Is the public backlash against European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty or combinations thereof? We conducted pre-registered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home-owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists are unmoved by European court interventionism as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that international courts cannot resurrect their popularity through deference alone and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Madsen, Mayoral, Strezhnev, & Voeten: Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts
SFDI: Le traité de Versailles. Regards franco-allemands en droit international à l’occasion du centenaire
- Agora: The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic
- Curtis A. Bradley & Laurence R. Helfer, Introduction to “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic”
- José E. Alvarez, The WHO in the Age of the Coronavirus
- Eyal Benvenisti, The WHO—Destined to Fail?: Political Cooperation and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Peter G. Danchin, Jeremy Farrall, Shruti Rana, & Imogen Saunders, The Pandemic Paradox in International Law
- David E. Pozen & Kim Lane Scheppele, Executive Underreach, in Pandemics and Otherwise
- Martins Paparinskis, The Once and Future Law of State Responsibility
- Julian Arato, Kathleen Claussen, & J. Benton Heath, The Perils of Pandemic Exceptionalism
- Timothy Meyer, Trade Law and Supply Chain Regulation in a Post-COVID-19 World
- Alan O. Sykes, Short Supply Conditions and the Law of International Trade: Economic Lessons from the Pandemic
- Daniel D. Bradlow & Stephen Kim Park, A Global Leviathan Emerges: The Federal Reserve, COVID-19, and International Law
- Karima Bennoune, “Lest We Should Sleep”: COVID-19 and Human Rights
- Neha Jain, Pandemics as Rights-Generators
- Francisco-José Quintana & Justina Uriburu, Modest International Law: COVID-19, International Legal Responses, and Depoliticization
- Federica Paddeu & Michael Waibel, The Final Act: Exploring the End of Pandemics
- Current Developments
- Jane McAdam, Protecting People Displaced by the Impacts of Climate Change: The UN Human Rights Committee and the Principle of Non-refoulement
- Sean D. Murphy, Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Work of the International Law Commission
- International Decisions
- Maiko Meguro, State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation
- Niccolò Ridi, United States—Anti-dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada
- Piotr Uhma, Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18
- Hannah Woolaver, R v. Reeves Taylor (Appellant).  UKSC 51
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Jean Galbraith, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- Duncan B. Hollis, reviewing Treaties and Their Practice – Symptoms of Their Rise or Decline, by Georg Nolte
- Beth A. Simmons, reviewing Islamic Law and International Law: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, by Emilia Justyna Powell
- Bernard H. Oxman, reviewing High Seas Governance: Gaps and Challenges, edited by Robert C. Beckman, Millicent McCreath, J. Ashley Roach, and Zhen Sun
- Laura Dickinson, reviewing The Crime of Aggression: The Quest for Justice in an Age of Drones, Cyberattacks, Insurgents, and Autocrats, by Noah Weisbord
- Christian Henderson, reviewing Self-Defence Against Non-state Actors, by Mary Ellen O'Connell, Christian J. Tams, and Dire Tladi
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Labuda: Institutional Design and Non-Complementarity: Regulating Relations Between Hybrid Tribunals and other Judicial and Non-Judicial Institutions
Hybrid tribunals usually operate alongside other judicial and non-judicial bodies with similar accountability functions. In particular, a hybrid tribunal can share jurisdictional powers with (ordinary) national courts, one or more international (criminal) tribunal(s), a truth commission, or other investigative and prosecutorial bodies. When the mandates of different institutions overlap, there is a need to identify and regulate relations between them. Ideally, legal rules embedded within each institution’s mandate minimize a duplication of tasks, prevent unnecessary conflict, encourage cooperation, and maximize cross-fertilization. This chapter argues that the term ‘complementarity’, which is often invoked to describe questions of institutional design, is an unhelpful way of conceptualizing relations between hybrid tribunals and other judicial and non-judicial institutions. Drawing on examples from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, it explains why the International Criminal Court’s jurisdictional framework generates confusion and uncertainty over who enjoys priority and who has decision-making power. Other concepts and rules, for instance primacy, deferral, and subsidiarity, delineate the powers and functions of different institutions more clearly, generating healthier interactions between different transitional justice mechanisms in the long run.
- Yasuhiro Izumikawa, Network Connections and the Emergence of the Hub-and-Spokes Alliance System in East Asia
- Samuel Meyer, Sarah Bidgood, & William C. Potter, Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of U.S. and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons
- Michael McFaul, Putin, Putinism, and the Domestic Determinants of Russian Foreign Policy
- Charli Carpenter & Alexander H. Montgomery, The Stopping Power of Norms: Saturation Bombing, Civilian Immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the Laws of War
- Rudolf Adlung, WTO/GATS-Alien Framework Provisions in RTAs – A Closer Look
- Matthew Kennedy, The Adverse Effects of Technological Innovation under WTO Subsidy Rules
- Vitaliy Pogoretskyy & Kim Talus, The WTO Panel Report in EU–Energy Package and Its Implications for the EU's Gas Market and Energy Security
- Niels Søndergaard & Ricardo Dias da Silva, Reshaping the Policy Arena: How the Agro-Export Policy Network Propelled Brazil within Global Agricultural Governance
- Julien Chaisse & Xueliang Ji, The Pervasive Problem of Special Economic Zones for International Economic Law: Tax, Investment, and Trade Issues
- Murilo Lubambo de Melo, Protection of Domestic Investors under the WTO and International Investment Regimes
- Weihuan Zhou & Henry Gao, US–China Trade War: A Way Out?
