Sunday, April 30, 2017

Hernandez-Truyol & Virzo: Orientamento sessuale, identità di genere e tutela dei minori. Profili di diritto internazionale e di diritto comparato

Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol (Univ. of Florida - Law) & Roberto Virzo (Università del Sannio - Law) have published Orientamento sessuale, identità di genere e tutela dei minori. Profili di diritto internazionale e di diritto comparato (Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane 2016). Contents include:
  • Marco Silvaggi, Aspetti psicologici nell’adolescente omosessuale
  • Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol, La juventud y las familias LGBTI como poblaciones vulnerables: mito y realidad de las protecciones legales
  • Andreas R. Ziegler & Julie Kuffer, Orientation sexuelle et identité de genre des mineurs en droit international
  • Roberto Virzo, La Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti del fanciullo e l’orientamento sessuale dei minori
  • Daniel Angelo Borrillo, Les structures élémenaires de l’homoparenté
  • Maria Chiara Vitucci, El best interest of the child, gran ausente en las decisiones del Tribunal europeo de los derechos humanos en materia de adopción
  • Luca Paladini, La familia homoparental en la jurisprudencia de la Corte interamericana de derechos umanos
  • Giulia Rossolillo, Superiore interesse del minore e continuità dello status: recenti sviluppi in materia di riconoscimento delle adozioni omoparentali in Italia
  • Rosanna Pane, Unioni Same-sex e adozioni in casi particolari
  • Nicola Cipriani, Le adozioni nelle famiglie omogenitoriali in Italia dopo la l. n. 76 del 2016
  • Jonátan Cruz Ángeles, La doctrina del Tribunal europeo de derechos humanos y su influencia en la regulación brasileña de los nuevos modelos de familia

Schultz & Ridi: Comity and International Courts and Tribunals

Thomas Schultz (King's College London – Law) & Niccolò Ridi (King's College London – Law) have posted Comity and International Courts and Tribunals (Cornell International Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Comity plays an important and underestimated role in many efforts to coordinate legal regimes. In this regard, it has a place in the theory and practice of modern public international law adjudication. Its exact place is what this article seeks to examine. It starts with a conceptual discussion of comity in private and public international law, then reviews the types of problems for which its use has been considered, and finally discusses and classifies all the publicly available decisions by international courts and tribunals using the term ‘comity’.

d'Aspremont, Gazzini, Nollkaemper, & Werner: International Law as a Profession

Jean d'Aspremont (Univ. of Manchester - Law; Universiteit van Amsterdam - Law), Tarcisio Gazzini (Univ. of Lausanne), André Nollkaemper (Universiteit van Amsterdam - Law), & Wouter Werner (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - Law) have published International Law as a Profession (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Contents include:
  • Jean d'Aspremont, Tarcisio Gazzini, André Nollkaemper, & Wouter Werner, Introduction
  • Jean d'Aspremont, The professionalization of international law
  • Martti Koskenniemi, Between commitment and cynicism: outline for a theory of international law as practice
  • Alexandra Bohm & Richard Collins, The (academic) profession of international law and the commitment to legal autonomy
  • Anne Orford, Scientific reason and the discipline of international law
  • Anne Peters, Realizing Utopia as a scholarly endeavour
  • Gleider Hernández, The activist academic in international legal scholarship
  • Akbar Rasulov, How NAIL works: the production of heterodoxy in international law
  • Jochen von Bernstorff, International legal research and the quest for immanent moral order
  • John Haskell, The turn to history within international legal scholarship
  • Samantha Besson, International legal theory qua practice of international law
  • Tanja Aalberts & Ingo Venzke, International law as practice: moving past the anxieties of interdisciplinarity
  • Sara Dezalay & Yves Dezalay, Towards a political sociology of international justice(s)
  • James Crawford, The international law bar: essence before existence?
  • Matthew Windsor, Consigliere or conscience? The role of the government legal adviser
  • René Uruena, International law as expertise: exploring pluralism and the anxiety of certainty as professional experiences
  • Pierre d'Argent, Teachers of international law
  • Wouter Werner, Concluding remarks: the Praxis of international law

