Saturday, December 7, 2019
Bertolini: Die Durchsetzung von ISDS-Entscheidungen in Deutschland: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung aktueller Entwicklungen in der EU
Die Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit stellt heute die wichtigste und effektivste Form der Beilegung von Investitionsstreitigkeiten dar. Immer wieder beklagen Investoren jedoch, dass sie die hart erstrittenen Schiedssprüche nicht oder nur unter großen Anstrengungen vor staatlichen Gerichten durchsetzen bzw. zwangsvollstrecken konnten. Probleme bei der Durchsetzung bzw. Zwangsvollstreckung innerhalb der EU ergeben sich nach der »Achmea«-Entscheidung des EuGH nicht nur aus dem EU-Recht und Konflikten im Mehrebenensystem des Rechts, sondern auch aus der Anwendung nationalen Rechts, beispielsweise durch das unterschiedliche Verständnis von Staatenimmunität. Auch die geplante Schaffung neuer Streitbeilegungsmechanismen wie eines Investment Court Systems oder eines internationalen Investitionsgerichtshofs wirft Fragen der Durchsetzbarkeit ihrer Entscheidungen auf. Die vorliegende Arbeit behandelt diese Problembereiche im Detail, geht insbesondere auf die aktuellen Entwicklungen innerhalb der EU ein und bietet eigene Lösungsansätze zur Ermöglichung der Durchsetzbarkeit von ISDS-Entscheidungen in der EU.
Heffes, Kotlik, & Ventura: International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice
This book challenges the traditional approach to international law by concentrating on international humanitarian law and placing the focus beyond States: it reflects on current legal, policy and practical issues that concern non-State actors in and around situations of armed conflict. With the emergence of the nation-State, international law was almost entirely focused on inter-State relations, thus excluding - for the most part - non-State entities. In the modern era, such a focus needs to be adjusted, in order to encompass the various types of functions and interactions that those entities perform throughout numerous international decision-making processes.
Conference: Dealing with tensions, crisis and war in accordance with international law and humanitarian principles
Advocates of Humanity offers an analysis of international criminal justice from the perspective of sociology of punishment by exploring the role of human rights organizations in their mobilization for global justice through the International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on multi-sited ethnography, primarily in The Hague and Uganda, the author approaches the transnational networks of NGOs advocating for the ICC as an ethnographic object. A central objective is to explore how connections are made, and how forces and imaginations of global criminal justice travel. By analyzing how international criminal justice is arranged spatially, and as such expresses social, political, and cultural relations of power, Advocates of Humanity shows how international criminal justice is situated in particular spaces, networks, and actors, and how they structure the imaginations of justice circulating in the field. From a sociology of punishment perspective, it compares the 'penal imaginations' of domestic and international criminal justice, and considers the particularly central role of victims as a universalized symbol of humanity for the legitimacy of international criminal justice. With clear global asymmetries emerging from the work, Advocates of Humanity provides descriptive as well as explanatory understandings of criminal punishment 'gone global', analyzing its social causation while examining its cultural meanings, particularly as regards its role as an expression of 'the international' will to punish. To whom is it meaningful, and why?
Li, Qi, & Bian: China, the EU and International Investment Law: Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement
This book provides an original and critical analysis of the most contentious subjects being negotiated in the China–EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). It focuses on the pathway of reforming investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) from both Chinese and European perspectives in the context of the China–EU CAI and beyond. The book is divided into three parts. Part I examines key and controversial issues of the China–EU CAI negotiations, including market access, sustainable development and human rights, as well as comparing distinct features between the China–EU CAI and the China–US BIT. Part II concentrates on the institutional reform of investor-state arbitration with an extensive analysis of the EU’s approach to replacing the private nature of investment arbitration with the public nature of an investment court. Part III addresses the core substantive and procedural issues concerning ISDS, such as the role of domestic courts in investment dispute settlement, the status of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as investors, transparency and the protection of victims in investment dispute resolution.
