Call for papers
Polish Yearbook of International Law, vol. XXXIX: 2019
Polish Yearbook of International Law (PYIL) is currently seeking articles for its next volume (XXXIX), which will be published in June 2020. Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers in areas connected with public and private international law, including European law. Although it is not a formal requirement for acceptance, we are specifically interested in articles that address issues in international and European law relating to broadly understood Central and Eastern Europe. Authors from the region are also strongly encouraged to submit their works.
Submissions should be between 8.000 and 10,000 words (including footnotes) but in exceptional cases we may also accept longer works. We assess manuscripts on a rolling basis and will consider requests for expedited review in case of a pending acceptance for publication from another journal.
All details about submission procedure and required formatting are available at the PYIL’s webpage. Manuscript should be submitted via the PYIL’s submission system until 31 January 2020. You can also contact us by email (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Friday, January 17, 2020
- Ludwig Krämer, Forty Years of EU Measures to Fight Wildlife Crime
- Yashraj Samant & Avani Gupta, Legality of Delisting a Transboundary Ramsar Site to Combat HPAI Outbreak and the Adequacy Standards of Compensatory Sites
- Amanda Whitfort, China and CITES: Strange Bedfellows or Willing Partners?
- The meaning and effects of erga omnes within the Prespa Agreement of 17 June 2018 between Greece and North Macedonia
- Introduced by Vassilis P Tzevelekos
- Ioannis Prezas, A bilateral treaty developing legal effects erga omnes? Reflections on the Prespa Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia settling the name dispute
- Vassilis Pergantis, The Prespa Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia and the settlement of the name dispute: Of objective regimes, erga omnes obligations and treaty effects on third parties
This chapter looks at legal positivism and its methods. In international legal scholarship, we are confronted with a paradox: while most international lawyers would say they employ broadly ‘positivist’ methods to find out what the law prescribes, its methods are among the least reflected. Positivism is seldom practised in a manner that is coherent with the theory of legal positivism. This leads to a bifurcation: default positivism and theoretical positivism.
Default positivism is not a deeply reflected theoretical approach, but rather the default solution. Fealty to the law is important, but not in an overly formalist and strict manner. Default international legal positivism is a result of processes of socialisation and adaption, founded on a largely subconscious culture of orthodoxy: a pragmatic mindset of submission to and accommodation of widely accepted practices and methods. Its methods reflect that mindset and I briefly analyse two: precedent-following and interpretation. On the one hand, the power of precedents in international law (acknowledged not to be a common law) is taken so seriously that arguing against the ICJ is virtually impossible – the ICJ cannot err on an important issue. On the other hand, the role which the Vienna rules on interpretation play is curiously formalistic and does not sit well with the idea of interpretation as finding out what a text means.
Theoretical positivism, using the Pure Theory of Law as an example, is theory-laden and much less pragmatic. It is primarily a theory of how legal scholarship can stay true to the ideal of (legal-)‘scientific’ cognition. Its methods, in turn, are structural analysis and frame-determination. The analysis of the structure of the international legal order, the relationship of different norms and sources is central to any legal-scholarly enterprise and helps to avoid admixing it with ideological precepts. The frame-determination method of interpretation avoids the impossible task of eliminating the vagueness of natural languages and the inevitable freedom to decide. Scholarly interpretation is not an attempt to tell courts how to decide a case, it rather shows the (structural) limits of the law to be applied.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Schill & Vidigal: Designing Investment Dispute Settlement À La Carte: Insights from Comparative Institutional Design Analysis
The multilateral expression of the desire to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) obscures the diverging preferences states have in respect of which future dispute settlement model to adopt. In order to garner broad acceptability, this article proposes that the reformed system could be designed as ‘dispute settlement à la carte’, with a Multilateral Investment Court coexisting with other forms of dispute resolution under the umbrella of one multilateral institution. With a view to showing that such a system is feasible, this article draws on comparative institutional design analysis, that is, a comparative assessment of dispute settlement design features across different international dispute settlement systems. This approach helps to explore what institutional design features are a useful source of inspiration for a future investment dispute settlement system that preserves flexibility for states in the choice of their preferred means of adjudication, while safeguarding legal certainty and promoting coherence in investment dispute settlement.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
- Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Sources of International Refugee Law
- David McKeever, International Humanitarian Law and Counter-Terrorism: Fundamental Values, Conflicting Obligations
- Lewis Graham, Strategic Admissibility Decisions in the European Court of Human Rights
- John Ip, Reconceptualising the Legal Response to Foreign Fighters
- Kelvin F. K. Low & Eliza Mik, Pause the Blockchain Legal Revolution
- Martijn Van Den Brink, A Qualified Defence of the Primacy of Nationality over European Union Citizenship
- Shorter Articles
- Stephen Allen, Self-Determination, the Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Chagossians
- Robert McCorquodale, Jennifer Robinson, & Nicola Peart, Territorial Integrity and Consent in The Chagos Advisory Opinion
- Neil Craik, The Duty to Cooperate in the Customary Law of Environmental Impact Assessment
How do countries settle disputes in the shadow of the law? Even in the presence of legalized dispute settlement, countries still rely on diplomatic channels to resolve conflicts. But it can be difficult to assess diplomacy's impact on dispute resolution, because those channels tend to be opaque. We present both an original theory of the impact of diplomacy on dispute resolution as well as a novel measure of diplomacy. If countries with close or, conversely, distant relationships use legal channels for dispute resolution, diplomacy will have little impact on dispute settlement; resorting to legal recourse among friends or adversaries likely means that the dispute is intractable. However, diplomacy can increase the chances of settlement between countries with moderate levels of affinity. We test this argument using a protocol-based proxy for diplomatic interactions -- gifts given at the occasion of meetings between diplomatic counterparts -- that would otherwise be difficult to observe. Using the case of the United States and its disputes in the World Trade Organization, we find support for our argument. This suggests that even when countries resort to legalized methods of dispute settlement, bilateral dealmaking still plays an important role.
Call for Papers/IG Panel Proposals: 16th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law (Reminder)
Call for Papers: The European Union’s External Action and International Law: A View From the Outside
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
- Special Issue: Trade Wars
- Anne van Aaken, Chad P Bown, & Andrew Lang, Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Trade Wars’
- Simon J Evenett, The Smoot–Hawley Fixation: Putting the Sino-US Trade War in Contemporary and Historical Perspective
- Chad P Bown & Jennifer A Hillman, WTO’ing a Resolution to the China Subsidy Problem
- Cindy Whang, Undermining the Consensus-Building and List-Based Standards in Export Controls: What the US Export Controls Act Means to the Global Export Control Regime
- Anne van Aaken & Jürgen Kurtz, Beyond Rational Choice: International Trade Law and The Behavioral Political Economy of Protectionism
- Jonathan Bonnitcha, Investment Wars: Contestation and Confusion in Debate About Investment Liberalization
- Anthea Roberts, Henrique Choer Moraes, & Victor Ferguson, Toward a Geoeconomic Order in International Trade and Investment
- Andrew Lang, Heterodox markets and ‘market distortions’ in the global trading system
- Nicolas Lamp, At the Vanishing Point of Law: Rebalancing, Non-Violation Claims, and the Role of the Multilateral Trade Regime in the Trade Wars
- Julia Ya Qin, Forced Technology Transfer and the US–China Trade War: Implications for International Economic Law
Monday, January 13, 2020
In "The Trump Administration and International Law," Harold Hongju Koh advances two descriptive claims about the efficacy of international law in the age of President Trump. First, international law has been effective in curtailing U.S. disobedience, despite Trump's antics. Second, it could also empower President Trump; the president would be more effective at achieving concrete policy goals if instead of dismissing international law, he harnessed it to get things done. The book's upshot is that international law can have real operational value, including, perhaps especially, for the United States.
Yet Koh did not write the book just to reiterate that point. He clearly is worried that Trump is doing damage both to the enterprise of international law and to the U.S. relationship with it. Thus, he intends for the book to be a "call to action," imploring people to uphold international law and contest the Trump administration's antagonistic policies. This is where the book falls short. It does not give readers compelling reasons to fight not just against the Trump administration but for international law. What about international law is both worthwhile and at serious risk under President Trump?