New Issue: International Journal of Human Rights

The latest issue of the International Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 21, no. 5, 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Nicholas Idris Erameh, Humanitarian intervention, Syria and the politics of human rights protection
  • Rosa Ana Alija Fernández & Olga Martin-Ortega, Silence and the right to justice: confronting impunity in Spain
  • Elena Abrusci, Judicial fragmentation on indigenous property rights: causes, consequences and solutions
  • Nicolas Bueno, Corporate liability for violations of the human right to just conditions of work in extraterritorial operations
  • Roland Burke, Disseminating discord and discovering the world: UN advisory services on human rights and the illusory faith in specialist knowledge
  • Ulf Johansson Dahre, Searching for a middle ground: anthropologists and the debate on the universalism and the cultural relativism of human rights
  • Anneke Osse & Ignacio Cano, Police deadly use of firearms: an international comparison

Dang: International Law, Human Rights and Public Opinion

Heping Dang (Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, Shenzhen) has published International Law, Human Rights and Public Opinion: The Role of the State in Educating on Human Rights Standards (Routledge 2017). Here's the abstract:
This book explores situations in which public opinion presents itself as an obstacle to the protection and promotion of human rights. Taking an international law perspective, it primarily deals with two questions: first, whether international law requires States to take an independent stance on human rights issues; second, whether international law encourages States to inform and mobilise public opinion with regard to core human rights standards. The discussion is mainly organised within the framework of the UN system. The work is particularly relevant to situations in which public opinion appears as discriminatory attitudes based on race, gender, age, health, sexual orientation and other factors. It is also pertinent to circumstances in which public opinion is responsible for the existence of certain harmful customs and practices such as female genital mutilation and capital punishment. Noting that the death penalty is increasingly recognised as an infringement of human rights, this study further challenges States’ argument that capital punishment cannot be abolished because of public opinion. The book also discusses the role that education bears under international law in moulding favourable attitudes towards human rights. Finally, the book challenges States’ acceptance that public opinion cannot be confronted in this respect.

Sidhu: The Concept of Equality of Arms in Criminal Proceedings Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Omkar Sidhu has published The Concept of Equality of Arms in Criminal Proceedings Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Intersentia 2017). Here's the abstract:

Inherent to and at the very core of the right to a fair criminal trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the concept of equality of arms (procedural equality) between the parties, the construct given detailed and innovative treatment in this book.

As a contextual prelude to more specific analysis of this concept under Article 6, certain influential historical developments in trial safeguards which mark a centuries-long evolution in standards of, and the value attributed to, procedural fairness are identified to establish a background to Article 6 before its inception. Thereafter, the book offers a thorough theoretical insight into equality of arms, investigating its multi-faceted value, identifying its contemporary legal basis in Article 6 and in international law, and defining its fundamental constituent elements to elucidate its nature, including its underpinning relationship with Article 6(3). The book argues that the most important of these constituent elements––the requirement of ‘disadvantage’––is not equated by the European Court of Human Rights with inequality in itself, which would be a dignitarian interpretation, but with inequality that gives rise to actual or, in some circumstances, inevitable prejudice. This proposition is the golden thread running through the analytical heart of the book’s survey of case-law in which the Court’s approach to procedural equality in practice is demonstrated and assessed within the context of the Article 6(3) rights to challenge and call witness evidence, to adequate time and facilities, and to legal assistance.

The end result is a book for both scholars and practitioners that will not only forge an enhanced general understanding of procedural fairness safeguards and standards, including from a historical perspective, but also provoke, more specifically, new reflection on the concept of equality of arms.

Mälksoo: The Soviet Approach to Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

Lauri Mälksoo (Univ. of Tartu - Law) has posted The Soviet Approach to Right of Peoples to Self-Determination (Journal of the History of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
One hundred years after the Russian revolutions of 1917, the article deals with Soviet approaches to the right of peoples to self-determination. Is is true that in 1917 and afterwords, Lenin and the Soviets contributed significantly to the establishment of the right of peoples to self-determination as principle of international law? The article examins the thesis of the Bolshevik contribution to the right of peoples to self-deterination in international law from a critical historical perspective.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

