Kaufmann-Kohler & Potestà: Investor-State Dispute Settlement and National Courts: Current Framework and Reform Options

Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (Univ. of Geneva - Law) & Michele Potestà (CIDS) have published Investor-State Dispute Settlement and National Courts: Current Framework and Reform Options (Springer 2020). Here's the abstract:

This open access book examines the multiple intersections between national and international courts in the field of investment protection, and suggests possible modes for regulating future jurisdictional interactions between domestic courts and international tribunals. The current system of foreign investment protection consists of more than 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), most of which provide for investment arbitration as the forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States. However, national courts also have jurisdiction over certain matters involving cross-border investments. International investment tribunals and national courts thus interact in a number of ways, which range from harmonious co-existence to reinforcing complementation, reciprocal supervision and, occasionally, competition and discord. The book maps this complex relationship between dispute settlement bodies in the current investment treaty context and assesses the potential role of domestic courts in future treaty frameworks that could emerge from the States’ current efforts to reform the system.The book concludes that, in certain areas of interaction between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the “division of labor” between the two bodies is not always optimal, producing inefficiencies that burden the system as a whole. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by introducing a more fruitful allocation of tasks between domestic and international courts and tribunals – whatever form(s) the international mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes may take.Given its scope, the book contributes not only to legal analysis, but also to the policy reflections that are needed for ongoing efforts to reform investor-State dispute settlement.

Karton: International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action

Joshua Karton (Queen's Univ., Canada - Law) has posted International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action (Journal of Dispute Resolution, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The idea of “comparative law in action” seems nonsensical given the sterile and academic reputation of comparative law as a discipline. This Article argues that comparative law in action does not merely exist, it thrives in the field of international commercial arbitration (“ICA”). Comparative law methods pervade every stage of an international arbitration and are indispensable to ICA practice.

For many aspects of international arbitral proceedings, multiple laws conceivably apply. With no default options, the parties must make numerous choices: there is “too much law.” For other aspects of ICA, there is “too little law”: no applicable body of law provides any legal rule binding the parties or the arbitral tribunal, which must instead determine or develop the governing legal regime anew for each arbitration. In both situations—too much law and too little—comparative law methods are essential. Moreover, even if arbitrators and counsel were not constrained to think comparatively, the professional context within which they work would ensure that comparativism remains central to ICA practice.

The Article concludes by considering the implications of international arbitration as comparative law in action, for comparative law as a discipline and for the development of transnational law in the Twenty–First Century.

Bodansky: Top 10 Developments in International Environmental Law: 1990-2020

Daniel Bodansky (Arizona State Univ. - Law) has posted Top 10 Developments in International Environmental Law: 1990-2020 (Yearbook of International Environmental Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The thirtieth anniversary of the Yearbook of International Environmental Law presents an opportunity to take stock of how international environmental law has developed since 1990, both as a subject area and as a discipline. In this essay, I briefly outline the foundational elements of international environmental law–which to a significant degree had been laid as of 1990–and my top ten list of developments since then.

Milewicz: Constitutionalizing World Politics: The Logic of Democratic Power and the Unintended Consequences of International Treaty Making

Karolina M. Milewicz (Univ. of Oxford - International Relations) has published Constitutionalizing World Politics: The Logic of Democratic Power and the Unintended Consequences of International Treaty Making (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

The elusive ideal of a world constitution is unlikely to be realized any time soon – yet important steps in that direction are happening in world politics. Milewicz argues that international constitutionalization has gathered steam as an unintended by-product of international treaty making in the post-war period. This process is driven by the logic of democratic power, whereby states that are both democratic and powerful – democratic powers – are the strongest promoters of rule-based cooperation. Not realizing the inadvertent and long-term effects of the specialized rules they design, states fall into a constitutionalization trap that is hard to escape as it conforms with their interests and values.

Meyer: Trade Law and Supply Chain Regulation in a Post-COVID World

Timothy Meyer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) has posted Trade Law and Supply Chain Regulation in a Post-COVID World (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

COVID-19 hit as the world was undergoing the most significant upheaval in the international trade regime since at least the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The pandemic has given urgency to a preexisting demand in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere for the localization of supply chains. When the crisis hit, many developed countries realized that their supply chains for critical medical supplies and pharmaceuticals were concentrated in China. When the pandemic temporarily halted production in China, developed countries faced significant shortages of medical supplies. As a result, approximately eighty nations restricted the export of such products.