I argue in this Review Essay that, because the book focuses so intently on the material outcomes that international law might produce, it misses what's uniquely at stake in the current moment. A lot of law's value, both domestically and at the international level, lies in fostering a particular kind of argumentative practice. International law's argumentative practice is not, as some suggest, just cheap talk, a means for achieving concrete ends, or a smokescreen for reinforcing positions of dominance. It is worthwhile for reasons that are independent of its material outcomes. And it is deteriorating under President Trump.
Despite progress being made in the business and human rights field in defining corporate responsibility for human rights, defining foreign investors’ roles vis-a-vis human rights remains mainly stagnant. The idea that businesses have responsibility for human rights is well ensconced in global norms and is based on society's expectations of business in the 21st century. Yet despite this widespread recognition, international investment law is silent on the matter. This leaves a disconnect between the norms dictating the corporate responsibility for human rights in public international law and those found in international investment law.
One way to better align progress in the business and human rights movement with international investment law is to introduce investor obligations for human rights. These obligations can be located both in investment treaties as well as in non-treaty sources. Moreover, investment arbitration provides multiple entrypoints for tribunals to consider such obligations, for example through counterclaims, jurisdictional claims, or admissibility claims, among others.
Two primary benefits arise from introducing investor obligations for human rights. First, it can act as vehicle by which business and human rights norms, generally, can be enforced. Second, and more importantly, introducing investor obligations for human rights can help to better contextualize the interpretation of IIAs. Introducing such obligations can be used to remind tribunals that international investment law operates in a system that includes non-investment concerns such as human rights.
Considering such obligations, in and of themselves, however, are unlikely to prompt wider changes in international investment law. Nevertheless, including investor obligations in international investment law may prompt tribunals to give more balanced interpretations to international investment agreements. This can work towards ensuring that international investment law serves its ultimate aim of promoting a state’s development.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
In January 2020 a further edition of the conference “Teaching International Law” will take place. Organized by Professor Peter Hilpold (University of Innsbruck) and by Professor Giuseppe Nesi (University of Trento) these conferences aim at elucidating the particularities and special challenges associated with teaching this discipline of law. Leading international lawyers and philosophers of international law will portray their vision of teaching. The third day of this conference is dedicated to “Teaching in Practice” with model lectures given by students, young academics and Ph.D students. This project makes part of the “Euregio Mobility”-Initiative involving the University of Innsbruck, of Trento and of Bozen-Bolzano.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
This fully revised new edition offers a comprehensive picture of the law of maritime delimitation, incorporating all new cases and State practice in this field. As with all types of law, the law of maritime delimitation should possess a degree of predictability. On the other hand, as maritime delimitation cases differ, flexible considerations of geographical and non-geographical factors are also required in order to achieve equitable results. How, then, is it possible to ensure predictability while taking into account a number of diverse factors in order to achieve an equitable result? This is the question at the heart of the law of maritime delimitation. This book explores a well-balanced legal framework that reconciles predictability and flexibility in the law of maritime delimitation by looking at three aspects of the question: first it reviews the evolution of the law of maritime delimitation; second, it undertakes a comparative study of the case law and State practice; and third, it critically assesses the law of maritime delimitation in its current form.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
This contribution examines whether, under which conditions the international law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law, IHL) generates individual rights, and against whom. These primary rights are distinct from secondary rights which may accrue from a relationship of responsibility between violator and victim in the event of a breach of a primary norm of IHL, and from procedural rights to a remedy in the sense of access to institutions deciding on individual claims to reparation.
Various provisions of IHL speak of “rights” of individuals on the primary level. Although some observers favour duties as the appropriate regulatory technique for achieving effective protection of humans, a reading of IHL which encompasses direct rights can be well explained and justified. The acknowledgment of rights has symbolic and practical consequences, notably for remedies, reparation, and waiver. A follow-up question is then against whom the IHL-based rights are opposable, who are the duty bearers. Overall, the recognition of IHL-based rights is helpful for steering IHL between the two evils of an overreach of human rights on the one side and a paternalist fixation on states on the other side.
