting democratic backsliding’: Weimar legacy and self-enforcing constitutions in post-WWII left-wing constitutional theory
Friday, June 14, 2019
A variety of human rights dilemmas were left unresolved in the Rome Statute. One issue likely to generate controversy is the relationship between the prohibition of double jeopardy, complementarity, and fair trial protections for defendants in mass atrocity trials. Under the Rome Statute’s complementarity framework, the International Criminal Court (ICC) must defer to domestic proceedings if a state is handling the same case and the national authorities are not ‘unable or unwilling’ to prosecute the same person. Much ink has been spilt on Article 17 of the Rome Statute and the resulting ICC case law; however, less understood is the flipside of complementarity: under what circumstances is a state not allowed to prosecute defendants over whom the ICC has already exercised jurisdiction? This question is examined against the backdrop of the ICC’s trial of Germain Katanga. Tried and convicted in The Hague, Katanga was sent back to his native Democratic Republic of Congo to serve the remainder of his ICC-mandated sentence. Once in Congo, the national authorities initiated criminal proceedings, despite concerns about possible violations of Katanga’s human rights, including the applicability of the death penalty, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and the prohibition of double jeopardy. Under a seldom-used provision in the Rome Statute, Article 108, the ICC Presidency was required to validate or reject Congo’s proceedings against Katanga. Instead, in its decision allowing Katanga’s domestic case to proceed, the ICC essentially abdicated any oversight over national jurisdictions, advancing sweeping arguments about the irrelevance of human rights to the permissibility of secondary domestic trials. Three years later, Katanga languishes in a Congolese prison with no prospect of a trial, let alone justice, in sight. Although the Katanga debacle is based on a unique set of facts, it raises fundamental questions about the prohibition of ne bis in idem, its relationship to complementarity, and the relevance of fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute. In light of analogous developments in the cases of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Jean-Pierre Bemba, this article explores a topic that is likely to generate further controversy as the likelihood of secondary domestic trials of people previously tried by the ICC increases.
- The Classics’ Corner
- Roberto Mesa Garrido, From the City of God to Universal Chaos
- General Articles
- Antonio A. Cançado-Trindade, Education, Universality and Humanism: The Human Person and the Mission of International Tribunals
- Carlos Moreiro González, The Review of International Arbitral Awards for Breach of Human Rights and the EU Law, and the Spanish Practice Regarding Review of Internal Arbitral Awards
- Sava Jankovic, Four Streams of Democracy and the Recognition of States: The EU Perspective
- Beatriz Vázquez Rodríguez, Interim Measures Requested Before International Courts and International Quasi-Judicial Bodies in the Protection of Human Rights: Do They Also Protect the Right to Participate in Public Affairs?
- Adela M. Aura Y Larios De Medrano, State Succession and International Watercourses: The Role of the 1978 Vienna Convention and the Case of Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Could Play
- Agora: Secession and self-determination in contemporary International Law
- Xavier Pons Rafols, Spain in the United Nations: Sixtieth Anniversary
- Carlos Jiménez Piernas, Xavier Pons Rafols, Enrique Martínez Pérez & Francisco Pascual Vives, Introduction
- Juan Soroeta Liceras, Current Validity of the External Dimension of the Self-Determination of Peoples. Pending Cases Of Decolonization
- Paz Andrés Sáenz De Santa María, A Right Of All Peoples: The Internal Dimension of Self-Determination and Its Relationship With Democracy
- Javier Roldán Barbero, Internal Democracy And International Law
- Xavier Pons Rafols, The Right to Political Participation in International Law, Independence Referendums, and International Good Practice
- Esperanza Orihuela Calatayud, Does a Right of Remedial Secession Exist Under International Law?
- Concepción Escobar Hernández, Secession and Succession of States: What Relationship?
- Antonio Blanc Altemir, Processes of Secession and Succession of States in the Post-Soviet Space With Attention to the So-Called “De Facto States”
- José Manuel Sobrino Heredia, The European Union and the Principle Of Self-Determination of Peoples: Territories with Special Status In The European Union and Pending Cases of Decolonization
- Luis Pérez-Prat Durbán, EU Missions and Secessionist Conflicts
- Álvaro Jarillo Aldeanueva, Doctrinal Reflections on the Concept of People in International Law
- Juan Francisco Escuder0 Espinosa, The Absence of Any Right to ‘Remedial Secession’ in International Law
- José A. López Jiménez, The Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Complex State Construction Processes. Two Differentiated Secession Models in the Republic of Moldova: Gagauzia And Transnistria
- Juan D. Torrejón Rodríguez, The Crisis at Guerguerat and the Escalation of the Western Sahara Conflict
- Núria González Campañá, European Union Policy Towards Secessionism in Neighbouring Countries
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Tsampi: Le principe de séparation des pouvoirs dans la jurisprudence de la cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Quid d’un principe constitutionnel concernant l’organisation institutionnelle de l’État, tel que la séparation des pouvoirs, dans la jurisprudence d’une cour internationale des droits de l’homme, telle que la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme ? S’il serait audacieux de prouver que le juge de Strasbourg applique une certaine théorie de séparation des pouvoirs, il est pourtant pertinent de répondre à la question de savoir si les solutions adoptées par le juge européen des droits de l’homme dessinent une vision cohérente de ce que doivent, selon lui, être les relations entre les pouvoirs.
