Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
In the past twenty years, international criminal law has become one of the main areas of international legal scholarship and practice. Most textbooks in the field describe the evolution of international criminal tribunals, the elements of the core international crimes, the applicable modes of liability and defences, and the role of states in prosecuting international crimes.
The Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law, however, takes a theoretically informed and refreshingly critical look at the most controversial issues in international criminal law, challenging prevailing practices, orthodoxies, and received wisdoms. Some of the contributions to the Handbook come from scholars within the field, but many come from outside of international criminal law, or indeed from outside law itself. The chapters are grounded in history, geography, philosophy, and international relations. The result is a Handbook that expands the discipline and should fundamentally alter how international criminal law is understood.
Conference: Women’s Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century: Developments and Challenges under International and European Law
Women have been historically discriminated in society. Based on assumptions about the “natural” gender roles in society, women have been denied important rights from the suffrage, the right to sign contracts or perform work outside the home to custody rights. Over the last century, important developments have taken place. The conceptualization of women’s rights as human rights and their incorporation into international law played an important role in this. Women’s equality became the subject of international documents such as the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the 1995 The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women or more recently the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. In addition, supranational courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court or the Court of Justice of the European Union have responded to women’s demands by an increasingly gender-sensitive reading of different international and regional legal norms. Notwithstanding, women’s full equality has not yet been achieved. Women everywhere are still subject to different forms of violence in war and in times of peace, in the public and the private spheres, they earn less and are facing higher poverty rates than men, are under-represented in positions of power in fields like politics, on the boards of companies and on the benches of the highest national and international courts and face other gender-specific forms of discrimination such as poor access to justice and to sexual, reproductive and maternal care.
This conference aims to discuss a few aspects of the state of women’s human rights and the challenges to achieving gender equality in the twenty-first century. It will do so by looking at developments in the field of gender equality under International and European Law and before regional courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights.
The conference hopes to provide a forum of reflection on gender equality for members of the judiciary, legal practitioners, academics, representatives of European institutions and non-governmental organizations, as well as other professionals.
The event is open to the public. Should you be interested to register or have any questions, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org until 7 February 2020 and please bring your ID in the day of the conference. If you have a Council of Europe badge, please register before 12 February. Members of the Council of Europe who did not register are welcome to attend should there be any available places in the room.
Over the past few decades, scholars in a variety of fields – economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and international relations, among others – have made enormous strides studying the behavioral roots of international law by exploring individual motivations, describing organizational cultures, and mapping communities of practice. Taken together, the work of these scholars presents a complex, nuanced understanding of how international law works. However, these projects are rarely considered together: often separated by academic enclosures and focused on different subfields within international law, communication among scholars using different methodologies is restricted. The goal of this book is to break down some of these barriers and provide a glimpse of what an international law more focused on behavior and more engaged with these other fields might look like.
This introductory chapter aims to provide a roadmap in this effort by describing international law's long interest in behavior and the past attempts to explore that relationship, exploring the book's approach and laying out the contributions in each chapter, and beginning the process of bringing these insights together and outlining a series of takeaways for future study of international law as behavior.
International criminal tribunals have developed a number of legal theories designed to hold individuals responsible for their role in collective criminal conduct. These doctrines of criminal participation, known as modes of liability, are the subject of significant scholarly commentary. Yet missing from much of this debate, particularly as regards the International Criminal Court, has been an analysis of how current doctrine on modes of liability responds to the need to hold collective perpetrators criminally responsible for crimes of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Indeed, many writings in this area of the law address perceived shortcomings in the theoretical underpinnings of modes of liability doctrine in the abstract but ignore the application of this doctrine in concreto. As a result, facially neutral writings on modes of liability may in fact be gendered in application, either because they fail to account for the specific characteristics of sexual and gender-based violence or because they are applied in a manner that requires higher thresholds for finding culpability for the commission of SGBV crimes. This article fills the gap between theory and practice, examining past and present doctrine, and suggesting ways in which the treatment of modes of liability by international criminal courts and tribunals can both properly respond to the need for personal culpability and the dangers of collective criminal activity, particularly as regards SGBV crimes.