This Article argues that modern trade agreements overly constrain the ability of states to regulate supply chains for critical products such as medical supplies. I make two primary points. First, critics of reshoring have argued that further trade liberalization is the best guarantee against supply chain risks. To the contrary, I argue that modern free trade agreements (FTAs), the primary vehicle through which trade liberalization has proceeded since 1995, do little to encourage the diversification of supply chains and in some cases actually exacerbate supply chain risks, especially through loose rules of origin. Second, I argue that WTO rules constrain preventative regulation of supply chain risks designed to prevent a crisis, while providing exceptions for aggressive action only in the face of a crisis. WTO members are thus put to a choice. They can limit their attempts to preventatively regulate supply chain risks, waiting until a crisis occurs, or they can flout WTO rules. The former option risks more supply chain crises, while the latter option risks further undermining support for and adherence to the multilateral trading system. In this sense, trade law finds itself at a juncture similar to that faced by rules on the use of force two decades ago. Both sets of rules contain limited exceptions for preemptive action in the face of imminent threats. Just as nations like the United States felt that the imminence requirement did not give them enough flexibility to respond to modern threats in the use of force context, so too will nations chafe at the narrow exceptions for crisis-based supply chain regulation in the trade context.

New Issue: International Peacekeeping

The latest issue of International Peacekeeping (Vol. 27, no. 4, 2020) is out. Contents include:

• Louise Olsson, Angela Muvumba Sellström, Stephen Moncrief, Elisabeth Jean Wood, Karin Johansson, Walter Lotze, Chiara Ruffa, Amelia Hoover Green, Ann Kristin Sjöberg & Roudabeh Kishi, Peacekeeping Prevention: Strengthening Efforts to Preempt Conflict-related Sexual Violence
• Holger Albrecht, Diversionary Peace: International Peacekeeping and Domestic Civil-Military Relations
• Barış Arı & Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, Civil Conflict Fragmentation and the Effectiveness of UN Peacekeeping Operations
• Patrick Hunnicutt & William G. Nomikos, Nationality, Gender, and Deployments at the Local Level: Introducing the RADPKO Dataset
• Kajsa Tidblad-Lundholm, When are Women Deployed? Operational Uncertainty and Deployment of Female Personnel to UN Peacekeeping

Dunworth: Humanitarian Disarmament: An Historical Enquiry

Treasa Dunworth (Univ. of Auckland - Law) has published Humanitarian Disarmament: An Historical Enquiry (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

The humanitarian framing of disarmament is not a novel development, but rather represents a re-emergence of a much older and long-standing sensibility of humanitarianism in disarmament. The Book rejects the 'big bang' theory that presents the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention 1997, and its successors – the Convention on Cluster Munitions 2008, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 – as a paradigm shift from an older traditional state-centric approach towards a more progressive humanitarian approach. It shows how humanitarian disarmament has a long and complex history, which includes these treaties. This book argues that the attempt to locate the birth of humanitarian disarmament in these treaties is part of the attempt to cleanse humanitarian disarmament of politics, presenting humanitarianism as a morally superior discourse in disarmament. However, humanitarianism carries its own blind spots and has its own hegemonic leanings. It may be silencing other potentially more transformative discourses.

Trahan: Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes

Jennifer Trahan (New York Univ. - Center for Global Affairs) has published Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

In this book, the author outlines three independent bases for the existence of legal limits to the veto by UN Security Council permanent members while atrocity crimes are occurring. The provisions of the UN Charter creating the veto cannot override the UN's 'Purposes and Principles', nor jus cogens (peremptory norms of international law). There are also positive obligations imposed by the Geneva and Genocide Conventions in situations of war crimes and genocide - conventions to which all permanent members are parties. The author demonstrates how vetoes and veto threats have blocked the Security Council from pursuing measures that could have prevented or alleviated atrocity crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes) in places such as Myanmar, Darfur, Syria, and elsewhere. As the practice continues despite regular condemnation by other UN member states and repeated voluntary veto restraint initiatives, the book explores how the legality of this practice could be challenged.