New Issue: Legal Issues of Economic Integration

The latest issue of Legal Issues of Economic Integration (Vol. 44, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • From the Board: The Way We Go in the EU
  • Mauro Megliani, Restructuring Greek Debt: Alternative Routes
  • Johannes Ungerer & Lamprini Ziaka, Reflections on the Greek Capital Controls: How the Rescue of the National Economy Justifies Restricting Private Business
  • Gilles Muller, De facto Discrimination Under GATS National Treatment: Has the Genie of Trade Liberalization Been Let Out of the Bottle?
  • Aleksandra Klofat, Regulatory Competition Within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union: A Comparative Legal Analysis
  • Scott Winnard, The End of the Line? C & J Clark International Ltd and the Nakajima Exception

Friday, April 28, 2017

Conference: 13th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law

The 13th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law will take place September 7-9, 2017, in Naples. The theme is: "Global Public Goods, Global Commons and Fundamental Values: The Responses of International Law." The program is here. Early-bird registration ends on April 30. Here's the idea:

The 2017 Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law will explore how international law has responded, or can or should respond, to the fundamental challenge of defining and regulating global public goods, global commons and fundamental values. These concepts, individually and in their interrelationship, present ongoing challenges for an international legal system that, despite all its transformations in recent decades, essentially remains a pluralistic system organised around the principle of state sovereignty.

Global public goods are goods with benefits and/or costs that affect all countries, people, and generations. They include inherently public global goods, such as a healthy climate and the fight against terrorism, and domestic public goods whose global regulation makes every one better off, such as free trade and public health.

Global commons are resources, domains or areas that lie outside the political reach, and jurisdiction, of any single nation state. Traditional examples are outer space, the high seas and Antarctica, but the concept now tends to include intangible global commons such as the human genome or immaterial cultural heritage.

Fundamental values are values that make a universal claim to be shared by all states and peoples across the world. They have a marked political and axiological connotation. Decisions about what should be considered as fundamental values of international society are never beyond controversy. The category of fundamental values certainly includes the protection and promotion of human rights and the right to self-determination, but some would also include values such as human dignity, peace, the protection of the environment, and democracy.

Global public goods, global commons and fundamental values are interlinked above all by the fact that all states have an interest in their protection and promotion. It is also the case that, to varying degrees, long- term protection or regulation of each is beyond the ability of any single state. The three concepts can also overlap conceptually and in practice: particular objectives (e.g. the conservation of fisheries) have both a global public goods and global commons dimension, others (such as the protection of the environment) are both a fundamental value and a global public good, and so on.

While international law has long responded to all three concepts, the challenges posed by their definition and effective regulation remain formidable. The very idea of the pursuit of general interests in these three domains as an aim of international law is recurrently questioned, given that traditional international regimes tend to protect the interests of individual states. This interplay between domestic principles and the general interests of the international community leads to yet further complexities and uncertainties as to where the current regime of international cooperation on these questions really stands. Moreover, what might be included within each category and in what legal form changes over time. Today’s rapid flux of communications and migration of people, alongside social, political, economic and environmental interdependence, mean that, in an increasing number of situations, goods provide benefits and/or costs to all countries, are beyond the reach of any single state, and impact on fundamental values shared by all states. The responses of international law to each of the three phenomena are undergoing continuous transformation and appraisal – what was once a national public good may become a global public good; what was initially a matter of national jurisdiction may later be seen as a global commons, and what were thought of as purely national values may transcend national boundaries.

The 2017 ESIL Annual Conference will explore how international law responds to global public goods, global commons and fundamental values, examining the responses in a wide range of fields. It will discuss which general interests have or have not been deemed to deserve the protection of international law in one or more of these categories, and why; it will also explore the legal foundation of such interests in international law. In addition, the conference will focus on whether and how it is appropriate that international law intervenes to regulate such interests, taking into account the interplay between multiple actors of international law, ranging from states, international and regional organisations and non-state actors. It will explore how states and other actors have used international law to protect general interests, what lessons can be learned from these efforts, and what main challenges still need to be addressed. Looking at international law through the prism of global public goods, global commons and fundamental values also implies an in-depth examination of different substantive regimes, for example those regulating human rights, the protection of the environment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the use of force, terrorism, and so on.