En outre, il ne faut pas faire abstraction du fait que la théorie de la séparation des pouvoirs telle qu’elle est conçue dans l’État libéral contemporain n’implique la consécration que d’un socle minimal de solutions soit acquis. Il apparaît ainsi que l’aspiration primordiale de la séparation des pouvoirs réside dans la protection des pouvoirs judiciaire et législatif contre le pouvoir exécutif. Le juge européen des droits de l’homme partage cette optique. Si le principe de séparation des pouvoirs n’est pas un principe énoncé par la Cour, au moins avec la précision nécessaire, il est un principe déjà présent dans le corpus jurisprudentiel strasbourgeois dont le futur est prometteur.
Call for Papers: Disrupting Narratives and Pluralising Engagement in International Economic Law Scholarship, Teaching and Practice
Domestic law has long been recognised as a source of international law, an inspiration for legal developments, or the benchmark against which a legal system is to be assessed. Academic commentary normally re-traces these well-trodden paths, leaving one with the impression that the interaction between domestic and international law is unworthy of further enquiry. However, a different - and surprisingly pervasive - nexus between the two spheres has been largely overlooked: the use of domestic law in the interpretation of international law. This book examines the practice of five international courts and tribunals to demonstrate that domestic law is invoked to interpret international law, often outside the framework of Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It assesses the appropriateness of such recourse to domestic law as well as situating the practice within broader debates regarding interpretation and the interaction between domestic and international legal systems.
- Noam Lubell & Michael Wood, The ILA’s 2018 report on aggression and the use of force
- Johanna Friman, Deblurring the concept of a breach of the peace as a component of contemporary international collective security
- Isabella Wong, Authority to consent to the use of force in contemporary international law: the Crimean and Yemeni conflicts
- Davis Brown, Measuring first use of force: methods, results, and implications
- Joseph R Slaughter, Pathetic fallacies: personification and the unruly subjects of international law
- Randle C DeFalco & Frédéric Mégret, The invisibility of race at the ICC: lessons from the US criminal justice system
- Jean d’Aspremont, Critical histories of international law and the repression of disciplinary imagination
- Pierre-Alexandre Cardinal, The modern and the traditional: Islam, Islamic law and European capitulations in late Qajar Iran
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Drawing the line between disputes that can be adjudicated in domestic (U.S.) courts, and those that cannot, has perplexed judges and jurists since the Founding Era. Although Congress provided a statutory framework for the jurisdictional immunities of foreign states in 1976, important ambiguities remain. Notably, in 2010, the Supreme Court held in Samantar v. Yousuf that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not govern suits against foreign officials unless the foreign state is the “real party in interest.” This decision clarified, but did not fully resolve, conceptual and doctrinal questions surrounding the immunities of foreign officials whose conduct is challenged in U.S. courts, and who do not fall within existing statutes. To date, the contours of common-law immunity have only been addressed at the district and circuit court levels. The conundrum thus persists: how to define which claims are barred by immunity, who decides, and which claims are barred?
This Article offers an original historical account of strategies used by litigants, judges, legislators, and executive branch officials to navigate tensions between rules-based approaches to jurisdictional immunity administered by the judiciary and case-by-case approaches administered by the political branches. Part I excavates the practices and understandings of those involved in these cases, as the Executive Branch disclaimed the authority to instruct courts to dismiss claims on immunity grounds. Although past is not necessarily prologue, this early U.S. practice offers important insights into the interplay between legal and political considerations in immunity determinations that persist in the present day. Part II continues the historical narrative by exploring two pivotal twentieth-century cases involving foreign ships, in which the Executive Branch appears to have advanced — and courts ultimately accepted — a more robust political role in immunity determinations. Although cases against foreign officials appear to have been relatively few and far between during the twentieth century, the advent of modern human rights litigation inaugurated a new wave of cases against foreign officials for acts including torture and genocide. Today, privately initiated civil suits continue to be brought against current and former foreign officials in the United States for conduct ranging from torture, war crimes, and kidnapping, to domestic worker abuse. Part II elucidates some of the conceptual and procedural challenges to adjudicating these claims, which continue to defy straightforward resolution.