Paddeu: Military Assistance on Request and General Reasons Against Force: Consent as a Justification for the Use of Force

Federica Paddeu (Univ. of Cambridge) has posted Military Assistance on Request and General Reasons Against Force: Consent as a Justification for the Use of Force (Journal on the Use of Force in International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Is consent a defence or part of the definition of the prohibition of force? The mainstream answer has been to read (non)consent into the definition of the prohibition. The rule would thus prohibit only non-consensual force. In this article, I challenge this approach. This approach implies that there is no general reason against force in international society, that consensual force is not harmful and does not call for justification. And yet, the use of force, whether internal or international, always harms or threatens harm to international peace - the paramount purpose of the United Nations, so that maintaining international peace must count as a general reason against force. Moreover, international actors offer and expect justifications whenever force is used, including with consent. To reflect the general reason against force, the prohibition must exclude consent from its definition. Consent must be recast as a defence.

New Issue: Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional

The latest issue of Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional (Vol. 70, no. 164, Enero-Abril 2020) is out. Contents include:

• Oscar Maúrtua de Romaña, El Rol De Las Líneas De Base En El Derecho Del Mar Y El Proceso De Delimitación Marítima Entre El Perú Y Chile
• José Luis Pérez Sánchez-Cerro, La Justicia Social Y El Derecho Internacional
• Gonzalo García Calderón Moreyra, Convenio Sobre Arreglo De Diferencias Relativas A Inversiones Entre Estados Y Nacionales De Otros Estados (CIADI)
• Augusto Hernández Campos, El Asilo Diplomático Y El Caso Alan García
• Alexander Antialón Conde, La Solidaridad Americana En Tiempos Del Covid-19: El Bloqueo A Cuba
• Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Principios De Derecho Internacional De Los Derechos Humanos Aplicables En Estado De Emergencia Covid-19 Y El Uso De La Fuerza Por Parte Del Personal Policial
• Pablo Rosales Zamora, El Debate Sobre El Carácter Jurídico Del Derecho De Gentes En Hispanoamérica Durante El Siglo XIX: La Contraposición Entre José Silva Santisteban Y Andrés Bello
• Juan Fuentes & David Sánchez, Análisis Crítico Del Concepto De Apátrida De Facto
• Ubaldo Greco, La Regulación Jurídica De Las Relaciones Patrimoniales De Las Parejas Internacionales En La UE

Kriesel: Peoples' Rights: Gruppenrechte im Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis des kollektiven Menschenrechtsschutzes in Afrika, Amerika und Europa

Julia Kriesel has published Peoples' Rights: Gruppenrechte im Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis des kollektiven Menschenrechtsschutzes in Afrika, Amerika und Europa (Mohr Siebeck 2020). Here's the abstract:

Die Peoples ' Rights aus dem afrikanischen Menschenrechtsschutzsystem sind bislang eine Unbekannte, die allenfalls unter dem Blickwinkel des Kulturrelativismus wahrgenommen wird. Gruppenrechte als Menschenrechte scheinen angesichts des Primats der Individualrechte undenkbar. Indes offenbart die erstmalige Gesamtschau von der Ideengeschichte (innerhalb und jenseits des Nationalstaates), dem theoretischen Diskurs zu kollektiven Rechtspositionen und der Praxis des internationalen Menschenrechtsschutzes ein anderes Bild. Julia Kriesel unternimmt eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse des afrikanischen, amerikanischen und europäischen Menschenrechtssystems und zeigt, dass der Schutz von Gruppen durch Menschenrechte (unabhängig von der rechtspositivistischen Ausgangssituation) längst Realität ist. Hervor tritt eine Verflechtung von Individual- und Gruppenschutz mit einem (teilweise neuen) umfassenden Menschenrechtsverständnis.