Call for Audience: International Law in a Dark Time

The Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights and Peking University Institute of International Law Collaboration Project (ECI-PUIIL Project) have issued a call for an audience for a seminar for doctoral students and junior researchers on "International Law in a Dark Time," on May 22-23, 2017, in Helsinki. The seminar will be directed by Anne Orford (Univ. of Melbourne) and Martti Koskenniemi (Univ. of Helsinki). Up to thirty participants may register to be in the audience. Registration is here; the deadline is May 15, 2017. The program is here. Here's the idea:

The Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights and Peking University Institute of International Law Collaboration Project (ECI-PUIIL Project) funded by CIMO is pleased to offer a seminar for PhD students and junior researchers to be held at Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. The purpose of this workshop is to examine the transformations of law at a specific moment in history in which law and lawfulness appear as much part of the problem as the solution.

The background for this workshop is formed by the experience that in the past 25 years optimism about international progress after the end of the Cold War has diminished and law’s role in global governance has come to appear increasingly ambivalent: it has often proven either useless or actually harmful. From an easy acceptance of the ideology of the “rule of law” in the early 1990s, we have come to realise that law comes in many forms and supports very different and often contradictory policies. On the one hand, there has been a massive growth of law in various specialist fields ranging from human rights to the environment, war and security to the economy. At the same time, in many of these fields a sense of a “crisis” has emerged or persists. Sometimes the crisis has been attributed to external phenomena – and law has come to seem inefficient in dealing with them. At other times crisis may seem have been created or exacerbated by the law itself. Despite the “growth” of law in the field of human rights and the environment, huge numbers of people experience daily deprivation and no end can be seen to the degradation of the quality of the environment. Laws enacted to protect the security of human groups are used to discipline and oppress, and economic laws seem powerful to forestall the massive growth of global inequality. In a word, the benefits of the traditional recipe to international problems of “more law” may no longer seem sustainable.

The purpose of the workshop would be to examine law’s increasingly complex role and its often problematic consequences for international politics.

Dannenbaum: The Criminalization of Aggression and Soldiers’ Rights

Tom Dannenbaum (Univ. College London - Law) has posted The Criminalization of Aggression and Soldiers’ Rights (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This article identifies the core wrong of criminal aggression to be the entailed legally unjustified killing and human violence and not the violation of sovereignty or states’ rights. Its core contribution is to elaborate two implications of that normative account of the crime. First, soldiers have a right to refuse to fight in criminal wars and they must be recognized as refugees when they flee punishment for engaging in such refusal. Second, those killed or harmed by an aggressor force are the core victims of the crime. As such, they, and not the attacked state, have the primary claim to judicial participation as victims at the International Criminal Court and to the reparations that follow. Those who adhere to the orthodox notion of aggression as a crime against states miss both of these implications. Soldiers seeking asylum when they refuse to fight in aggressive wars are denied on the grounds that, if they were to fight, they would be far removed from the macro wrong against a foreign state, and so should have no difficulty “washing their hands of guilt.” This is misguided. Although there are good reasons for the “leadership element” that protects them from criminal liability for aggression, soldiers perpetrate directly the constituent wrongs of the criminal action and the reasons not to punish them for doing so are not reasons to deny them the right to disobey. Similarly, adherents to the traditional account would grant states the right to participate as victims and claim reparations in aggression prosecutions. This, too, is a mistake. The victims of the wrong that renders aggressive war criminally condemnable are soldiers killed or harmed fighting an aggressor force and collaterally killed or harmed civilians. These are the class members eligible for judicial participation and reparations.

Conference: 10th Annual Toronto Group Conference

Today and tomorrow, April 28-29, 2017, the Toronto Group for the Study of International, Transnational and Comparative Law will hold its tenth annual conference. The program is here. Here's the idea:
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Toronto Group Conference, we ask what the future of international and transnational law could be in resolving divisions within global society. We aim to re-imagine the practice of international and transnational law as, above all, a space for reconciliation, collective action and robust participation – one that responds to and is inclusive of critical, but neglected voices. As a community of young legal scholars from across the globe, we will explore a number of questions that are profoundly relevant to the future of international and transnational law. For example, how can we foster new relationships in international law, while connecting the values, norms and expectations of diverse groups? How can we redress injustices and be forward looking? Is it possible to address unequal power in international law and the exclusion of a variety of voices and stakeholders? Is it possible to maintain self-determination and identity, while finding common ground? And how to ensure the law’s resilience and sustainability, through true participation?