Bartels: Balancing Prejudice: Fair Trial Rights and International Procedural Decisions Relating to Evidence
This paper, which will feature in an edited volume addressing the balancing of the rights of accused persons and of victims of crimes allegedly committed by these persons, discusses the concept of prejudice as concerns procedural matters relating to evidence in international criminal law, and before the International Criminal Court (ICC) specifically. When a (trial) chamber assesses the potential prejudice an action of a party to the proceedings or a procedural decision of the chamber will cause, it is effectively carrying out a balancing exercise, as it looks at the interest of the accused on one side and those of the Prosecution and/or victims on the other. The question is therefore when a matter, such as the admission of an item into evidence, is so prejudicial that is must be considered as is undue prejudice and thereby militating against admission. The present paper further discusses whether prejudice can only be suffered by the accused, or also by others, such as the Prosecution or – through their legal representatives – victims, by analyzing to whom fair trial rights extend.
- Hent Kalmo, Principles and Pragmatism in State Succession: Bargaining in the Economic Affairs Commission of the Tartu Peace Conference
- Jaanika Erne, On the Borders of Law, History and Politics: Estonian Statesman Jüri Jaakson’s Views and Life in Context
- Rytis Satkauskas, One Hundred Years of Faith: The Baltic States’ Contribution to International Justice
- Gabriela Belova & Nikolay Marin, A Century of the Baltic States’ Independence: Some Similarities and Differences with Bulgaria
- Lauri Hannikainen, Finland’s Continuation War (1941–1944): War of Aggression or Defence? War of Alliance or Separate War? Analyzed from the International – Especially Legal – Perspective
- Andres Parmas, Application of Domestic Criminal Statutes in regard to International Crimes
- Ineta Ziemele, Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law
- Ozlem Ulgen, Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an ‘Elementary Consideration of Humanity’?
- Marion Blondel, Vulnerability as a Virtue: An Attempt to Transpose the Care Ethic in International Law
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
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.
Monday, January 6, 2020
- Alexander Schwarz, Sexualisierte Kriegsgewalt an Männern und Jungen und deren Verfolgung durch internationale Strafgerichtshöfe
- Helena Krüger, „Famine Crimes and Forced Starvation“ – Aushungern als Methode der Kriegführung – ein Plädoyer für die Verfolgung von Verbrechen nach § 11 I S. 1 Nr. 5 VStGB
- Marjorie Andrea González Ramírez, Immaterial Damage Suffered by Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia
- Benedikt Behlert, The Obligation to Conduct Individual Refugee Status Determination Procedures under the ICCPR – Constructing a Convincing Legal Basis
- Ozlem Ulgen, Technological Innovations and the Changing Character of Warfare: the Significance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions Seventy Years On
- Knut Ipsen, Das IFHV in den vergangenen drei Dekaden von Friedenssicherungsrecht und humanitärem Völkerrecht
- Globale Herausforderungen und das Völkerrecht
- Theresa Bosl, Das Friedenssicherungsrecht der UN – Defizite und Reformoptionen
- Timeela Manandhar, Menschenrechtsverantwortung von Unternehmen – zu den Grenzen von Soft Law und der Notwendigkeit eines Vertrages
- Marcel Pfefferkuch, Die Welthandelsorganisation – Defizite und Reformoptionen
- Christina Soldanski, Völkerrechtliche Antworten auf den Klimawandel – Die Schwächen des Übereinkommens von Paris und die daraus resultierenden Umsetzungsprobleme
The Belt and Road Initiative, formerly known as the "New Silk Road" is a central part of the People's Republic of China (PRC)'s 13th 5-year plan, an ambitious program of infrastructure project finance in 65 countries, to the tune of 1 Trillion USD invested over 20 years. Geo-politically, this might be the most important global governance initiative since the end of the first cold war. But what does it mean for law? Surely it is an exemplar of entangled legalities. It means very different things to the investment protection lawyer at MOFCOM in Beijing, the public procurement regulator in Greece, the (insert big-law firm name) Associate or Partner in Kazakhstan, or insurgents in Balochistan (Pakistan), and Judges in constitutional courts and indeed the European Court of Human Rights. This paper argues that structures of practice as well as cognitive limitations and sociological factors keep law's engagement with complexity enmeshed but separate, along the lines of (most obviously) national law, but more so along the lines of policy-issues and the object-oriented nature of distinct legal fields. This short paper will narrate – hypothetically, though firmly based in reality – different views of actors engaging with the Belt and Road Initiative, to demonstrate the parallel phenomena of separateness and entangledness, and also demonstrate the inevitable interdependence of entangled legal strands, looking at the case of the Belgrade-Budapest rail modernization project. In addition, it will emphasize the close connection between legal entanglement and empire.