New Issue: Journal of Private International Law

The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law (Vol. 16, no. 2, 2020) is out. Contents include:

• Peter Arnt Nielsen, The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention - from failure to success?
• Eva Jueptner, The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for The Hague Conference?
• Haris P. Meidanis, Enforcement of mediation settlement agreements in the EU and the need for reform
• Kazuaki Nishioka, Choice of court agreements and derogation from competition law
• Michiel Poesen, Concurrent liabilities and jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment under the Brussels Ia Regulation
• Dorota Miler, The EU Succession Regulation and forced heirship: a potential violation of German public policy?
• Matthias Lehmann, Hayk Kupelyants on sovereign defaults before domestic courts

Kettemann: The Normative Order of the Internet: A Theory of Rule and Regulation Online

Matthias C. Kettemann (Leibniz Institute for Media Research │ Hans-Bredow-Institut) has published The Normative Order of the Internet: A Theory of Rule and Regulation Online (Oxford Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

There is order on the internet, but how has this order emerged and what challenges will threaten and shape its future? This study shows how a legitimate order of norms has emerged online, through both national and international legal systems. It establishes the emergence of a normative order of the internet, an order which explains and justifies processes of online rule and regulation. This order integrates norms at three different levels (regional, national, international), of two types (privately and publicly authored), and of different character (from ius cogens to technical standards).

Matthias C. Kettemann assesses their internal coherence, their consonance with other order norms and their consistency with the order's finality. The normative order of the internet is based on and produces a liquefied system characterized by self-learning normativity. In light of the importance of the socio-communicative online space, this is a book for anyone interested in understanding the contemporary development of the internet.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.

Bayerlein, Knill, & Steinebach: A Matter of Style: Organizational Agency in Global Public Policy

Louisa Bayerlein (European Univ. Institute), Christoph Knill (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München - Political Science), & Yves Steinebach (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München - Political Science) have published A Matter of Style: Organizational Agency in Global Public Policy (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

International public administrations (IPAs) have become an essential feature of global governance, contributing to what some have described as the 'bureaucratization of world politics'. While we do know that IPAs matter for international politics, we neither know exactly to what extent nor how exactly they matter for international organizations' policy making processes and subsequent outputs. This book provides an innovative perspective on IPAs and their agency in introducing the concept of administrative styles to the study of international organizations and global public policy. It argues that the administrative bodies of international organizations can develop informal working routines that allow them to exert influence beyond their formal autonomy and mandate. The theoretical argument is tested by an encompassing comparative assessment of administrative styles and their determinants across eight IPAs providing rich empirical insight gathered in more than 100 expert interviews.

Shaffer & Aaronson: Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice

Gregory Shaffer (Univ. of California, Irvine - Law) & Ely Aaronson (Univ. of Haifa - Law) have published Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Hard and soft law developed by international and regional organizations, transgovernmental networks, and international courts increasingly shape rules, procedures, and practices governing criminalization, policing, prosecution, and punishment. This dynamic calls into question traditional approaches that study criminal justice from a predominantly national perspective, or that dichotomize the study of international from national criminal law. Building on socio-legal theories of transnational legal ordering, this book develops a new approach for studying the interaction between international and domestic criminal law and practice. Distinguished scholars from different disciplines apply this approach in ten case studies of transnational legal ordering that address transnational crimes such as money laundering, corruption, and human trafficking, international crimes such as mass atrocities, and human rights abuses in law enforcement. The book provides a comprehensive treatment of the changing transnational nature of criminal justice policymaking and practice in today's globalized world.

Golia & Peters: The Concept of International Organization

Angelo Golia (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) & Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) have posted The Concept of International Organization (in Cambridge Companion to International Organizations Law, Jan Klabbers ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The chapter outlines the legal concept of international organization. We map the debates on the traditional defining elements and the broader theoretical paradigms where the concept has been traditionally embedded. We argue that relatively well-established theoretical frameworks no longer match reality. Therefore we need a legal concept of international organization that is both sufficiently specific to have an analytical value for legal examination and sufficiently broad for not missing out entities which are apt to shape the normative situation of individuals or to deploy substantial direct or indirect legal effects for the fate of nations and for the integrity of our planet. We conceive of “international organization” as a cluster concept which does not depend on a set of fixed criteria. Some entities are in the core of the concept, others are more on the fringes. Besides actors which are inter-state in form, other entities with multiple legal bases (public and private, international and domestic) and with a hybrid membership (states, civil society, even commercial) may be qualified as international organizations if they are entrusted with competences to fulfil tasks in the global public interest and feature a certain degree of autonomy. The concept should also encompass actors devoid of legal personality when they are sufficiently structured and stable to distinguish them from mere networks and ad hoc cooperation. Ultimately and more radically, international law as part and parcel of a global legal landscape necessitates the concept of a global organization.