Workshop: Cognitive Sociology, Culture and International Law

Today and tomorrow, April 28-29, 2017, iCourts - Centre of Excellence for International Courts at the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law will host a workshop on "Cognitive Sociology, Culture and International Law." The program is here. Here's the idea:
The past few decades have seen growth in behavioural approaches in the social sciences. In this new behavioural revolution, cognitive psychology, behavioural economics, and sociologists of culture have all paid increasing attention to the role of cognition, focusing in the main on decision-making, both with regard to everyday routines and in the context of risk and uncertainty. This third workshop on the sociology of international law aims to break open the study of interactions between various cognitive processes and the formation, interpretation and implementation of international law.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

New Issue: Journal of Conflict & Security Law

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict & Security Law (Vol. 22, no. 1, Spring 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Andrea Breslin, A Reflection on the Legal Obligation for Third States to Ensure Respect for IHL
  • Ben Saul, Enhancing Civilian Protection by Engaging Non-State Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law
  • Eva Kassoti, The Normative Status of Unilateral Ad Hoc Commitments by Non-State Armed Actors in Internal Armed Conflicts: International Legal Personality and Lawmaking Capacity Distinguished
  • Tamsin Phillipa Paige, The Impact and Effectiveness of UNCLOS on Counter-piracy Operations
  • Katariina Simonen, The Strong Do What They Can and the Weak Suffer What They Must—But Must They? Fairness as a Prerequisite for Successful Negotiation (Benchmarking the Iran Nuclear Negotiations)
  • Ilaria Zavoli, Peacekeeping in Eastern Ukraine: The Legitimacy of a Request and The Competence of the United Nations General Assembly

Khan: Protecting the Global Fishing Workforce: New International Labor Treaty to Enter into Force

Sabaa A. Khan (Univ. of Eastern Finland - Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law) has posted an ASIL Insight on Protecting the Global Fishing Workforce: New International Labor Treaty to Enter into Force.

Call for Submissions: The Military Law and the Law of War Review

The Military Law and the Law of War Review / Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre has issued a call for submissions for its 2016-2017 issue. Here's the call:

The Military Law and the Law of War Review

Call for Papers

The Military Law and the Law of War Review / Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre is a journal specialised in matters of interest for both civilian and military legal advisors as well as legal scholars and academics. Published since 1962, it is among the oldest publications at the international level in the areas of military/security law and the law of war. For decades, the Review has been an important forum of discussion for scholars and practitioners from all over the world.

The Review is published under the auspices of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War. It features original and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries of the latest legal developments, as well as book reviews. As a distinct trait, it accepts contributions in six languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Dutch.

For its 2016-2017 issue (vol. 55/1), the Review’s editorial board welcomes submissions that come within the broader scope of the Review (including military law, law of armed conflict, law on the use of force, as well as international criminal law and human rights law (inasmuch as related to situations of armed conflict)). In particular, the editorial board invites scholars and practitioners to submit articles pertaining to the international law of military operations.

The deadline for submission is 15 June 2017.

Submissions should be sent by e-mail to brussels@ismllw.org and will be subject to double-blind peer review. Articles should normally not be longer than 15.000 words (footnotes included), although longer pieces may exceptionally be considered. Inquiries as to whether a possible submission comes within the scope of the Review can be sent to the abovementioned e-mail address.

Selected papers will be published online on the Review’s website in advance access (in a non-downloadable and non-printable form) as well as on Hein Online following editing and type-setting. The print version of the issue is scheduled to come out in autumn 2017.

Call for Papers: African International Economic Law Network 4th Biennial Conference

The African International Economic Law Network has issued a call for papers for its 4th Biennial Conference, to be held November 8-10, 2017, at Middlesex University Mauritius. The call is here.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Swaine: Kiobel and Extraterritoriality: Here, (Not) There, (Not Even) Everywhere

Edward T. Swaine (George Washington Univ. - Law) has posted Kiobel and Extraterritoriality: Here, (Not) There, (Not Even) Everywhere (Oklahoma Law Review, Vol. 69, p. 23, 2016). Here's the abstract:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. was relentlessly, and unexpectedly, local in character. Notwithstanding the global outlook suggested by the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which governs civil actions by “an alien” for torts contrary to “the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” the Court invoked the presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the statute’s reach.