The super-norm in the investment treaty regime is the treatment standard of fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) — a standard that has no analogue in the trade regime. FET features in nine out of ten investment treaties. The paper contends that fair and equitable treatment provisions in investment treaties are a prominent example of boilerplate provisions. It argues that the character of FET as boilerplate suggests that investment tribunals ought to adopt a modified interpretive stance compared to negotiated provisions in treaties. Boilerplate provisions should be interpreted using the contra proferentem principle — with ambiguities resolved against the drafter of the FET provision — and considering the reasonable expectations of the contracting state that received a draft boilerplate FET provision from its counterparty.
Section II explains the dataset and this article’s text-as-data-methodology. Section III sets out the main types of FET provisions, drawing on the existing literature. Section IV examines the clusters that emerge from this paper’s text-as-data methodology and considers FET as a social network. Section V contends the FET standard is a prominent example of a boilerplate provision. Section VI argues that the character of FET as boilerplate suggests that investment tribunals ought to adopt a modified interpretive stance compared to negotiated provisions in treaties.
This paper – which is based on the Thomas Franck Lecture held by the author at Humboldt University Berlin on 13 May 2019 – argues that the most likely development of international to be expected will be the coexistence of two “legal worlds”. On the one hand, an inter-State law brutally regulating political relations between human groups whitewashed by nationalism; on the other hand, a transnational or “a-national” law regulating economic relations between private as well as public interests. Further, the paper argues that there are two obvious victims – of very different nature – of this foreseeable evolution: the human being on the one hand, the certainty and effectiveness of the rule of law itself on the other hand.
- Andreas Raffeiner, Die doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft in den 28 Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union
- Thomas Faist, Local and Transnational Citizenship
- Gilbert Gornig, Doppelte Staatsangehörigkeit und Völkerrecht
- Oskar Peterlini, Ein Pass für Nachfahren österreichischer Staatsbürger
- Monica Rosini, Dual Citizenship of German and Ladin Minority Groups of South Tyrol
- Rainer J. Schweizer, Christina Müller, & Luciano Gees, Doppel- und Mehrbürgerschaften sowie deren Entzug im schweizerischen Recht
- Martina Sochin D’Elia, Doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft im Kleinstaat. Das Beispiel Liechtenstein
- Heino Nyyssönen & Jussi Metsälä, Dual Citizenship as Power Politics: The Case of the Carpathian Basin
- Alexander Salenko, Dual Citizenship in Russia
- Ralf Vollmann & Tek Wooi Soon, Zur Situation von Sprache und Kultur der Tsou in Taiwan
In recent times, instances of contestation of the ECtHR and the IACtHR make headlines, and in many of these cases domestic courts play a role by refusing to follow the human rights courts or even declaring their judgments to be unconstitutional. This paper undertakes an in-depth analysis of these instances of judicial resistance and puts them into context. This shows that domestic courts, even though originally not having been allocated this role, have become important ‘compliance partners’ of the human rights courts and now play an important and autonomous role in the implementation of their judgments. At the same time, they act as ‘gatekeepers’ and limit their effects in the domestic order. Recent cases even suggest a turn to a less open and more national self-perception of domestic courts. While this to some extent reflects the multiple – and sometimes conflicting – roles domestic courts perform at the intersection of legal orders, the paper argues that the open and flexible stance many domestic courts take when faced with international judgments is better suited to cope with the complex and plural legal reality than systematically judging anew on matters already decided by the human rights courts.
Kingsbury, Malone, Mertenskötter, Stewart, Streinz, & Sunami: Megaregulation Contested: Global Economic Ordering After TPP
The Japan-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPPA) of 2018 is the most far-reaching 'megaregional' economic agreement in force, with several major countries beyond its eleven negotiating countries also interested. Still bearing the stamp of the original US involvement before the Trump-era reversal, TPP is the first instance of 'megaregulation': a demanding combination of inter-state economic ordering and national regulatory governance on a highly ambitious substantive and trans-regional scale. Its text and ambition have influenced other negotiations ranging from the Japan-EU Agreement (JEEPA) and the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to the projected Pan-Asian Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
This book provides an extensive analysis of TPP as a megaregulatory project for channelling and managing new pressures of globalization, and of core critical arguments made against economic megaregulation from standpoints of development, inequality, labour rights, environmental interests, corporate capture, and elite governance. Specialized chapters cover supply chains, digital economy, trade facilitation, intellectual property, currency levels, competition and state-owned enterprises, government procurement, investment, prescriptions for national regulation, and the TPP institutions. Country studies include detailed analyses of TPP-related politics and approaches in Japan, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand. Contributors include leading practitioners and scholars in law, economics, and political science. At a time when the WTO and other global-scale institutions are struggling with economic nationalism and geopolitics, and bilateral and regional agreements are pressed by public disagreement and incompatibility with digital and capital and value chain flows, the megaregional ambition of TPP is increasingly important as a precedent requiring the close scrutiny this book presents.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
- Special Issue: Power of Rules and Rule of Power
- Faten Ghosn & Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, Power of Rules and Rule of Power
- Brett Ashley Leeds, J Ann Tickner, Colin Wight, & Jessica De Alba-Ulloa, Forum: Power and Rules in the Profession of International Studies
- Douglas Lemke, Do International Rules and Norms Apply to Nonstate Actors?