New Issue: Global Responsibility to Protect

The latest issue of Global Responsibility to Protect (Vol. 12, no. 3, 2020) is out. Contents include:

• Elisabeth Pramendorfer, The Role of the Human Rights Council in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect
• Benedict Docherty, Xavier Mathieu, & Jason Ralph, R2P and the Arab Spring: Norm Localisation and the US Response to the Early Syria Crisis
• Mikelli Marzzini L. A. Ribeiro, Marcelo de Almeida Medeiros, & Alexandre Cesar Cunha Leite, China’s Engagement with R2P: Pluralist Shaper?
• Rana M. Essawy, The Responsibility Not to Veto Revisited under the Theory of ‘Consequential Jus Cogens’
• Svetlana Bokeriya, Key Aspects of Combined Thinking of the brics Countries on the Responsibility to Protect

Gustafsson: How Standards Rule the World: The Construction of a Global Control Regime

Ingrid Gustafsson (Stockholm Univ. - Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research) has published How Standards Rule the World: The Construction of a Global Control Regime (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020). Here's the abstract:

We live in a world ruled by standards. From toys and computers to corporate social responsibility, from the drycleaner in Nairobi to the Swedish radiation safety authority - international standards specify almost all aspects of society. This book questions how this is made possible. Standards need support in order to work and Ingrid Gustafsson explores how a control regime built on standards, certifications and accreditations can emerge over time and grow global.

The global control regime is nurtured mainly by the questions connected to globalization: how can we trust things from other parts of the world? While resting on buzzwords such as ’trust’ and ‘confidence’, the global control regime leaves us with a faceless bureaucratic system with no name and no one in charge. This has severe consequences for responsibility: if no one is in charge, then no one is to be held accountable for how standards rule the world. This is particularly pertinent because the author shows how states are embedded in standards to a much higher degree than previous research has shown.

Wiener: Norm(ative) Change in International Relations: A Conceptual Framework

Antje Wiener (Univ. of Hamburg) has posted Norm(ative) Change in International Relations: A Conceptual Framework. Here's the abstract:

Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law – a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms. The paper is organised in three sections. The first section presents three axioms underlying the conceptual framework to study norm(ative) change which are visualised by a triangular operation to analyse this change in relation with practices and norms. The second section recalls three key interests that have guided IR norms research after the return to norms in the late 1980s. They include, first, allocating change in and through practice, second, identifying behavioural change with reference to norm- following, and third, identifying norm(ative) change with reference to discursive practice. The third section presents the two analytical tools of the conceptual frame, namely, the norm-typology and the cycle-grid model. It also indicates how to apply these tools with reference to illustrative case scenarios. The conclusion recalls the key elements of the conceptual framework for research on norm(ative) change in international relations in light of the challenge of establishing sustainable normativity in the global order.

Reinisch & Schreuer: International Protection of Investments: The Substantive Standards

August Reinisch (Univ. of Vienna - Law) & Christoph Schreuer (Zeiler Partners) have published International Protection of Investments: The Substantive Standards (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

This book outlines the protection standards typically contained in international investment agreements as they are actually applied and interpreted by investment tribunals. It thus provides a basis for analysis, criticism, and stocktaking of the existing system of investment arbitration. It covers all main protection standards, such as expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, the non-discrimination standards of national treatment and MFN, the prohibition of unreasonable and discriminatory measures, umbrella clauses and transfer guarantees. These standards are covered in separate chapters providing an overview of textual variations, explaining the origin of the standards and analysing the main conceptual issues as developed by investment tribunals. Relevant cases with quotations that illustrate how tribunals have relied upon the standards are presented in depth. An extensive bibliography guides the reader to more specific aspects of each investment standard permitting the book's use as a commentary of the main investment protection standards.

