Saturday, July 6, 2019

Charlesworth: Prefiguring Feminist Judgment in International Law

Hilary Charlesworth (Univ. of Melbourne - Law; Australian National Univ.) has posted Prefiguring Feminist Judgment in International Law (in Feminist Judgments in International Law, T. Lavers & L. Hodson eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
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

Oona A. Hathaway (Yale Univ. - Law), Alexandra Francis (Yale Univ. - Law), Aaron Haviland (Yale Univ. - Law), Srinath Reddy Kethireddy (Yale Univ. - Law), & Alyssa Yamamoto (Yale Univ. - Law), have posted Aiding and Abetting in International Criminal Law (Cornell Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

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.

Steinbrück Platise, Moser, & Peters: The Legal Framework of the OSCE

Mateja Steinbrück Platise (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), Carolyn Moser (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), & Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) have published The Legal Framework of the OSCE (Cambridge Univ. Press 2019). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:
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.

Hsieh: Rethinking Non-Recognition: Taiwan’s New Pivot to ASEAN and the One-China Policy

Pasha L. Hsieh (Singapore Management Univ. - Law) has posted Rethinking Non-Recognition: Taiwan’s New Pivot to ASEAN and the One-China Policy (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
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

Alvaro Santos (Georgetown Univ. - Law), Chantal Thomas (Cornell Univ. - Law), & David Trubek (Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison - Law) have published World Trade and Investment Law Reimagined: A Progressive Agenda for an Inclusive Globalization (Anthem Press 2019). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:
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

Charlotte E. Blattner (Harvard Univ. - Law) has published Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization (Oxford Univ. Press 2019). Here's the abstract:
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.

Monday, July 1, 2019

New Issue: International Journal of Transitional Justice

The latest issue of the International Journal of Transitional Justice (Vol. 12, no. 2, July 2019) is out. Contents include:
  • Articles
    • 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

New Issue: Climate Law

The latest issue of Climate Law (Vol. 9, no. 3, 2019) is out. Contents include:
  • 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