- Thomas Kwasi Tieku, Ruling from the Shadows: The Nature and Functions of Informal International Rules in World Politics
- Monica Herz & Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann, Democracy Questions Informal Global Governance
- Beth A Simmons, Border Rules
Weisbord: The Crime of Aggression: The Quest for Justice in an Age of Drones, Cyberattacks, Insurgents, and Autocrats
On July 17, 2018, starting an unjust war became a prosecutable international crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Instead of collective state responsibility, our leaders are now personally subject to indictment for crimes of aggression, from invasions and preemptions to drone strikes and cyberattacks. The Crime of Aggression is Noah Weisbord’s riveting insider’s account of the high-stakes legal fight to enact this historic legislation and hold politicians accountable for the wars they start.
Weisbord, a key drafter of the law for the International Criminal Court, takes readers behind the scenes of one of the most consequential legal dramas in modern international diplomacy. Drawing on in-depth interviews and his own invaluable insights, he sheds critical light on the motivations of the prosecutors, diplomats, and military strategists who championed the fledgling prohibition on unjust war—and those who tried to sink it. He untangles the complex history behind the measure, tracing how the crime of aggression was born at the Nuremberg trials only to fall dormant during the Cold War, and he draws lessons from such pivotal events as the collapse of the League of Nations, the rise of the United Nations, September 11, and the war on terror.
The power to try leaders for unjust war holds untold promise for the international order, but also great risk. In this incisive and vitally important book, Weisbord explains how judges in such cases can balance the imperatives of justice and peace, and how the fair prosecution of aggression can humanize modern statecraft.
Monday, June 10, 2019
- Research Articles
- Alexandra Cirone & Brenda Van Coppenolle, Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization
- David Hope & Angelo Martelli, The Transition to the Knowledge Economy, Labor Market Institutions, and Income Inequality in Advanced Democracies
- Christopher Paik & Jessica Vechbanyongratana, Path to Centralization and Development: Evidence from Siam
- Darin Christensen, Mai Nguyen, & Renard Sexton, Strategic Violence during Democratization: Evidence from Myanmar
- Kanchan Chandra & Omar García-Ponce, Why Ethnic Subaltern-Led Parties Crowd Out Armed Organizations: Explaining Maoist Violence in India
- Diwakar Dixit & Thakur Parajuli, The Preferential Trade Conundrum and the Multilateral Market Access Negotiations in Agriculture
- Nathalie Devillier & Ted Gleason, Consistent and Recurring Use of External Legal! Norms: Examining Normative Integration of the FCTC post-Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging
- Gabriele Gagliani, Recent Evolution in International Trade in the Transatlantic Area: Unexpected Consequences or Nothing New Under the Sun?
- Ji Yeong Yoo, Restructuring GATT Balance-of-Payments Safeguard in the WTO System
- Jingjing Zhao, Towards State Avoidance of Conflicts between the SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A Fresh Perspective
- Natalia Kapyrina, Design Rights in EU PTAs: Where Does Such Internationalization Lead?
Sinclair: Beyond Accountability? Human Rights, Global Governance, and the World Bank Inspection Panel
This paper seeks to move beyond the usual accountability framework of human rights law, focusing on one case of the World Bank Inspection Panel (WBIP) to consider other aspects of the relationship between human rights and international organisations in global governance. In particular, the paper makes two novel analytical moves. First, it conceptualises international organisations such as the WBIP as complex assemblages comprising diverse elements, thereby drawing attention to the manifold practices that connect the innumerable actors involved in constructing, processing, and contesting a WBIP complaint. Second, the paper widens the frame to examine the dynamics of authority at play between the various actors in a WBIP case. In this perspective, human rights appear not so much as a fixed set of standards against which WBIP seeks to hold the World Bank accountable for its actions, but rather as one among a number of vocabularies of authority deployed by the sundry entities in a range of complex interactions. As such, human rights are continually constructed, defined, and distinguished from other modes of discourse and practice in the making (and unmaking) of global governance.