Fahner: Judicial Deference in International Adjudication: A Comparative Analysis

Johannes Hendrik Fahner has published Judicial Deference in International Adjudication: A Comparative Analysis (Hart Publishing 2020). Here's the abstract:

International courts and tribunals are increasingly asked to pass judgment on matters that are traditionally considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Especially in the fields of human rights, investment, and trade law, international adjudicators commonly evaluate decisions of national authorities that have been made in the course of democratic procedures and public deliberation. A controversial question is whether international adjudicators should review such decisions de novo or show deference to domestic authorities. This book investigates how various international courts and tribunals have responded to this question. In addition to a comparative analysis, the book provides a normative argument, discussing whether different forms of deference are justified in international adjudication. It proposes a distinction between epistemic deference, which is based on the superior capacity of domestic authorities to make factual and technical assessments, and constitutional deference, which is based on the democratic legitimacy of domestic decision-making. The book concludes that epistemic deference is a prudent acknowledgement of the limited expertise of international adjudicators, whereas the case for constitutional deference depends on the relative power of the reviewing court vis-à-vis the domestic legal order.

Margaria: Trans Men Giving Birth and Reflections on Fatherhood: What to Expect?

Alice Margaria (Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology) has posted Trans Men Giving Birth and Reflections on Fatherhood: What to Expect? (International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

What was long feared by legislators and courts has now become reality: trans men give birth to their own children and request to be designated as their ‘fathers’ for the purpose of birth registration. This paper sheds light on the transformative potential of such procreative scenarios and the following legal claims for fatherhood. An argument is made that they invite essential reflections on what it means to be a father today and, in so doing, they prompt a (re)construction of legal fatherhood which includes care as a relevant, paternal parameter. By focusing on ongoing cases decided by English and German courts, however, this paper shows that domestic courts’ understanding of fatherhood has essentially preserved its conventionally heteronormative, biological and mediated nature. Yet, the game is still open and an application pending before the European Court of Human Rights may breathe fresh air into the debate.

Rosselet: Les contre-mesures à travers le prisme du principe de proportionnalité : Étude en droit de la paix et en droit international humanitaire

Sébastien Rosselet has published Les contre-mesures à travers le prisme duprincipe de proportionnalité : Étude en droit de la paix et en droitinternational humanitaire (Schulthess 2020). Here's the abstract:

La présente étude aborde la question des contre-mesures à travers la seule condition substantielle de la proportionnalité, en défendant une conception large de ce principe. Au moyen de quatre critères (adéquation, subsidiarité, nécessité, pesée des intérêts), le principe de proportionnalité constitue une grille de lecture permettant d’examiner la licéité d’une contre-mesure. Il établit une rigueur juridique pour l’analyse de cette condition fondamentale sans perdre la malléabilité de cette dernière.

L’approche comparative du principe de proportionnalité dans le cadre des contre-mesures en droit de la paix et des représailles de guerre a permis de mettre en lumière l’héritage laissé par les secondes aux premières. Si les difficultés d’apprécier la proportionnalité des représailles se retrouvent dans les contre-mesures en droit de la paix, l’analyse a également démontré la nécessité de basculer d’une justice privée des États à une justice institutionnalisée lorsque les intérêts fondamentaux de la communauté internationale dans son ensemble sont en jeu.

Choudhury: Human Rights Provisions in International Investment Treaties and Investor-State Contracts

Barnali Choudhury (Univ. College London - Law) has posted Human Rights Provisions in International Investment Treaties and Investor-State Contracts (in Investment Protection, Human Rights, and International Arbitration, S. Schill, et al. eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Today there is ample recognition that corporations have responsibilities to protect human rights in the context of their business operations. However, there is less recognition that foreign investors have concomitant duties in the context of foreign investment, despite the fact that many foreign investors operate as corporations.

Nevertheless, an increasing number of states are beginning to include references to human rights in their investment treaties and investor-state contracts. While in some instances, states refer to human rights generally in their treaties or contracts, a small but growing number of states address specific human rights such as indigenous and gender rights within the ambit of their treaty or contract.