- Timothy Edmunds & Ana E Juncos, Constructing the capable state: Contested discourses and practices in EU capacity building
- Gisela Hirschmann, Cooperating with evil? Accountability in peace operations and the evolution of the United Nations Human Rights Due Diligence Policy
- Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik & Gemma Bird, The everyday at the border: Examining visual, material and spatial intersections of international politics along the ‘Balkan Route’
- Yf Reykers & Daan Fonck, No wings attached? Civil–military relations and agent intrusion in the procurement of fighter jets
- Sarai B Aharoni & Élise Féron, National populism and gendered vigilantism: The case of the Soldiers of Odin in Finland
- Baris Kesgin, Features of foreign policy birds: Israeli prime ministers as hawks and doves
- Katja Lindskov Jacobsen, Biometric voter registration: A new modality of democracy assistance?
Sunday, January 5, 2020
- Michael W. Manulak, A bird in the hand: Temporal focal points and change in international institutions
- Thomas Stubbs, Bernhard Reinsberg, Alexander Kentikelenis, & Lawrence King, How to evaluate the effects of IMF conditionality
- Jean-Frédéric Morin, Concentration despite competition: The organizational ecology of technical assistance providers
- Michael A. Gavin, Independent central banks and banking crisis liquidity
- Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, Opening hours of polling stations and voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment
- Brian Greenhill, How can international organizations shape public opinion? analysis of a pair of survey-based experiments
- Daniel Finke, EU enlargement and foreign policy coordination: more powerful, but less cohesive?
- Ishac Diwan, Philip Keefer, & Marc Schiffbauer, Pyramid capitalism: Cronyism, regulation, and firm productivity in Egypt
- Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman, EU services trade liberalization and economic regulation: Complements or substitutes?
- Asif Efrat & Abraham L. Newman, Intolerant justice: ethnocentrism and transnational-litigation frameworks
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Multilateral development banks and other development agencies have adopted environmental and social safeguard policies setting due diligence standards for the provision of project finance. Such policies are evolving in terms of the activities covered and in their normative requirements. Recent iterations incorporate human rights requirements, recognising the imperative of adopting human rights-based approaches to development. Each institution has also established independent accountability mechanisms (IAM), variously functioning to ensure compliance with the applicable safeguards, to advise management regarding the application of the obligations involved, and to facilitate communication with affected communities and individuals with a view to resolving project-related disputes. IAMs are central to the implementation, interpretation, and ongoing elaboration of safeguard policies, and thus to the environmental and social good governance so essential for sustainable development.
Can violations of jus ad bellum also violate the right to life under international human rights law (IHRL), even in cases where the laws of armed conflict are otherwise followed? In 2018's General Comment 36 (GC 36) the Human Rights Committee (HRC) answered this question, for the first time, in the affirmative. This article uses the HRC's position as a platform for a long needed discussion on the theoretical underpinnings, and implications, of a possible human rights law on the resort to force.
This article identifies three pillars in GC 36’s position, which subject traditional questions of jus ad bellum to IHRL considerations: First, the view that aggression is not only a violation of jus ad bellum, but also an ipso facto violation of the right to life; second, that states bear the "responsibility" to oppose aggression; and third, that failing to reasonably attempt to resolve disputes peacefully could amount to a violation of the duty to ensure the right to life.
The article analyzes these pillars doctrinally, and then moves to discuss the theoretical commitments required to accept each of them, as well as their costs. Namely, they all require breaking with the traditional view that jus ad bellum is strictly an inter-state issue. Although, as the paper argues, this development is a welcomed one, the humanization of jus ad bellum through human rights law carries risks that should not be overlooked: chiefly, the securitization of human rights and the depoliticization of war. The prospects and perils of the humanization of jus ad bellum, as this article demonstrates, open a new area of theoretical inquiry and legal possibilities.