When it comes to resolving interstate freshwater disputes, International Law has developed a set of rules that relate to both the substance of these disputes, and the conduct of the disputing countries. ‘Equitable and reasonable utilization’ is commonly considered as the leading ‘substantive’ rule, ‘no significant harm’ as subsidiary to it, and the ‘duty to cooperate’ as the central ‘procedural’ rule. The purpose of this article is to analyze the merits of these substantive and procedural rules under the lens of the celebrated Coase theorem. The second part of the Coase Theorem observes that if transaction costs are present, then the legal rule governing the dispute between two parties should be one that minimizes the bargaining costs. This will ensure that the legal rule will generate an optimal allocation of resources. When it comes to international freshwater disputes there are usually high transaction costs such as unequal and asymmetric access to information by both the disputing parties and adjudicating tribunal, enforcement uncertainty, and unclear political goals of the parties. Therefore, a liability rule such as ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ only furthers the uncertainty and bargaining costs, whereas a property rule such as ‘no significant harm’ is better at achieving dispute resolution (both theoretically and empirically). Moreover, when a so-called procedural rule such as the ‘duty to cooperate’ is imposed on the parties, this ensures a better negotiation environment, which leads to better dispute resolution outcomes even when imposed by a third party.
Call for Papers: Old and new threats to freedom of expression - Can the European Court of Human Rights meet the challenges?
Following a devastating genocide in 1994, the Rwandan government elected to hold all perpetrators accountable - including children. Thousands of children were held in prisons while awaiting charges; some were later convicted. This book is about these children. Drawing on interviews and extensive archival research in Rwanda, it documents their journey through prisons, formal courts, gacaca proceedings or re-education centres. Its insights extend beyond Rwanda, looking at how international law protects children accused of even the most serious atrocities. The book is about law in action, and how states, and international organisations, operationalise international standards on child perpetrators in challenging post-conflict conditions. Engaging with theories from international law, international relations and anthropology, it illuminates strategies utilised by UNICEF to promote the rights of alleged child génocidaires and traces UNICEF's positive influence on their protection. It makes the case for principled pragmatism as an approach to human rights promotion in post-conflict societies.
- George Vasilev, The Ethics of Kin State Activism: A Cosmopolitan Defense
- Symposium: Just War and Unjust Soldiers
- Scott D. Sagan & Benjamin A. Valentino, Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants
- Michael Walzer, On Reciprocity and Practical Morality: A Response to Sagan and Valentino
- Jeff McMahan, Extremism and Confusion in American Views about the Ethics of War: A Comment on Sagan and Valentino
- Robert O. Keohane, The Condemnation-Absolution Syndrome: Issues of Validity and Generality
- Scott D. Sagan & Benjamin A. Valentino, On Reciprocity, Revenge, and Replication: A Rejoinder to Walzer, McMahan, and Keohane
- Tendayi Bloom, When Migration Policy Isn't about Migration: Considerations for Implementation of the Global Compact for Migration
- Review Essay
- Gordon Hull, Privacy, People, and Markets
Ortino: The Origin and Evolution of Investment Treaty Standards: Stability, Value, and Reasonableness
This book provides a conceptual and legal analysis of the core of investment protection guarantees that emerge from international treaties signed since 1959 for the promotion and protection of foreign investment. It focuses on both the origin and evolution of investment treaty standards. Beginning with origins, the work considers the broader context at the time when the first modern investment treaty was concluded. It goes on to examine the many decisions of ad hoc arbitral tribunals that have since been called upon to apply these treaties in order to resolve the several hundred investor-State disputes. It also looks at some of the recent investment treaties that have attempted to clarify and/or reform the content and scope of investment protection guarantees.
Federico Ortino posits that the key investment protection provisions in investment treaties, and thus much of the controversy associated with such treaties, revolve around three concepts: legal stability, investment's value, and reasonableness. He argues that, from the very beginning, the protections afforded to foreign investments by modern investment treaties have been exceptionally broad, and as such restrictive of host States' ability to regulate. And whilst a growing number of investment treaty tribunals, as well as new investment treaties, have to some extent reined in such broad protections, the evolution of key investment protection standards has been marred by inconsistency and uncertainty.