- Volume 408
- Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Reflections on the Realization of Justice in the Era of Contemporary International Tribunals
- Cristina González Beilfuss, Party Autonomy in International Family Law
Monday, October 19, 2020
Necessity and proportionality hold a firm place in the international law governing the use of force by states, as well as in the law of armed conflict. However, the precise contours of these two requirements are uncertain and controversial. The aim of Necessity and Proportionality in International Peace and Security Law is to explore how necessity and proportionality manifest themselves in the modern world under the law governing the use of force and the law of armed conflict, and how they relate to each other.
The book explores the ways in which necessity and proportionality are applied in practice and addresses pressing legal issues in the law on the use of force, including the controversial "unwilling and unable" test for the use of force in self-defense, drones and targeted killing, the application of this legal regime during civil war, and the need for further transparency in states' justification for the use of force in self-defense.
The analysis of the role of military necessity within the law of armed conflict on the modern battlefield focuses on the history and nature of the principle of military necessity, the proper application of the principle of proportionality, how commanders should account for mental harm in calculating proportionality, and the role artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems may play in proportionality analysis. The book concludes with a discussion of the potential role of proportionality in the law governing post-conflict contexts.
Labuda: The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Post-Genocide Justice 25 Years on (Review Essay)
2019 marked the 25th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and of the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). After prosecuting 73 people, including high-ranking politicians and military leaders, the Rwanda Tribunal closed its doors in 2015. Together with its sister tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTR is considered one of the first-generation ad hoc tribunals mandated to bring justice to countries emerging from conflict. This review essay examines four books to take stock of the scholarly debate on the ICTR’s performance. After analysing the Tribunal’s achievements and shortcomings, it explains that scholarly assessments of the ICTR rely on two different analytical lenses – a national and/or international perspective – to make claims about the roles of international criminal tribunals. The essay then discusses the ICTR’s interactions with other post-genocide justice mechanisms in Rwanda and the compatibility of concurrent judicial responses to mass violence. In conclusion, it suggests that evolving interpretations of the ICTR’s performance reflect prevailing ideas about the goals and limitations of international criminal tribunals.
- Jerzy Menkes, Recollection of Memories: Andrzej Wasilkowski 1932-2020
- General articles
- Peter Hilpold, Krzysztof Skubiszewski and the Right to Self-determination: Past and Future
- Przemysław Saganek, The Sources of General International Law in the Recent Works of the International Law Commission
- Anna Czaplińska, International Courts and Unrecognised Entities and Individuals: Coherence through Judicial Dialogue
- Kostiantyn Savchuk, International Law at the Saint Volodymyr Imperial University of Kyiv in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries
- Aleksandra Mężykowska, Legal Obligations of Poland Regarding the Restitution of Private Property Taken during World War II and by the Communist Regime in Light of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
- Anna Wójcik, Reckoning with the Communist Past in Poland Thirty Years after the Regime Change in the Light of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Elżbieta Morawska, The Principles of Subsidiarity and Effectiveness: Two Pillars of the Effective Remedy for Excessive Length of Proceedings within the Meaning of Article 13 ECHR
- Wojciech Burek, Conformity of the Act on the Polish Card with International Law from the Perspective of the Constitutional Court of Belarus
- Konstantina Georgaki & Thomas-Nektarios Papanastasiou, The Impact of Achmea on Investor-State Arbitration under Intra-EU BITs: A Treaty Law Perspective
- Łukasz Kułaga, Implementing Achmea. The Quest for Fundamental Change in International Investment Law
- Tatsiana Mikhaliova, Jurisdiction of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union and Its Role in the Development of the Eurasian Legal Order: One Step Back and Two Steps Forward
- Polish practice
- Dawid Miąsik, Monika Szwarc, Effectiveness of EU Directives in National Courts – Judicial Dialogue Continues. The Court of Justice’s Judgment in C-545/17 Pawlak
- Book reviews
- Patrycja Grzebyk, Marco Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law. Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham: 2019
- Przemysław Saganek, Lukasz Gruszczynski (ed.), The Regulation of E-cigarettes. International, European and National Challenges, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham: 2019
- Marcin Kałduński, Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Access of Individuals to International Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2011
- Yu Lu & Maciej Żenkiewicz, Julien Chaisse (ed.), China’s International Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2019
Burgorgue-Larsen: Les 3 Cours régionales des droits de l’homme in context : La justice qui n'allait pas de soi
Cet ouvrage a pour ambition de présenter la création et le fonctionnement des 3 Cours régionales des droits de l’homme qui se trouvent à Strasbourg, San José et Arusha. Incontestablement éloignées par un ensemble d’éléments d’ordre politique, juridique et sociologique, ces trois juridictions sont pourtant reliées par des éléments matériels et des questionnements communs indiscutables.