- Special Issue: Arctic and antarctic regions: new challenges for ocean governance
- E. Franckx & P. Gautier, Introduction to the special issue on “Arctic and antarctic regions: new challenges for ocean governance”
- W. Roelants De Stappers, Arctic and antarctic regions: new challenges for ocean governance - Welcoming words
- M. Hasebe, New developments and challenges in Arctic navigation and the Polar Code
- K. Zou, Implementing the Polar Code in the Antarctic waters: progress, problems, and prospects
- A. Chircop, Canada and the Polar Code: balancing unilateralism and multilateralism in the regulation of arctic shipping
- Y. Bobrova, A. Kapustin, & V. Vasilyev, The Northern Sea Route: national legal regime and the Polar Code
- P. Gautier, New developments with respect to fisheries in the Antarctic
- E. Franckx, New developments with respect to fisheries in the Arctic
- Villamizar Lamu, Piracy and whaling in Antarctica p. 483 F. H. Martinsen, Some remarks on the application of “Antarctic International Law” to tourist and non-governmental activities in Antarctica
- F. Borgia, Sustainable tourism development in Arctic region: a risky game
- É. David, The law applicable to the Princess Elisabeth Station
- A. De Vaucleroy, The exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica: a comparative analysis from the perspective of Belgium, France and The United Kingdom
- Y. Van Der Mensbrugghe, Arctic and Antarctic regions: new challenges for ocean governance - Conclusions
- M. Lismonde, Étude critique du manuel de Tallinn sur la participation directe aux hostilités : du partage d’informations militaires sur les réseaux sociaux
- F. Laurent & J. Braun, La lutte contre le terrorisme par la censure des « contenus à caractère terroriste » : une ingérence justifiée au droit à la liberté d’expression ?
Tamayo-Álvarez: The Strategic Use of International Investment Law in Colombia – Textiles: Navigating within the International Regime Complex for Development
Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a major concern in Colombia, where criminal organisations employ under-invoicing to conceal drug-trafficking proceeds. In response, Colombia imposed a compound tariff on certain Panamanian importations that were considered linked to this phenomenon. Alleging that the policy measure infringed Colombia’s tariff concessions, Panama activated the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute revolved around Article II:1 of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994. Colombia argued that this norm should be interpreted as to encompass licit trade only. Colombia looked for normative support in the investment treaty regime by establishing a parallel between undervalued imports and illegal investments. Therefore, just as investment treaty tribunals abstain from extending international legal protection to illegal investments, the WTO adjudicating bodies should not extend tariff concessions to importations linked to TBML activities. This article contends that by transplanting a more favourable doctrine of legality from the investment treaty regime to the multilateral trade regime, Colombia engaged in strategic regime shifting. Accordingly, drawing on regime complexes analysis, the article argues that by considering development a common issue-area, it is possible to articulate strategic connections between both regimes.
Kulick: Let’s (Not) (Dis)Agree to Disagree!? Some Thoughts on the ‘Dispute’ Requirement in International Adjudication
International courts and tribunals only enjoy jurisdiction to settle a ‘dispute’. ‘Dispute’ requires disagreement. However, what if the parties disagree over whether there actually exists such disagreement? What if, before the International Court of Justice, the respondent argues that there is no ‘dispute’ because it declined to react to the applicant’s contentions? In other words, can a disputing party avoid a dispute by playing dead? On the other hand, where to draw the line in order to prevent the applicant from seizing an international court or tribunal where there is in fact no real disagreement among the parties? This article critically assesses the Court’s case law on the ‘dispute’ requirement and argues for a fragmented approach to ‘dispute’ in international adjudication that carefully defines this jurisdictional requirement along the lines of the judicial function of the respective international judicial dispute settlement forum.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
- Kirsti McKenzie, Karen Betts, Chief Executive of the Scotch Whisky Association
- Iulianna Romanchyshyna, Mutual Recognition as a Method to Deal with Regulatory Divergence: What Is Its Reach in EU FTAs?
- Anna Dias, Stéphanie Seeuws, & Agnieszka Nosowicz, EU Border Carbon Adjustment and the WTO: Hand in Hand Towards Tackling Climate Change
- Courtney Furner, Nadine Lederer, & Claire Sergaki, The WTO’s Exclusive and Compulsory Jurisdiction v.Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Regional Trade Agreements: A Clash of Jurisdiction?
- Daniela Menon Rodrigues, Brazilian Path to Trade Facilitation
- Anzhela Makhinova, How to Suspend Trade Defence Remedies Applied in the Eurasian Economic Union: Recent Trends
- Sonia Gupta, The Arbitrary Rejection of the Declared Value by the Customs Administration
The Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law (EtYIL) is a peer-reviewed academic book series that focuses on international, regional comparative legal and policy matters that most concern developing countries more generally and Ethiopia and (the Horn of) Africa specifically. The Yearbook is now a well-established and respected source of legal and policy scholarship. It has recently been independently evaluated and included in Scopus. We are pleased to invite interested scholars to consider submitting long or short articles, current development pieces, case reports and book reviews for consideration for the FIFTH (2020) volume of the Yearbook (submission guidelines and other details available here). Submission deadline for this volume is 30 November 2020. We would like to hear your potential ideas and topics at email@example.com.