This book is concerned with the history of the idea of human rights. It offers a fresh approach that puts aside familiar questions such as 'Where do human rights come from?' and 'When did human rights begin?' for the sake of looking into connections between debates about the rights of man and developments within the history of capitalism. The focus is on England, where, at the end of the eighteenth century, a heated controversy over the rights of man coincided with the final enclosure of common lands and the momentous changes associated with early industrialisation. Tracking back still further to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writing about dispossession, resistance and rights, the book reveals a forgotten tradition of thought about central issues in human rights, with profound implications for their prospects in the world today.
Friday, December 6, 2019
- Ammar Shamaileh, Never out of Now: Preference Falsification, Social Capital and the Arab Spring
- Joshua C. Fjelstul & Dan Reiter, Explaining incompleteness and conditionality in alliance agreements
- Christoph V. Steinert, Trial fairness before impact: Tracing the link between post-conflict trials and peace stability
- Special Data Feature
- Thorsten Gromes & Matthias Dembinski, Practices and outcomes of humanitarian military interventions: a new data set
- Research Note
- Javier Osorio, Viveca Pavon, Sayeed Salam, Jennifer Holmes, Patrick T. Brandt & Latifur Khan, Translating CAMEO verbs for automated coding of event data
Ablavsky: Species of Sovereignty: Native Nationhood, the United States, and International Law, 1783–1795
In recent years, historians have demonstrated how thoroughly the European law of nations shaped the creation of the United States, including by justifying the subordination of Native peoples. But they have largely portrayed Natives as the subjects of, rather than participants in, these debates. Gregory Ablavsky examines the other side of this legal contest: how some Creek and Haudenosaunee leaders resisted U.S. legal arguments by deploying international-law concepts to vindicate Native nationhood. Born of constraint, this resistance confronted important limits, especially as the United States manipulated concepts of territorial sovereignty. Nonetheless, this essay argues, Native international-law claims helped write Native sovereignty into U.S. law, tracing their early influence through to the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal Cherokee decisions of the 1830s.
- Konstantin Ash & Nick Obradovich, Climatic Stress, Internal Migration, and Syrian Civil War Onset
- Håvard Hegre, Michael Bernhard, & Jan Teorell, Civil Society and the Democratic Peace
- Raymond Kuo, Secrecy among Friends: Covert Military Alliances and Portfolio Consistency
- Anouk S. Rigterink, Diamonds, Rebel’s and Farmer’s Best Friend: Impact of Variation in the Price of a Lootable, Labor-intensive Natural Resource on the Intensity of Violent Conflict
- Rafat Mahmood & Michael Jetter, Communications Technology and Terrorism
- Michelle Benson & Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, A Gendered Imperative: Does Sexual Violence Attract UN Attention in Civil Wars?
- Data Set Feature
- Dongfang Hou, Khusrav Gaibulloev, & Todd Sandler, Introducing Extended Data on Terrorist Groups (EDTG), 1970 to 2016
Sutton: Enacting the 'Civilian Plus': International Humanitarian Actors and the Conceptualization of Distinction
The civilian-combatant frame persists as the main legal lens through which lawyers organize the relationships of conflict zone actors. As a result, little attention has been paid in international legal scholarship to different gradations of ‘civilianness’ and the ways in which some civilians might compete to distinguish themselves from each other. Drawing attention to international humanitarian actors—particularly those working for NGOs—this article explores the micro-strategies these actors engage in to negotiate their relative status in war. Original qualitative empirical findings from South Sudan illuminate the way in which humanitarians struggle over distinction with individuals working for the UN peacekeeping mission, UNMISS. As is shown, humanitarian actors are doing away with a static civilian-combatant binary in their daily practice. A more fluid logic informs both their self-conceptualization and their interactions with others who share the operational space. Humanitarian actors envision civilianness as a contingent concept, and they operate according to a continuum along which everything is a matter of degree and subtle gradation. As civilianness is detached from the civilian, any given actor might acquire or shed civilian-like, or combatant-like, characteristics at any moment. The distinction practices that humanitarian actors enact can be understood as a bid for legibility, so that they might be rendered intelligible in international law and in the eyes of other actors as a special kind of civilian—the ‘civilian plus’.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
- Rubrick Biegon, A populist grand strategy? Trump and the framing of American decline
- Daniel Voelsen & Leon Valentin Schettler, International political authority: on the meaning and scope of justified hierarchy in international relations
- Andreas Pacher, The diplomacy of post-Soviet de facto states: ontological security under stigma
- Jean-Christophe Graz, Oliver Kessler, & Rahel Kunz, International Political Economy (IPE) meets International Political Sociology (IPS)
- Jean-Marie Chenou, Elites and socio-technical Imaginaries: The contribution of an IPE-IPS dialogue to the analysis of global power relations in the digital age
- Juanita Elias, Lena Rethel, & Lisa Tilley, International political economy and international political sociology meet in Jakarta: Feminist research agendas seen through everyday life
- Luis Lobo-Guerrero, Insurance, subjectivity and governance
- Elisa Lopez Lucia, Unpacking the politics of regionalism: What to expect from a socio-political economy of regionalism?