- Volume 401
- Diane P. Wood, Extraterritorial Enforcement of Regulatory Laws
- Yuko Nishitani, Identité culturelle en droit international privé de la famille
Friday, January 3, 2020
- January 17, 2020: Stephan Hobe (Univ. of Cologne), Space resource acquisition and space debris – two challenges for the future order for human uses of outer space
- January 24, 2020: Nehal Bhuta (Univ. of Edinburgh), The State Theory of Grotius
- January 31, 2020: Rose Parfitt (Univ. of Kent), The States We're in: Law, Inequality, Historiography, Resistance Rose Parfitt, Kent Law School
- February 7, 2020: Jason Sharman (Univ. of Cambridge), Recovering Looted Assets in the Fight Against Grand Corruption
- February 14, 2020: Mohammad Shahabuddin (Univ. of Birmingham), Minorities and the Making of Postcolonial States in International Law
- February 21, 2020: Kirsten Campbell (Univ. of London), Building a Feminist Approach to International Criminal Law
- February 28, 2020: Hemi Mistry (Univ. of Nottingham), A Performative Theory of Judicial Dissent in International Law?
Bradlow & Hunter: Advocating Social Change through International Law: Exploring the Choice between Hard and Soft International Law
- Daniel D. Bradlow & David B. Hunter, Introduction: Exploring the Relationship between Hard and Soft International Law and Social Change
- Upendra Baxi, The Softening of Hard Law and the Hardening of Soft Law: an Extended Synopsis
- Claudio Grossman, Promoting Social Change through Treaties and Customary International Law: the Experience of the Inter-American Human Rights System
- Ann Skelton, Children’s Rights: Social Change through the Application of Hard and Soft International Law
- Angela Mudukuti, The International Criminal Court and the Use of Hard Law in the Quest for Accountability for Core International Crimes
- Natalia Gomez Peña & David B. Hunter, The Hard Choices in Promoting Environmental Access Rights
- David B. Hunter, The Hard Choice for Soft Commitments in the Climate Change Regime
- Patricia Anne Lambert, A Turning Point in a Slow Revolution: the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
- Daniel D. Bradlow, Soft International Law and the Promotion of Financial Regulation and Responsibility
- Sheldon Leader & Luis Felipe Yanes, Levers for and Obstacles to Social Change: Bank Lending, the Law and the Equator Principles
- Nikki Reisch, Non-Judicial Grievance Mechanisms: Hardening the Soft Law of Corporate Accountability?
- Daniel D. Bradlow & David B. Hunter, Hard and Soft International Law and Their Contribution to Social Change: The Lessons Learned
- Special Feature: Current International Legal Issues of Asian States
- Muhammad Ekramul Haque, Current International Legal Issues: Bangladesh
- Seokwoo Lee & Seryon Lee, Current International Legal Issues: Korea
- Mary George, Current International Legal Issues: Malaysia
- Rommel J. Casis & Maria Pia Benosa, Current International Legal Issues: Philippines
- Kuan-Hsiung Wang, Current International Legal Issues: Taiwan
- Kitti Jayangakula, Current International Legal Issues: Thailand
- Trinh Hai Yen & Ton Nu Thanh Binh, Current International Legal Issues: Vietnam
- Whiejin Lee, The Enforcement of Human Rights Treaties in Korean Courts
- Tran Viet Dung & Ngo Nguyen Thao Vy, The Settlement Practice of Environmental Disputes Involving Foreign Investors in Vietnam – the Two Sides of the FDI Coin
- Volume 400
- Lotfi Chedly, L’efficacité de l’arbitrage commercial international
Thursday, January 2, 2020
- Research Articles
- Nick Bostrom, The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
- Benjamin R. Banta, The New War Thesis and Clausewitz: A Reconciliation
- Benjamin Kienzle, Effective Orchestration? The 1540 Committee and the WMD Terrorism Regime Complex
- Reda Cherif Fuad Hasanov, The Leap of the Tiger: Escaping the Middle‐income Trap to the Technological Frontier
- Daniel Fleming Henrik Søborg, Can Vision 2020 be Far Away? Malaysia's Transformation Problems to a High‐income Economy
- Alan Gamlen, Chris Kutarna, & Ashby Monk, Citizenship as Sovereign Wealth: Re‐thinking Investor Immigration
- Klaus Dodds, ‘Real interest’? Understanding the 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean
- Zahra Meghani, Autonomy of Nations and Indigenous Peoples and the Environmental Release of Genetically Engineered Animals with Gene Drives
- Special Section I: The AIIB in Global Perspective: Early Development, Innovation and Future Agenda