Matériellement, leurs textes de références sont arrimés à la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme du 10 décembre 1948. Les préambules respectifs de la Convention de sauvegarde, de la Convention américaine et de la Charte africaine insèrent, en effet, le Régionalisme dans le cadre plus général de l’Universalisme. Quant aux questionnements qui les traversent, ils sont marqués de façon irréductible par des dynamiques convergentes. Les 3 Cours doivent s’assurer, en permanence, de l’acceptation par les Etats, tant de leur existence que des lignes majeures de leur jurisprudence ; doivent inciter aux transformations de leurs systèmes respectifs afin qu’ils puissent s’adapter à différents types de contraintes ou à l’inverse freiner toute tentative d’affaiblissement de leur office ; trouver l’équilibre entre la simple « sauvegarde » des droits et libertés d’un côté et leur « développement » de l’autre, en ayant en ligne de mire les principes fondateurs de leur office et la réparation des préjudices subis par les victimes.
Comparer de façon dynamique les mécanismes de la garantie régionale des droits de l’homme, en utilisant les outils de la science juridique, mais également en mobilisant les ressources de l’histoire, la science politique et la sociologie, permet de rappeler que la Justice des droits de l’homme ne va pas de soi. En dépit de l’extraordinaire développement du droit international des droits de l’homme après le « moment 45 », la garantie régionale n’a jamais été une option politique naturelle pour les Etats. Les 3 Cours sont nées dans la douleur, ont évolué en ordre dispersé, et n’ont de cesse de remplir leur mission de protection dans des contextes politiques souvent complexes où les souveraines puissances ne se laissent jamais aisément brider.
Sunday, October 18, 2020
Fikfak: War, International Law and the Rise of Parliament - The Influence of International Law on UK Parliamentary Practice with Respect to the Use of Force
In foreign relations law, the power to wage war is inherently an executive power. It is the government that declares war or sends the military forces into battle. Yet, increasingly, the prerogative to engage in military action has been open to scrutiny by domestic parliaments. These are more and more frequently asked to provide support for the Government in its decisions and to the military personnel on the ground. The votes in national parliaments provide legitimacy to the decision made and give the impression of the Government having been held to account by the people’s representatives. In some cases, ie when national parliaments had effectively vetoed the Government’s plans for military actions, there is even talk of a quasi-sharing of powers between the Executive and the Legislature.
The paper tracks the decline of ‘government’ and the rise of the ‘house’ in the language used in the debates in the UK Parliament. It reveals how the terminology used in the debates has shifted from the power of the Government to the responsibility of the House. It maps out how this shift is mirrored in the increased relevance of international law and specifically the legality of the military intervention. It is this question – and particularly the experience of Iraq – that has reshaped the position of the UK Parliament vis-à-vis the Government. The investigation also reveals that as more and more MPs become involved and informed on issues of war, the deference shown to international institutions and their evaluation of the situation declines. MPs become more confident and more competent to make these decisions themselves.
Viñuales: The UN Friendly Relations Declaration at 50: An Assessment of the Fundamental Principles of International Law
The year 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Organisation, and the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Friendly Relations Declaration, which states the fundamental principles of the international legal order. In commemoration, some of the world's most prominent international law scholars from all continents have come together to offer a comprehensive study of the fundamental principles of international law. Each chapter in this volume reflects decades of experience, work and reflection by the most authoritative voices of the field. At the same time, the book is an invitation to end narrow specialisation and re-engage with the wider body of rules and processes that lie at the foundations of the international legal order.
- Katharina P. Coleman, Downsizing in UN Peacekeeping: The Impact on Civilian Peacekeepers and the Missions Employing Them
- John D. Ciorciari, Sharing Sovereignty in the Streets: International Policing in Fragile States
- Tanja R. Müller, Protection of Civilians Mandates and ‘Collateral Damage’ of UN Peacekeeping Missions: Histories of Refugees from Darfur
- Madhav Joshi, An Institutional Explanation of Troop Contributions in UN Peacekeeping Missions
- Katja Mielke , Max Mutschler & Esther Meininghaus, For a Dynamic Approach to Stabilization
- Cedric de Coning, Adaptive Peace Operations: Navigating the Complexity of Influencing Societal Change Without Causing Harm
Since its establishment the work of the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been subject to many interpretations, theories, comments or conclusions. This comprehensive book dissects every aspect of the UNHRC’s work and analyses the efficiency of, and interactions between, its mechanisms. Authored by the first Secretary of the UNHRC, this book provides unique practitioner insights into the complex decision making processes of the Council alongside the core variations from its predecessor.