- Nils Moussu, Assessing the cohesion and disunity of business associations: Towards a socio-economic framework
- Special Issue: Twenty Years of the Rome Statute: Functions, Goals, Effectiveness – Challenges of the International Criminal Court
- Julia Geneuss & Triestino Mariniello, Introduction
- Olympia Bekou, Dealing with Non-cooperation at the ICC: Towards a More Holistic Approach
- Frédéric Mégret, Peering behind the ‘Institutional Veil’ to Assess State Behaviour in the Security Council: Does/Should icc Membership Make a Difference?
- Triestino Mariniello, Judicial Control over Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court
- Barrie Sander, The Expressive Limits of International Criminal Justice: Victim Trauma and Local Culture in the Iron Cage of the Law
- Volker Nerlich, Audiences of the International Criminal Court
- Alice Riccardi, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Twenty Years of icc Practice: An International Law Perspective
- Elina Almila, Protecting Children from Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict under International Humanitarian Law: Discrepancies between Conventions and Practice of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Pouria Askary & Katayoun Hosseinnejad, Non-state Courts: Illegal or Conditional? The Case of Da'esh Courts
- Ximena Galvez Lima, Inked or Not: Maras and Their Participation in El Salvador’s Recent Armed Conflict
- Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’
- Frédéric Mégret & Chloe Swinden, Returning the ‘Fallen Terrorist’ for Burial in Non-international Armed Conflicts: The Rights of the Deceased, the Obligations of the State, and the Problem of Collective Punishment
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Conference: International law’s invisible frames – Social cognition and knowledge production in international legal processes
- Sección de Artículos de Investigación desde el Derecho Internacional Penal
- Héctor Olasolo, Justicia como memoria y derecho a la verdad frente a la política de silencio y olvido en El Salvador: Apuntes sobre la percepción de la figura de Óscar Arnulfo Romero y la experiencia de los diálogos intergeneracionales en las parroquias de la Arquidiócesis de San Salvador
- Sección de Ensayos de Investigación seleccionados en la VI edición del Certamen Blattmann, Odio Benito y Steiner
- Angie Katherine García Atehortúa, Concepto restringido de la responsabilidad de mando en el marco jurídico transicional en Colombia, ¿puerta giratoria hacia la intervención de la Corte Penal Internacional?
- Nicolás Eduardo Buitrago Rey, El Estatuto de Roma desde una perspectiva LGBT
- Sección de Ensayos de Investigación seleccionados en la I edición del Certamen de Estudios Críticos sobre la Justicia
- Héctor Gonzalo Ana Dobratinich, Secciones y disecciones epistemológicas del discurso jurídico: un estudio desde la iusfilosofía crítica
- Joe Nayib Campos Salazar, Análisis de la Carta de la ONU a la luz de los postulados del texto “Zum ewigen Frieden” de Immanuel Kant. El objetivo de la paz y el mecanismo de la guerra
- Carmen Montero Ferrer, La participación de las víctimas y la sociedad civil en la reformada Corte Africana de Justicia y Derechos Humanos: un estudio comparativo a la luz de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional The participation of victims and civil
Initiated in 2011, and successfully continued since then, the Intensive Doctoral Week (IDW) is a co-organised initiative led by Sciences Po Law School and the Law and Political Science Doctoral School of Paris Nanterre University as well as a great number of partners in the world (For more information on previous IDW events).