This Article, based on remarks delivered at the University of Oklahoma Law School, puts a heavy emphasis on territoriality — not, it should be stressed, as a matter of normative preference, but purely as a reflection of the Court’s recent cases. It is accordingly inconsistent with some of the more expansive readings of the ATS, though it stops short of Justice Alito’s prescription. If future cases are to depart substantially from territoriality, the better path is not to explore what Kiobel left unresolved, but to revisit what it purported to settle.

Linderfalk: What are the Functions of the General Principles? Good Faith and International Legal Pragmatics

Ulf Linderfalk (Lund Univ. - Law) has posted What are the Functions of the General Principles? Good Faith and International Legal Pragmatics. Here's the abstract:
To assist current efforts of the academic community to develop a fuller understanding of the function of general principles of international law, this article inquires into the operation of the principle of good faith. As argued, first, good faith serves as a principle of international legal pragmatics. It helps to explain the understanding of conduct in much the same way as, say, the requirement that in a verbal utterance, the first singular pronoun “I” be used to refer to the utterer, and a temporal expression such as “now” to the point in time of the utterance. Second, the principle of good faith does not itself presuppose the good of any particular state of affairs. It helps to ensure the comprehension of communicative behaviour on the part of international law-makers, irrespective of the moral or political agenda that they themselves happen to be pursuing. Third, in international law, there are other norms that share the traits of the principle of good faith. They, too, can be characterised as principle of international legal pragmatics.

Poulsen: Politics of Investment Treaty Arbitration

Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen (Univ. College London - Political Science) has posted Politics of Investment Treaty Arbitration (in The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration, Thomas Schultz & Federico Ortino eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
The chapter outlines and contextualises the past and current political drivers and effects of investment treaty arbitration.

Goldmann: Relative Normativity

Matthias Goldmann (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main - Law) has posted Relative Normativity (in Fundamental Concepts of International Law, Jean d’Aspremont & Sahib Singh eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This paper critically reassesses the notion of relative normativity in international law and the related debate triggered by the emergence of ius cogens and international soft law. Contrary to standard positivist assumptions which treat relative normativity as a pathology, the paper argues that relative normativity has been a consistent feature of international law since its emergence in early modernity. Tracking this development, the paper shows that the rejection of relative normativity is due to the particular political constellation of the formative period of international law around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century with its focus on unfettered state sovereignty. The postwar era, and even more so the era of globalization, saw a relativization of state sovereignty that allowed the re-emergence of relative normativity. It has prompted a theoretical debate, in which attitudes towards relative normativity correlate with general attitudes about globalization and its impact on international law. The paper concludes by arguing that relative normativity is likely to survive even the recent transformations of global governance caused by the more authoritarian forms of government. Efforts to subject relative normativity to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights are therefore more necessary than ever.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

New Issue: Stanford Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Stanford Journal of International Law (Vol. 53, no. 1, Winter 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Adam S. Chilton & Galit A. Sarfaty, The Limitations of Supply Chain Disclosure Regimes
  • Christopher R. Rossi, The Transboundary Dispute Over the Waters of the Silala/Siloli: Legal Vandalism and Goffmanian Metaphor
  • Shruti Rana, The Global Battle Over Copyright Reform: Developing the Rule of Law in the Chinese Business Context