Often treaties or contracts only refer to human rights in vague or non-obligatory language. Yet, gradually more and more states are beginning to include more stringent language. Nowhere is this more apparent than in some investor-state contracts, which are now beginning to include both positive and negative obligations for foreign investors in regards to human rights.

Yet regardless of the approach, references to human rights in investment treaties and investor-state contracts offer three advantages. They can help protect states’ regulatory sovereignty, work towards establishing human rights obligations for foreign investors, and provide context for their interpretation. All three of these benefits work towards reducing the asymmetries inherent in international investment law.

Peters: Studies in Global Animal Law

Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) has published Studies in Global Animal Law (Springer 2020). The table of contents is here. This is an open access book. Here's the abstract:

This open access book contains 13 contributions on global animal law, preceded by an introduction which explains key concepts and methods. Global Animal Law refers to the sum of legal rules and principles (both state-made and non-state-made) governing the interaction between humans and other animals, on a domestic, local, regional, and international level. Global animal law is the response to the mismatch between almost exclusively national animal-related legislation on the one hand, and the global dimension of the animal issue on the other hand.

The chapters lay some historical foundations in the ius naturae et gentium, examine various aspects of how national and international law traditionally deals with animals as commodity; and finally suggest new legal concepts and protective strategies. The book shows numerous entry points for animal issues in international law and at the same time shifts the focus and scope of inquiry.

Sharmin: Application of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses by Investor-State Arbitral Tribunals: Implications for the Developing Countries

Tanjina Sharmin (Monash Univ. - Law) has published Application of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses by Investor-State Arbitral Tribunals: Implications for the Developing Countries (Springer 2020). Here's the abstract:

This book comprehensively examines various issues regarding the scope of Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) Clauses in International Investment Agreements (IIAs), and addresses the reform, interpretation, and enforcement of IIAs with a specific focus on the MFN clause. The book begins with a study of the history and evolution of the MFN. It then presents a substantive analysis focusing on the drafting style and how it affects the scope of the MFN; rules of interpretation and arbitral case law on the scope of the MFN, procedural prerequisites to arbitration and jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, and the implications of adopting an expansive approach to the MFN clause.

The book’s argument centres on the need for arbitral tribunals to interpret the MFN in a manner that reflects the expressed intent of the parties. This requires taking into consideration the text of the MFN, its purpose, and the overall context of the IIA, rather than relying on values and assumptions that have nothing to do with the original intent of the parties. In making this argument, the book draws on Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other interpretative rules. What sets the book apart is its comprehensive coverage of issues concerning the interpretation and application of the MFN in IIAs. At the same time, it addresses issues in connection with an expansive interpretation of MFN clauses, as well as concerns regarding the legitimacy crisis in investor-state arbitration. Accordingly, it contributes to future Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) reform, while also offering a wealth of theoretical and practical insights for future treaty drafters, arbitrators, and policymakers.

Viola: The Closure of the International System: How Institutions Create Political Equalities and Hierarchies

Lora Anne Viola (Freie Universität Berlin) has published The Closure of the International System: How Institutions Create Political Equalities and Hierarchies (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

As global governance appears to become more inclusive and democratic, many scholars argue that international institutions act as motors of expansion and democratization. The Closure of the International System challenges this view, arguing that the history of the international system is a series of institutional closures, in which institutions such as diplomacy, international law, and international organizations make rules to legitimate the inclusion of some actors and the exclusion of others. While international institutions facilitate collective action and common goods, Viola's closure thesis demonstrates how these gains are achieved by limiting access to rights and resources, creating a stratified system of political equals and unequals. The coexistence of equality and hierarchy is a constitutive feature of the international system and its institutions. This tension is relevant today as multilateral institutions are challenged by disaffected citizens, non-Western powers, and established great powers discontent with the distribution of political rights and authority.