Limited to a small number of PhD researchers coming from partners’ institutions and from other Law Schools, the IDW is designed as a PhD-training Lab. It aims at enabling researchers to present their own topics, to discuss their own work, and to engage their ideas with renowned Law professors, from France or abroad.
The IDW combines events taking many different forms, such as conferences or presentations by PhD researchers, thematic workshops, reading groups, panels, and informal discussions, in small groups or one-to-one meetings. The topics addressed may come from different areas of law, but they should always be treated in a general way that arouses curiosity from all the researchers including the ones working on other fields.
Researchers are thus given the opportunity to present their own research, the questions they struggle with, the methodological problems that they face, and the arguments that they wish to develop in their work. Their research will benefit from the comments made by professors and other PhD researchers. The IDW is an occasion for senior and junior researchers to discuss and to gather information on cross-cutting issues on different areas, but also to confront their views, and discuss new methods and perspectives for legal research.
The two working languages are French and English. Participants can speak the language of their choice. Once registered, participants are expected to actively participate in the various working sessions. The active involvement of all participants has been a key element for the success of previous editions. PhD researchers are thus strongly encouraged to consider themselves not as simple beneficiaries of the IDW activities, but rather as equal members of a collective academic endeavor. Participants should be willing to offer their support if organizational purposes so require.
Registration is free. Applications will be examined and selected by an independent committee of experts. To apply, fill in the online application. The deadline for application is 10 February 2020.
Contact : email@example.com
Monday, December 2, 2019
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Emerging technologies have always played an important role in armed conflict. From the crossbow to cyber capabilities, technology that could be weaponized to create an advantage over an adversary has inevitably found its way into military arsenals for use in armed conflict. The weaponization of emerging technologies, however, raises challenging legal issues with respect to the law of armed conflict. As States continue to develop and exploit new technologies, how will the law of armed conflict address the use of these technologies on the battlefield? Is existing law sufficient to regulate new technologies, such as cyber capabilities, autonomous weapons systems, and artificial intelligence? Have emerging technologies fundamentally altered the way we should understand concepts such as law-of-war precautions and the principle of distinction? How can we ensure compliance and accountability in light of technological advancement? This volume of the Lieber Studies explores these critical questions while highlighting the legal challenges—and opportunities—presented by the use of emerging technologies on the battlefield.
- Joost Pauwelyn, WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?
- Rohini Acharya, Olga Falgueras Alamo, Salma Mohamed Thabit Al-Battashi, Anoush der Boghossian, Naghm Ghei, Tania Parcero Herrera, Lee Ann Jackson, Ulla Kask, Claudia Locatelli, Gabrielle Marceau, Ioana-Virginia Motoc, Anna Caroline Müller, Nora Neufeld, Simon Padilla, Josefita Pardo de Léon, Stella Perantakou, Nadezhda Sporysheva, & Christiane Wolff, Trade and Women—Opportunities for Women in the Framework of the World Trade Organization
- Pierre Sauvé, To fuse, Not to Fuse, or Simply Confuse? Assessing the Case for Normative Convergence Between Goods and Services Trade Law
- Petros C Mavroidis & Damien J Neven, Greening the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement, Tariff Concessions, and Policy Likeness
- Andrew D Mitchell & Neha Mishra, Regulating Cross-Border Data Flows in a Data-Driven World: How WTO Law Can Contribute
- Jaemin Lee, Subsidies for Illegal Activities?—Reframing IUU Fishing from the Law Enforcement Perspective
- Yong-Shik Lee, Are Retaliatory Trade Measures Justified under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards?
- Cherise Valles, Vitaliy Pogoretskyy, & Tatiana Yanguas, Challenging Unwritten Measures in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Clear Legal Standards
- Prakhar Bhardwaj, Towards a Coherent Theory of Panel Recommendations for Expired Measures
- Christian Riffel, The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All