New Volume: Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law

The latest volume of the Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law (2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Part I Thematic Part: Protection of Cultural Property
    • Gábor Kardos, Universality, ProgressiveRealization, EconomicCrises –The ICESR Fifty Years on
    • György Marinkás, Cultural Rights as a Tool of Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    • Vanda Vadász, Lessons of Sevso Case – Restitution Challenges of the Illegally Exported Cultural Property
    • Mária Mihály & Henrietta Galambos, Hungary’s Place and Role in the International Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage – ‘Les longs souvenirs font les grands peuples’
    • Rino Büchel, Change Offers Swiss Cultural Property Protection a Window of Opportunity
  • Part II Forum: The Cafeteria Case
    • Ernő Várnay, National Interests in the Common Market – SZÉP Card and Erzsébet Voucher before the European Court of Justice
    • Réka Somssich, The Hungarian Cold Food Voucher Case – A Somewhat Rigorous Approach of the Court on the Interpretation of Free Movement Provisions
  • Part III Developments in International Law
    • Péter Darák, Terrorism and Rule of Law
    • Marcel Szabó, General Principles of Law in the Practice of International Courts and the European Court of Justice
    • Ielyzaveta Lvova, The Concept of Global Constitutionalism as a Road-Trip to Freedom for Local Democracies in Transition Times
    • Zsuzsanna Horváth, Transforming Our World – New Agenda and Goals for Sustainable Development
    • András Huszár, Preliminary Legal Issues in the Historic Paris Climate Agreement
    • Ágnes Bujdos, The ‘Hidden’ Definition of Water Pollution in the UNECE Water Convention
    • Sándor Fülöp, In Fairness to Future Generations –Building Effective Public Participation
    • Attila Pánovics, The Aarhus Convention Model
    • György Andrássy, Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – The Wording and Its Implications
    • Veronika Szeghalmi, Private Messages at Work – Strasbourg Court of Human Right’s Judgement in Bărbulescu v. Romania Case
    • Zoltán Tallódi, The Question of Prison Overcrowding as Reflected in the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
    • János Tamás Papp, Liability for Third-Party Comments before the European Court of Human Rights – Comparing the Estonian Delfi and the Hungarian Index-MTE Decisions
    • Péter Smuk, The Concept of the European Political Party
    • Lilla Berkes, Did Not Lose Their Public Asset Quality
    • Petra Lea Láncos, Three Models of Minority Media Participation – A Brief Analysis of Language Related Prescriptions in National Media Laws
    • Réka Varga, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Humanitarian Activities for Migrants

Young: Narrative, Metaphor and Human Rights Law: When Rights-Talk Meets Queue-Talk

Katharine Young (Boston College - Law) has posted Narrative, Metaphor and Human Rights Law: When Rights-Talk Meets Queue-Talk (in Narrative, Metaphor and the Law, Mike Hanne & Robert Weisberg eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Much contemporary legal scholarship on human rights sees the lapses between rhetoric and reality, symbol and substance, and rights-talk and rights-action, as human rights law’s greatest deficiency. That approach, however, fails to acknowledge the power of the human rights vocabulary to change people’s political commitments, and with them, especially in democratic states, the authority, meaning, and ultimately, effectiveness of human rights law. Yet the power of language cuts both way: it is both constitutive and distortive of rights. This chapter, which is part of an edited collection by Mike Hanne and Robert Weisberg, entitled Narrative and Metaphor in Law (forthcoming, 2017), explores how narrative and metaphor provide the literary, cognitive, and cultural frames for events and issues to be understood as part of human rights law. Metaphor, in particular, is understood not simply as an ornament to language, but as a fundamental scheme by which people conceptualize and organize their moral, social, and legal worlds.

With this contribution in mind, this paper examines a metaphor which frequently accompanies rights talk: the metaphor of “the queue”. The queue, or waiting line or wait list, is ubiquitous in modern, especially urban, life. It distributes resources, usually on a first-come, first-served basis, in conditions of scarcity or where simultaneous provision is not possible. For example, surgery wait lists for health care or waiting lines in the emergency room, housing wait lists or the waiting lines for shelters, or visa entry wait lists for immigration, or for deportation, are all pivotal aspects of human rights law configured by a queue. The common experience of participating in other queues, in transport, recreation, or other contexts, helps to explain the metaphor’s resonance.

And yet, the metaphor’s connection with rights provokes disagreement around notions of entitlement. The queue institutionalizes, but also discredits, the political and social reordering compelled by human rights law. By using examples of “queue talk” around the constitutional right to housing in South Africa, the paper examines how the queue metaphor occupies the doctrinal vacuum of the obligation to “progressively realize” certain human rights, particularly economic and social rights, and particularly when positive obligations are at issue. Moreover, it explores how the metaphor exaggerates the state provision of a good or service, rather than the state’s regulatory, or private law, levers of control. In each respect, the queue metaphor reveals severe limits on what human rights law makes possible.

Conference: The United Nations Security Council and the Sea/Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et la mer

On May 4-5, 2017, the Centre de droit international at the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 will host a conference on "The United Nations Security Council and the Sea/Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et la mer." The program is here.