- Gregory T. Chin, The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – New Multilateralism: Early Development, Innovation, and Future Agendas
- Natalie Lichtenstein, AIIB at Three: A Comparative and Institutional Perspective
- Camillo von Müller & Elke Baumann, On the AIIB’s Non‐resident Board: Strategic Trade‐offs, Roles and Responsibilities
- Karin Costa Vazquez & Gregory T. Chin, The AIIB and Sustainable Infrastructure: A Hybrid Layered Approach
- Giovanni B. Andornino, Economic–Security Nexus in the AIIB: China's Quest for Security through Eurasian Connectivity
- M. Chatib Basri, The Role of AIIB in the ‘New Normal’ Era for Indonesia and ASEAN
- Nagesh Kumar & Ojasvee Arora, Financing Sustainable Infrastructure Development in South Asia: The Case of AIIB
- Cyril Prinsloo, AIIB Membership for African Countries: Drawcards and Drawbacks
- Giuseppe Gabusi, Global Standards in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: The Contribution of the European Members
- Alvaro Mendez, Latin America and the AIIB: Interests and Viewpoints
- Seçkin Köstem, Turkey and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Economic Pragmatism meets Geopolitics
- Jiejin Zhu, Is the AIIB a China‐controlled Bank? China’s Evolving Multilateralism in Three Dimensions (3D)
- Yu‐wai Vic Li, Leveraging Asia's Financial Hubs for the AIIB: Hong Kong and Singapore
- Carla P. Freeman, Constructive Engagement? The US and the AIIB
- Policy Insights
- Paula Hepp, Claire Somerville, & Bettina Borisch, Accelerating the United Nation's 2030 Global Agenda: Why Prioritization of the Gender Goal is Essential
- Sanne Vammen Larsen, Eleanor K. Bors, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, Elena Gladun, Daria Gritsenko, Soili Nysten‐Haarala, Svetlana Tulaeva, & Todd Sformo, A Conceptual Framework of Arctic Economies for Policy‐making, Research, and Practice
- Special Section II: Lessons and challenges for networking cities: policy insights from/after a decade of C40
- Kathryn Davidson, Lars Coenen, & Brendan Gleeson, A Decade of C40: Research Insights and Agendas for City Networks
- Michele Acuto & Mehrnaz Ghojeh, C40 Cities Inside Out
- Niki Frantzeskaki, How City‐networks are Shaping and Failing Innovations in Urban Institutions for Sustainability and Resilience
- David Gordon & Craig Johnson, From There to Here and Beyond: A Friendly Rejoinder to Davidson et al.
- Emmanuelle Pinault, The C40 Experience: From Technical Experiment to Political Inspiration
- Emilia Smeds, Unpacking the Politics of C40: ‘Critical Friendship’ for a Second Decade
- Lars Coenen, Kathryn Davidson, & Brendan Gleeson, Situating C40 in the Evolution of Networked Urban Climate Governance
- Practitioner Commentaries
- Edward Price, Globalisation is Alive and Well … and Kicking
- Mukul Sanwal, Can Wang, Xinzhu Zheng, & Xinran Yang, What National Decision‐makers Need From The IPCC: Special Reports With New Insights
- Aaron Martin & Giulia Balestra, Using Regulatory Sandboxes to Support Responsible Innovation in the Humanitarian Sector
- Erik van der Marel, Old Wine in New Bottles – How Protectionism Takes Hold of Digital Trade
- Response Article
- Mary Kaldor, Commentary on Benjamin Banta: Thinking through Practices that ‘Work’ in a Rapidly Changing World
The universal protection of human rights remains the core challenge of the United Nations if it is to achieve its mission of a world of peace, development and justice. Yet, at a time of seismic changes in the world, when shocking violations of human rights are taking place world-wide, the UN human rights system is in need of urgent modernization. This book, written by a foremost scholar-practitioner who previously exercised the functions of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, advances a series of ideas to modernize the UN protection system. Among a dozen key proposals are that the UN human rights system should help alleviate the plight of the poorest, pay greater attention to the national protection system of each country, and establish a World Court on Human Rights that can deal with countries which grievously violate human rights. Unlike other texts that have focused on those topics, this book not only provides comprehensive analysis but, crucially, offers practical and workable solutions based on the author's significant expertise and experience. Scholars, practitioners, and students of international human rights will benefit immensely from its analysis, insights, perspectives, and proposals. It is a salutary contribution on the 75th anniversary of the UN (2020).