Schäfer: Treaty Overriding: Ein Beitrag zur verfassungsrechtlichen Zulässigkeit abkommensüberschreibender Bundesgesetze

Martin Schäfer has published Treaty Overriding: Ein Beitrag zur verfassungsrechtlichen Zulässigkeit abkommensüberschreibender Bundesgesetze (Mohr Siebeck 2020). Here's the abstract:

Wie verhält sich das deutsche Verfassungsrecht zu der Frage, ob der Bundestag bei seiner gesetzgeberischen Tätigkeit an völkerrechtliche Verträge gebunden ist? Martin Schäfer untersucht dies und zeigt, wie »freundlich« sich das Grundgesetz gegenüber dem Völkerrecht verhält. Wie verträgt sich eine etwaige Bindung des Gesetzgebers an völkerrechtliche Verträge mit seiner durch das Demokratieprinzip verbürgten Freiheit, in der Vergangenheit getroffene Entscheidungen zurückzunehmen oder zu ändern? Der Autor erörtert, welchen Rang dabei völkerrechtliche Verträge in der deutschen Normenpyramide einnehmen und welche Rückschlüsse die Organkompetenzverteilung im Bereich der auswärtigen Gewalt auf die Frage zulässt, ob das sog. Treaty Overriding verfassungsrechtlich zulässig ist.

Francioni & Vrdoljak: The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law

Francesco Francioni (European Univ. Institute; LUISS Univ.) & Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (Univ. of Technology Sydney) have published The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This Handbook provides a cutting edge study of the fast developing field of international law on the protection of cultural heritage by taking stock of the recent developments and of the core concepts and current challenges. The legal protection of cultural heritage has come under renewed focus from the international community and states since the 1990s. This is evidenced by the adoption of a range of international instruments. Countries are also enacting cultural heritage legislation or overhauling existing laws within their own national territory.

Contributions address the protection of immovable and movable, tangible and intangible cultural heritage in peacetime and in the event of armed conflict as well as the interaction between specific regimes of cultural heritage protection with other fields of international law, including international criminal law, human rights and humanitarian law, environmental law, international trade, investments, and intellectual property. The last part of the Handbook covers diverse regional systems of heritage protection.

Kunz: Richter über internationale Gerichte? Die Rolle innerstaatlicher Gerichte bei der Umsetzung der Entscheidungen von EGMR und IAGMR

Raffaela Kunz (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) has published Richter über internationale Gerichte? Die Rolle innerstaatlicher Gerichte bei der Umsetzung der Entscheidungen von EGMR und IAGMR (Springer 2020). Here's the abstract:

Das Open-Access-Buch untersucht am Beispiel des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) und des Interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsgerichtshofs (IAGMR), welche Rolle innerstaatliche Gerichte bei der Umsetzung internationaler Entscheidungen wahrnehmen. Wann sind sie bereit ihre Pendants in Straßburg bzw. San José bei der Umsetzung ihrer Entscheidungen zu unterstützen und diese gleichsam unmittelbar „anzuwenden“, und wo ziehen sie Grenzen und rote Linien? Was sind die Probleme, die ihnen begegnen, und befinden sich Gerichte tatsächlich im Wandel hin zu einer defensiveren und weniger völkerrechtsfreundlichen Haltung, wie einige jüngere Beispiele vermuten lassen?

Das Werk widmet sich der Frage, welche Wirkungen innerstaatliche Gerichte bereit sind, den Entscheidungen der Menschenrechtsgerichte zukommen zu lassen – und zwar genau dann, wenn sich das innerstaatliche Recht nicht dazu äußert. Es zeigt auf, dass hinter der vermeintlich technischen Ausgangsfrage fundamentale Fragen verfassungsrechtlicher Natur stehen und sich am Beispiel der Menschenrechtsgerichte einige der zentralen Schwierigkeiten und Probleme zeigen, wie sie beim Zusammenspiel von Rechtsordnungen in Zeiten globalen Regierens entstehen.

New Issue: Human Rights Review

The latest issue of the Human Rights Review (Vol. 21, no. 3, September 2020) is out. Contents include:

• Rosemary Nagy, Settler Witnessing at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
• Alexander Kriebitz & Raphael Max, The Xinjiang Case and Its Implications from a Business Ethics Perspective
• Olivera Simić & Barbora Holá, A War Criminal’s Remorse: the Case of Landžo and Plavšić
• Rauna Kuokkanen, Reconciliation as a Threat or Structural Change? The Truth and Reconciliation Process and Settler Colonial Policy Making in Finland
• Janne Mende & Julia Drubel, At the Junction: Two Models of Business Responsibility for Modern Slavery