Christensen: The Perestroika of International Criminal Law: Soviet Reforms and the Promise of Legal Primacy in International Governance
The article examines how the perestroika gave rise to a new legal thinking that helped spark a broader transformation of international law and governance. Building on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, the article analyses the emergence and short-lived influence of the professionals behind the new legal thinking of the perestroika. This elite operated at the crossroads between international and domestic law and politics. At this juncture, and in an attempt to safeguard and solidify their own position, they promoted the primacy of international law over politics by calling, among other things, for the establishment of an international criminal court. Building on the thinking of this elite that coexisted with concurrent streams of investments into international law from both East and West, a geopolitical window for new criminal law initiatives beyond the state was opened. It was in this brief window of opportunity that the field of international criminal justice was developed as a reflection of a wider universalist promise of establishing legal primacy in international governance.
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Responsibility, and in particular attribution of conduct, is one of the most intensely debated issues of public international law in the last couple of decades. In this article I seek to determine whether, how, and when acts or omissions may be attributed both to an international organisation and a member State (dual attribution). My aim is to clarify what dual attribution is, and what it is not. This is done in two steps. First, I (a) define the concept of dual attribution, (b) demonstrate that dual attribution is possible under the current law of international responsibility, and (c) establish a typology of dual attribution. Second, dual attribution is distinguished from three forms of shared responsibility. These are situations of two acts or omissions leading to one injury, derived responsibility, and the notion of piercing the corporate veil of international organisation. I end the article by criticising the disproportionate attention given to dual attribution in legal scholarship, given its limited practical utility.
- Severin Meier, Reconciling the Irreconcilable? – The Extraterritorial Application of the ECHR and its Interaction With IHL
- Deepak Mawar, The Perils of Judicial Restraint: How Judicial Activism Can Help Evolve the International Court of Justice
- Valentin Schatz, Access to Fisheries in the United Kingdom’s Territorial Sea after its Withdrawal from the European Union: A European and International Law Perspective
- Julia Bialek, Evaluating the Zero Draft on a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights: What Does it Regulate and how Likely is its Adoption by States?
- GoJIL Focus: Unpacking Economic and Social Rights Conference
- Ioannis Kampourakis, CSR and Social Rights: Juxtaposing Societal Constitutionalism and Rights-Based Approaches Imposing Human Rights Obligations on Corporations
- Viljam Engström, Unpacking the Debate on Social Protection Floors
- Abigail S. Post & Paromita Sen, Why can’t a woman be more like a man? Female leaders in crisis bargaining
- Heather Elko McKibben & Timothy W. Taylor, Trade balance and policy complexity: explaining political elites’ focus on international trade at the domestic level
- Adam Dean & Jonathan Obert, Shocked into Service: Free Trade and the American South’s Military Burden
- Anna O. Pechenkina, Third-party pressure for peace
- Hayoun Jessie Ryou-Ellison & Aaron Gold, Moral hazard at sea: how alliances actually increase low-level maritime provocations between allies
- Idean Salehyan & Ayal Feinberg, Merging actors with events: introducing the social conflict analysis dataset – organizational properties (SCAD-OPs)
- Kevin T. Greene & Caleb Lucas, Once more, with feeling: using sentiment analysis to improve models of relationships between non-state actors